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)