Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of convicted computer criminals/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [1].

List of convicted computer criminals[edit]

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm curious if it will pass Esemono (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Oppose/Comments from KV5

Your curiosity can be satisfied eventually, but not in this list's current format.

  • Lead is extremely short. The two paragraphs that are there could probably be combined into one, and at least two additional paragraphs about the list should be included.
  • No bolding on "computer criminal" because it's not the title.
  • "Computer crime being a relatively new crime the amount of notable computer criminals is quite small as often governments have to write the laws after a crime has taken place." - sentence fragment
  • Image caption: don't capitalize hackers
  • I don't know that the flags are necessary, but they are definitely used improperly - please see WP:FLAG.
  • Use the {{sortname}} template for the name column.
  • Table columns that are plain text (Conviction, Penalty) should not be sortable. I suppose that the penalty column could have some benefit to being sortable, but you'll have to add a hidden sortkey that makes sure that they sort correctly, so that 8 months comes before 4 years, etc.
  • Don't put leading zeros before numbers.
  • ISO dates need to be converted to a normal format (November 14, 2007, etc.).
  • Is there a reason that Mark Abene's entries can't be combined into one? He's the same person.
  • Use consistent formatting in cells. If one cell in a column uses complete sentences, then the whole column should. Don't punctuate incomplete sentences (e.g. "11 months in a Massachusetts juvenile detention facility.")
  • Stubs should probably be created for the people in the table without articles; if they are notable enough to appear in this list, they should likely have their own articles.
  • References need to be consistently formatted. Some author names are last, first, and some are first last. I would also consider removing links from author names; I don't know that it's necessary. Also check for caps in titles - all caps should be converted to title case per MOS:CAPS. Definitely unlink all of the dates in the reference section; they aren't relevant.
  • You use USD randomly in the middle of the article; you should link $ (or US$) at each occurrence in the table because each row needs to be able to stand alone as its own element.
  • Did Nahshon Even-Chaim have to pay 1000 USD or 1000 AUD? Needs to be clear.
  • Link LexisNexis on all occurrences, de-hyphenate.
  • "theft of the ZARDOZ file." - the who what now file? This needs a link or an explanatory footnote.

There may be more going on here, but hope this gives you a good place to start. I might suggest a peer review next time before a featured list nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
  • Comment
    • Featured lists don't start with "This list..." anymore. See recently promoted FLs for an example of more engaging lead sentence.
    • Lead is still very small - please expand
    • Also sorting doesn't work correctly for some columns (I'll help you fix this, but that why peer review is helpful)
    • "Penalty" column shouldn't be sorted in my opinion - since suspended sentence, psychiatric treatment, prison and probation are different and thus cannot be compared

