[Note: this email contains some rude words]
Thus spake Jimbo:
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.
[[Wikipedia:Username]] contains some recommendations to avoid certain types
of username, and also states "Wikipedia *does not allow* inflammatory user
names" (it also says some weird stuff about voting and sysops being able to
ban people with offensive names, but I'll pass over that as it isn't really
relevant here).
As for precedents: User:Throbbing Monster Cock was deemed unacceptable (by
your good self, if I remember rightly), and was forcibly changed to
User:TMC. He later returned as Swollen Cock of Doom and Throbbing monster
cock - these were also banned. More recently, User:Saddam Hussein was
forcibly changed to User:SH. User:Fuck and User:FuckingFucker have also
been banned, no doubt partly due to their username, but they also did a
spot of random vandalism. I don't think there have been any other cases
where a user has been forced to change their name.
As far as I know, there has not yet been a case where somebody has
suggested a name is unacceptable without said name later being forcibly
changed. In that sense, no limit has been established on what is considered
"unacceptable".
A parallel which might be worth considering here is the article originally
titled [[AIDS Kills Fags Dead]]. After some debate, the page was moved to
[[Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead']] lest people should see the name of the
page in search results or on Recent Changes and think we were making a
statement.
Just to be clear: I don't necessarily agree with decisions which have been
made in the past (nor do I necessarily disagree with them), and I'm not
trying to suggest a course of action which should be taken in this case.
I'm just laying out what's been done before.
Lee (Camembert)