Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Universe Daily: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:38, 29 September 2008

This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, coherent vandalism and hoaxes (G3), coherent material not written in English, badly translated material, etc. This criterion also does not apply to pages in the user namespace. See CSD G1.

If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:

{{subst:Db-nonsense-notice|Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Universe Daily|header=1}} ~~~~

on the talk page of the author.

Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Wildwikiwookie (contribs | logs) at 06:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (15 years ago)[reply]

This page was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep due to a withdrawn nomination.

This page

As far as I understand, this is a single user. He is actively spam wikipedia, currently, with links that are now redirects to real webpages. Removal of his spam links could be questioned(as they appear almost legitimate unless you check the source). Please do not speedy this page under WP:DENY, as keeping track of his spam links is rather important to block his occasional sockpuppetry. Thanks. Kevin_b_er 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it before it happens.

I found this very helpful in dealing with persistant linkspammers. Agathoclea 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other sites attacked

Here are some other sites that were apparently victims of the same spammer. If anyone knows of others, please add to the list. -- Wmahan . 08:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting personal information

I'm not sure I agree with the recent posting of the spammer's name and contact information. Wikipedia:Harassment says, "Posting another person's personal information...is harassment.... This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor."

I don't want to make a big deal about this, and I realize that the spammer/vandal has gone out of his way to disrupt Wikipedia. But posting personal information seems unprofessional no matter what he has done to deserve it, and I don't see what it can accomplish aside from possibly provoking him further. Wmahan . 08:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that eventually, this may escalate to the point where we may need to contact the authorities if Wayne threatens physical harm towards any of our Australian editors. Or someone might get sick enough of him one day to write letters informing all the people whose domains he's squatting. I'd rather have his publicly available contact details accessible when the time comes in case he decides to obscure his WHOIS contact details in future. Anyway, Wayne has no qualms about publicly proclaiming "My interests include...Vandalising Wikipedia" on his MySpace profile, so I doubt he'd feel harassed by this long term abuse report. -- Netsnipe ► 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phone number is clearly fake - it doesn't even fit the correct format for an Australian phone number. U-238 05:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for abuse

I took the liberty of contacting this spammer's domain registrar/DNS/forwarding company about a week ago. They said they would investigate and asked for more information, and I replied with some links to diffs showing the spam.

I haven't heard from the company since then, and I haven't pursued the issue in the hope that the problem would resolve itself without the need for further escalation.

But if the spam continues, this is a route to consider. Another possibility is contacting proboards.com, which hosts the site the spam domains redirect to. Spamming may be against their Terms of Service agreement. I still hope that the spam will stop without us needing to take such steps, though. Wmahan . 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Though I suspect that he'll just change registar if suspended with DomainSite.com. The best we can do is make it as costly as possible for him to continue buying new domains. -- Netsnipe ► 14:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY!!!

Now who up and protected this page about 16 days after the last vandalization?! Now that's annoying! 68.39.174.238 13:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Smith in the news

In the Sydney Morning Herald: Unauthorised Bindi site 'not unethical'. The article mentions also mentions philipruddock dot com and amandavanstone dot com as being registered by him. Andjam 17:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also mentions that he signed his flagship domain bindiirwin.com over to the family of Steve Irwin. That's good news both from an anti-spam perspective, and from the perspective that it's really sleazy to take advantage of the death of an 8-year-old girl's father. ―Wmahan . 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All his sites redirected back to pre-bindiirwin states too. It just shows moreso that he's a spammer, tried and true. Kevin_b_er 22:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love this little gem: "On other websites, such as Wikipedia and several science and space-based sites, user names linked to a Wayne Smith have been banned for cyber-vandalism and inappropriate comments." [1]. = ) -- Netsnipe ► 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that they wrote about him, I wonder if he'll send the Sydney Morning Herald as much hate mail as he sends us (750+ messages for me so far). Evil Zionist Scumbag 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2000+ for me before the flood filters got him, just before this page was set up. Kevin_b_er 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"banned for cyber-vandalism" indeed! THAT was something I'd never think I'd see in any mainstream/legit publication. Next thing I know they'll be citing arbitration cases! (Anyway, good to see he's not getting away easily with his noxious spams) 68.39.174.238 09:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is his response to the bindiirwin.com incident http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=603051&p=2#r37

Wayne Smith?

Why do you implicitily assume, Wayne Smith is the real name of the guy. WHOIS rarely provides such specific information as to identify the user. For example, this Smith could be just a representative of an ISP firm and had nothing to do with this. Until someone can convincingly prove Wayne Smith is truly the guy in question, I strongly suggest any references to his identity to be removed. Raja Lon Flattery 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His identity was confirmed by the Sydney Morning Herald, his own MySpace profile, and headers on abusive emails and instant messages. -- Netsnipe ► 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. He makes no effort to hide it. He sends the filthiest hate-mail directly from his admin account on his main web address. Antandrus (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mailbomb

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7518 If they ever fix it. Anomo 12:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{db-nonsense}}
 {{Oldmfd|date=17 December 2006|result='''keep''' due to a withdrawn nomination|page= Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily}}
 == This page ==