On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:That has been my thought as well, for particularly obstreperous editors and not just admins. Those who manage despite various warning and blocks to hang on and wreak their havoc editing and behavior wise. (Not to mention suspected registered sock puppets!)
Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at liberty to use a pseudonymous user name.
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles (as indeed it is today).
Andreas
Once they realize that if they really start acting up they will have to have to be vetted as a real person, one honestly trying to contribute, they might think twice about whether they want to "keep it up" - whatever it is.
Of course, you'd probably have to hire a couple people just to decide who gets to contact their user page and tell them "call the office" and why...
As a person with a strong POV on some topics I tell others with strong POVs to try to get into the "Wikipedia first" head, which makes it easier to edit in light of policy and to step back when you know your POV is getting out of control.
This sort of thing might help with that...
carol in dc
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap