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.