| Revision as of 12:19, 26 December 2006 editTintin1107 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,163 edits →{{user|Kuntan}}: Reply to SAJordan← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:10, 26 December 2006 edit undoSamir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators14,174 edits close Kuntan, user blocked for trolling not username now, case mootNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| *******...and what about {{user|Bitch}}? Seriously, it cannot be that hard to find one. ] 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | *******...and what about {{user|Bitch}}? Seriously, it cannot be that hard to find one. ] 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *****Doesn't seem to be a huge deal, but I have no strong opinion. ] 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | *****Doesn't seem to be a huge deal, but I have no strong opinion. ] 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == {{user|Kuntan}} == | |||
| :<small>''See also ], ().''</small> | |||
| The ID has already received a ] block. This RFC concerns ''that basis'' for a block; it does not address ''any other block'' the same user might receive or deserve for ''any other reason'', such as user conduct. Please keep discussion on ] issues only. | |||
| Reasons for this block included: and . | |||
| No citation was given to support this claim. | |||
| In fact, Kuntan is the name of a town in Malaysia , as well as a real-world given name:<ul><li></li><li></li><li> </li></ul>Clearly "Kuntan" is not '''''exclusively''''' "offensive slang". | |||
| Other usernames contain town names, e.g. ] and ]. If someone from ] wanted to do the same, e.g. ], the fact that "Hell" might be an offensive expletive ''in other contexts'' should not make it inappropriate for ''this'' context. We have a ], despite any possible accusation anyone might make that it contains the obscene word "Drek", because "Dreko" is a real-world given name, and even a company name. "Kuntan" is also a real-world given name, as well as a real-world town name. The same reasoning should apply. | |||
| Approached on this issue, the blocking admin :<blockquote>''I don't care whatever definitions exist for the word "Kuntan", he created the account for trolling and hence the ] was absolutely inappropriate.'' <small></small> ''Also, do not come up here after receiving requests from trolls.''</blockquote>As that last order appears to close off communications, the next step available is this RFC. | |||
| If anyone, of any name, including yours or mine, uses an account for blockable offenses, that makes a block ''for those actions'' appropriate, but it doesn't make the ] inappropriate. A block for user conduct should state the user conduct as a reason. Stating a reason unrelated to that user conduct — whatever else it may be, the user's name or gender or ethnicity or religion — would be spurious. | |||
| Likewise, this ] concerns ''only'' the username issue. Whether to block for ''any other reason'' should be a separate discussion in a different venue, and "I don't have a dog in that fight". So please, no diversions from the username topic ''here''. Thank you. <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''21:56, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| Please note that the option to post an {unblock} appeal on the user's talk page is not available: that page has been protected as a redirect to his userpage, where the blocked user cannot post. Another user did ask there, ''"What was inappropriate about this username?"'' — but that question was . <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''22:23, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| Also please note: I am concerned about the precedent being set here. Previously usernames that possibly ''could'' be taken in some sense as violating ] were allowed if a non-violating sense could be established, following "]". (See the for example.) Here that principle has been turned on its head, and all the inoffensive real-world uses of a name are disregarded if anyone can find an offensive use. Should we apply that same approach ("assume bad faith") to all other names? Your own name may seem innocent to you, but in Old High Urdu, or Xhosa, or Lower East Slobbovian, it's a deadly insult, so you can't use it? "John" is one of the most common given names for men in English-speaking nations, but it can also mean a toilet or the client of a prostitute, therefore no-one on Misplaced Pages can use that name? Does that make sense to you? <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''03:10, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| *Username seems fine, reports of other policy violations belong elsewhere. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 03:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Ditto. I don't understand blocking on the name alone. ] 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *This RfC is a waste of time. SAJordan, why are you so intent on dealing with the username of a troll? I'll block him indefinitely for trolling as opposed to username which should render this RfC entirely moot -- ] 07:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you missed the part about keeping this to the username issue, and "reports of other policy violations belong elsewhere", which has only been stated in three different ways and places above. And about the concern being the precedent that block has set. Whatever ''this'' user has or hasn't done, shopping around for a bad meaning for a name (despite good meanings also existing), in order to indef-block a user, is a trick that could be used against many innocent people, and I would like to see it repudiated on the record so it can't so readily be used again. <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''11:31, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| :* And to justify the initial username block, Kuntan is a disgusting word in Malayalam, and Kuntan made this page: ] in which he clarified that the connotation of his username was the same (his words: "Kuntan in Malayalam is a term for a boy or young man kept by older man for sodomy.") Kuntan then went on to disrupt at AfD, ANI, user pages, my talk page, other user talk pages both by himself and with socks. The initial block was apt, but hopefully the policy wonks will be satisfied by the re-block. -- ] 07:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're citing a deleted page, where I can't see the context. But as cited above, ''that's not the '''only''' meaning.'' I could have left out the context of common names for men, and merely asserted that "]" refers to a toilet or a prostitute's customer, therefore no-one should use ''that'' name. And "]" refers to a marijuana cigarette or a burglar's tool, therefore any name containing ''that'' word should draw a username block; likewise "]" (swindle, cheat) and its noun form. The fallacy here is assuming that the offensive meanings are the ''only'' meanings, when in fact they're not. <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''11:31, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| :::By the way, Samir, during this Misplaced Pages fundraising period, using a name that expresses an amount of money can draw, , a username block because it suggests an role in the fundraiser. I note that in North Yemen "'''samir'''" is . So kindly indef-block that user, under the Kuntan Precedent, would you please? Thanks! <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''11:45, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| :::There are quite a few differences. The examples that Jordan has mentioned for "Jimmy" etc are not the primary meanings for that word. Here Kuntan very much is (so much so that, some of us don't know any other meaning). A better example than Jimmy would be a four letter name that starts with D which, if you use imaginatively in a user name, won't see you last long. | |||
| :::It is all very fine to equate it with a place name is Malaysia, and claim that is it no more offensive than Boston or NY. But I suggest that you try the same for ]. | |||
| :::Kuntan is used as a name in North India but for obvious reasons, it is almost ''never'' used as a name in ] where the primary langauge is Malayalam. The names that you found are all from other parts of India (& India has 18 official languages, each spoken by many millions of people). Kuntan is from Kerala, and there cannot be any defense for saying that he did not know what it meant or did not intend it to mean anythnig else. If you really believe that his intentions were all innocous, please take a look at the early versions of his userpage and the picture that he had there. | |||
| :::For all I know, Tintin might be an abusive word in ] or ], but I don't think editors from those parts of the world would do anything about it, except having a laugh behind my back. But if I take a name that is offensive in ], ] or ] which are languages that I know - and people know that I know them - I am sure that I would be forced to change it, which is just what happened here. | |||
| :::Re the deleted page, in case you don't trust Samir's words, there should surely be some admin who you do, who should be willing to corroborate it. ] (]) 12:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *See as well ] 10:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I looked, but didn't see anything related to a ] block. Please stay on topic here. Thanks! <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''11:57, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
Revision as of 13:10, 26 December 2006
Shortcut- ]
If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Misplaced Pages's username policy, you may list it here. However, before listing the user here, please first contact the user on his or her talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.
Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by visiting admins. If a matter turns out to be controversial, a subpage may be created here to discuss it.
Tools : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist
New listings below this line, at the bottom, please. Add a new listing.
Bitchen (talk · contribs)
This user states "This author also feels use of this word is not swearing or profane and that its resemblance to the expletive noted above, while etymological, is unfortunate." Unfortunate maybe, but username offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder, not the user. I'm afraid that many other people would be offended by this. Note the user has been around since March, but has not made a ton of contributions. My suggestion would be to ask him nicely to change it first, but what to do if he refuses? (as I suspect he might) pschemp | talk 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that is profane. I believe it a reference to the word bitchin which was a valley girl term used in the 1980's synonymous with the word "cool". HighInBC 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- That was my impression too, especially since the user noted its etymological resemblance. It doesn't seem that it will be a problem to me. —ShadowHalo 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I, too, don't think this is too big of a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with allowing this one if the user does not voluntarily change it. --Ginkgo100 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly guys you are missing the point. I know what it refers to (which doesn't matter if someone finds it offensive) and I'm not asking for your personal opinions, but whether it is likely there are people out there who would offended by it. It does contain the word "bitch" rather prominently. Can you take off your "it doesn't offend me" hats and think about other people? pschemp | talk 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Taking my hat off, nope, still looks fine, putting my hat back on. HighInBC 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- "I don't think this is a problem" != "it doesn't offend me"
"I don't think this is a problem" == "I don't believe the editor should be indefinitely banned because of their username, as 'bitch' is a perfectly legitimate word that has meanings well outside the bounds of profanity" EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- For those who are not fluent in boolean logic, != means Not equal and == means Equal. HighInBC 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll clarify my comment, which was indeed ambiguous: I do not believe there is a high likelihood of users taking offense at the name. --Ginkgo100 01:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's, like, totally all right with me. Y'know? Durova 09:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - According to Urban Dictionary, "gink" can be an offense disparaging term as well. I personally don't think any reasonable person would be offended by your username, but can we really ever be too careful? Geoffrey Spear 19:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, we can be. Should we ban me because someone might confuse "EVula" with vulva? (don't laugh; it has happened) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly guys you are missing the point. I know what it refers to (which doesn't matter if someone finds it offensive) and I'm not asking for your personal opinions, but whether it is likely there are people out there who would offended by it. It does contain the word "bitch" rather prominently. Can you take off your "it doesn't offend me" hats and think about other people? pschemp | talk 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Widely used slang term. We should not ban a name because some hypothetical unusually sensitive person might be offended by it. Edison 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong disallow Vulgar slang term. Never heard of the word "gink" though, but "bitchen" is quite profane. As in "he sizzles his hands through the air with his bitchen guitar playing", it's more like a hyponym of "cool" than it is a synonym since it's a profane version of it. Tuxide 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you see it as a hyponym of "cool" then what part of it is profane? HighInBC 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Think about it. "Abso-fucking-lutely" is a hyponym of "Absolutely". Would it be allowed as a user name? Grutness...wha? 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my argument is that "bitch" is an actual word outside of its profane meaning, whereas "fuck" is, and pretty much has always been, profanity. (though the urge to answer "abso-fucking-lutely" just because was pretty strong) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Compare to results of Poop (talk · contribs), which also has non-profane meanings. Tuxide 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, which is why the user wasn't blocked for having a profane name. Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate usernames: "... Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body." EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- ...and what about Bitch (talk · contribs)? Seriously, it cannot be that hard to find one. Tuxide 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, which is why the user wasn't blocked for having a profane name. Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate usernames: "... Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body." EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be a huge deal, but I have no strong opinion. Just H 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Compare to results of Poop (talk · contribs), which also has non-profane meanings. Tuxide 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my argument is that "bitch" is an actual word outside of its profane meaning, whereas "fuck" is, and pretty much has always been, profanity. (though the urge to answer "abso-fucking-lutely" just because was pretty strong) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Think about it. "Abso-fucking-lutely" is a hyponym of "Absolutely". Would it be allowed as a user name? Grutness...wha? 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you see it as a hyponym of "cool" then what part of it is profane? HighInBC 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)