Talk:Hipcrime (Usenet)

message: "Hipcrime", under his real life identity, is actually quite a bit famous for something else. If you folks only knew... LOL. Snertking (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The guy who wrote these is actually someone very famous

message: Regardless of whether or not this survived AfD, this needs major cleanup. In addition to being rewritten it needs citations, whatever style is deemed appropriate.  
*HipCrime is an infamous internet troll by who's standards?
*by Andrew Leonard... this should be footnoted, not included in text, also see WP:CONTEXT regarding linking to non-existent things.
*that is widely available this is again subjective. Widely by who's standards, instead give an example of major sites or services that maket his available. Let the reader draw the conclusion about whether or not they consider it "widely available"
*Generally these attacks are ineffective and are easily countered by use of scorefiles or by services that block flooding and other abuse Is there a source for this opinion? You're drawing conclusions and putting forth theories for the reader. 
*This software has since been adopted by many other vandals (collectively known as "HipClones")in particular because it is also an open source platform-independent application source for both the "many" other vandals who have adopted it and the reason for adoption?
*HipCrime himself has ceased his activities in recent years credible source for this information?
*HipCrime is also known as "DipSlime", or "Dippy", for short, on many of the newgroups he attacks or his software is used to attack; but there are also newsgroups and groups of people who support his activities. credible citation for any part of this?
*The name "Hipcrime" is taken from the novel Stand on Zanzibar by John Brunner. again same.
**Added to the article.  We could cite the novel itself for the use of the word in it, but there's little point in doing that here since we already have an entire article on it.  We can't, of course, prove that the usage described in this article was inspired by the book, but given the age and popularity of the book this seems like a reasonable presumption, and in any case the connection ought to be mentioned even if we can't prove it wasn't coincidental.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine. I'm giving someone who is knowledgable about the subject a chance to bring the page up to snuff. If no one can be bothered, I will attempt to do it, but I know nothing about the subject, and anything I can't readily source or rewrite objectively will be removed. If there is nothing left after that, It'll be put up for deletion again on the basis that no one cares enough to even maintain this and until it can be properly created it shouldn't exist. --Crossmr 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: How about this?
"The name "Hipcrime" is generally believed to originate from the similarly-named identical practice in John Brunner's novel, Stand on Zanzibar, which is quoted on the front page of hipcrime.com; it is possible, however, that the Usenet vandal may have hit upon the name independently, and, since the vandal has chosen to remain anonymous, any statements to the contrary must be regarded as unverifiable."
We have to strike a balance between total verifiability of every separate statement, and Occam's Razor. It's not impossible, for instance, that every murder attributed to Jack the Ripper was committed by different people acting alone, and that the notes to police were written by a compulsive confessor. DS 04:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: generally by who? In order for speculation to be used on wikipedia, it must be widely documented and notable speculation. I don't believe speculation about the origin of hipcrimes passes that threshold, since you can barely find any information on him at all. Alot of things are possible. WP:V is a non-negotiable policy and clearly states the threshold for inclusion is verifiabilty not truth. While I don't contest that that is likely his page, and with the quote there he probably chose his name based on that, we can't verify it. That's why I said if people want to make that connection on their own and assume that they can, but we can't make it for them without any credible evidence to support it. Putting forth the theory based on a quote on the webpage is a violation of WP:OR. I realize that sucks, and people have strong opinions about things they want to include, but you begin a slippery slope on articles if you start bending the rules for one thing, then another. Heck when they do it on one article, people try to use it as justification on another article. I agree that its common sense, but we have standards and they have to be maintained, especially ones that are the cornerstone of the foundation of wikipedia. We're not a repository of all knowledge on the planet, its still out there if people want to read it and draw their own conclusions. Usenet links can still be provided as a "See also" or "further reading" so long as they're not made to look like credible factual references when done so. We can put the hipcrime home page back in the article if you want, I removed it because really..it contained nothing other than that quote, I didn't really feel it added anything to the article. --Crossmr 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Let's not facilitate the distribution of this malicious software.  We're writing an encyclopedia, remember? --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's censorship though isn't it? The subject of the article is the software, and as such the software itself is relevant to the discussion. That would be like removing nude images from articles about various parts of the body claiming "Lets not corrupt the children".--Crossmr 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's censorship.  I'm suppressing the distribution of malicious software.  Do you have a problem with that? --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. The software is relevant to the article and should be included.--Crossmr 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Inclusion of the link would serve nothing except to enable the distribution of the software--which, as I've noted, is malicious in nature.  "Wikipedia is not censored" is only true to the extent that Wikipedia may contain matter that some people find offensive.  It doesn't mean that Wikipedia can be used as a distribution mechanism for any malicious software which we mention in our articles. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not the file is not hosted on wikipedia, its a link to software that is the subject of the article. It serves to give people first hand exposure to the issue being discussed.--Crossmr 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  What part of writing an encyclopedia requires us to facilitate the distribution of malicious software? --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part where we don't censor it? Its your opinion that its solely malicious and others may find the software interesting or useful. Its not your judgement to make, that is why the policy exists.--Crossmr 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article: CA Inc. has classified this as denial of service software, as well as flooder software, a specific type of denial of service attack - it's not just Tony's opinion. Wikipedia is not censored, but neither is it a point of distribution for illegal software. This isn't like censoring nudity, it's more like removing download links to MP3 versions from our song articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you can point to the law that classifies possessing this software or its sourcecode as illegal?--Crossmr 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As Crossmr points out above, the situation is somewhat different in that merely distributing a pirate MP3 is illegal, whereas in most jurisdictions distributing malware is perfectly legal as long as one doesn't attempt to use it or incite others to do so.  (It should be noted that, while the site being linked to may in fact be distributing the software with the intent of inciting its use, it's hard to argue that our motives in linking to it would be anything other than purely informational.)  Also, even if one accepts the MP3 analogy, there has generally been agreement on Wikipedia that it is appropriate for articles (such as The Pirate Bay) to link to sites they are specifically discussing, even if it is known that some content on said sites may not be legal.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Legitimate purpose? How about scholarly study? Since the source code is provided someone could be learning about programming by studying that item. --Crossmr 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, someone could learn about what malware like this works and how to defend against it.  Which is presumably why the link was included in the first place.  Look at it this way: You're a Wikipedia admin.  You care about the integrity of the site.  If you knew there was an active MediaWiki vandalbot out there that was already widespread (like this one is), wouldn't you want to know where to find the source, if only so you could pass it on to the devs?  Trust me, the wannabe vandals already know where to find stuff like this; I'd rather those of us not in the scene knew about it too.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For that matter, what about Last Measure? DS 23:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember that this is an encyclopedia.  If people want to learn about programming by looking at code they can go to a programming tutorial or code site.  We don't need to facilitate the distribution of malware in order to write about it. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't remove information from the encyclopedia because we have personal beliefs that that information is harmful. Your response doesn't seem too much different from certain folks' objection to the Muhammad cartoons. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of reasons for people to read, study, and refer to the source code of malware programs, for instance to learn how to defend against them. Nor is this article all that unusual; for instance, our article on the first computer virus unleashed in the wild, Elk Cloner, also links to the source code of that malware. --FOo 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the download link

message: As nothing productive has happened to this article in a month, I don't see any harm in protecting again to prevent our one-man revert warrior from taking up any more of our time. Will unprotect later. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again 

message: We've discussed this before, newsgroups can't be used as a source. See WP:V, WP:RS. This content that was previously present in the article was removed for that very reason.--Crossmr 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worse than that; if you actually read the "swiss army knife" post, it's actually someone being very sarcastic and dismissive of the capabilities of the software. To quote him in the way our anonymous friend wants would be to totally misrepresent his words. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL I am the man that the swiss army knife post was made in reply to. Snertking (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsgroups as source 

message: BitDefender AntiVirus v.10 reports that the illustration has a trojan/virus. Hiznik 05:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reuploaded the image as a PNG, let me know if that gives you any trouble.--Crossmr 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NewsAgent1.gif illustration has virus 

message: An image used in this article, File:NewsAgent1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:NewsAgent1.png)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:NewsAgent1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The article should contain relevant year information, to make it clear when this was.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.209.70 (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hipcrime (Usenet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050317161047/http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=54636 to http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=54636
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113202025/http://jmeyer.multiservers.com/NewsAgent.html to http://jmeyer.multiservers.com/NewsAgent.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified