The Great Habbo Raid of July 2006/LOL

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to: navigation, search

From TOW talk page on The Great Habbo Raid of July 2006

The Raids[edit]

I just don't understand how the fact that people from 4chan and ytmnd teaming up to block the pool, standing in the shape of Swastigas and spouting phrases such as "Pool's closed, due to AIDS!" is not relevant or notable to an article on Habbo Hotel. After all, they caused Habbo Hotel.com to close for an hour, anyone dressed in the raid uniforms will be kicked from the pool and it is, pretty much common knowledge. They've got www.poolsclosed.com and there was even a hacking tool produced. Please, just include it in the article! --212.139.56.94 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If you have read the archives above, you would see the perfectly valid reasons why the raids have not been included in the article. If you want to know the short answer to why the raids aren't included, it is simply because they are not notable not verifiable. –Spebi 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe not noteworthy, but definitely lulzworthy. --161.253.47.99 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Spebi, the argument doesn't hold water anymore. Lots and lots of people have been asking why it is not a part of the article, and saying that it is not notable contradicts the very basis of their arguments, for if they were not notable, no one would be talking about it.--WaltCip 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I guess so - excuse my bad wording. My point was that I did not want to bring up this whole discussion again, because it had already been discussed thoroughly in the archives. –Spebi 11:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The main reason that we can't put the whole raids and *chan stuff into the article is because of this. As much as I can't stand Seicer and a couple of others being such a wet blanket about this subject, they do have a point. Lannah 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The Australian Habbo has changed their pool attendant to appear similar to the raiders by dressing him as an afro-man in a suit with the name AfroDuck (whom the raiders venerate). Example: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1215/64238680sq7.png. This is confirmable by visiting the hotel. Their attendant says things like "Pool's Open" and "What a clean pool!", direct responses to the slogans chanted by the raiders. Does this admission of impact on behalf of Habbo have an impact on notability? Gokustyle667 03:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
              • No it doesn't. Anyone could have edited that image, and it appears that you have edited it. ~Spebi 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Scratch that. After visiting the pool myself, I see that you are correct. ~Spebi 03:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why people wouldn't put the raids in the article. It is a well known thing to people who play and a warning to those interested in playing. Not adding it because it involves trolls or something bad would be supressing the truth. If every article was ran like this one is then you'd see the end of Wikipedia. Get rid of the Hot Coffee controversy on GTA SA. Get rid of the JFK conspiracy on his page. The raids can be verified, they are noteworthy because they happen frequently, and they are important to serve a warning to new players about trolls. SonnyCorleone 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Please please please read the archives Sonny, before posting about the raids again. Also, how can they be verified? So far we haven't found any legit sources. Lannah 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "The raids can be verified" — By whom can they be verified by? And this article isn't just for new players, it's for anyone to read. Wikipedia is not a internet safety guide. The raids cannot be verified by any reliable source (regular players in the Hotel are not included), and so therefore will not included in the article. ~Spebi 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't the moderators of Habbo Hotel bannings trolls during the raids be counted as them recognizing the existance of raiding and marauding trolls upon the Habbo Hotel? Or does that not exist at all because it's only "members" that have screenshots of them happening? SonnyCorleone 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • This dicussion is dead. The Raids might have happened, but there is no reliable source to verify that it did happen. Nothing else needs to be said. ~Spebi 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Ditto. The trolls come back continuously to try to insert garbage for the sake of it being on the Internet. It's also a reason why its remained sprotected. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
            • So don't mention it because it's negative? Man, if logic like that was accepted in the real world... Hell, more than half the stuff on the wiki cannot be verified yet it has its own damn article and categories. Care to tell me why there is a page on Jesus? Can you verify that he exited as the son of God? Can you verify that a sucide attack in Iraq really killed 132 people the other day? The main page says at least one million people rallied in Turkey, can you verify that one million people were there? I can go on. Just because you do not like the idea of trolls attacking a game doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned. The Ebaumsworld page shows troll attacks...but Le Gasp! No verification that it was really DDoSed. Oh the humanity! Won't somebody think of the children? Do not let personal feelings get in the way. We all know that trolls attack the site, you know, I know, probably your grandmother does too. Stop pretending that you give a crap about verification rules. We all know you're only hiding behind them because you do not like trolls plundering the blissful Hotel of the Habbos. SonnyCorleone 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Since you are new here, here are a few pages to read up on -- Citing sources: Those who have tried to include the "raids" fail to cite reliable sources. Others attempt it through vandalism.Verifiability: Those sources cannot be verified. Original research: Half of the crap that's been inserted has pretty much been up-in-the-air. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
                • It would seem you suffer from an oh too common disease called speaking and not listening. You claim to follow the Code of the Wiki but turn your back when it does not benefit you. Where is your valiant Crusade against the other links and articles I presented before you? Why aren't they being fixed? Do I sense bias in your decision that might taint your egotistical nobility? I see no such effort from you to right the wrongs and bring people to justice. I just see you, cite rules, rules that have no de facto control over articles. Yet for some reason you use this and only this as your main defense. In fact you haven't even acknowledged an argument from someone else, just spewing the same thing. I can only wonder in disbelief that you would contradict yourself in a twist of irony. Now tell me, why wouldn't links mentioned above not count? The image of the pool attendent dressed as, named, and quoting the raiders would be enough evidence to incriminate OJ Simpson. What about the Pool's Closed website and forum? Wouldn't its very existance hint as the possibility that it exists? Or is this just one large conspiracy that would make theorists wet themselves in fear? Suffice to say, sticking your head in the ground doesn't make problems disappear. So trying to do the same on the wiki won't work either. SonnyCorleone 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • I don't attend all articles, that is what other editors are for. My time is limited and I only came to Habbo Hotel after it showed up on my vandalism listing numerous times after some raid. I only continued to stay after discovering other raids were in play. It has been accepted by other established editors that contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner (i.e. not vandal accounts or IPs) that the raids should stay off for the reasoning I cited above. The issue is so dead and moot that it is not worth dragging up whenever a new raid occurs.
                    • In the future, please avoid personal remarks as they are generally frowned upon here at Wikipedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • If I made a personal remark it is only because you interpreted it that way by, once again, not reading properly. I only said that if what I claim is true then you would be seen in a negative view. But one cannot verify my claims on the hypothetical. I do not see a cite or a source, let alone a scholarly one. Now please tell me, why are raid mentionings allowed in the Ebaumsworld page, 4chan, YTMND, etc. but not here? Protect the victim but to hell with the attacker? And what about the Pool's Closed site? You have yet to comment on the conspiracy of the site not really existing and that all its alleged members can not be confirmed. I believe what you are doing now is a debate tactic. A very crude, primitive, and inefficent one. Ignore the opposition, state facts that vaguely have to do with the topic, and claim foul when things go aloof. Know this, and only this if you choose, facts, sources, citations, truths, half truths, and whatnot only exist if the majority of the people accept them to exist. So if people believe the raids exist then they do. This is why those other pages I mentioned exist. If people didn't have the slightest belief in them existing then they would never have been created in the first place. If people do not believe that the raids exist then they wouldn't try to put it on the article page. Now, please cease from ignoring common knowledge. It would look, by my unverifiable opinion, ignorant and foolish, with all due respect. But if you choose to continue it is only you that wills it since I have made no attempts to adding said raids to avoid confrontation. SonnyCorleone 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
                        • Sonny, I suggest you take this to mediation if they're so unwilling to discuss such an important matter.--WaltCip 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry if you think it's non notable or verifiable, but as has been said before: The sheer volume of stuff on the internet proves it happened. There are websites made about it, there are videos and screenshots of it going on, it's common knowledge. And it will be invaluable for researchers of the future; in the early 21st century, people who used to play that long forgotten about game called "Habbo hotel" blocked it. If there's ever internet studies in the future, you bet there will be at least one lesson on website invasions and it's right up here with Ebaums world. It was a direct and planned attack on a franchise and they issued a response with the Australian pool guard. So, please include it. One little paragraph and a picture is all we ask. --80.47.17.221 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


