Talk:Habbo

Archives

1: July 2006 - August 2006

2: September 2006 - (November) 2006

Cite sources

"The second member of the Habbo brand was launched in the United Kingdom in January of 2001. Since then, the Hotel chain along with its user base has continued to grow, and Habbo Hotel is currently one of the largest non-violent online game communities on the Internet, operating in 19 countries."

This I suspect was written by the site opereaters. If it's going to stay cite sources. It is very detrimental to the artical so I am removing it.

I doubt it was written by site operators (I don't think Seicer's one), but it does have a feel of subliminal marketing. This is like something I would read in a handbook that comes with a product. If people wanted to know about the system, habbo.com should be sufficient (or it's own Wiki). An encyclopedia article should focus more on the context of Habbo rather than the details within. You will not find, for example, the raids on their website but they should still be included as historical context (others argue it would sound immature). Another thing should be some history of its development (how it has evolved system-wise). The informal games played that aren't official games should also be kept up here. But any other specific things that can be found on habbo.com itself should be excised. To be honest, if it had nothing but the header, the screenshot next to the header, and the link to habbo.com, I would consider that sufficient. That would also fully justify the raids not being on there, and the arguments on the talk page would cease. --Dch111 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not affiliated with Habbo. Hell, I've never even played the game. I found this via VP when vandals continuously attacked the page with stupid raid-related comments that required the page be locked down.

Habbo.com is sufficent for sourcing on the game. For the raids, there has yet to be a definable, reliable cite that does not introduce bias. Encylopedia Dramatica? That's not a reliable source, and it introduces strong bias that is not countered. Seeing how some IPvandals and users react when the raid information is removed, I think that gives an even strong reason not to include it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is definitely not a reliable source; that issue was clarified soon after the first few links were presented, and I have not mentioned it at all my last few comments. I wouldn't offer any one site as a reliable source, but find proof in the numerous screenshots, videos, and recently, even photographs of real-life acts/gatherings in parallel to the online raids. Alexa shows a significant spike in traffic to habbo.com around the time of the raids; a spike which reached numbers analogous to normal daily traffic of 4chan, if a majority of their members decided to invade another site. In addition, there are the discussions on 4chan and 7chan (eventually people got banned for mentioning the raid on 4chan, so 7chan was created) which, while not reliable in themselves, are evidence for the significance of the raids just by their sheer numerous existence, a piece of evidence that lies outside the realm of reliability/unreliability altogether (same with the "only a few people did it" argument which takes advantage of no one solid compilation but can be easily overwhelmed by numerous links and instances clogging up the page that couldn't have possibly been done with only a few people). There is as of yet no "one site" that has such a compilation, and I'm sure nobody wants a citation of every individual piece of evidence clogging up the citations at the bottom, so the raids cannot legitimately be added yet: this I agree with.

Concerning the reactions of the raid-inclusion supporters, I don't consider that a strong reason not to include it; that would be mass ad-hominem on your part. The focus should not be on the reliability of the individual sources, but on the number of them, which is in itself reliable. We are not judging the merit of the raids, we are judging their presence. You could say all the raiders are lying, but then you'd have to put that a large number of people claim this and this happened, and so on (and include a controversy tag). Apparent immaturity is not a good standard for judging inclusion. --Dch111 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The infamous Habbo Raid

This section is an attempt for a renewed, serious discussion on the habbo raid. The main arguments against including it seem to be the following: Firstly, it does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Secondly, it is not notable enough, and should therefore not be included in an encyclopedia. Now let's see... ·The fact that there was a raid is hardly disputable. In fact, here's a video of it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ipACsinKe0Y. Various other videos exist on YouTube with the famous raid, and also other smaller ones. Therefore, the event is perfectly verifiable and is not a result of original research. Okay.

·I don't think one can rightfully argue that the event is not big enough to be included in the Habbo Hotel article. First of all, it was organized: a site was created for the specific purpose of directing people to the attack and making it easier (www.poolsclosed.com), not to mention a hacking tool made fo the specific use of trolling (PoolTool) and private documents that were to be available only to the Habbo moderators that were leaked and made publically available can be found there (http://www.poolsclosed.com/viewtopic.php?t=105). Secondly, one only has to google "habbo raid" to see that it is widely known and talked about (here are some random links from various unrelated sites: http://www.digg.com/videos_comedy/GIGANTIC_Habbo_Troll_Raid, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=525516, http://www.shoujoai.com/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=36010 and others). The very fact that it takes up 90% of the talk page should be enough, too... It was also a first for Habbo Hotel, and the mods were unable to act properly (leading to further chaos; "raids" are still going on regularly and many innocents are occasionally banned).

The above lead me to see the purposeful exclusion of the event from the article as being against wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. 212.205.213.78 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone edited some info in, which is good really, but I think they should have mentioned something in this talk page... Also, it needs some re-writing, I believe. We should avoid terms such as "nigras" and at least mention "4chan". What do you guys think? 194.30.223.1 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, keeping the lexicon to formal terms will be good, even though Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored in the first place. Also, to 212.205.213.78, the proof above has indeed been presented in a non-NPOV fashion, but the evidence itself, in additional to the existence of the items in question, rather than the specific interpretation of their contents, can stand as NPOV references. Just like this discussion taking up most of the talk page and the majority of unique vistors to the page, it is not the obviously POV (how could it be otherwise? Is not describing buildings as "tall" also POV? Should we eliminate adjectives altogether?) statements made, but the overall presence and context of said statements. Now, I don't know how this will be presented into the article, as I am not particularly zealous about this (I'm merely speaking on principle), but I agree 4chan should be mentioned as a frequent presence somewhere in the article, as they made up most of the raid. --Dch111 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone keeps deleting the section about the raid without even mentioning anything on the talk page. What now? 85.75.89.227 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look in the archives. Mentioned many times. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've actually mentioned it after the July raid below, where I said "Because it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares." lulz. 4chan van! (^_^) - Hahnchen 23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"...and no one cares." <--Ahem. Please avoid flaws in logic. Also, it was referenced on at least four counts. The sources included numerous screenshots, including one of a mod banning a blockader, citing the reason as "raiding." You can't prove its nonexistance/nonsignificance. Heck, the raids are more popular than some of the games in the same section of the article.--Dch111 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer, this thread is an attempt to reply at the concerns raised at the archives, not to mention that the archives are too full of mindless trolling to go through. If you have a reason why this should not be included after having read this whole thread, please say so and don't just remove stuff without mentioning anything. (The "it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares" part is covered on this very thread too, not to mention it's merely a POV). To be perfectly honest, I can't understand some people's dedication to making sure this info doesn't reach the light of day. And please, for the last time, don't just silently remove things from the article, that's common sense. Thanks. 85.75.89.227 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen,care to explain why the deletion of the raids were bullshit? How many times was it referenced and proven... --The jazz musician 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

With sources that fail WP:EL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer said, "With sources that fail". I believe he is saying the raids' sources were a massive FAIL and perhaps the raid was a FAIL, too. Anomo 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

At 9/11 there was a huge amount of people trying to get in(nearly 11,000),there's proof. That's all I'm gonna say(god I love bold letters). --The jazz musician 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you specify what part of WP:EL in particular? The wikis were original research, yes, but the screenshots in them are what we're really after. Are we allowed to reference screenshots (a collection of them)? A moderater banning for "reason: raid" clearly acknowledges the activity. In fact, if the particular dates are not mentioned, the raids hardly have to be referenced, if at all, since they are just like the other uncited activities habbos do that are mentioned in the article. It's just plainly part of the site's events.--Dch111 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"With sources that fail?" Are you seriously saying the raids didn't happen and all the links (including videos and screenshots for god's sake) are all just fake?! 87.203.86.99 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While these pics are still good, see [1], [2], [3] from this thread. Anomo 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This section of the talk page was removed from the main talk page and moved to the archives without reason or notice, and the title was changed to "The Infamous Habbo raid WITH SOURCES THAT FAIL". This is vandalism. If you think the sources "fail" state so and say why. I've moved this section back to the current talk page. 85.75.113.27 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why did this raid occur? 75.34.23.32 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

the raid pretty much happened because the websites which organized it generally think this of Habbo Hotel: (1) it's a massive goodie-two-shoes community with kids aged 13 years or younger, making them easy targets for shock-value jokes and such [AIDS in the pool, anti-Semitism statements, standing in a swastika formation, and generally trying to be as offensive as possible], and (2) the general website is laughable to people older than the average Habbo user, since it's basically just a chatroom with cute characters, and (3) its just fun to cause chaos [blocking the pool, blocking people from entering the room, grossly overpopulating the rooms] in that type of hip pre-teen enviroment. Then when the mods started banning people simply because they dressed in a suit, were of black ethnicity, and had an afro, and when said user wasn't really doing anything wrong [but were just automatically associated with the chaos the character has come to represent], there has been a notion that the Moderators of Habbo Hotel are racist, and just ban any black guy in a suit with a fro without valid reason, and another reason for the raids occasionally is to protest the Mod's blatent racisism. To sum it up in one sentence: it's just really, really fun to inflict as much chaos as possible to the website. It's nothing personal. ARBlackwood 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is really just the philosophy of the site that started it all, 4chan. They "raid" many places besides Habbo (Girltalk/Tom Green for example), it's just that the particular "raids" have become the most popular/big.85.75.93.154 13:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was not 4chan that started the raids. The credit should go to Hezzy of the OIFY (Facepunch studios) which started raids before 4chan. Several pool blocking raids occured before someone posted the idea on 4chan. Habbo raid rooms were set up, and if there was some way to check the records this would prove this. 4chan took ovber the raids and made it a success, but all in all OIFY started it. And it was damn fun whilst it lasted. --80.42.94.192 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They're still going on occasionally, though 87.202.26.254 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Do the afro pool blocking raids fail at sources?

There are videos, screenshots, etc. Are all these sources a FAIL? There must be some source that does not FAIL. Anomo 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is not a "common" feature that you would like to presume. This was one isolated incident whose primary source was not what would be considered a reliable source. The Encylopedia Dramatica is considered a tertiary source, and is also a site who may not be experts in their field (after all, they staged a mass-raid) and does not hold the same level of credibility as a source, say, by Wired or a magazine or credible zine.

Not to mention that Encyclopedia Damatica's satirical nature doesn't make them a reliable source for a whole lot. --CCFreak2K 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter to the numerous vandals that have resulted in the protection of the page. I originally came into this article because of the intense vandalism after the raid, and Encylopedia Dramatica was often mentioned. Their satirical nature, and their stance on vandalising various games, makes it unworthy of a mention in this article. But don't tell the official policies to these detractors - it just goes from ear to ear. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is easy to introduce bias into this article because of the raid, and the bias may not be self-evident 100% of the time, a user should not be satisfied with one source. Multiple sources from other sites that can be cross-checked are preferred. If there are multiple reliable sources independent of each other, and they all agree or fall along the same lines with each other, then it may be considered a reliable source.

Key: Bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion.

The tertiary source does not have any primary or secondary sources that are credible. It also contains strong bias against the moderators and the game, which may or may not be biased. No one is real sure because the raid does not have a strong counter-point. I hope I get my point through with this post, because I'm not going to continue to repeat it time and time again if this raid nonsense keeps popping up. Want it to be on the Internet? Then post it at Encylopedia Dramatica where their standards for encylopedic quality are much lower (after all, they instigated a raid!). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not speak of ED. I meant the many videos at YouTube, google, and others in addition to screenshots all over the internet. Many articles use sources that are serious sites but that are not notable. Anomo 22:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The photographs Anomo posted earlier are definitely reliable, as well as certain screenshots of habbo, and a poster or two. You'd have to be blind to deny its verifiable existance. I call bias on the part of closed-minded wikipedians. --Dch111 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if many of those editors can't seem to help themselves. It's just a stupid prank done by some stupid site to showcase their immaturity. How is this building a more knowledgeable encylopedia? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those vandalizers are certainly no help...I just personally feel that immaturity in context should be overlooked when adding info, and I guess that's where we differ. What makes a more knowledgable encyclopedia is a separate matter, and a discussion probably won't change anybody's minds. I'll leave the point for now...I'll see what happens in the meantime, or later before continuing. Edit: By the way, if you were addressing whether this is a significant event in Habbo's history, yes, undoubtedly. During those raids, there were more raiders than normal members; this was inevitably due to the invading site being larger than habbo itself This has affected many habbos and should be mentioned.--Dch111 02:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC), and --Dch111 20:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dch11,to quote someone from 7chan:"It's like the holocaust,nevar happen. Oh,lawd."--The jazz musician 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"There is no win without fail." - cracky-chan. Anomo 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Ľ

What did history lessons teach us? If Secondary Sources are not reliable, go for a Primary One! Your lucky day, kiddos. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/Zerocannon/habbo.jpg Zerocannon 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't tell you what happened and is not a reliable primary source... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the corpus delicit, and incriminating evidence. And you go "that doesn't tell you what happened" Suppose you get sent a photo of a deceased and you go, "he's not dead unless he told me he is"? Lmao Zerocannon 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to know why you do not consider it to be a reliable source. Notice the emphasis on why. Then we can move foward. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!}} 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Encylopedia Dramatica is a tertiary source and self-published and should not be included. It also enables false authority who claim they are knowledgeable in the so-called field. Most are also not credible.

