I think we can *certainly* all agree that:
(a) That some names really are offensive and need to be
changed or deleted.
(b) This shouldn't be allowed to soak up vast amounts of
time and energy which could more usefully go into real
work.
And we can *probably* all agree that:
(c) Most usernames are obviously either benign or
offensive, only a very small number are difficult to
classify as OK or not-OK.
(d) No realistic written set of rules can ever be detailed
enough to catch all possible offensive names - some types
of people will go to an enormous amount of thought to dream
up something that is technically "legal" and yet still
offensive, and there will be other cases where a written
rule takes out a perfectly innocent username on some
technicality.
(e) Most or all of the cases raised so far have been
straightforward. There really wasn't much room for any
reasonable person to doubt that "cumguzzler" was offensive,
nor "crucified christ".
(Note that I'm making a distinction here between a name
"being offensive" and that same name "causing personal
offence". For example, I felt a little offended by
"cumguzzler" but was not personally offended by "crucified
christ". However, as an ordinary "reasonable man", I can
see that "crucified christ" is obviously going to offend a
lot of people who happen to hold different religious
beliefs to mine. Both names are clearly unacceptable.)
>From these points, we can reason that (i) formal, exact
rules are unworkable, and (ii) that extensive discussion of
each case is an unreasonable waste of our time. Why
*should* we have to spend forever arguing about such
offensive trivia when we have work to do?
It seems to me that we can probably agree that 99% of cases
could be quickly decided by one or two or three reasonable
people. Why not appoint some - let's say three -
representative "reasonable people" from amongst us and
declare those three the "Name Police"? (I don't think it
matters much which three people - 'most any three regular
list members will do.) Then instruct whoever it is that has
the practical power to change a username (i.e., the person
who holds the database keys) that a request from any two of
the "Name Police" to change a username is to be complied
with.
Here is how it would work:
Let's say that the three are (just picking the first three
names to come into my head) Tom, Zoe, and Ed. User XXXX
come along and registers an offensive name. Dan notices it
on "recent changes" and tips Zoe off. She agrees it is
offensive, and passes the message on to the other two (via
talk pages or email - it doesn't matter). Ed is away but
Tom agrees that XXXX has crossed over the line, and with
two requests, the name is changed to something more
acceptible.
Next week, user YYYY comes along. I message Tom, but he
thinks I am over-reacting and the name is OK. So does Zoe.
Result: the name stands.
That should take care of 99^% of the problem. Once in a
blue moon, an example will crop up which is really
difficult to decide. In this rare instance, anyone is at
liberty to bring the matter up here on the list. XXXX may,
if he wishes, appeal to the list against the change, or I
may bring up YYYY and say "that really *is* offensive, can
we reconsider?" or Ed may post here to say "I am unsure
what to do about user ZZZZ - what do others think?".
Who should the "Name Police" be? I don't think it matters.
99% of the cases are so obvious that just about any three
list members will come up with the same answers anyway.
(And they can still be over-ruled here, if need be.)
How many should there the be? I'm not sure. One would do,
three is probably better, too many more risks turning it
into a circus. If only three, then maybe there should be
one or two "deputies" available to fill in for people who
are away.
How should they be chosen? I don't care. Pick some at
random off the January archive, have Jimbo nominate them,
run an election - it doesn't matter. Turn them over after
some set period of time so that no-one gets lumbered with
it forever.
PS: All that text for "a simple suggestion?" - Whooah -
time I learned to write more briefly!
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)