Talk:Hipcrime (Usenet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The guy who wrote these is actually someone very famous[edit]

"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)


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)
      it shouldn't be mentioned unless we can prove it was coincidental, Unless you wanted to create a disambiguation page. Putting forth information that hipcrime was the name of a character in a book sounds like we're making a connection and if we say "there is no evidence this is why the name was chosen" then we have to ask why do we have it in the article? Unless hipcrime comes forth and says in a verifiable way that that is where the name is taken from we can't use it.--Crossmr 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      If you wanted to create a short disambiguation like on other pages written something like "For The Hipcrime vocab see ...." that would be okay. If people want to make a connection on their own, they can, but we can't make it for them without a source. You can see some other pages for the proper way to create those links.--Crossmr 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      I suppose a disambiguation page could indeed be in order; it's a bit silly for people looking for the novel to end up on a page about some two-bit net troll. As for whether the connection can be proven, there's actually quite good evidence for it: features a direct quote from Stand on Zanzibar on its front page, and has done so since October 1996 (3 months after it was registered) at least. Of course, that doesn't prove the vandal didn't independently coin it first and then have the reference pointed out to him, but it does show that he deliberate alluded to the book throughout his career. Make of that what you will. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that probably some of this is covered in the external links, but things need to be paired up so that readers know where this information comes from. Things that aren't sourced need to be removed. See WP:V regarding online sources, and WP:OR regarding drawing conclusions for readers, and putting forth theories that you don't have credible sources for. --Crossmr 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right, but I don't think anyone really cares all that much about this particular page. It's been a major fight just to keep it even somewhat NPOV, what with the vandalism that this page seems to attract. I'd be just as happy to see it go away. Duskglow 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

The problem here again is sourcing. There really just isn't any wp:rs material out there. I know quite a lot about the subject ... and I would say the article is accurate, but sourcing it just ain't gonna happen. That was by his own design, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the name[edit]

The problem wasn't the weaseling, its that there is no credible source to draw that fact from.--Crossmr 00:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

See Ilmari Karonen's note above. --FOo 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the note, and seen the website. I see nothing that clearly states he took the name from the book. Ilmari even points that out in what he says. Do we even have proof that hipcrime himself actualy owns the website and has control of it? When you're an anonymous usenet vandal, its hard to attribute anything.--Crossmr 04:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There is such a thing as "reasonable doubt". I can't prove that all the references to the word "hipcrime", including Brunner's novel, weren't faked in late 2004 by a worldwide conspiracy using advanced hacking techniques and alien mind control rays; that doesn't mean I have to make allowances for that possibility in the article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:V doesn't allow for reasonable doubt. The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Unless he's released a faq or made another verifiable statement that says "I got the name from the book" we can't present it here.--Crossmr 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a personal statement wouldn't really help much, since a Usenet vandal's own words are hardly a reliable source, and in any case we couldn't possibly confirm it's really him. Although I suppose we could cite him as an unreliable source, i.e. "In [source] someone claiming to be the Hipcrime vandal said ...". The old HTML dump of (which, incidentally, can be shown to belong to the vandal; see the "A History in URLs" links in the article) is much stronger evidence, though we obviously can't cite it as evidence of anything other than its literal content, lest we engage in original research. Of course, we could cite someone else connecting the username with Brunner's novel, and then point to the content of the site as evidence that the claim may not be entirely unfounded.
Of course, that's pure rules lawyering. When one starts insisting that we can't mention the possibility that the name may be inspired by the novel without a citation, I'd say we're well into rules lawyering territory already.
Incidentally, this seems like a fairly nice source that could be used in the article. It's an archive link, since the page seems to be dead now (which only goes to show how ephemeral web sites are compared to print sources, or even to archived Usenet posts). For the purposes of Wikipedia, fortunately, that doesn't matter — in fact, archived versions are preferable, since we know they won't change. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, a personal statement that is verified to be from the author is by definition the best we can get. It is much more reliable then something from say the NYT. The problem is in this case there is no way we can know if the person is actually the author which is why a secondary source is sometimes helpful. Of course there is no way we can know whether the author is telling the truth but that doesn't matter. If the author says I called it X because of Y then that's all that we report. Nil Einne 13:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

When did this get reinserted into the article? Last I checked we still didn't have a reliable source that indicated that the name is in fact derived from the book. We can put through some theories based on observations, but thats WP:OR unless there is something concrete to substantiate it.--Crossmr 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone starts calling themselves "Jabberwocky", it's not original research to link that with the Lewis Carroll poem. If someone starts calling themselves "Mal the Browncoat" it's not original research to call that a Firefly reference. Likewise here. --FOo 01:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
To borrow from statistics terminology, correlation does not dictate causality. For example, I could call myself Jabberwocky, but honestly, until you said something, I did not know that came from a Lewis Carroll poem, so it would be original research to assume I took the name from that source. The use of the name "Wendy" as short for Gwendolyn (or as a name unto itself), first occurred in Peter Pan (or so I'm told), but I think very few people who name their daughters Wendy have that in mind. --Carl (talk|contribs) 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And until we have a reliable source that says yes, he took it from there, there is nothing to say he didn't first choose the name, then come across the usage in a book. There is no evidence to support either side of that and the theory falls under original research. When we don't know on wikipedia, we don't include it until we find a source.--Crossmr 04:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


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; 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)

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 contained nothing other than that quote, I didn't really feel it added anything to the article. --Crossmr 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If we really want to include the reference (which may not be worth the bother given that the disambiguation page now exists), a by-the-book approach would be something like this:

Before the name "Hipcrime" was adopted by the vandal in the late 1990s, the word had been coined by the science fiction writer John Brunner in his 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar, which prominently features a fictional subversive dictionary named The Hipcrime Vocab, somewhat reminiscent of The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce.[1] The Hipcrime Vocab itself defines "hipcrime" as: "You committed one when you opened this book. Keep it up. It's our only hope."(cite book) Many have presumed that the name of the Hipcrime vandal was inspired by the novel,[2][3][4] a claim supported by the fact that the vandal's own web site,,[5][6] prominently displayed the definition quoted above.[7][8]

Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the download link[edit]

Let's not facilitate the distribution of this malicious software. We're writing an encyclopedia, remember? --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What part of writing an encyclopedia requires us to facilitate the distribution of malicious software? --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Then you can point to the law that classifies possessing this software or its sourcecode as illegal?--Crossmr 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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)

It's not just any software. It's software intended to be used to damage other systems. If there were some legitimate purpose for including the link, that would be different. However in this case the only purpose of providing the link would be to enable a reader to download a copy of this malware. That doesn't serve our purpose as an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Tony: What's your opinion on nmap ? Kim Bruning 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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


  • Why are the graffiti images being censored? Seems strange that an encyclopedia would attempt to stifle free expression, particularly when it is related to the article in question, providing context and immediately identifiable motifs for the malware being discussed. 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)--Hipcrime Hunter
    Determining that something has no encyclopedic merit is NOT the same thing as censorship. We aren't a place for you to build a personal web shrine to some hacker; we are trying to professionally and completely describe the facts around this situation. The graffiti, in my opinion, doesn't contribute to that goal. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    When personal preferences regarding graffiti are used as a yardstick to measure what is and is not of value, then the encyclopedia can be said to employ censorship. Call it what you like, but your personal preferences are getting int the way of Neutral Point of View. 02:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Supporter of NPOV
    Show me the line in the NPOV policy which says that we have to include every artist's rendition of the subject in order to maintain a neutral treatment of the article's subject, and I'll concede the point. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not only are you censoring artistic expression which you do not like, but you are also imposing your own personal point of view on others. Just because you do not like something does not mean it is without merit. By censoring the graffiti you have violated the BIAS clause of the NPOV policy. Please cease & desist. 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)NPOV is a MUST
From what I saw of the images when they were on the article, they did not add encyclopedic value. This article is describing an internet vandal. It is not describing a street vandal. While vandals are commonly associated with graffiti, in this particular case, I do not feel that it serves the same encyclopedic value as, for example, a screenshot of a computer game for an article about that computer game. In that case, the image is directly related to the content of the article. A screenshot often helps to understand the game. In this situation, the addition of graffiti images does not assist in the understanding of the article's content. That is an objective determination of why the graffiti should not be on this article. I personally have no preference one way or the other concerning graffiti in and of itself, but I do not think that the graffiti being displayed in this article provides any benefit. I repeat - this is an article about internet vandalism. This is NOT an article about street vandalism via graffiti. Art for the sake of art is not a reason for inclusion. Just because it happens to say "Hipcrime" or anything of the sort doesn't mean that it gets an automatic free pass into the article. --Braindrain (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It is your opinion that the images do not add encyclopedic value. It is my opinion that they do. In order to remain neutral, some middle ground must be found, e.g. leave some in and take some out. I repeat - simply removing anything, you do not think has value, is censorship. 06:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)--NPOV is a MUST
P.S. to quote your own words above regarding WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored - "Its not your judgement to make, that is why the policy exists." Forcing your judgement regarding graffiti on others is taking a step towards making Wikipedia censored. 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)--NPOV is a MUST
No it is. The encyclopedic value of all material must be judged on an article by article basis. There is no concensus to have this material included and vast concensus to have it removed. Wikipedia is not censored covers things like images of nudity in articles that required them (for example an article on the penis or vagina) or articles that may require the inclusion of swear words as its necessary for the article. It doesn't cover using nudity in articles where its not appropriate, i.e. including a nude photo of a porn star on her article, when really like most biographies all that is needed is a head shot, or including profanity in articles that don't need it.--Crossmr 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto above. Just to be clear about things. This is not about graffiti. This is not about whether graffiti has a place in Wikipedia. This is about whether these images add encyclopedic value to the article. They do not. I would feel the same way if someone put the Mona Lisa with a mustache on this page as an example of vandalism. I would feel the same way if someone put a Jackson Pollock painting on here. It doesn't matter. If it does not belong, it does not belong. --Braindrain (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is not. When an individual decides what has or lacks merit (and removes information based on that decision) then this individual has censored Wikipedia. It is not an individual's place to judge what lacks encyclopedic value. That is the reason for the WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored policy. Once this policy is violated, Wikipedia has stepped out onto the slippery slope known as censorship. Shame. Shame.
Deciding a picture of William Shatner doesn't belong in an article about Bill gates isn't censorship. Deciding your homemade graffitti doesn't belong in this article isn't censorship. The article is neither about your graffitti, or about a graffitti artist (and if it were only pictures of HIS graffitti would be appropriate).--Crossmr 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected again[edit]

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)

  • a simple look at the History of this page shows quite clearly that there is more than one person involved in this dispute 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)One Man
    • I'd be curious to know how a Checkuser would find on that subject. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking not much. There seems to be heavy proxy use, but its rather obvious--Crossmr 04:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Please provide proof of this "heavy proxy use"; otherwise simply admit that you have no idea how many people are involved in this dispute. 06:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)--One Man
          • It's curious (at least from what I've noticed) that I never see more than one aggressive pro-graffiti individual at a time. And it's usually after the last one gets blocked. And if a second one suddenly pops up now, I'm going to be suspicious that it's the same person trying to prove me wrong. --Braindrain 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
            • That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy (not to mention the fact that several pro-graffiti editors appear in the History on the same day).
          • The other thing is that all these IP-address comments are signed the same [general] way. And since it's not a typical way of signing, especially not for an IP-address, I can only conclude one thing. --Braindrain 19:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

To the anonymous editor who has added the NPOV tag:

  1. CA's classifications of software have nothing to do with something the CEO did or didn't do. I don't know why you are so insistent on this point - it is clear that the software is, in part, a DOS attacker.
  2. The site is, if not dead, then completely cryptic and not useful to our readers. This isn't a place for you to build up a link farm, it's a place for us to build an encyclopedia.

Unless some substantive reasoning is given as to why this article could possibly be non-neutral, I'm going to remove the tag shortly. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The HIPCRIME.COM site is the source of (and has much discussion about) the malwares mentioned in this article. Nothing could be more relevant. It is not a link farm and it's definitely useful to Wiki readers. The fact that ESKOG keeps removing links to it is absolute proof that there is a dispute over the neutrality of this article (if not overt & on-going censorship).—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:17, August 30, 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for some time and it appears that Wikipedia Administrators have an axe to grind with regards to this Hipcrime/Dipslime fellow. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to remain neutral WP:NPOV and uncensored WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored? If so, they are doing a damned poor job of it. Maybe I should escalate this dispute to WikiReview?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Lets have a look at WP:NPOV shall we? From the policy page: they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias

If we continue to read through the policy this references opinions and information put forth about the subject of the article. I.e. if a credible notable source referenced hipcrime as a vandal and another credible notable source called him a genius, both viewpoints would be written into the article in a neutral manner, stressing that neither is correct, but that both are present and notable. An image that has no identifying connection to the newsagent does not fall under NPOV. If you can show me where in the policy it states that it does please do.