—Chris! ct 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking good, I will support —Chris! ct 04:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is this a complete list of convicted computer criminals? What about The Pirate Bay guys or the Isohunt guy? What about Shawn Fanning, Gary Glitter, Pete Townshend? Are there any notable people (with or without WP articles) arrested and convicted due to Operation Ore, Operation Avalanche or any of the other Kiddie porn stings? (Note that I'm not saying for sure they have been convicted; you'd need to check up on it, and any others to make sure they're not missing)
    • There will always be future computer criminals but:
      • Pirate Bay is under appeal
        • But they were convicted, or not? The page isn't "List of convicted computer criminals who have not appealed their conviction or had their appeal turned down" Matthewedwards :  Chat 
      • Pete Townshend was never charged with any crime and in an April 2007, an article in The Guardian stated that Townshend was "falsely accused of accessing child pornography".[2]
      • Shawn Fanning of napster fame was also never charged with any crime and napster still functions.
      • ISOHunt the company was never charged with any crime and is still running. So I doubt any of their members would be charged.
      • Operation Ore and Operation Avalanche netted lots of individuals but not really any notable ones. Also U.K investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wrote a series of articles criticizing police forensic procedures and trial evidence which basically prosecuted a large amount of innocent people who had their credit cards hacked.[3]
        • So what? Does his criticism mean the convictions don't stand? If there are no notable ones, so be it, but just because someone complained, doesn't mean they automatically get discounted from the list. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
          • Yeah I see what your saying but the scope of the article doesn't include copyright infringement or child pornography. The article defines computer crime as criminal activity involving an information technology infrastructure, including illegal access (unauthorized access), illegal interception (by technical means of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system), data interference (unauthorized damaging, deletion, deterioration, alteration or suppression of computer data), systems interference (interfering with the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data), misuse of devices, forgery (ID theft), and electronic fraud. -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • But isn't it misleading? Computer criminals can be people charged and convicted of child pornographic crimes, and other non-hacking crimes. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
              • The scope of the article is defined in the lead. I just go by what the sources say, I didn't think original research was encouraged.... -- Esemono (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Convicted computer criminals or hackers are people who break into computers or computer networks." but not all people who break into computer or computer networks are convicted computer criminals.
  • "The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the computer underground." By whom? When? Is this subculture notable enough to have an article? There should be a link to it. Could we get this statement referenced?
  • "Computer crime is a relatively new crime." Relative to what? Will this statement still hold up in a year? Five years? Perhaps anchor it to a certain time with {{as of}}. Again, do you have a reference?
  • "often they have to write the laws after a crime has taken place" so technically, many may not have commited a crime because there was no law to say it was a crime?
  • "Below is a list of computer criminals" Is there a way to avoid the article referencing itself?
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not fixed; it still says "Below is a list of computer criminals with a conviction in a court of law:" Matthewedwards :  Chat 
        • I had changed it but then a more senior editor disagreed with you and changed it back -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well that put me in my place! Even King Jimbo is no more senior editor than an unregistered IP. Still, it made me laugh! Articles referencing themselves is poor practice. We know there is a list below. We know they're computer criminals, and we know they're convicted. We know all this because that is what the article is about. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
              • Whatever you say man! I don't want to get involved in your senior editor power struggles. -- Esemono (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the earliest days of hacking criminal convictions have been hard to come by as in the beginning of the hacker subculture there was some type of honor ethic, a sort of honor among thieves." -- A bit long winded. Can this be broken down with some punctuation?
  • "Hackers who felt this way broke past computer security for non-malicious reasons and did no damage, akin to breaking into a house and looking around. These types of hackers enjoy learning and working with computer systems, and by this experience gain a deeper understanding of electronic security. This would change as the computer industry matured and those with malicious intentions would emerge to exploit computer systems for their own personal profit." All requires sourcing
  • WP:LAYOUT -- page is formatted incorrectly
  • A contents box for one real section isn't really necessary
  • There are two dabs and a few redirects that should be fixed

Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of punctuation errors. Could you find someone to copy edit the prose, including that in the "conviction" and "penalty" columns of the table? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and comments, from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Some, but not all, HTML references have an HTML tag. Why not all of them? I tend to not use this and use PDF etc where it isn't an HTML resource.
  • Your link to White hat hackers does not capitalise the term. You have. Any reason?
  • "These...", "These...", "This...", "This..." last four sentences of lead, doesn't read particularly.
  • "early 90s" - don't we typically say 1990s here?
  • Handle, in the table heading, is not explained or linked, and could be confusing to a non-expert.
  • Abene's sentencing dates don't line up horizontally with the convictions.
  • Conviction column, odd and inconsistent use of full stops - e.g. "Unauthorized access to computers at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center in New York and a Los Angeles bank[36] Also guilty on two counts of "making harassing telephone calls".[37]" no stop before 36 but one before 37... "Illicit use of proprietary software (UNIX 3.2 code) owned by AT&T.[1] Pleaded not guilty to 2 counts of computer fraud and three counts of interstate transportation of stolen property[30][31]" stop before 1 but not before 30,31... Please check all and be consistent.
  • Refs 10 to 12 (for example) have a full stop after accessdates, refs 13 to 15 (for instance) don't. And some accessdates are ISO, some aren't. Be consistent.
  • "AUS$1000 " needs a comma.
  • Calce's references, as a preference, would be numerical order please.
  • Lots of numbers below ten in numbers rather than being spelt out. Why?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Review by Truco (talk · contribs) --

