Talk:Habbo/Archive 1

POOLS CLOSED

With regard to the partys involved and the extent of what is being called the "habbo raid" it is being hugely underestimated. Thousands of trolls from various organisations showed up to raid the hotel in & out. Possibly the most interesting thing to ever happen ever to the habbohotel, without a doubt very noteworthy. It wasn't just limited to raiding, there was various DDoS attacks related to the troll raids and never before seen organisation by internet trolls & griefers. F The trolling organisations involved in perhaps this first time large-scale internet 'raid' were [from most contributing to least were]; /b/, Bantown, EncyclopediaDramatica, myg0t, and the Church of Bob(unconfirmed).

This has also resulted in showing to all the incapacity of the moderators on habbohotel, who went on huge banning sprees, which resulted in habbos online tally dropping tremendously. This was also stressed when a moderator banned an Admin "Duncan" while on a banning spree, which was the mod reaction to the invasion. The banning of a fellow admin along with all the other thousands of innocent users clearly illustrated the ineffective moderating on habbohotel.

It usually is. Many people have been banned for the sole reason of protecting other users from getting AIDS via the pool. They are martyrs and should be honored with the dearest respect.

I don't really like those people...they are a distubance to Habbo and deserve to be banned! --Dspradau 13:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because you are a douchebag. -- Jesus, lol

Not just a douchebag, but probably a faggot too. -- CJayC AKA Jeff Veasey

The GNAA was reported to be there, at least thats what a 4chan image shows. And those idiots arent martyrs, they are lack of a better word, idiots. Loompyloompy313

I can confirm that some members of YTMND were there for the July 12th raid. I recruited them...

Hey this site claims that the site is down because of the pool blockades <link removed> is that true? DyslexicEditor 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

False. Stop adding this nonsense. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 06:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The pranks are true. These types of things get noted in many articles. For verifiability, there's many screenshots of this in /b/ on 4chan. If it is not notable enough, I'd like you to explain why. DyslexicEditor 14:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I also found out Gaia Online, a competitor was behind it. That makes it a whole lot more notable. DyslexicEditor 15:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No hotel was closed because of some silly "blockade" of the pool. It happens every hour of every day on every hotel. It's not notable just because someone special did it. I doubt Gaia would do such a petty thing but if you want to cite verifiable sources (Encyclopedia Dramatica is not verifiable, something like an official statement by Gaia staff is) to prove it that I'd be happy to read them. Until then, I'll quote my edit summary: "rv nonsense, if we documented every single "blockade" we could start a whole new wiki". --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 16:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't it deserve a small note? Also I am thinking of going there and you said that you visit there, correct? What sort of minimum bandwidth do I need? I have a 56K connection and I fear it may be too slow. DyslexicEditor 19:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

N-O-T-A-B-L-E! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7468703035503617981&q=4chan V-E-R-I-F-I-A-B-L-E! Well, I am going to declare victory over this wiki-argument. DyslexicEditor 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Being on Google Video does not make something notable. I can upload something there right now, does that make it notable? Granted, the video does prove that it happened. But that doesn't make it notable. Like I said, if you want to mention it, you should mention every single "group" or "mafia" who blocked the pool - there's thousands. Right now, I don't see anything particulary noteworthy of this particular blocking. (56k should be fine, it might take a while to load but once it does there shouldn't be any problems) --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The griefing is definetly noteworthy; it's a major and frequent disruption to popular sections of the US HH in particular, and for a significant number of people it's the most enjoyable part of the game. It's common enough for the Habbo administrapo themselves to issue advice on the website, change the bobba filter, and issue on-sight bans to players with a particular combination of character graphics. It's not necessary to "mention every single "group" or "mafia" who blocked the pool", a general reference would be sufficient, but none at all is an unjustifiable omission imo. Radix 13:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Habbo mods are now perma-banning anyone with a black Habbo persona and an afro. I had one and I got permabanned for blocking, even though I was wearing a swimsuit and in the pool and very clearly not blocking. Looks like it's got them a bit ban-happy. KansaiKitsune 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that mention of pranks like this is useful. It was only through reading the now-reverted description, which had previously been posted, that I understood what is going on. It is certainly not "nonsense"! (Tindwcel 14:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Can somebody get a URL of that stuff on the site (what Radix said, "issue advice on the website") and put it in the article? DyslexicEditor 14:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including a mention that blocking the pool etc is against the rules (discipline section?). What I do object to, however, is discussion of a particular group ("African American persona with an Armani suit and trousers") doing a specific thing ("claiming that there is AIDS in the pool."). If you want to mention that blocking of the pool happens a lot, that's fine by me, but don't mention a specific group or website or spread a theory that someone was behind a specific incident. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you changed your mind. DyslexicEditor 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Made the changes. :) Feel free to chop/change/remove/eat as usual. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that a massive attack against a popular online community by other popular online communities is quite notable.

That's probably because you spend three quarters of your waking hours on the Internet. Thunderbunny 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

07/12/06: NEVAR FORGET

Dear Mr. Wikimod, I have screenshotted Proof and IRC Chatlogs proving that this was NOT made by "many groups" but solely by one. Since it is a massive invasion started by one community and the mass of Serverload forced the Administration of Habbo Hotel to shut down the Hotel temporarily, it should be included into the article. Why, you may ask? Because it happened. CNN reports about News that happen, Wikipedia has Articles about things that exist and happen with them.

The group is /b/. They call themselves nigras and /b/rothas. They are the ones who dress in suits, afros, and brown skin. They saved you from AIDS in pool. They have won.

Yup. Only /b/ have afrosuit. YTMND and other inferior blockers have different uniforms.

LUElinks uses afrosuit too. We also use red cap Mario outfit.

Generally, it's deep black skin, Armani suit and deep black afro for 4Chan Anonymous, pink shirts, pink shorts, and a construction hat YTMND/ basketball uniform for SA, the Yellow Shirters (startup habbo gear) or Rhastafarians for GNAA, and light brown w/ hoodie and beanie hat (varying colour) for random supporters and bandwagon-jumpers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.137.28.18 (talk • contribs) .

James--This particular attack is quite noteworthy as it is not in fact a common occurance that you would have to end up "documenting every single blockade" of, but a controversy on the scale of drawball and ebaumsworld, both of which have their own sections for their respective incidents, which, should be noted, occured in courses of one day or one week, which is NOT, again, NOT a common occurance, especially when large groups get together, and several of these groups have articles. One would probably (and I probably would, too, had I been as distant from the internet) dismiss this because the circumstances seem so immature or silly that one throws it off as some childish prank without realizing the notability. Please rid the bias and allow at least a sentence or two on the 7/12 incident, which is a mere gesture for something with a significant impact in internet culture.--Dch111 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly I am only a casual observer of the Habbo Hotel phenomenon, but I can't seem to get a grasp on why the pool is such an important target to the vandals. Was this raid successful in closing the pool permanantly? And what about the rumors that a foreign substance was present in the pool--possibly introduced by the vandals themselves? It just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me that an article would provoke more questions than it provides answers to.--69.165.36.252 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the whole discussion of "POOL'S CLOSED" here because a)tl;dr and b)it's full of mindless trolling anyway. I'm just here to say that it was the random board of 4chan (/b/) that started and went through with this, contrary to the article's claim of it being an organized raid by many communities. The fact that many 4chaners would randomly shout that they come from either YTMND, SA, Ebaums etc is simply to cause confusion (and it looks like it worked). Also, it was not done because of anger due to "racist policies". That was simply a made-up reason for fun (the same as "We're blocking the pool cause it's infected with AIDS"). It was done because the 4chan community (or rather, the random board community) look down upon such communities as Habbo and Gaia online. There is a picture circulating on that random imageboard (or at least it used to, before the afro and skin tone became common knowledge there) that instructs new-comers on how to dress for Habbo raids (black suit, afro etc), clearly made by 4chan (It says not to forget to put "banned@4chan.org" -the email to send requests for getting unbanned- as the email). So in other words, whoever wrote this got as trolled as anyone on Habbo. Get your facts straight.

"Also, it was not done because of anger due to "racist policies". That was simply a made-up reason for fun (the same as "We're blocking the pool cause it's infected with AIDS")."

--Actually, one of the mods had banned a member (who was of the black afro likeness) near the pool saying 'you can't spread AIDS through the pool' which turned the lighthearted pool blockades at that time into a massive attack. Said moderator's racist quote (along with a couple others) is the basis for the AIDS statements which are not as random as you think.--Dch111 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you sit down and think about that for a moment, you'll realize that the "Pool infected with AIDS" jokes were there since the start of the /b/lockades and not after some incident - hence the "you can't spread AIDS through the pool" ban reason you mentioned. Black people being associated with AIDS and general bigotry is one of the signarute memes of /b/. Again, the whole racist thing started way after the beggining of /b/lockades and just for fun. I can be 100% sure of this since I watched this whole thing from start to end, took part in a few /b/lockades as well, in fact. May I suggest you lurk moar.

/b/ DID organize it, but various other internet communities decided to jump in and help the effort as well. I think the incident is notable as the moderators were reduced to IP-banning ANYONE (afro-suit or not) that went into the pool room. That is pretty significant to me. Rooms were reset and the website itself slowed to a crawl for hours.

Is there any indication of other sites involved apart from the invaders stating so during the raids? The answer is no.

