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@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@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/