Lead
  • 'Convicted computer criminals or hackers are people who get caught and convicted of breaking into computers or computer networks.' -- Comma before and after 'or hackers'
  • 'People started to be convicted of computer crimes or hacking as early as 1983 as in the case of The 414s from the 414 area code in Milwaukee.' --> Convictions of computer crimes, or hacking, began as early as 1983 with the case of The 414s from the 414 area code in Milwaukee.
  • 'In that case six teenagers broke into a number of high-profile computer systems, including ones at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Security Pacific Bank.' -- Comma after 'In that case'
  • 'In the infancy of the hacker subculture criminal convictions were hard to come by because there was ethics, a sort of honor among thieves.' -- Comma after 'subculture'
  • 'As the computer industry matured this would change and those with malicious intentions, (black hats), would emerge to exploit computer systems for their own personal profit.' --> As the computer industry matured, individuals with malicious intentions (black hats) would emerge to exploit computer systems for their own personal profit.
  • 'This is the case with Jeanson James Ancheta who created hundreds of zombie computers to do his bidding via giant Botnets.' --> This was the case with Jeanson James Ancheta, who created hundreds of zombie computers to do his bidding via giant Botnets.
  • The lead needs to summarize the list better, the lead right now just explains and goes into a lot of technical details but not much summary of the list itself. The lead should summarize the list itself, such as stating the first/most recent convicted criminals, describing statistics like who was the first individual to do such and such, what nationality has the most criminals, etc. I see that you have the first/most recent listed in the lead, but please clarify that more with dates.
Images
  • 'Famous hackers Adrian Lamo (left) with contemporaries Kevin Mitnick (center) and Kevin Poulsen' -- Removed 'famous', in this case its a WP:POV.
  • 'September 2005 image of Mark Abene who was convicted of a number of computer charges in the 1990s' -- Comma before 'who'
  • Is there a need for 2 images in the lead? I think 1 should suffice because 2 leaves a lot of whitespace in the lead.
  • With expanded lead there is less white space-- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Computer criminals
  • 'Below is a list of computer criminals with a conviction in a court of law:' -- No need for this, as the reader is made aware about what the list is about in the lead.
  • Left align the dashes.
  • Because Abene had more than once conviction and sentencing date, the columns should reflect that as Conviction(s) and Sentencing date(s)
  • Seek a copyedit of the penalty and conviction columns, they need a copyedit for tenses, grammar, and wording that is more encyclopedic.
References
  • Why is the FBI ref have 'pub' for the publisher? I'm guessing it was a typo?
  • Ref 35: The publisher is Sophos Plc
  • What makes 'livinginternet' a reliable source?
  • Ref 22: Information week is the work and United Business Media, Inc. is the publisher.

--Truco 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will support once I am ensured that the content in the table has received a copyedit for grammar and tenses.--Truco 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there are still a great many inconsistencies in spelling and grammar throughout. Please in the future either have your lists copyedited or peer reviewed before bringing them to FLC. Specifically:

    • Some of the entries under convictions and sentences have periods, some do not. I would look for a way to make them consistent, which would probably require rewording of a number of statments to make them either sentences with periods or sentence fragments without.
    • "One count of computer trespass and One count of computer conspiracy" - if this is a single sentence, the second use of 'one' should not be capitalized.
    • "Pleaded guilty"... in multiple entries should be 'pled' if the article is using North American English spelling, if not it's fine. But repeated use of "Also plead guilty" is wrong either way because plead is present tense in both version, and the statements should be in past tense for consistency.
    • "Two years three months imprisonment"... should have an 'and' between years and three.
    • "One year suspended sentence, he was put on a AUS $1,000" should use a semi-colon rather than a comma.
    • "Eleven months in a Massachusetts juvenile detention facility[13] Although a search shows as of May 6, 2009" needs punctuation near the ref, and if it's a comma 'although' should not be capitalized.
    • "Microsoft, LexisNexis and The New York Times" vs. "guilty to seven counts of mail, wire and computer fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice" - if you are going to use a serial comma, you must use it consistently throughout the article.
    • "Forty six months" to Forty-six months.

Forty six months

    • "Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center" to "Memorial Sloan-Kettering" and wikilink.
    • Do not introduce the list with, "Computer criminals with a conviction in a court of law:". Either get rid of it or give more information about what the criteria for inclusion in the list are. Right now, it effectively repeats the title of the article so is repetitive and not additive.
    • "Ancheta is the latest notable computer criminal to be arrested, convicted and then on May 9, 2006 sentenced." should be more like "Ancheta is the latest notable computer criminal to be arrested and convicted, his sentencing having taken place on May 9, 2006."
    • "He is also the only person to be sentenced to more time in prison, with five years." more than what?
    • "criminal convictions were hard to come by because there was ethics, a sort of honor among thieves" probably better with 'a code of ethics'.
    • "These white hat hackers broke past" vs. "They enjoy learning and working " one is present tense and one is past tense, though both are talking about the same topic. If you are talking about white hats at the time, it should all be past, if now, it should all be present, if both, there needs to be some transitions so that the differences in tensing make sense
    • I'm thinking the list of definitions of computer crime in the lead's first paragraph may work better as a bulleted list, as in Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles
Geraldk (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't fully review, as Geraldk has provided a substantial list of examples to work from, but the first sentence is a red flag: "Convicted computer criminals, or hackers, are people who get caught and convicted of breaking into computers or computer networks." "get caught" is much too awkward and sounds like something written by an elementary schooler. How about "...who are caught..."? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_convicted_computer_criminals/archive1&oldid=1143879320"