Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chuchunezumi (talk | contribs) at 04:57, 4 August 2006 (joining wikiproject:spam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

As Wikipedia grows in popularity the temptation to misuse its editability to bring attention to other websites becomes nearly unbearable. At one end of the spectrum are professional spammers seeking to drive traffic to commercial sites. At the other end are webmasters of simple community sites who just want to get more attention for their site. This potential for self-promotion on Wikipedia has got to be managed. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Wikipedia exists for the purpose of creating a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, not for any individual to promote a site that they have an interest in.

This problem is only going to get worse. As search engine optimization becomes more prevalent, many web site operators will seek to use Wikipedia to increase the number of inbound links to their sites. In order to combat link spam on Wikipedia, the process needs to become more streamlined.

Currently link spammers enjoy a lot of advantages from the lack of cohesion to the spam fighting process. It is possible to successfully sneak links into relatively unwatched articles. Such links may lie unexamined for months, gaining the appearance of legitimacy from having remained in the articles so long. When spam links are reverted, there is not much communication. Spammers can return and add links when different editors are watching who do not know their history of editing with an agenda. And spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them "on the merits" as if they had nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart.

I propose the creation of a voluntary link spam fighting brigade. Our purpose will be to develop standards and processes for recognizing, hunting down, and eliminating link spam, to streamline communication between those who want to watch over articles to prevent it, and to send a message by our actions and effectiveness that link spammers are fighting a war they cannot win.

If you would like to participate, I encourage you to sign in at the sign-up list near the bottom of this page. I encourage you to join in editing this page so we can grow toward consensus about the best way to fight link spam. And I encourage you to relate any of your own current ongoing efforts to fight link spam on the talk page so that in the immediate future we can be aware of users that are acting with an agenda to promote an external site.

edit 

To-do

The To-do list
Shortcut

Regular sources of spam-removal tasks

  • I've tried bringing this up on the Template_talk:ICD9 page for the Template:ICD9, but the powers that be seem intent on defending large-scale spamming by the company Alkaline Software, Inc., on the grounds that removing spam should not be done at all unless there is general Wikipedia consensus on the topic... Unfortunately, Alkaline Software has now put in place literally thousands of Wikipedia links pointing to its reflector (http://icd9data.com) for World Health Organization data. You can see how many other reflectors for ICD9 data are out there on the ICD page, which itself notes that it is need of a spam cleanup. ICD9 data are a magnet for spammers all over the world, because the World Health Organization provides the data free of restrictions. However, that does not make some software company's reflector site a useful contribution to thousands of Wikipedia pages. It would be great if someone out there with the clout to overcome the "oh no we have to protect the spam unless there is a consensus against it" stonewalling could change the ICD9 template to point to something authoritative, like the actual author, the World Health Organization (which is where the ICD10 template points).
The "actual author" doesn't have the ICD9 online. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much could be improved as some links there can be used as references, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think all the links on Ukranians are legitamate; most are for references for the "Regions with significant populations" section. (also: I apologize if the next item runs on the side of my signature)
Anon126|talk|contribs
06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sites that need investigating