A screenshot is also not reliable as it poses a point-of-view through an image that cannot possibly fortell the full story of the circumstances leading up to the image taking. Anyone can go into a game, create false accounts, populate it, and take a screenshot, or somehow digitally manipulate it (in general). Considering the sources for most of these, they cannot be claimed as reliable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You sir, are too paranoid, way, too paranoid. No really, I recommend you to go see a psychiatrist

Okay, let's see if the tangibility matches your criteria, well, you're not giving me the benefit of doubt, right? 1.An image to fortell the fullstory - What difference does one, two, twenty, fifty images make if it's just more and more characters blocking the pool? Am i even going to retell the full story with a single image? No? Of course not? Was I going to? I mean, it's better than "no images" right? You assert too far ahead, lolz. 2.Digital tampering - Dictionary.com says "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others." Do you REALLY think I'll go through the bother of editting an image and post it not just anywhere, but WIKIPEDIA, ie the land of edit-nazis and alarmist, and to have someone like you to disprove me? I mean, I saw you coming didn't I? Like, now I have enough arbitrary dogma to label you a paranoiac as well? So why don't we just drag you to the nearest joint and have you instituionalized? Thaat's, how you're dispelling my claims, ehh? Flatout-rejections? 3.Anyone can go into a game - Anyone but blacks, lol. And this, ends your arguement, clearly, you have no knowledge of what happened AFTER, so if the raid never took place, why are dark skinned-afros being banned on sight? Even a mod was accidentally banned in the crossfire (Check their forums if you think I make false-claims). Are you even sure that multi-connections from the same IP is enabled? Why don't YOU, seeing you're an "anyone" as well, try to "create false accounts, populate it, and take a screenshot"? 4. What gives you that I have ties to "encyclopedia dramatica"? Or, I am citing from there? Infact, why are we listening to YOU? So far you have proved yourself to be nothing but inaccurate and delusioned, and an unreliable skeptic?

Take my advice, go see a psychiatrist, you've been on the net for far too long. Zerocannon 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the ad-homiem attacks, they were not very welcome nor warranted, and only drive down your credibility in this subject. It is well appearant you are too connected to this subject to make any non-biased statements. I came into this article to do keep vandalism at a minimum and to ensure a high-quality article free of bias and unsupported statements from unreliable sources. That I have succeeded in, and prior edits by other credible editors have sounded an agreement towards that.

Of course I have no knowledge of the game. I have never played it, which makes my reason to keep this article clear and unbiased that much more important. As a non-player of the game, I can hold a level head and ensure that drama or gimmicks by a few disgruntled players do not make it on Wikipedia. There is a big difference in standard between Wikipedia and the editors who come on here to do only vandalism. That is appearant when time after time when unsupported comments or racist or nonsense is interjected into the text. Again, and again, week after week it occurs.

Your assertation that I am a "nazi" is very much unsupported and is a very negative term; prior editors who have used this have been warned or banned. Let's keep the name calling and ad-homiem attacks out of this and try to keep a level head. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is incomplete

There is no mention of:

• Critisms
• The Habbo Raids
• Blatantly Racist Moderators

I find that this article is completely biased and needs to be written objectivly.-Onlyashadow 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The only criticism that any vandal wanted to add was this "raid" and "racist" crap that is wholly unsupported and unverified with any reliable sources. Nice try. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that no metion of a large group of people claim that the site is racist, supstantiated or not, smells of a coverup. If anything, the Habbo raids should be included because they are relevant to the culture of the site. It is not clear if there was a valid claim to their raids or if it was an act of vadilism, but it can be easily verfied that a raid did occur and that the actions did cause the site to be shut down for some amount of time. Being an open enclylopedia and negelcting to add these facts to the article is mind boggling to me. Surely, if an artilce on Hitler can be written in NPOV, Habbo Hotel radis should be a piece of cake.24.7.201.100