A question of trust

Almost weekly someone says to me "why do you still allow that idiot so-and-so to post on OP?" Probably almost as frequently, someone else accuses me of "censorship" or worse for putting any limits on what can be read here on OrangePolitics. For whatever reason, this site has become a community of record and is read regularly by the media, elected officials, community leaders, and countless potential local activists. It may mean different things to different people, but it does matter what is said here.

We have recently had some commenters actively using the site under multiple identities. One did so after his initial identity was put into moderation for mean behavior (as jmk and then David Freedman), and the other to create the appearance of more support for his or her positions (using the names Tim Mullin, J. Nicholls, and Steve S). These are both a clear violation of our existing guideline: "If you use a fake e-mail address or attempt to impersonate anyone (real or imaginary) your comments will not be displayed." This kind of activity totally compromises the trust that commenters and readers have in this entire site, wastes people's time, and can be personally and politically damaging to people trying to help our community. Whenever this behavior is discovered it will not be tolerated here. Unfortunately, this is not the first nor the last time will see this kind of thing on OP.

If you haven't read it, you may want to check out this thread for some excellent discussion of this issue. Here are a few highlights:

"...all these websites are used by local newspapers to get a sense of what is going on in the world of public opinion. If I'm posting constantly under my name and no one else is agreeing with me or posting on a similar topic, then it's obvious it's just me. The newspapers also know who the usual suspects are.

If I create 5 new names and identities, I'm giving a false impression that there are 5 people - perhaps who have never posted or been concerned before - who are really concerned about (fill in blank) - perhaps creating news where there wasn't news before.

Besides it's just dishonest." - Maria Rowan

"Insisting that people be responsible for the comments they make is part of what keeps this forum functioning as well as it does. It is meant to be a quasi-public forum, much like gathering people in a room to talk. If you wouldn't say it in the room, then this forum is not the right place to post it either. " - Anita Badrock

"If people don't feel safe posting here, on STP, OrangeChat, or any other digital commons under their own names, we should at least ask why before assuming they have evil intents and banning them from future participation." - Terri Buckner

"For me, its been helpful to have a certain degree of anonymity on this site although I'll occasionally throw my full name (George Cianciolo) into a post or another poster might identify me in some way (certainly, quite acceptable to me). As with most scientists I know, the easiest way to track down someone's research now is to simply google their name." - George Cianciolo

"At first, I was hesitant to give my full name, in part because of some of the unpleasant flak lobbed my way (publicly and privately) once I “went on the record” in local papers on the issue of HWA. Eventually someone here challenged me to give my full name, saying — as some here have — that they wouldn't take me seriously if I weren't willing to identify myself.
[...]
In the end I decided that I should indeed be willing to stand by whatever I write here, just as I would in print media." - Priscilla Murphy

I believe there are valid reasons to allow people to comment without full names, and I don't want to change that. However, as many of us have said, while we try to listen to anonymous viewpoints, they lose credibility when they level serious attacks from behind a mask. Commenters will be treated with same level of respect that they show this community. It's like karma, you get back what you give.

So I am considering modifying the process we go through with new commenters. Although this is a technical problem in some ways, what we really need is a policy. Then we will try to find a way to implement it (keeping in mind that for now I am the only person here and am a volunteer). In case you have been here for a long time, here is the message that I send to each new commenter on the site:

Thank you for participating on OrangePolitics. To confirm your e-mail address, please reply to this message within 24 hours and state what town or county you live in, and your comment will be posted. Future comments will be approved automatically.

What if we change the validation process to require new commenters to also share their full name privately so that they can be identified as an actual person who is in the phone book or registered to vote. Just as with e-mail addresses this information will never be shared. In fact, once a commenter is verified it can probably be deleted. Of course this would require trusting me with the knowledge of who you are, but I don't believe I have have ever exposed anyone's address in nearly 4 years of running this site, and have only revealed identities when our trust was being abused (as above).

What do you all think of this proposal? What other suggestions would you offer?

(By the way, if anyone out there is a MYSQL expert, I'd love to find a way to scrub the content of the fictitious commenters without making the historical archives look like people are arguing with themselves.)