--You DO realize that the fact that we're having a large argument over this and the fact that it almost completely makes up all of the discussion on this article already proves its notability de facto. If it was that insignificant we wouldn't even be arguing about it in the first place, FYI. --Dch111 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to link to it, but Wikipedia policy states that "having a large argument" over something does not prove its notability. Thunderbunny 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • So we agree on these: a) This is important enough to be mentioned, b) /b/ started it, potentially others followed but this is difficult to determine due to /b/ trying to blame other sites to cause confusion and c) racism was not the reason. If anyone disagrees with any of these, say so here. If there are no complaints, I'll add the above information in the article.

--At the very least, add that AIDS is now wordfiltered[this is recorded at Encyclopaedia Dramatica and easily confirmed on Habbo] (but not, as every /b/tard now knows, AlDS with a lower case L) as a direct result of the 7/12 raid in the Language section of Moderation and Guidance.In fact, harbl is another 4chan word, which demonstrates their importance in the raids generally. If you want to have a full list of possible combatants, then Delaware State University, which has been mentioned by some of raiders. Quote "DELAWARE STATE IS NOT TO BE FU.CKED WITH"(sic) and "DESU DESU DESU! HORNETS! HORNETS!". Whether these are /b/tards trying to divert blame and cause general havoc, them abusing a misconception of the meaning behind their meme "Desu", or actual involvement of people involved with Delaware State University is a matter for original research. Signed, Anonymous, who is Legion

has anyone 'against' the adding of the Giant habbo Raid tried researching on 4chan for answers? It's true. The Giant Habbo Raid was planned someimte in May or June. During that time, all they did was practice and recruit. They discovered ways to unblock a permanent ban at the Habbo Hotel so they can keep moving. It's hard to get a clear discussion of it, but if you put a Habbo related picture up and ask about the Raid, you should get some answers.

http://www.civvys.com/videos/poolsclosed.php 

--Anonymous, the /b/tard of intelligence 3:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The arguement that the attacks are undocumented is false; there are dozens of videos, hundreds (if not thousands) of images, and a truckload of witnesses to the attacks, giving excellent documentation to the raid. There are several wordfilters that the raid eventually pulled into place, such as "AIDS" and "Mantrain" ("harbl", a 4chan meme of indeterminate meaning (probably "penis"), came beforehand). The misuse of the ban privelige by the moderators also caught innocent bystanders in the crossfire, showing the incompetency of the moderation team. Another noticeable effect has been the moderators nearly automatically banning any black character with an afro in a tuxedo for "blocking" or having an "inappropriate name". "POOL'S CLOSED" has become a 4chan meme, there were calls made to the Fearlessradio internet radio program, and one "anonymous" has even created a short film series with The Movies documenting his take on the raids.

Another arguement is that the attacks are not notable; to 4chan "/b/tards" (as well as other participants) this is as much internet history as the attacks on ebaumsworld by YTMND, which are just as important to their participating parties as this. The Habbo attacks can even be seen as nearly the exact same, only the "forum" included mobile avatars that can block a certain area instead of simple text and BBS formatting. The target has a large quantity of users just as Ebaumsworld does. The attackers are almost the exact same, although some parties were in different participation levels in one raid than the other. In both, there were images, witnesses, and "soldiers". What makes the attack on Habbo any less notable than the one on Ebaumsworld, which is documented on Wikipedia? I'm beginning to believe this is simply several irate "Habbos" who dislike the idea of their favorite game getting slandered by a bunch of bored trolls- not like it already hasn't been. Not that it is, but it's beginning to seem so. Rainbringer 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I admit to being a /b/tard and taking place in multiple Habbo raids over the past couple of months, although I missed the July 12th uber-raid since it was my brother's birthday. If you really want soem proof, search either YouTube or Google Video for "Habbo" and you will find numerous videos regarding this event... This was an internet event with nearly the same importance of the EBaum's World attacks of January 2006. I believe there should be at least a passing mention of this event, at least a line or two, about this event. I agree with Rainbringer, it seems like the ones who keep removing these mentions are Habbos themselves, unwilling to see this mentioned on this "game"'s Wiki page. --GhostStalker 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a "habbo". I've never played and hadn't heard of the game until I traced the vandal of another page to this one. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this seems to be more of a case of not letting the troublemakers use Wikipedia as their trophy case. It's like how the TV networks choose to pan their cameras way from the person who paints words on his/her body and runs out onto the football field. Don't reward troublemakers; refuse to give them what they want (attention). Arx Fortis 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As a /b/tard myself, I know that trolling works differently than what most people think it does. Trolling is not for attention; it is for a laugh at another's expense. That's why it's so fun: it's easy, it's quick, and it's funny as hell to watch people respond with threats and whining to moderators.

And again, the Ebaumsworld/YTMND "war" is documented. Wouldn't this be a form of giving trolls the attention they want? And if so, why is it allowed in Wikipedia?

Oh, and the fact that the article is protected is exactly what the vandals wanted. A locked article, to a troll, is the biggest trophy of all: it shows that the trolls were good enough to successfully "piss off" the moderators to the point that they protected it. Rainbringer 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The article is still editable by registered users, thereby blocking out the vast majority of vandals which came from IP addresses. Problem solved. Seicer (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seicer is correct, Rainbringer. Besides, any small group (or even a single person) full of ill-will can get an article {{sprotected}}. Big woop. Arx Fortis 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys saying this isn't worth a mention? It's the one single topic discussed in this article's talk page. More importantly, it was a planned, organised attack of a large scale which sparked all sorts of talk and debate, also bringing in question Habbo Hotel's moderation which seemed to fail to be up to the task of responding correctly. If there is no info on it on Wikipedia I can't help but think that it's left out on purpose. I don't think I like a Wikipedia like that. Now, I agree that this might only make the trolls content (I doubt this will really be that much of a trophy, though, Wikipedia is free to edit, a mention on it isn't anything big...), but I don't think that's a reason to not disclose important information? 87.203.181.231 22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is NOT. I suggest that everyone involved who wants to include this in, read that carefully. Seicer (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but would you be kind enough as to point out the reason why this should not be included, maybe answer the points raised by those who believe it should? Because the kind of answer "I suggest you guys do that" etc is not really helpful in any way. If there's a reason in the article you gave which dictates what we should do in this situation please point it out instead of making witty remarks. Thanks. 87.202.15.138 00:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a problem with some of the objections here:

1. "Not letting the troublemakers use Wikipedia as their trophy case", as one user put it, seems to be the prevailing attitude. I don't see how this is relevant at all. NPOV applies even to people we don't like, unfortunately. It is necessary to just as neutral towards what some consider 'troublemakers' elsewhere on the net. That means the only deciding factor should be notability, and there is a precedent on WP of major events on a website having a mention, the most obvious example of course being ebaums. I would argue that ongoing greifing and the incident of July 12/13 constitute major events, but I'll let the more eager bicker that out.

2. The implication of this type of thinking is that anyone in favour of inclusion is one of these 'troublemakers'. WP:AGF, obviously. Admittedly there has been plenty of vandalism on the article page, but it's probably a result of frustration over how this has been handled.

3. There've been repeated references to WP:NOT without real elaboration. This seems to be irrelevant except as a roundabout way to get to WP:Notability, or in a positive sense, section 1.1. (Or a possible example of the above point.)

I'm not interested enough to get involved in all the drama, but I'd like to see an honest discussion on notability rather than the current bullshit, which just looks to me like a small group of users guarding 'their' article. Radix 00:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the followup that was posted. It carefully explains the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and the links and irrelevant material that was added violates many points given. There was vandalism, not because of "how it was handled", but because of the off-topic silliness that occured off-site and on a game. Soon after that occured, there were floods of edits that resulted in the semi-protection of this article with garbage such as "POOLS CLOSED" and other AIDS/gay/black comments that were both inapproperiate and disgusting. It's not wanted here. Also, your edits with video links is considered link spam and have been removed accordingly. Until you can prove otherwise that they are not, since I made the points clear (and have been verified), please do not engage in an edit war. Seicer (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My "edits with video links"? Excuse me? I don't recall having ever edited the Habbo Hotel article. Radix 03:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF mistake. --james^(talk) 04:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

First, it's the other way round. The notability guidelines are just extensions of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information which is official policy.

I would argue that this incident from July 12/13 isn't major enough for a mention in this article because of the simple fact that it happens every day. It's no big deal, it's the same old story. Some people think it will be funny to annoy some teenagers on an online game, then when they get banned from the service for it, they get angry and cry "RACISM!!!!!!". Which would be notable if it was a once off, but it's not. There are 18 Habbo Hotels - each of which has a large number of people who dislike Sulake for one reason or another. They spend their time trying to "disrupt" the service by getting banned - and then whine when they do. This particular incident is not notable because it's really no different from other "raids". We don't document every "raid" that 4chan, ebaums, ED, etc. perform.

Among other things, there's an important quote from our no original research policy: "In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." So far, I've seen lots of people say "Yeah, but ED have an article about it!!!!!". True, they do. But they're not a reputable third party - they're directly involved. So their article in itself does not prove notability. Then we move to verifiability, which states:

"1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." (emphasis mine). Combined with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources, we see that the self-published content that has been brought up does not prove notability or indeed whether any of the accounts we've heard here are true.

So that's my POV. Others on this page have disagreed with me, and while keeping WP:AGF in mind, it does seem pretty clear that some (not all) were involved with either the raids in question or the sites they claim are responsible. Anyway, I said I would butt out of all this a while ago... and I've rambled. Have fun. :) --james^(talk) 03:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Radix brings up some good points, I'd suggest that his post is read by everyone still fighting over this. Rainbringer 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

James, the 12/13 incident does not happen everyday (on a large scale with a unified focus), and we do document major internet events of this sort (there have been three so far I think, including ebaums and drawball). Also, a lot of times only original research can logically be available (as especially the case with internet culture as the "reputable 3rd party sources" are from the older generation that did not grow up in the internet age, and are hardly concerned with documenting the internet past the top ten websites, regardless of actual significance that they simply aren't aware of. Thus the media and sources are inevitably biased towards the things that only affect their generation's interest and not the complete picture of going-ons), and younger wikipedia users should sometimes have their word taken for the time being until it is time for their generation to "publish information." (before it's too late) You are probably thinking, "heck no, we're going by strict interpretation, no exceptions for those not yet having any "source-generating" potential, and thus unrepresented by sources" but what really brings me to put out this reasoning is your unusual concentration and monitoring of an article, among a majority of articles that have no references cited, that is predominantly dealing with and made up of kids anyway. They should have a say.

...I'll admit, the frequent shameful vandalism would be a source of contempt for anyone stereotyped into that group trying to propose the idea of this incident's inclusion, but "don't let some bad apples spoil the bunch," as there are some genuinely serious wikipedia users who recognize the notability of the event and want to include a mention of it. Either somebody must really want to falsely up Habbo's credibility/appearance (I bet a mod or two are here, possibly even some that profit from the site) which is bad form (just like managers at a cigarette company editing an article about smoking, taking out the part about lung cancer), or it is (what it unfortunately will probably come down to) the raid participants' own faults for attracting so much attention here, when a regular inclusion would have been unscrutinized, as most articles that aren't in the wiki-administrations' eyes (a.k.a. the majority of wikipedia articles, regardless of the silliness or seriousness of topics) aren't penalized for not having references, because people simply don't have the time or resources to make it that official...who'd waste their time to report something silly-sounding that sounds like some dumb child prank (but is notable nevertheless)? (Personally, I really don't get why Habbo (the article), which isn't that formal of a topic, is made so uncannily professional anyway, with strictness and everything; aren't there more pressing issues than Habbo? Come'on, just the name indicates a relaxed grip on strictness!) ...in which case (if you're really that repulsed about the raid's inclusion and will spend forever repelling it until all the pro-includers give up) I really don't have much more to say except "whatever." --Dch111 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to disagree. It's appearant that no one bothers to actually read up on the rules, which I posted a snippet of them (with links!) to which another user added and revised the text (which verifies their use) - they can be found here. Adding in the "gay raid" or whatever it was all about only disrupts the neutral point of view the article is required to keep. This is not an encylopedia for your dramatic "raid" or fantasies or for petty internet disputes. This is for facts and for encylopedic entries. Based on all the vandalism that has occured on this article, before the lockdown and even after it, its just that much more appearant that this "raid" stuff should not be added at all. It only satisfies the trolls who wish to continuously disrupt the article (not pointing to you on that). Seicer (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Habbo Mafias

I think the article should say more about mafias in habbo because in the UK version having or working in a mafia is one of the most popular things to do.

bandwith required?

What is the required bandwidth needed to use Habbo Hotel? DyslexicEditor 16:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dialup is fine, the hotel will take a long time to load but it will function fairly well once it is loaded. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for locking the article. I believe those that have violated WP:VAN should seriously consider reading up on the standards at Wikipedia. Seicer (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bunch of people from 4chan. It's not like they care. Thursday Postal 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work ppl. V's were getting hard to manage. Arx Fortis 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I step away from this page for 4 hours, and look what happens! :P (Glasnt last edit : 9:32 ish) glasnt^<3 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why you should edit Wikipedia instead of playing games :) Seicer (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't playing games. I was working! :P. *anyway* glasnt^<3 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's a huge raid on habbo (the site not article) today. People were vandalizing this article because they wanted it locked as a sign of importance. DyslexicEditor 04:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a credible source on this? I would be interested in reading it. If its there, amend the article to include that at the end? Seicer (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ebaumsworld, 4chan's /b/, and encyclopedia dramatica organized the raid. I don't know if there's a good source. Goto habbo right now, especially by pools. That's what people said. DyslexicEditor 04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this related to the Gaia Online blockade that is in a caption, per chance? I think people invest way too much time into this... (er, replace invest with waste) Seicer (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Until there's a credible source that Gaia Online are involved, I've removed the pic. Also, it's a fair use image which doesn't add to the article. It's just vanity on the part of 4chan. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 05:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1. There's no such thing as 4chan
2. The raiders were from Gaia Online, Ebaum's World, and BlackPlanet.com. Nowhere else. JayW 05:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude. You're obviously being an idiot. And you're overlooking SomethingAwful and Encyclopaedia Dramatica. And I have never heard of blackplanet prior to your insane claim. Also, Gaia's kind of doubtable, since a lot of 4channers are just trolling in attempts to get Gaia in trouble.--ArrEmmDee 05:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This raid was planned by 4chan's /b/ and no one else. I won't have ebaum's or fucking Gaia taking our glory. STAND PROUD MY /b/ NIGRA BROTHERS. Go hang out in 4chan.org's random board if you want to see proof. --LOLNIGRA

