User talk:Robkelk/Username policy

Cases where Miraheze officially does not have an opinion on usernames
Recommend you ditch this section. It adds bulk and not enlightenment to a "policy document" if it lists things that it doesn't cover. Moreover, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Americans immunity against the government, not against Miraheze; Miraheze is not bound to allow all the free speech the Constitution might permit in Central Square.

In the related clause, "felony" is damned peculiar; whatever the term of sentence, a username that is inherently a crime should be disallowed, and we need not justify that statement by the need to protect Miraheze. Your first example, a username that looks like a threat on someone else's life, is fine; your second is problematic. I have never understood what "hate speech" is, though recently it has meant anything that opponents of Obama say, and in any case would seem to be allowed by the "non-opinion" section. User:TrumpSucks! might be disallowed as a username, not by imagining the hate in the user's mind but because it seems to be something other than a self-identification.

Separately, I think you invoke the Attributions clause too often; it belongs in a better-developed Intro as one of the things that motivates the policy document. Your very first rule (usernames that would break Miraheze) is rare and belongs at the bottom of the bulleted list. 14:10 18-Sep-2017