yes we need flexibility.
As I said the proposed prohibition seeks to
prevent malicious behaviour and not to make our
life difficult.
many people "mask" their usernames but they don't
have malicious intention. Most of them use the
same "mask" all the time.
If we can have a consensus that a policy
regarding "masked" usernames is needed, we can
start discussing the details and formulate the
policy so that it will be flexible and will not
make our life difficult.
Also, nobody will be "prosecuted" until the
policy will be in effect. And of course the
policy should be well-formulated in order to
avoid misunderstandings and "prosecution" of
non-malicious users.
How could we distinguish malicious from
non-malicious behaviour with a formulated policy
(i.e. without human judgement) ?
--Optim
--- sannse <sannse(a)delphiforums.com> wrote:
Good point Anthere. I think like all rules
this would need common sense and
flexibility. You signing as
[[User:Anthere|Ant]] is obviously not intended
to mislead, me signing as
[[User:Sannse|Anthere]] would be rather more
questionable, and me signing as
[[User:Anthere|Anthere]] would be wrong.
Actually in the examples above someone signing
as "Jimbo himself" would
probably be just a bit of obvious silliness and
nothing to get worked up
about.
--sannse
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/