Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Beckwitt

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The discussion has been relisted but there is adequate participation and no new information being added at this point. Many of the arguments to keep appear to have a common and classic misunderstandings of WP:BLP1E. Substantiated arguments for general notability outside the modestly covered single crime never materialized, leaving only weak and vague claims. Weighing the arguments with this in mind, I find a clear consensus to delete. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 03:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Beckwitt

[edit]
Daniel Beckwitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable persons with no real claim to notability. Extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources not found. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not believe that this relates to whether this article should be deleted. Uberaccount (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the fact that he is relatively unimportant (his notoriety is very limited) the article has no other citations than the Daily Illini and the News-Gazette, neither of which provide evidence for the material in the article. Case in point, the article claims that the person in question is "known for presenting work on digital currency, anti-computer forensics and signals intelligence at computer security conferences including DEF CON, Shmoocon and Skytalks" while the linked reference (http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/article_1a22475e-66ab-11e2-b767-0019bb30f31a.html) has none of that information. Therefore, deletion is the proper course of action unless better sources are provided. Chimpfunkz (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed that the article is poorly sourced, but DEF CON is a major security conference, and speaking at it confers a degree of notability in and of itself. Article should be kept if better sourcing on security research can be found. Lampscooter (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)— Lampscooter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FYI, I have added sources showing a "Skunkworks" (reported as Beckwitt's handle by the Daily Illini) delivered conference presentations at DEFCON 19 and Shmoocon 2012, but I cannot find anything on Skytalks. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how adding <NAME DELETED> relates to anything, besides being another current cause celeb pariah of UIUC. Comparing unpopular hackers and unpopular <JOB OF NAME DELETED> is a bit like comparing kumquats and sofas to solve a mechanics equation. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with 98.215.9.100 - there seems to be some notablity, and I believe that this falls under WP:CRIME. Regarding the comment by User:Chimpfunkz, I agree that said information is irrelevant and not noteworthy, but I believe that the other information in the article merits keeping, although shortening. Uberaccount (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Uberaccount, I wait to see how BLP 1E does not apply here, thereby undermining the some notability it has based only on that event. If there are other reasons why he can be considered notable, I'm willing to listen to it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would humbly disagree with Uberaccount. Under WP:CRIME, Criminals are only considered notable is, and "I quote, The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities." OR "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Neither of these criteria are fulfilled. Therefore, this page should be deleted Chimpfunkz (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chimpfunkz, you are supposed to add a Delete/Keep statement only once. The rest are all marked as "comments"/or are unmarked. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chimpfunkz, you seem to be misinterpreting the OR clauses in WP:CRIME. Otherwise articles like Ole Christian Bach and Yves Chaudron shouldn't exist.98.215.9.100 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both those articles have been tagged for deletion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's irrelevant but noteworthy that there was an off-wiki canvass attempt for this AfD. I believe it should not interfere with this AfD in any way though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly obvious that 2620:0:E00:400E:3DEE:3E92:36CB:F588 and HanchoBonsa are related to said off-site canvass attempt. Especially the former's totally irrelevant comments. The discussion on deletion should focus strictly on the notability and not the popularity of the subject, lest articles like James Eagan Holmes get deleted.98.215.9.100 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it interesting to not that the canvass attempt was to save the article, not get it deleted. Once again, I hope these above statements be judged on their inherent validity of the statements only. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was clearly a case of Reverse Psychology at play. The subject of the article is alleged to have posted in that subreddit bragging about his crimes, and enjoys very low popularity as such. Several members of said subreddit are also quite angry that the subject faced no jail time over crimes. It is fairly clear the idea was actually to try and get it deleted, without regard to notability. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how you can be so sure of what you claim. Once again, this fact of canvassing is irrelevant to the discussion (or all discussions could be bypassed by making such open canvass). Also, given how reddit works, a direct psychology work would have been much more likely to work, and lead to much more people giving their opinions here. Signing late TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is very unpopular on that subreddit, the post currently has 1 upvote to 13 downvotes, and way made by a throwaway. Seems like fairly conclusive proof of successful reverse psychology at play. Had it been posted to a different subreddit where the subject was not well known, by an established account, direct psychology would have fit occam's razor here. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth taking note that an IP address from the same subnet as this user appears to have subtly vandalized the page. The odds of that being a coincidence are around 1 in 16,777,216, and I think this should be noted. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt. This reminds you of John Bambenek another non-notable internet troll who had to be banned repeatedly over the course of 3 years and he STILL shows up to canvass for his page. All the more reason to delete this page and investigate all the keep votes as sockpuppets or this non-sense will never end. The only think notable her, like with Bambi is an ego notable for its breathtaking size. 98.212.128.191 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think the subject might be notable under WP:CRIME, but not a slam dunk. I think there is a lot of sockpuppeting from both sides here. It is quite funny how the user above me chose to make a few minor edits to appear to be less of a sockpuppet.107.204.46.96 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)— 107.204.46.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak Keep per above. Interestingly enough all those edits were removing info on John Bambenek from relevant pages such as the 2012 election results. 98.212.134.208 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I argue this article falls under WP:CRIME, and does not fall under WP:BLP1E for the following reasons:
  • The subject had some prior notability as a computer security researcher, but perhaps not enough to warrant an article alone I think this excludes from BLP:1E, but this is a judgment call. He was certainly not as notable as Dan Kaminsky, but speaking at DEFCON is highly relevant.
  • The nature of the subject's crime is very unusual. Computer hacking incidents are rare, incidents against Universities are rarer, and incidents of said type without any involvement of grade modification or financial motivation are the rarest. UIUC had another hacking incident in 2012 involving hacking for financial gain that falls under a run-of-the-mill computer crime. The ECE hacker incidents on the other hand stretched over months involving an FBI investigation, had no known motive and paralleled the rare modus operandi of security actors like LulzSec.
  • The nature of the subject's crimes are extremely unusual given the subject's research. The only similar case of a white hat hacker turned black hat hacker is Max Butler. A case of the reverse would be Kevin Mitnick.
  • It is understandable why public sentiment may be strongly against having an article for the subject, as his crimes may have revolved heavily around attention seeking. Public support for his ultimate arrest was very high. And cleaning up the incidents involved a lot of manpower. Given all the animosity, I suspect there is strong WP:COI in many user's reasons for wanting this article deleted, namely as a punitive measure against the subject's perceived attention seeking behavior. I don't see how this is relevant to notability. Ted Bundy has an article, and he is certainly not going to win any popularity contests.
Leitz31337 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin - Please note the large number of accounts that are making statements not covered by policy here. Also, many of them, I suspect have some COI, which would explain their vote on this topic (when they're not making contributions elsewhere). [Note I'm saying this for both the keep and the defence sides] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete* "The ECE hacker incidents on the other hand stretched over months involving an FBI investigation" This is not true. I am an administrator for the ECE department and I can confirm that this case only involved local law enforcement. The FBI was never involved. Whoever says otherwise is not telling the truth. Also, Leitz31337 is a known alias of Daniel Beckwitt and I would argue that this is another canvasing attempt by this individual to promote himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.169.20 (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — 50.96.169.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm sorry, but you seem to have no idea what you are talking about. I highly doubt you are an "administrator" of the ECE department, and if you are, you are clearly violating WP:COI. I've personally talked with John Bambenek about this case (who was ironically hired as a defense expert witness before Beckwitt pled guilty), and I can confirm the FBI led the investigation after four covert hardware keyloggers were discovered inside keyboards in Everitt lab. You are only correct insofar as local law enforcement (specifically Carter and Geis at UIPD) led the investigation until after the keyloggers were discovered in early January. As to Leitz31337 being Beckwitt, this is highly plausible as he apparently has some form of fixation with the number 1337.107.204.46.96 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As I said in my original PROD of the article, fails notability. No real availability of sources in Google News, Google Books, the Chicago Tribune, the Daily Herald, the Rockford Register Star, TROVE or Newsbank. If sources can be found to prove notability or a claim could be made that the subject is notable under some other guidelines (like WP:NSPORTS or WP:ACADEMIC), then that case needs to be made clear in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think WP:BATTLEGROUND was violated here a long time ago. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You state "WP:CRIME does not apply", although do not provide a logical explanation beyond "He picked a lock and used a keylogger. He isn't the uberhacker", and then proceed to talk about John Bambenek. I don't really follow how any of this relates to notability. Leitz31337 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRIME states -
  • The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure - Not true in this case.
