Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
That sounds completely arbitrary. I think all usernames should be allowed. How do usernames affect our development as an encyclopedia?
Usernames give an impression of our community to outsiders. and usernames can affect how we perceive and treat each other.
We strive to be inclusive and neutral. We strive for an atmosphere of helpfulness towards each other, an atmosphere where good deeds and respect are the norm. We strive for an atmosphere of intellectual seriousness and fun.
Without referencing any of the specific examples that have been given thus far, I think it is fairly clear that some names can undermine those goals. Names that are hateful, or that are designed to shock others, or that are overtly ideological can be obstacles to understanding each other, and to recruiting others to our grand mission.
The rule, though, cannot just be "if this name could conceivably offend someone". That rule has been adequately lampooned here by a number of people. The truth is, for any name, it is possible to envision _someone_ who would be offended by it.
There are easy cases that we can all agree are wrong, I think. Usernames that are purely and simply expressions of racial slurs would fall into that category.
And there are harder cases. JesusIsLove is overtly ideological, overtly religious. But it isn't something that's _offensive_ really, even to people who don't agree with it. Still, I think such names should be discouraged as ideological.
But the difficulty of the issue doesn't mean that we have to accept either of (a) let everything go OR (b) have a regime of hypersensitive tyrannical policing of every little thing that people do.
A policy of kindness, benevolence, common sense, etc. can do a lot.
--Jimbo