Removed a few more today. -- Satori Son 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a decent site. I would keep these links if they are references or if they link to an article which is significantly better than Wikipedia's. Otherwise, we can delete them. These links shouldn't be deleted simply because they link to a competitor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this site uses Creative Commons, not the GFDL, so we can't simply put their articles on Wikipedia. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this is about several users who were systematically adding links to EoE, using WP as a promotional platform to this site. Bulk additions of links violate WP guidelines and adding links to a site where there is an affiliation is a conflict of interest. All links to EoE were not removed, just those added in the manner described above. The site has not been blacklisted; it is simply being watched to ensure the link spamming does not continue. Calltech 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this aggressively defensive policy really oversteps the mark, and that the use of the term spamming in this context is actually quite offensive. Adding relevant links to well-written external articles is a service to all WP readers. Surely there are far more important concerns than worrying about whether another decent, scholarly, non-commercial site gets some additional traffic from this one. And no, I don't have any connection whatsoever to the Encyclopedia of Earth. Although having now discovered it, I will be consulting it quite frequently from this point onwards. Rubywine 01:12, 16 May 2007
  • Dozens of extlinks to David Pietrusza's site which has linkdirs on various subjects. I've removed some of them but am not sure of the best way to handle this. Also I removed several dozen inappropriate links to dorothyparker.com mostly promoting "walking tours" of Dorothy Parker's old literary hangouts, that were in many articles related to Parker's literary circle. I left in a few which were outside article space or arguably met WP:EL guidelines, but the owner of that site (K72ndst (talk · contribs)) restored a bunch of them and there was a reversion contest (he's backed off for now), so someone might want to keep an eye on it (linksearch). Note that dorothyparker.com is not Parker's personal site (she is dead). The owner claims it's an "official" site but this strikes me as dubious--her entire estate went to the NAACP. I removed the link from Parker's biographical page and (after K72ndst reverted the removal) I removed it again and left K72ndst a talk message asking him to supply documentation before restoring the link. 67.117.130.181 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.emedicine.com seems to be popping up everywhere. The unobtrusive ads are not bad in and of themselves, but it fails WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1 in most articles it is linked from. -Selket Talk 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon.com. Yup, you read that right. There are literally thousands of links to amazon.com, almost all of which should not be there. either we should be using the ISBN syntax or they are links to book cover images, which are being used as references for trivial facts (which is original research). The major problem is that these links can be subverted with referral ids. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they shouldn't be here. But often not spam as much as people who have no idea how to write a citation and link to the amazon page for the book instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that amazon.com is spam. Amazon is not worse than imdb. Of course, it is better to use ISBN for many reasons, but amazon is not inherently evil. The very fact that there are thousands of them should speak for itself. Do you really think that amazon guyz sit there and push these links into wikipedia? On the contrary, thousands of wikipedians think these links are a Good Thing, and a couple of spam warriors hardly have rights to outvote the rest of us. And on the contrary, I find that links to amazon author search are quite useful in articles about authors, since I have to regretfully say that amazon beats wikipedia in terms of lists of publications: way more up-to-date and comprehensive. `'Míkka 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.wisegeek.com, 94 links. Possibly being added innocently in a lot of cases, but this appears just to be a keyword-spam site where random editors write unsourced articles about "What is X?" so that they can be plastered with Google ads, so would fail WP:EL and WP:RS in every case. --McGeddon 17:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users to check out

Not only that, he's doing the same thing in eS Cada (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Cada, where it has been shown that his additions are copyright violations! 68.39.174.238 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlists

Lists of popular articles:

These are also frequently vandalized.

Technology articles are often prone to spam, as are lists, both stand-alone and embedded.

Informal watchlists:

Archives

Standards

I propose the number one rule for link spam fighters be this code of honor: "I will never insert links to my own sites into Wikipedia's article space." While it may not be completely against Wikipedia policy to link to your own site in a relevant article, many of us who run websites are too committed to their success (however we define it) to adequately judge whether or not they belong in an article. Moreover, we are going to be reverting self-promotion links from other people, many of whom view the addition of their links as sincere attempts to service various communities. It will be easier to gain the respect of these people if we can say we have held ourselves to the highest standard possible on the subject.

Tag 'em to stop 'em

Suspicious edits automatically deserve a {{subst:spam1}} tag on the user's talk page, with spam or {{subst:spam1}} in the edit summary. This is important! First, to drive the message that spam is not welcome here, and second, to warn us of repeat offenders. If they come back months later there will be a record of their behavior. Placing the warning tag does not take much more effort than removing the spam itself, and can really help the effort to prevent the spam from returning. Successive violations of the spam policy can be met with {{subst:spam2}} and then {{subst:spam3}} on the user's page. If a violation occurs after the third warning, you should report the offending user at the Administrator intervention against vandalism page.

How to identify spam and spammers

  1. User is anonymous (an IP address)
  2. User:page and/or User_talk:page are red links
  3. No edit summary (other than, perhaps /* External links */)
  4. User has made only one edit, which consisted of inserting a link
  5. User has made multiple edits to related articles
  6. The majority of user's edits are to external links sections
  7. The link is a site that has Google/Yahoo ads (AdSense/SM).
  8. Edits are marked "minor"
  9. Link is trying to sell a product or service. You can use Microsoft's Detecting Online Commercial Intention Tool to help you with the determination.
  10. User adds links to the top of a section, above far more relevant sites
  11. User replaces an existing link or part of an existing link.
  12. The syntax of the added link does not match the syntax used in the rest of the list
  13. User adds links to inappropriate sections of articles ("References", "See also", "For more information")
  14. User adds links that have been previously removed, without discussing on the talk page.
  15. Following a link takes you to a site that does not mention the specific topic of the page containing the link.
  16. Link is unrelated, or only marginally related to the article. For example, link on a biography to a specific page on a genealogy site describing the person's genealogy, but not the person.
  17. User adds links to other Wikipedia articles where he/she has already placed spam links.
  18. User includes within the link description, "hosted on example.com" with a separate link to example.com.
  19. Link is mangled. The spammer may be new to Wikipedia and not be familiar with Wikipedia syntax for external links.
  20. Text of the link goes beyond describing the contents to actively encouraging you to read it. For example, including text such as, "Read more about [subject] in [this fascinating article]"

Common spammer strawmen

Spammers will offer arguments like the following. These are strawman arguments, for the reasons listed.

  • "But you have links to commercial sites in the list."
    • Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not about commercial sites at all. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not.
  • "But you have links to other sites that people have added for self-promotion."
    • Those need to go, too. The fact that we haven't gotten around to it, yet, does not mean that we have some obligation to have your site.
  • "But you have a link to site Y, and my site is just like that."
    • We don't need to link to every site in existence that meets a certain criteria. Sometimes we just need one site representative of a category. (See also the comments about linking to web directories instead, so that Wikipedia does not become a web directory.)
  • "But these links have been here for a long time."
    • There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed your spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep it in.
  • "My link is very unique."
    • It is more likely that the link they have added has no more information than the Wikipedia article itself.

Assuming good faith

Assuming good faith is an important guideline of Wikipedia, but it is not an ironclad policy. Link spamming behavior fits a definite profile. When editors meet this profile, they are engaging in activity which is detrimental to Wikipedia, no matter how sincere they may have been in their edits. We should develop responses to those who engage in this behavior which encourage them to reform into productive Wikipedians, but we should waste no time in protecting Wikipedia from the damaging behavior through reverts and blocks where necessary.

What several editors in some articles do is go in every few days and remove any undiscussed external links. Call it quick and easy "house cleaning." To encourage sincere links, they leave this edit summary:

Regular clean-out of undiscussed links. Please come to Talk page if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly.

One could easily start this strategy in any article by adding {{subst:Discuss links here}} to its talk page. The plan is to discourage people whose sole intention is self-promotion.

Also, add commented-out warnings to the External links section of the articles, themselves:

<!-- ATTENTION! Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed. -->

For this purpose the Template:NoMoreLinks has been created.

The strategy is used in the following articles:

This strategy is also helpful to deal with POV and conspiracy links:

What to do with linkfarms

The Campaign

We would want a concerted viral marketing strategy involving

and a dash of mentions in help pages, FAQs and fixup templates.

Guidelines and policies

Templates

These templates should be substituted ({{subst:Spam}}, etc) as per WP:SUBST. I checked, and three templates already exist for addressing link spam, but I do not know how often they are used, and I don't know if there are any standards, conventions, or recommendations for their use. Also, the second and third templates currently imply all link spam is commercial. We need to talk about how to modify these to be as effective in their message as possible (if we can encourage someone to become a real Wikipedian, we want to), to reflect the fact that promoting a non-commercial site is still link spam, and to develop standard procedures for their use.

The templates are: {{subst:Spam}} (also named {{subst:Spam1}}, which is a redirect) {{subst:Spam2}} and {{subst:Spam3}}

I have recently modified these templates to further emphasize the fact that promoting a site, whether commercial or not, is spam. Noone seems to have complained.

{{Cleanup-spam}}

{{Cleanup-spam}}, which I began, might be useful. See Wikipedia:Spam for more details. -- Perfecto 04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:WPSPAM-invite}}

Saw someone revert or remove linkspam? Invite the comrade here with {{subst:WPSPAM-invite}} placed on their User talk page. -- Perfecto 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardised edit summary

HorsePunchKid suggests a standardised edit summary to raise awareness both of the problem and this particular effort:

Removed link spam. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|NOT]] a link directory. Join [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam]] to help!

Perfecto uses the following:

Removed [[WP:EL|external link]] [[WP:SPAM|spam]]. ([[WP:WPSPAM|you can help!]])

--Aude suggests:

Removed [[WP:EL|external link]] added by [[User talk:69.159.82.252|69.159.82.252]]. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|NOT]] a link directory. ([[WP:WPSPAM||WikiProject Spam]])
Substitute the ip address/user name as appropriate.

TheJabberwʘck suggests (for users of popups):

Reverted [[WP:EL|external link]] addition by [[Special:Contributions/<user>|<user>]] to version %s, using [[:en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups|popups]]. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|NOT]] a link directory. ([[WP:WPSPAM|you can help!]])

These edit summaries help drive a concerted viral marketing strategy.

Userbox

Quaque created this userbox for us:

This user participates in WikiProject Spam.
{{User WikiProject Spam}}

Participants may just add this to their userpage instead of signing up below. This is how it's also done in Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit.

Meanwhile, TheJabberwʘck created this userbox, which is modeled on one used by Dalbury:

This user participates in WikiProject Spam.
{{User WikiProject Spam 2}}

Tools

  • Special:Linksearch - find all external links to a particular site, useful when a spam link is added by many different IP addresses or accounts.
  • To combat repeat offenders, you may request to have links added to the sitewide spam blacklist.

Participants

  1. Urthogie 03:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jdavidb
  3. JFW | T@lk
  4. PhilipO - count me in. Linkspam is a serious issue. Wiki is not a link farm. --PhilipO 23:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  5. TangentIdea - Sure, I'll watch for it in my travels.
  6. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) I've fought over IP address for a while, and I'd like to help, also.
  7. GraemeL (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --fvw* 20:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A bit iffy Excellent idea, Jdavidb. I very willing to help with this.
  10. Idont Havaname 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC) I've been finding and reverting linkspam - probably several hundred instances of it now - during the last several months. It seems to be the kind of vandalism that really goes unnoticed for the most part, and it's time we start enforcing policies against it.[reply]
  11.  Perfecto 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC): Amateur linkspam fighter here. I began Template:Cleanup-spam and people have begun using it. I even see anon ips removing linkspam because of it <wink>. I like GraemeL's Watchlist idea.[reply]
  12. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 05:15:02Z Great! I've been fighting spam ever since I registered; pages like Automobile are particularly susceptible. Nice template, Perfecto; I'll have to remember that!
  13. ∴ here…♠ Just cut 23 links from Electronic music, plenty more to go.
  14. --Aude 01:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) - I'm in, though have also started a similar effort at WikiProject External links (perhaps join these two efforts? see this talk page and comment).[reply]
  15. Cheesejoff 19:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC) I volunteer to help fight the spam![reply]
  16. User:JiFish - Why did I not know about this project?
  17. Quaque - Lots of spam attempts out there.
  18. Just zis Guy, you know? - an excellent idea, count me in.
  19. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Dominick (TALK) I have been doing this anyway, might as well have some folk to commiserate with...
  21. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC) glad to able to help.[reply]
  22. Tεxτurε
  23. Sure, I'll play. Malachias111 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Shanel - The perfect compliment to the CVU. :p
  25. ike9898 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Paleorthid 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) - Using Perfecto's template (thank you!) on Crime prevention through environmental design[reply]
  27. Kevin 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC) - Fighting wikispammers turns me on.[reply]
  28. D-Day 21:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC) I'm not a huge deletionist, but I'll try to help.[reply]
  29. Aapo Laitinen 13:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Cool, already doing it anyway. Tufflaw 07:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Mrtea (talk) - I hate linkspam, count me in.
  32. Ohnoitsjamie I'm in.
  33. nixie 16:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Links that are less informative than the page they appear on should be removed on site![reply]
  34. Dalbury(Talk) 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Why not? I've already go articles on my watchlist solely because I back-tracked link-spamers to them.[reply]
  35. Deathphoenix 03:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I love SPAM, but I hate spam.[reply]
  36. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) just reverted corvette article
  37. Randal L. Schwartz 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC) saying thanks for the cleanup-spam template... I've got a few things on my watchlist to which this is getting added![reply]
  38. Quarl (talk)
  39. Sleepyhead (|talk)
  40. --Khalid hassani 14:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Trying to keep WP the interesting place it is, trying to help so that it won't be transformed into a commercial playground.[reply]
  41. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC) As often as I revert this stuff, you'd think I'd have heard of this project before now. =)[reply]
  42. No Guru - Great idea. Will keep my eyes open for spammers.
  43. tregoweth - I've been cleaning spam out for a while now; might as well be slightly official... :) 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Sean (talk || contribs)
  45. DrCash - I hate spam.
  46. Heah talk - I too hate spam.
  47. Ianb I hate hotel spam. And wow, it's an honor to be on the same list as Randal L. Schwartz.
  48. Peter McGinley. An important project on Wikipedia which I simply must be a part of.
  49. --NaconKantari 03:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Winter 21:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Robin Patterson 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC) - I have a spam patrol list on some of my userpages: the "Recent changes" pages of a wiktionary, a wikibooks, and nine wikicities. Most days I find something. I give linkspammers "1 year" in the cooler, though I see the official blocking guideline maximum is one month.[reply]
  52. Alan Au 08:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Archer7 17:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Nothing against web advertising, but Wikipedia is not the place for it.[reply]
  54. Pattersonc 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Liamcb 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) i just hate spam![reply]
  56. Mostlyharmless 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC) advertising is bad; on wikipedia it's terrible![reply]
  57. Dracion 16:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) i hate spam, especially on something as easily hacked as wikipedia! I will destroy it by, er...eating it![reply]
  58. Avi 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC) -- Spam is not kosher ;-)[reply]
  59. Caravaca 07:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Vargher 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. *drew 10:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. ccwaters 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Monkeyman 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Spamtastic![reply]
  64. Pjacobi 13:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) -- IMHO en: is weak in anti-SPAM policy (compared to de:)[reply]
    By all means, please share any proposals from de which have worked! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 03:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Trysha 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC) - I have been looking for this.[reply]
  66. --Archstanton 20:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC) - Count me in, and please keep an eye out for a couple of persistent link spammers at Selby. Thanks.[reply]
  67. --65.110.157.216 02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Barrylb 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Jehochman 04:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Not that I join Wikiprojects much, but I already revert quite a lot of spam - Solipsist 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Anca 19:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Jordanhatch I'm strongly against it - they should spam elsewhere.
  75. TheJabberwock 02:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - The fact that this much discussion happened about one user's possible linkspam is a strong indication that the process is flawed.[reply]
  76. FeldBum Trying to do my best to help.
  77. Straif I found myself cleaning up vandalism, and then some linkspam caught my eye...
  78. Epl18 I'm reading the stuff anyway, and I need some practice.
  79. theKeith - SPAM, you've got to love it... on toast.
  80. Seriocomic 12:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Nelson50 - I've removed some spam, guess I'd better learn to do it properly.
  82. Orangutan - I'll play too! Warned off a driving school that was spamming. They stopped, so warnings do work on occasion.
  83. ThomasTechnologies - I'm always game to stop a few spammers when I can.
  84. Loren 01:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Excellent, I look forward to pitching in.[reply]
  85. General Eisenhower I joined this project for my community service.
  86. Feezo (Talk) Don't forget to use the talk page to ask for second opinions and backup when dealing with spammers.
  87. --AbsolutDan (talk) SPAM is good food. Spam is poison. I am... home.
  88. Nnp 09:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. graham87
  90. Spamlart - I've helped anonymously for a while to clean up link spam, I love seeing commercial companys listing their own products. Have already came across other peoples hard work for e.g GraemeL (talk) and thought I'd chip in
  91. Deli nk 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Ray-Ray
  93. Pollinator - Been fighting linkspam for quite awhile
  94. Xinit 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Paleorthid 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Dcflyer 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Lewispb 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. BJK 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Been doing this for awhile now but it's nice to have something formal like.[reply]
  99. Alias Flood - Been fighting vandalism and spam for some time now.
  100. Gregorof - New at all this. Hate spam, want to help. 02:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Pascal.Tesson 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC) -- Count me in.[reply]
  102. Nandesuka 15:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC) I'm here. And I'm going to be creating a Wikiproject for a similar-but-different need soon.[reply]
  103. Zagsa 02:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Great idea, I'm in.[reply]
  104. --SaNdY 03:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I'll be glad to join![reply]
  105. Kevin_b_er 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Great project. Need to cut down on the spam.[reply]
  106. Xyrael 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Brian 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  108. Baseball,Baby! take a swing 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC) - I reverted two entire pages of spam today on RC patrol - it has to stop.[reply]
  109. Oldelpaso 08:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Andeh 09:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC). Just removed the same spam link from 50+ articles, sigh..[reply]
  111. --Cleanupman 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) What the name implies cleaning up spam[reply]
  112. --Hyerim8807 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Spammers need to be stopped! go wikipedia spam zappers![reply]
  113. Picaroon9288. Just noticed this project. Having had to do this [2] a couple of hours ago, I'm in.
  114. --A. B. 23:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC) count me in.[reply]
  115. Argon233 T C @ ∉  23:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC) -- I've removing spam long enough that it's just silly not to sign this.[reply]
  116. GrandTeton Bye Bye Spam.
  117. Sergio Ballestrero 14:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Howard the Duck
  119. --Chuchunezumi 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I look forward to learning more about keeping Wikipedia spam-free. Cheers![reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=67580096"