The Habbo avatar mentioned above http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1215/64238680sq7.png really does look like Captain Planet. SakotGrimshine 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how "Pool's closed" redirects here, even when the information of raids isn't here. --Koheiman 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very depressing when I am forced to go to ED for information, isn't Wikipedia supposed to inform people? It's completely failing that in this article, it needs to mention the raids.--194.80.204.28 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is linking to external Wiki's allowed by Wikipedia's guidelines? I mean, it'll be much more useful for people interested in finding out more about the raids if it was linked to ED. After all, some information is better than none. --Koheiman 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, but ED has been whitelisted as the site is a heavy contributor to vandalism here. Any edit to include it would just pop up a standard template disallowing its use. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Lightbulb* I know. Let's take a vote.If this gets to 10 votes for either side, we follow that side. 1/10 Yes, we should include the raids. 0/10 No, they never happened 196.43.65.130 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Polling is not a substitute for a discussion. Wikipedia is also not a democracy. Inclusion comes through discussion, not by poll. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • What will you accept, then? What kind of evidence does it take for you to accept one of the largest raids in internet history? It's like You are denying the fucking Holocaust here. 196.43.65.130 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • This has been discussed many times before. Check the above posts and the archives for your answer. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here looking for info on the raids, but there is none thanks to some bizarre blocking effort on the part of some here. The raids are notable, have made an impact on Habbo that lasted and are verifiable. It should be included, lots of people are coming here for it. Especially now that people are being redirected from "pool's closed". The squirming to avoid putting them up should end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.207.94.80 (talk • contribs).

As a neutral source(I don't Habbo or Raid) I think its very clear there is a consensus the raids should be put in there. The discussion seems to be pretty lopsided actually. There seems to just be 1 or 2 people against inclusion. I feel that its very much against the spirit of Wikipedia to not include it. Its not the playground of internet revisionists, and if Habbo Hotel warrants an article, this "raid" seems to warrant inclusion. If a well worded entry can be submitted, i think it would be kept. The only arguements from the Neg seem to be "Moot point" even though its obviously not since so many are bringing it up, and "unverifiable". But as mentioned before, people contend there is photographic and video evidence, as well as much documentation. I don't see how you could possible not include this. Theowannabe

If you need a reliable source that proves the raids actually happened, search YouTube for "pool's closed" or "habbo raid". You could also dig up the old threads from habbodiscussion.com, unless the mods deleted all of them after the forum was shut down on the day of the great raid. --70.130.229.175 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Raid Documentation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipACsinKe0Y&mode=related&search= Great July 12th raid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyM0Lwnvt0c&mode=related&search= Raid on MLK day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR6oVOXVl9M&mode=related&search= July12th with 9/11/compilation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mxHKICa8k&mode=related&search= more videos of an unidentified raid

As you can see there, and find for yourself via searching the internet there were mass "raids" on the days that are recorded in the videos. I think it would be more appropriate for evidence to disprove the existance of the raids to be presented, as there is ample proof that they did happen and since they have such a large impact on habbo hotel they should be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.152.200 (talk • contribs).

  • Good for you, but as previously stated many times over, that is not reliable source. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well if you do a Google search on the subject it comes up with several results, so you would assume that there would be at least one reliable source, and the number of results would suggest that the events did occur. However, the matter of reliable sources could be disputed. -- Kai talk 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The "Raids" were a non-event and not note worthy at all. IF the AU Hotel did dress a pool attendant up as a "raider" they can't really be that worried about it, can they... Hardly a case for inclusion. Every argument above appears to have more to do with the egos of the alleged "raiders" than actual fact. 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Well for your reference you should should do an Encyclopedia Dramatica search on the subject (I would provide links, however this site is blocked in the Spam Filter), even though they are unreliable sources, it's worth a read if your willing to contribute to this discussion. --Kai 07:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
          • http://wikichan.org/index.php/Habbo_Hotel That writeup is actually more reliable than ED. Wikichan is a firly reliable, mostly unbiased website, especially compared to ED. 196.43.65.130 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I too have no connection either to Habbo nor any raiding group / site, and came to this page solely because I'd heard that it was a prime and well-known example of mass raiding/trolling that resulted in a service interruption. Not knowing the backstory to this discussion but looking just at the recent comments it looks a lot like there are people who are actively trying to keep anything about attacks on Habbo off the page. The standard for "verifiability" that seems to be being pushed here is far higher than that on other parts of Wikipedia. The videos and screen-caps of the trolling seem to be pretty convincing evidence that some level of mischief did occur, and the number of people (myself included) who have only heard of Habbo, and ended up at this article, because of its apparent targeting by trolls means that it's definitely notable, at least within a page dedicated to Habbo generally. I don't know why this article is getting special treatment, and I'm not one to ever defend trolling or other destructive behavior, but this whole thing stinks of suppression. -Kadin2048 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Citing sources: Those who have tried to include the "raids" fail to cite reliable sources. Others attempt it through vandalism.
  • Verifiability: Those sources cannot be verified.
  • Original research: Half of the stuff that's been inserted has pretty much been up-in-the-air.

Hope this helps. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that the "Habbo raids" contribute to this article. Yes, it did happen, but if you were to include the 4-chan raid then you'd have to include any future large-scale "attack", and I just don't feel that it's very worthwhile.

As per the verifiability of the great habbo raids, they have been left out of the article. But on June 7, 2007, there is going to be another raid on habbo hotel. Called "Ghai Raid 2007" it is going to be protecting the rights of same sex marriage. Five days later, on June 7, 2007, at 7:00 pm, there is going to be yet another raid for the same reasons as the first one, to protect the rights of black people on Habbo and fight racism. If anyone who has previously argued against putting up the first raid, I ask that you attend these and see for yourself that they are real.Kernel5 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me, but... just what ARE valid sources, then? "Pictures can be faked. Videos can be faked. Quotes can be faked. People can be impersonated." Then what the hell IS valid information? Is it not valid until YOU see it first hand? Since when does something become "valid" only if YOU see it?

I'm not here to troll or fight, I'm just saying, think; since when did these events have to be "officially validated by a moderator of ED" for it to be 'real'?

Attend the raid this year. Same day, same time, every year. If you refuse to even do that much, then that's just being ignorant.


Portal trolls.png

The Great Habbo Raid of July 2006/LOL is part of a series on

Trolls

Visit the Trolls Portal for complete coverage.

The Great Habbo Raid of July 2006/LOL is part of a series on the Habbo raids. [CollapseExpand]
The Great Habbo Raid of July 2006/LOL is part of a series on Chat Logs
[deletecopypasta]
Logs by Person

1guy1jar InterviewAlex WuoriBoxxyBravesgirl5ChibaQCrossmackCyndreDangerDanDJ SkeptikDjdlikesxboxDuke OtterlandJimbo WalesJohn FieldJuggaletteJennyKazantzakisLaurelaiLittleCloudMark FoleyMikevirusNeoSkype Con LeaksTablecowTyphonWerdna

Related Topics

Bash.orgGay.plGet on irc fgtIRCIrssiQuoteBucket.org