Talk:List of cybercriminals/Archive 2

Rename and recalculate, or delete
This article is unencyclopedically vague as titled, and cannot be an objective accounting of the subject matter.

The term "cracker" is loaded and subject to debate, and carries no dictionary definition by which a reference list could be compiled.

I proffer that this article be renamed "List of people convicted of computer intrusion" with a mandatory case reference and statute citation for each entry.

If the community agrees, I can perform a portion of this work myself, though help would be nice.

Failing this switchover, this list should be deleted as unencyclopedic unverifiable (membership in a category with no clear definition is unverified and cannot be verified) original research (there is no citable source listed classifying these individuals as crackers) and recreated with a more accurate scope.

I'll check back in re. replies in a couple weeks, and subsequently action this either way, since no one else is gonna :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-10 02:11Z 


 * Good thinking, Adrian. Now that the list has been whittled back to just those who do have Wiki entries, this page can, without too much effort, be transformed into an article with brief, one-paragraph bullet-point entries for each of the convicted criminals. Those subsequently added would thus need to conform to the style of the page: ie, no further details = deletion on the grounds of failing to be notable. Not sure by what you mean "case reference" -- I certainly have detail on the two Australians on the list, but the definition and relevance of "case reference" is something that can be debated. Grimhim 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean a verifiable criminal case resulting in a conviction for the alleged computer-related conduct (or using such conduct as "relevant conduct" for purposes of a related conviction), so that we aren't libeling anyone.
 * I don't know about the inclusion of anyone found liable in a civil case for computer-related conduct ... I'm not sure keeping both in the same category would be appropriate.
 * Seems reasonable to me, but I'm open to input -- that's why I posted, after all :)
 * —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-10 03:50Z 


 * I went ahead and clipped one non-convicted individual, redid the list description, and moved it to a more accurate title. Yanno, in case anyone is actually using it.
 * —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-26 09:33Z 

Morris Conviction date incorrect
Hello all,

While I may attempt to correct it myself, I wanted to point out, in cass I do not get a chance to change it, that the article has Roger Morris's conviction date listed as August 14, 2002. This is in fact, the date the writer of the source document first published the text of the court transcript publicly. He was actually convicted, according to the same source, on the 22nd of January 1990.

Thank you,

concerned patron Darrell Edwin Lewis

P.S. I do not understand the posting rules like 75.133.144.51 (talk) or ref /ref (by source I am reffering to citation #11 associated in the description), but, I beleive this an important enough of an inaccuracy that I emplore a more expericned wikipedian to respect the importance of my claim rather than focus on the technicality of my posting syntax. —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that! -- Esemono (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)