I see the Gaia trolls are *still* trying to blame their disgusting crimes on innocent ol' 4chan. JayW 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you. You are not worthy of /b/. A true /b/tard would be proud of his work and not try and blame other sites who don't deserve the credit. --LOLNIGRA

That's original research until you cite credible sources. For the record, I dispute that this raid crap is worth a mention in the article at all. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 05:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as to whether you really dispute it. Can I have credible source for that? No offense, but you're, er... incredible. JayW 05:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I dispute it because I wasn't there and haven't seen any evidence saying "We are responsible" from Gaia, Ebaum's or BlackPlanet. Link me to statements on those sites saying they did it, then I'd believe you. I *have* seen it from Encyclopedia Dramatica and /b/. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 05:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, my "credible source" for me disputing that this is relevant is here. I don't need any other source for my opinion. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's a fact. There was a raid on Habbo today. Irrespective of whether or not some other source writes an article about it for Wikipedia to cite, it did happen. Liu Bei 05:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:NOR? "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." It doesn't matter whether you say it happened - until someone else publishes something about it (and that source fulfils WP:RS), it is, by definition, original research. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You want proof? Hang out in the random board on 4chan sometime.

Why does some random wikipedia guideline hold precedense over COMMON SENSE now? Go on 4chan, go on ED, go on YTMND forums, eBaum's forums.... for $deity's sake go to Habbo itself. There are a bunch of idiots dressed in identical outfits shouting they are from 4chan, that the pool's are closed due to AIDS, and yet, because some impractical article says so, it's not happening. Bureaucracy in some messed up internet form is what it is.

Give me a break, Wikipedia. --ArrEmmDee 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that you have to resort to petty namecalling and attacks, violating WP:TPG. As you are aware, Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a general web-site that keeps up on a site's soap opera. Wikipedia's standards, such as WP:RS and WP:V ensure that the article remains clear and concise, while presenting the facts. Let's keep the discussion relevant to the article and I will strongly suggest that everyone involved with the trolling and flames read up on WP:TPG. Irrelevant discussions and drama from other sites is not wanted here and violates WP:TPG. Seicer (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

name calling where ;o --ArrEmmDee 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

although you DO keep up on soap operas. on TV. ah, but who cares about some technicality? --mreddy1

Common sense says to me that you need to prove that this is happening. They're not going to be doing it forever, so if I came to this article in a year's time and the reference you gave was "It's happening on the hotel right now", do you see the problem? If those websites say that they are responsible, link to them. Then you've successfully demonstrated you're not doing originak research. And it's not "a random Wikipedia guideline". It's policy, and it's one of the three core content policies along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Read those, then come back here and make your case following those policies. Anyway, question of evidence aside, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Any reference to the "blockade" has been removed multiple times by multiple people. Unless you can make a good case as to why the "blockade" is notable (not whether it happened or not), then I don't see why we're having this discussion because it's not going to be in the article anyway. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this section being the largest of the talk page speaks for itself on whether or not this is notable. Liu Bei 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. WP:N. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So why is this article even on Wikipedia? Outside of a few tweens and companies who occasionally use it to make some profit without realizing what they're are doing (why is LEGO advertising to a group of pre-adolescents with the horomones starting to kick in) I wouldn't even call Habbo Hotel notable. I realize I am making myself look like an absolute idiot here, but Wikipedia's really not the encyclopedia anyone can edit if they have to have spent a year lurking through the site's piles of bureaucracy to actually be able to contribute to anything. What I get from NOR is that if A=B and B=C, A is only equal to C if CNN says so. --ArrEmmDee 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Habbo Hotel boasts nearly 50 million registrations ([1]) which surpasses our website notability guidelines. It's owner, Sulake, is a multi million euro company, which surpasses our corporate guidelines. And even though this is almost a straw man, if A = B and B = C, A = C because it's basic mathematical theory and relatively common knowledge. Whether or not Habbo Hotel was "raided" is not relatively common knowledge and hence requires sources. I'm not going to continue this discussion. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The current picture at the beginning of the article is not the one that appeared earlier today. Someone has changed the source picture. The picture with a character stating "POOL'S CLOSED, AIDS" is all part of the same vandalism and related to the recent problems with Habbo Hotel itself. Can someone restore the original picture? If not, I'll delete the reference. Thanks. Arx Fortis 06:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the Image:Diverse Habbo.png and Image:HabboAUGuestRoom.png images, since both seem to have been added during the vandal attacks earlier today. Any comments/objections?--TBCTaLk?!? 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:HabboAUGuestRoom.png was just vandalised, I reverted it to the older version and readded it :) --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 10:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That was not vandalism. The image is supposed to depict 'regular Habbo Hotel activity.' I was updating it to current stardards. JayW 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The image was vandalized. Someone had edited the image and replaced the original text with inappropriate comments. --TBCTaLk?!? 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The raid may still be going on. Anyone can verify for themselves. Also ED was involved. See their main page: <link removed> The raid is a featured article. DyslexicEditor 07:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

/b/ on 4chan has been planning this raid for about a month. ED jumped on the wagon.

With regard to the partys involved and the extent of what iS being called the "habbo raid" it is being hugely underestimated. Thousands of trolls from various organisations showed up to raid the hotel in & out. Possibly the most interesting thing to ever happen ever to the habbohotel. But it wasn't just limited to raiding, there was various DDoS attacks and unbelievable organisation on part of the troll organisations. For the record ebaumsworld and gaia has no involvement, but provided a humourous scapegoat. The trolling organisations involved in perhaps this first time large-scale internet 'raid' were [from most contributing to least were]; /b/, Bantown, EncyclopediaDramatica, myg0t, and the Church of Bob(unconfirmed).

This isn't really an organised raid, though, it's just getting the word out and letting the Zerg Rush handle it. I was on the battlefield earlier today and there wasn't any organisation- if someone shouted out a sensible order(e.g. "Close the changing rooms, full of syphilis", when the pool had already been closed), someone would probably follow it. We were dedicated to the cause, and knew what we were doing, but not centrally organised. Signed, Anonymous, who is Legion.

You forgot YTMND. We're cool too! Please pay attention to us!

Lol this is the dumbest discussion I've ever seen ~ Anonymous

Wikipedia. Serious business.

"Common sense says to me that you need to prove that this is happening." Thick much?

Nyoro~n

Discussions

Let's limit our discussions to Habbo Hotel and stop with the flame wars, ad-hominem blanter, and personal attacks. I suggest those involved (and you know who you are) read up on the talk page guidelines. Seicer (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of the discussion to an archive page since it exceeded the KB limit per WP:ARCHIVE standards. Do not add to the dead or smoldering comments there. Seicer (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Go to habbo hotel, in gaming area, go to poolsphere. Raid is still going on. DyslexicEditor 16:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let encyclopedia dramatica handle it

Who cares if the raid is not recorded in Wikipedia. It's internet drama, which can be recorded on EncyclopediaDramatica. Even if the article is less than serious.

Internet. Serious business. user:mreddy1

ED is down, changing servers to handle traffic. DyslexicEditor 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it helps reinforce the precedent that wikipedia can ignore topics the editors personally find displeasing. Liu Bei 05:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all editors, just the hivemind. DyslexicEditor 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem with not covering this. It happened, and just because people don't like the subject doesn't mean it's non-notable. We have an entire article dedicated to Slashdot trolling phenomena, but we can't even have a paragraph here about a massive collaborative troll raid that temporarily shut down a popular Internet community? 71.203.205.251 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its more of an issue of not letting the Habbo trouble makers use Wikipedia as their trophy case. Arx Fortis 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(O_O) If that's so, Arx Fortis, you'd better get over to the Emoticon page and search the phrase "surprise buttsecks". Signed, Anonymous, who is Legion.

Controversy section

Unless this is sourced, I'm going to delete it. Go on Google News and you'll find various mentions of Habbo Hotel. What you don't find is anything about the so called racism and the "raid" that took place. Why? Because it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares. Get some sources. - Hahnchen 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If I was a reporter, I could make lots of money on this story. DyslexicEditor 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you could have made some money with the Something Awful Dating Game raid (http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=325) too. But wait, you're not a reporter. And if you were, no editor would print your piece, because no one cares. - Hahnchen 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen, I'm sure a lot of legitimate Habbos are wondering why they were automatically IP-banned for 1 day upon entering the pool or the rooftop rumble.

Good for them. Wikipedia is not the place to find out. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 05:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, while this is big internet news, this is small "real-life" news. So in a way, not having it is both justified and unjustified, since Wikipedia does have significant coverage of the internet. In any case, hopefully the ED article is enough for the confused Habbos to figure it out for themselves.--Dch111 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vandals

I am in Habbo Hotel in poolsphere and all of the blockers keep saying "WE'RE FROM WIKIPEDIA.ORG". I would upload a screenshot, but I fear that it would be deleted due to some strange copyright issue. I think this is a problem for wikipedia. Todd Lanuzzi 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll be the same trolls as before, angry that we won't let them have a mention in this article. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 07:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost seems as if we need the semi-protected status back again. Seicer (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Curious. What level of external coverage would be valid to warrant a mention here of something like this? Not trolling here, just genuinely curious. While it was trolling of Habbo when they did this, it WAS wide scale and pretty massive. Personal opinion over whether trolling (for whatever ultimate reason) is right or wrong should play no role in whether some sort of event is notable. From a purely clinical, "did it happen?" standpoint, it was a notable event as a major online service/community with millions of subscribed users was crippled. rootology 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave the semi-protected tag on. Vandals from other web-sites, after their stunt, will only degrade the quality of the article. Seicer (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hacking?

