Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of convicted computer criminals/archive2


 * 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 14:29, 5 July 2009.

List of convicted computer criminals

 * Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is round 2 for this article. All the problems/comments were resolved during the review process except for a request for a good copyedit. The copyedit has since been completed so resubmitting the article. Esemono (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * The list looks great after the copyedit, and my comments were resolved in the old FLC; however, the only thing that stands out now is that the publishers in the refs need to either be all linked (those with articles) or do not link any at all. I.e. link to CNET Networks. -- T ru  c o   503 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done -- Esemono (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o   503 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - does the list contain all notable convictions of computer crime? I just want to make sure per the comprehensiveness criteria. I am leaning to support— Chris!  c t 01:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All entries on the list are either notable computer criminals or their crimes are notable thus ensuring that all entries are notable convictions of computer crime. -- Esemono (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Chris!  c t 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to hark on about this, but reference dates should be consistent. Currently I see two formats "Month DD, YYYY" and "DD Month YYYY". Both are fine but it should be used consistently, per this. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  10:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to consistent fate format. -- Esemono (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I copy-edit the article slightly, and do not see any serious problems. Ruslik_ Zero 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose for now. In the introduction, the last sentence mentions Ancheta who was convicted for controlling botnets "to do his bidding". I think some specific details are needed here, what were the botnets used for? Spamming? ID theft?
 * fixed -- Esemono (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the sentencing dates have specific dates, and some do not. I was unable to verify the date of sentencing using the reference provided for Jan de Wit, and the Richard Jones reference specifically states he pled guilty on June 3, 1993. The penalty for Gerald Wondra is missing a cite. These inconsistencies are no small issue and seem to indicate a lack of thorough copyediting. If necessary, I would add citations to the sentencing dates for full transparency and just to be sure there are no errors. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleared up the confusion for de Wit and while Richard Jones reference states he pled guilty on June 3, 1993 that doesn't mean he was sentenced the same day. Wondra's cite while was in the conviction column so I also added it to the sentencing dates for full transparency and just to be sure there are no errors.  Also double checked, and confirmed all dates for the rest of the criminals. -- Esemono (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks better, but some entries have the year only, while some have dates. Are some of the specific dates not available? -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can only find the year for Abene. I know when he started the jail sentence, Jan, 1994, and who sentenced him, Louis L. Stanton, but no specific date.  Same with the Australian hackers Phoenix, and Electron.  Their case too I can only find the year. -- Esemono (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Abene himself, he was sentenced in 1993. Is he mistaken about the exact year, or am I missing something? -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool you found a recent interview! But no more specifics eh?  No exact date?-- Esemono (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can tell you when he was indicted. I found another link that narrows it down to in the "last week". And this one which seems to indicate it happened on Nov 3. But I couldn't find any specifc dates for anyone else either, so I'm satisfied. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Magazines, journals, and newspapers should be in italics. You can achieve this by changing  to   in the citation template.
 * The article doesn't cite any Magazines, journals, or newspapers. The cite templates used are book and web. -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Post and Wired are publications. It doesn't matter if you use their websites; you still italicize their names. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed as requested -- Esemono (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this is the English Wikipedia, you don't need (in English) in the citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * My concerns are not so much with the prose, the sources or the technicality of the sorting etc. My problem is: what's the criteria for inclusion? How is it decided who goes on the list and who doesn't? What's the lowest cut off point? And frankly can a list with such an "open" definition ever be exhaustive? I just don't see how this list is complied and thus would not know how to add to it. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria is listed in the intro and only those who are notable criminals or have done notable crimes are included. -- Esemono (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria for what constitutes a "Computer criminal" is defined yes in a very broad sense, in this definition hacking your boss' mail would make you a computer criminal. What makes one a "notable criminal" however is vague at best. I mean if say "Mark Abene" had only been convicted of the misdemeanor would that count? He's a criminal, but maybe not "notable" - and there is no way to say that these twenty-something criminals are the only "notable convinced criminals" out there? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes stealing and reading someone's mail is a criminal offense. Not sure where you're getting the ages from, the list ranges from early 20s to early 40s which makes sense considering the computer industry is only a few decades old. And Mark Abene wasn't only convicted of a misdemeanor and a quick google search will confirm that he is quite famous and notable.  Also, the article will be able to handle the notable question just like other featured lists like, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, or the List of Dartmouth College alumni -- Esemono (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not ages, there are 23 entries on the list, does not sound like it's a very exhaustive list, just the 23 that you happened to find sources for. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As talked about before, this is a comprehensive list of Notable computer criminals. The people are chosen because they are notable or involved in a notable crime.  I was able to find references for these people because they are notable.  The list will be able to be controlled by limiting the amount of people to just notable people much like the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, or the List of Dartmouth College alumni -- Esemono (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, it seems like it has not been a problem in other articles, I withdraw my objection. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor errors that I fixed. I will come back and look at it closer soon.


 * I also noticed that there are a couple of unformatted references (missing brackets or missing the proper cite template). --Kumioko (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.