  • The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
We see no indication of documentation for this event, nor any unusual motivation save the comments on this page that it is. Unusual is when anonymous hacks to find the online bullies of the girl who committed suicide (I forget exactly what the story was), not when a college student hacks his university campus computers. This is sufficient indication that WP:CRIME does not apply, and hence the article should be deleted. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • information Administrator note I have removed several trolling/personal attack/WP:BLP !votes that are obviously made to disrupt this AfD. Such !votes will not be tolerated. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: As noted above, I have removed several trolling !votes and have revdel'ed the more egregious BLP-violating votes. The closing admin is welcome to review my removal and revision deletion of these !votes. Due to the excessive amount of trolling, I have also semi-protected this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any national or international RS on this story. Can't find anything new about this crime. DEFCON is notable, but subject wasn't notable AT IT. Not going as far as a SALT rec., but to an outsider a lot of this chatter looks like sock-trolls at a yarn convention so I wouldn't argue against it. EBY (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the freaking earth with fire and storm: Oh for pity's sake. Fails BLP1E, fails CRIME, fails WP:GEOSCOPE. A nonentity hacking a university's computer system? Someone who barely makes the local newspaper? This ought to be a slam dunk. Let's have a brief replay of the key element of WP:CRIME for the sockpuppet horde: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (Emphasis mine.) The definition of "historic significance," explicitly, is in ongoing major news coverage. A handful of articles in the student newspaper does not remotely cut it.

    And by the bye, once you get past the SPAs, there's only a single Keep vote beside the article creator's, amidst a small horde of Delete votes. It's starting to look a lot like Christmas ... Ravenswing 02:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. This Afd has hung on long enough. --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UnrepentantTaco (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete and Scorch First off, this is a renewed "Delete" because of not only an (apparently) new AofD, but also because of new and more relevant information. This article needs to be deleted once and for all. As per WP:BLP1E, Reliable sources only exist in the context of this one event (The ECE Hacker story). Outside of this, there is no evidence to any of the claims in the article. Second, he is unlikely to do anything else noteworthy. This is an important point, since the only claim to notability so far has been the ECE case. If this proves to be false in the future, then the debate can be reopened. As to the third point, whether or not the event was significant or has significance, this seems to be a different case. A simple google search reveals that the phrase "ECE Hacker" has more than 600,000 hits, with the entire first page being relevant to the search term (all the articles refer to the incident in question). However, searching Daniel Deckwitt only comes up with 37,500 hits, far less than the incident search. In addition, most of the hits refer to him as a person (facebook profile, mugshot, comments on websites) meaning that while the event MIGHT be considered important, the article's subject certainly is not. Therefore, this page should be deleted. At the very least, this page should be deleted, and a new article about the INCIDENT, the ECE hacking incident, should be made, with the subject of this article as well as this article itself being redirected to the new page on the incident. In addition, as previously mentioned, this definitely does not fall under WP:CRIME. In response to IP:98.215.9.100 (who shall be addressed later),Ole Christian Bach and Yves Chaudron exist because their crimes were noteworthy on more than a local scale. Ole stole and tried to sell a painting by Edward Munch, a well known painter, while the other aided in the theft of the Mona Lisa, one of the most well know (if not the single most) paintings in the world. Chimpfunkz (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not "new", just reslisted - no need to !vote again. Stalwart111 01:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Noted and thanks :) Chimpfunkz (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took the time to review some of the newer sources provided, and have found that there is no evidence to him speaking at DEFCON 19 (his name as noted is not listed as a speaker) not at Schmoocon 2012 (the same thing was done). The third link, supposed eveidence to the subject being a phonephreaker, is dead and therefore should not be considered a source. It also seems that there is a tangible amount of biased editing going on concerning this page, since I have found that on the page List of computer criminals, a new entry adding the subject of this debate, Daniel Beckwitt, was added. A simple conparison of his alleged 'notable crime' to others listed on the page shows how little significance and notability this incident had in comparison to others listed, some of whom do NOT have a page. This addition was made by IP:122.169.81.51, with further additions/corrections made by IP:98.215.9.100 who has made many corrections/rebuttals on this subject. This would indicate a clear CoI on behalf of IP:98.215.9.100, and it is my opinion that any debate made by him should be disregarded as biased. I will be deleting and correcting the article in question (Daniel Debkwitt) as well as the other article mentioned (List of computer criminals) as well as be trying to petition a ban on the IP:98.215.9.100 for a period of time. Chimpfunkz (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This subject is interesting, but "interesting" is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:CRIME does not provide any support for this article's inclusion, and the subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Taroaldo ✉ 21:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Lack of substantial and persistent coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:BLP1E applies. Suspect that the high number of SPAs among the keep votes indicates sockpuppetry, and suspect that the sockmaster will try to recreate this article. Salting is advisable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I commented on the Yves Chaudron AFD and the nominator there, quite sensibly, withdrew it. I suggested, in my discussion with him, that this should probably be deleted and I remain of that opinion, though I am probably in the same place as Taroaldo in that sense. And yes, given the sock-spam here, salting might be a good idea. Stalwart111 01:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - under BLP=1E. This is a classic case of that, actually — easy call. Carrite (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Beckwitt&oldid=1137761721"