Jimmy Wales wrote:
What's our exact policy on this? I'd be happy to issue a ruling, but I'd prefer to stick with exact precedent. But I don't remember what that is.
--Jimbo
We don't have an exact policy. [[Wikipedia:Username]] is a good start, but it's probably best to look at the revision before SV changed it in response to this debate, in order to make this particular case a more clear-cut violation. Although there's no exact policy, there is a broad consensus, which IMHO trumps policy every time. Consensus beats policy, principle beats consensus.
After TMC, there was a broad consensus that "offensive usernames" should not be allowed. I interpreted this to mean offensive to a significant minority, rather than offensive to the majority of people.
In the SH case and in this case, it was clear that most people are interpreting the policy in a similar way. Although people who openly say that they are personally offended by a given name are rare, a majority in each case wanted the name changed. I was not at all offended personally by SH, but I changed the name out of respect for those who were offended.
My own personal opinion is that people who are not offended by a particular name, and can see no reason why anyone else should be offended, should abstain from voting, unless they have some other reason why they believe the name is acceptable or unacceptable. That's their choice, though.
In the SH case there was no formal vote, but a head count of opinions expressed played the same role.
-- Tim Starling.