So your suggestion is that to prevent abuse, we only require abusers to identify with the Foundation? Otherwise we....what, exactly?
A phrase involving the illegalising of catapults and the subsequent shift in owner demographics comes to mind, here. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Carol Moore DC <carolmoor...@verizon.net>wrote: > On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> >> 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 >> >> > 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!) > > 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<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap> >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