On the the other hand, lets look at WP:VAND. Specifically types of vanadalism.
Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

Continued insertion of this tag with no basis is vandalism. The only reason it was ever inserted in the first place was when the graffitti was removed and improperly placed. It doesn't belong on the articel at all, let alone when the supposed "disputed" content is actually present in the article. --Crossmr 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Read your own quote above, i.e. "Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled". This dispute is not settled; therefore, do not remove the NPOV tag. Further, your quote states "Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism", so please stop referring to the NPOV tag as vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
That is only if the dispute is valid. Tags which are improperly place can be removed as it is vandalism. There is no dispute here under WP:NPOV and continued placing of the tag is vandalism. It only says its not simple vandalism, it doesn't say its not vandalism at all. You've failed to show any part of NPOV that applies here and continuing to place it will be treated as vandalism.--Crossmr 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto Crossmr. He quoted the part about improper use of NPOV tag directly from WP:VAND as a type of vandalism. In this case, it's a consensus issue, not an NPOV issue. This means that an NPOV tag is inappropriate in this circumstance. --Carl (talk|contribs) 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Those who remove informative links from this page are attempting to censor it, e.g. removal of the link to HipCrime's own web site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:35, August 28, 2006

A page with no content is not relevant to this article.--Crossmr 18:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The site is not without content. You just didn't try hard enough to find anything, then rushed to judgement (as you have been doing all along with this article). Please stop your WikiCensorship. It is most insulting to WikiPedians everywhere. 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Go read WP:NPOV again. A missing link to an alleged homepage and removal of unrelated graffitti is in no way an NPOV, continuing to place that tag when there is no real npov can and will be seen as vandalism.--Crossmr 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Read it again, and it is clear that removal of information which you "don't like" is a violation of that policy. The censorship, which CROSSMR is engaged in, should be viewed both as vandalism and as a violation of WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:19, August 30, 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "don't like" has anything to do with why Crossmr (or any of the rest of us) are removing the information you persist in adding. "Don't like" suggests an emotional attachment to this. I have none. I doubt Crossmr has any. It is a matter of whether or not the content has encyclopedic value. There is a difference between what I like and don't like and how I edit. I don't edit based on likes or dislikes. In fact, I have let a number of edits stand that I "didn't like." I have no feeling one way or another with regards to this article. The content you claim is being censored is content which adds no encyclopedic value. You have yet to come up with a valid argument as to why the graffiti should stay. None. The problem is that you are already on the wrong side of Wikipedia policy by sockpuppeting and playing with your IP address to avoid bans. Your arguments have even less weight because of it. --Carl (talk|contribs) 05:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly egocentric of you to assume that all those who disagree with you (and who have different IP addresses) are all the sampe person. Admit it: you do not like Dipslime and therefore want as little information about him/her as possible in your online encyclopedia. Links to his/her site and his/her graffiti have quite valid "encyclopedic value" but you refuse to allow for that possibility because you don't like it and want to see it censored from Wikipedia. Shame on you! Time to write about this in WikiReview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You are the only person who believes this graffiti and these links to unrelated pages have anything to do with building an encyclopedia. No amount of proxying and IP spoofing will change that. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
NO, you are the only person who insists on removing related information and trying to justify it by saying you are carrying on a dispute with an individual (instead of a group who disagrees with you).—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:47, September 2, 2006
There is zero evidence that there is any "group" here, unless you mean groups of proxies? There is also no evidence that anyone is actually serious about their point, as its been long found on wikipedia that when IPs continually edit war, its with one purpose. Were you interested in bettering wikipedia, at least some in the group would be interested in making accounts and contributing to the project. Your behaviour shows the untruth behind your words.--Crossmr 23:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise proposal (maybe?)[edit]

A bit of compromise here, perhaps. In looking at various things, the "hip + crime" drawing is used on various hipcrime related sites. Thinking about it, I don't necessarily have a problem with it being placed on the page, under the following conditions:

  • It is placed in the top right as a thumbnail, as is typical of a representative image
  • It meets all Wikipedia standards regarding content (copyright on image and NPOV on any descriptions)

Is it possible to compromise on this and leave the matter of graffiti be? --Carl (talk|contribs) 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the newsagent, not the individual. I've never seen the graffitti associated with the news agent in any credible way. Images also have to be more than decoration. They have to serve a purpose in the article and these serve no purpose. They are not an official logo or emblem of the hipcrime newsagent.--Crossmr 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand a screenshot of the actual newsagent running would benefit the article if someone wanted to provide one of those.--Crossmr 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The Hip + crime + .com image is used on all the pages that could be said to be run by or otherwise affiliated with Hipcrime. It is seen in monochrome as a background and at the bottom of at least two of the pages with links. I see your point, but there's also the matter of what constitutes "credibility" for this topic. While I have no problem with a no-image article, in the interests of at least putting to rest one content dispute by way of a compromise, I'd be satisfied with either the single graffiti image or the screenshot. There's a java applet that pops up as a sidebar on one of the pages. Perhaps a screenshot could be taken of that, even if it's not being used. --Carl (talk|contribs) 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
We had a number of issues here. First being there is no direct link off the homepage to the "interior site". Clicking the only link on the homepage led you to a duplicate of the index page. 2nd, the graffitti was continually uploaded as the creator claiming ownership. While I believe it was slightly different than what was presented on the page, I don't believe it was different enough to claim it as their own copyright. The logo presented on the page for the newsagent appears to be a generic logo and not one specific to the newsagent. It would be like putting the generic microsoft logo on the Microsoft_Excel page. That actually violates fair use, and is really unneccessary to the article. The other issue is that the link to download newsagent is broken, so I can't install it to generate a proper screenshot of the software. A screenshot benefits the article, linking to pages that go nowhere, or generic images do not.--Crossmr 01:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are a number of issues, but the primary problem is that Wiki Admins have decided that this "hip + crime" image will be removed whenever it appears; even though it *IS* the logo for HipCrime's NewsAgent. It is a shame that Wiki censors something as simple and innocuous as a logo image.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:48, September 4, 2006
and your continued behaviour does nothing to benefit you. It only strengthens the position that you're here to do nothing but vandalize. The only way you could release the image to public domain was if you were hipcrime. The image adds nothing to the article, there is no evidence that its a logo for the news agent. Other than the fact that it appears on the newsagent download page. [9] alot of images appear on the microsoft office page, including microsoft's own logo. The image doesn't contain any characteristics that would indicate its specifically a logo for the newsagent. --Crossmr 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And how do you know I'm not HipCrime???????????—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:01, September 4, 2006
Wikipedia puts the burden of evidence on you to prove you own copyright on those images, not other users to prove you don't.--Crossmr 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I'd like to point out that Crossmr is technically within my amended compromise proposal. I stated that I'd be satisfied with either the single graffiti image or the screenshot. That was not a requirement for both. Regarding the copyright issue: Even if you are HipCrime, as the program and graffiti were developed for a purpose other than Wikipedia, I'd recommend treating them as if you are a third party. --Carl (talk|contribs) 03:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The images were uploaded as released by creator, so he needs to be hipcrime for them to stay under that license. Uploading the graffitti image as a logo won't hold up because there is no evidence that that image is a logo for the newsagent. it doesn't appear with exterior downloads of the newsagent, isn't reference there, and the image doesn't contain something to tie it in, i.e. instead of just hip+crime .com on the images, it would also include newsagent or something like that to make it look non-generic. We infact had 2 screenshots and a link to the page actually containing that image under my version which was well within non-proxy supported concensus.--Crossmr 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Newsgroups as source[edit]

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)

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)
LOL I am the man that the swiss army knife post was made in reply to. Snertking (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

NewsAgent1.gif illustration has virus[edit]

BitDefender AntiVirus v.10 reports that the illustration has a trojan/virus. Hiznik 05:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)hiznik

I've reuploaded the image as a PNG, let me know if that gives you any trouble.--Crossmr 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

File:NewsAgent1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


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)


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