The username of this user is "Assh O. Le".

However, in his defence he has racked up 420 reputation and 19 bronze badges, so he's not without some merit.

Should this be allowed as a "humorous" moniker? Would we be overly prudish to disallow it?

Personally, I think this is going too far to be considered "funny". Actually, I consider it to be a broken window - I like things clean and tidy (basically everything Facebook is not).

I have evidence that "offensive" names do exist, for example, a real case a relative has seen while processing government paperwork is "Long Phat Kok", and I once did some work for the equivalent if the DMV and found three people with the unfortunate official name of "Mike Hunt", but this is not one of those cases - I don't believe the person is 94 or that this is his real name.

  • 24
    What shall you do if it's his real name? – John Dvorak Oct 21 '13 at 13:21
  • 5
    As he claims it is @JanDvorak. :) – Bart Oct 21 '13 at 13:22
  • 1
    I would expect a 93 year old that claims to have the brains to know about Stack Overflow and using the internet properly to have correct grammar, but maybe that's just stereotypical. – Qantas 94 Heavy Oct 21 '13 at 13:23
  • 1
    note must be taken, however, that more than half of this guy's rep is from edits – John Dvorak Oct 21 '13 at 13:26
  • 5
    @Bohemian and I don't think it's YOUR photo in your profile. What should we do about it? ^^ – Danubian Sailor Oct 21 '13 at 13:30
  • 5
    The user, in my eyes, befits his pseudonym. It is clearly intended to troll. – Martijn Pieters Oct 21 '13 at 13:30
  • 1
    But he does have good answers. 200 rep worth of, to be exact – John Dvorak Oct 21 '13 at 13:31
  • 9
    Not quite as crafty as those Asian pilots who died in a plane crash a few months ago (theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/07/…), but not bad either. – Johnny Bones Oct 21 '13 at 13:38
  • 6
    @Bohemian: But then how do we know you're not actually a wombat? Because I'm definitely a unicorn. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Oct 21 '13 at 13:50
  • 15
    @Bohemian Your father-in-law tells you names from government files for a laugh? Glad to here our data is secure.. as always. – James Oct 21 '13 at 14:06
  • 10
    I actually read this for the first five minutes as it being a syllabic spelling of "Ashley" and had no idea why it was offensive. I guess I'm not in tune with the douchebaggery this morning. o.O – asteri Oct 21 '13 at 15:43
  • 2
    You know, Korea got back at us for those ridiculous names. Cap'n Kent Parker Wright... – user206222 Oct 21 '13 at 18:04
  • 7
    I, for one, find Assh O. Le completely acceptable, even though it's clearly aiming to be offensive. What's wrong with Mike Hunt, though? (Edit: ahh I see) – Pekka Oct 21 '13 at 18:48
  • 12
    What I find offensive is this inane digging into users' personal information, the source of his name, his family tree.... Enough already. Not everyone in the entire world has names that conform to your culture or expectations. If he claims it's his real name, have a little bit of trust here. And even if it's not - so what? He didn't call you a bad name. If he called himself @SomeRandomShmuck, how is that possibly offensive? This is the Internet. If you can't stand someone calling himself a vaguely "bad" word, I have some bad news for you about this Internet-thing.... – Reinstate Monica Mar 27 '14 at 10:13
  • 2
    YEAH!!! i totally agree to AVID @Bohemian i really hope this settles your problems with my name. – user2705620 Apr 1 '14 at 7:31

The only reference AT ALL that I could find that might possibly govern this is the page detailing what kind of behaviour is acceptable. On it, there is no mention of usernames, but there is mention of explicatives. This username, under the strictest of guidelines, is pushing the boundaries because it's not overtly explicative, but could be construed as such. I say let it go, it's not a big deal.

  • 2
    Please note this is a discussion question, not a support question. – John Dvorak Oct 22 '13 at 13:17
  • 1
    @JanDvorak - So, what's your point? Discussion questions aren't supposed to have answers? meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197552/… – Johnny Bones Oct 22 '13 at 14:20
  • 4
    They are, but the point of support questions is to explain the current policy, but the point of discussion questions is to potentially establish a new policy. Researching the current one does not seem to be useful for that purpose. – John Dvorak Oct 22 '13 at 14:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .