Wikipedia talk:The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal

message: In extreme Arbcom cases, I can imagine where editing only by verified real name accounts would be useful. How about a quick email verification for anonymous accounts instead? It is common on lots of sites these days. I think people have come to expect and accept that. Just a simple email verification would probably cut down on a large number of anonymous vandels yet still make it easy enough for new authors to post comments and new information. Jeff Carr 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That does not as possibly compromising of safety. Michael 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only require a valid email 

message: I also use my real name (my last name takes a bit of digging, but little more than looking on the mailing list archives..., or googling).  I think encouraging people using psudonyms to use "plausible" ones is a terrible idea - confusing people about whether or not someone is using their real name is not helpful in any way, as far as I can see.  This proposal could be done, in a clumsy way, right now - I presume that Amazon accounts will let you provide a "Home page" - just link to your Wikipedia userpage there, and put a link back on the userpage (while logged in) and that associates the two together as being by the same person.  And if the Amazon account has a real name attached, that's associated too. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not everybody has or wants an amazon account, the only people that will do this are already using their real name anyway. Gnangarra 17:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The advantage of confusing people about whether or not someone is using their real name is that it will discourage nogoodniks from seeing someone's name and deciding to hassle them in real life. My angle on a "use real names" policy is that its main goal is basically the same as an office requiring its workers to come to work in a business suit, or at least dressed business casual rather than in cutoffs and a t-shirt. It is conducive to a more responsible atmosphere. New users will see that everyone is using "real names" and will tend, therefore, to use their own real names. In order to have this effect, it doesn't really matter if my name is really Nat Krause—it's just a question of the impression that I'm giving. Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea 

message: *I don't understand how you get past the incident of extreme harrassment through the wikipedia as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#User:Gator1. --A Y Arktos\talk 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several ways of looking at this. Anyone whose name appears in public is susceptible to harassment. It's necessary to make a decision about how much you will compromise your normal behaviour in order to avoid problems like that. In most spheres of life, people are happy to have their names attached to their work, rather than trying to hide. Maybe Wikipedia is intractably different. Personally, I have no plans to become an admin, nor to edit Wikipedia from work. That reduces my concerns about harassment. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not this is enough of a risk to require a pseudonym; currently the section on "real names" in Wikipedia:Username warns about possible harassment, just as it should. In addition, I believe that Wikimedia should take vigourous legal action against anyone who harasses editors outside of the wiki (Wikimedia apparently does not do this, which does make using one's real name seem more problematic). It would be a real shame if it turned out that people who edit Wikipedia have to do so in secret.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I and a couple of other Australian editors are currently being hassled in Australia by an editor operating from a major ISP. See RfC and recent behaviour.  Not all of us who have been abused are admins - for example  (includes threats relating to his employment) and .  I have complained to the ISP who have done nothing to cut off her water.  I am very pleased to be pseudonymous when there is somebody out there in cyberspace abusing me.  Her behaviour is not rational and I don't know where it could stop - we are in the same geographical vicinity.  I can't see that the Wikimedia foundation could manage worldwide vigorous legal action.--A Y Arktos\talk 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason to stay pseudonymous