JoeSmack (talk·contribs) - interest in anti-vandalism and have a specialization in linkspam reverting
John Broughton (talk·contribs) - believe that Wikipedia policies and practices should be based at least partly on hard data, not just people's opinions
AJackl (talk·contribs) - interested in the balance between subjectivity and objectivity and fact, and communities enforcing good faith edits in Wikipedia.
JackSparrow Ninja(talk·contribs·count) - interest in anti-vandalism, and has a talent in telling intentional vandalism from good faith or test edits.
Jayron32 (talk·contribs) - Interested in fighting vandalism, but also interested in maintaining the Good Faith that most unregistered users are still interested in improving Wikipedia.
Steve Crossin(talk·contribs·count) - Specifically interested in reforming the "zero tolerance" policy that is starting to be implemented by RC patrollers, and to educate editors as to what is an acceptable way to deal with vandalism. Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard0612(talk·contribs·count) - I fight vandalism [when I can] and have been toying with the idea of starting my own study for a while.
Elvey(talk·contribs·count) Was just updating my user page's soapbox comment on vandalism. Also, I'm familiar with a bunch of anti-email abuse research. E.g. IBM presented a study at a Stanford anti-spam research conference that found that assigning reputation to /24 IP ranges was a fast, efficient, effective way to identify abuse - about as good as other methods. Is anyone pointing/customizing SpamAssassin to score user edits? That seems like a good direction to go in, as email defenses are probably the most sophisticated anti-abuse systems around. Seems like this project needs CPR... --Elvey(talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