I remember when I used to go on this people used hex editors like art money to change the apearance of there characters beyond what the game allowed. Do you think this should be noted in the history section or have its own section?

No. See: WP:NOT. Seicer (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What this article is NOT

Keep this in mind when editing. This article (and Wikipedia on a whole) is not:

• "A place for opinions on current affairs" should not be included because it leads to a soapbox-type discussion. It also leads to a few dedicated users to advocate their "pet views" that can lead to trolling (see prior edits in the Discussion).
• "A soapbox." Wikipedia is not here to spread propaganda; doing so violates the neutral point of view stance.
• "For self promotion." Some users were involved directly with the "raid" and therefore should not be editing the article since they were directly involved.
• "A collection of links." Some want to include links to the video or other non-encylopedic links. Wikipedia does not condone link spam and is not a collection of links. It is also not a collection of photographs or media files (or their associated links).
• "An instruction manual." Instructions on how to "script" the hotel (or hex edit using Artmoney, whatever) are not acceptable on Wikipedia. hope you don't mind me adding to your list :) --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 13:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• See What Wikipedia is not, Neutral Point of View. Seicer (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the Afro plus suit and tie some kind of historic style, like Malcom X, maybe? So familiar. Anomo 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Think about it for a second, it's a bunch of black guys in afros and suits blocking hallways, pools, and anything else available while shouting various memes and generally making asses of themselves. There's no historical value at all, it's just plain funny. Maybe not to the bystanders, but to the trolls themselves, it's a lolfest. 70.236.65.180 22:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Question about Habbo

Why do most people in there just stand around doing nothing? They don't talk, often barely move. What are they doing that for? Are they just staring blankly at the screen? Anomo 06:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? That sort of thing doesn't belong on this page anyway. --james^(talk) 07:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering this for my own knowledge. Anomo 07:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You actually paid money for this game to watch them do that? Wow. :) Seicer

Actually, u dont have to pay to go on habbo, i havent payed anything to get any of the furniture i have and i have loads. and i dont know what room the person who started this topic was in because when i go into a room everyone is talking to eachother.--Don.-.J 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(talk) (contribs) 13:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Article should be trimmed?

This article is way too large for a rather unimportant service such as Habbo Hotel. The feature section is basically a gigantic advertisement. More should be focused on the analysis and impacts and problems of the service rather than a summary of what every feature is that exists in the game. Countchoc 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article is reading very much like an advertisement. It is also very lengthy for a multiplayer game, where most of the games of similar nature are very short. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Notability of the Pool Closed Raids

I think that the raids are not notable enough for wikipedia, but for a smaller wiki they are. There is a factual wiki here http://trendpedia.elwiki.com/Habbo_Hotel that mentions the raids. It also includes habbo.com's viewpoint on the raids, which might make one regret the raiding. Playingviolin1 05:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The mods have backed down.

The mods are letting the blockers stay in the room without bans and kicks. THIS IS IMPORTANT! Anonymouses 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Appearantly not that important that it needed to be at the top of a talk page that contained shouting (e.g. topic all in caps). Please read up on WP:TPG and note that the discussions must be verifiable, and that discussions in the talk page is for research and discussions pertaining to the Wikipedia article, not about the game itself. Keep all rumours and the whole "pools closed" lot out of this talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

4chan shows more will than the Habbo mods and staff. The staff refused to ban, and 4chan decided to stay. After an hour of no-bans, the habbo staff gave it up and banned all of the blockers. 4chan has prevailed. Anonymouses 05:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that will teach Sulake what will happen when they decide to give in to Mods whinging about getting too many Calls and changing what the CFH is compeletly about. At the moment, if you report a doorblocker you end up getting banned -- benzo ? ♠♠ 09:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they have not. Monday there was a sticky saying even replying to a thread with ONLY the face of a fully clothed Emma Watson (or someone her age) gets you banned. And even replying to a thread about raiding gets you banned. And a few hours later all of /b/ went down for good. I tried accessing it on many different computers, ISPs, etc. /b/ is gone and there's no info on what happened. Anomo 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

help!

Every time I enter a name it says "This name is not available" HELP! Moistener 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a help forum for the game, nor is it a place to complain or whine about the game in general. Use this Discussion page to discuss relevant topics regarding the Wikipedia entry. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)