| Revision as of 03:10, 26 December 2006 editSAJordan (talk | contribs)966 edits →{{user|Kuntan}}: Add comment.← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:25, 26 December 2006 edit undoDeiz (talk | contribs)Administrators16,454 edits com, rm (imo) closed debates. is there an archive for these?Next edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| ****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) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:09, 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) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *****Compare to results of {{user|Poop}}, which also has ]. ] 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | *****Compare to results of {{user|Poop}}, which also has ]. ] 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| =={{user|Borg Freak}}== | |||
| Mainly due to the word "freak" in there. Also, the name is similar to an exiting user, ], who I believe is an administrator on here. ]<small> (]) (]) (])</small> 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *As for similarity to BorgQueen, I would say that it is plenty distinct. I don't know if the word freak is automatically offensive, it means unusual. Or in the context of the name an unusual interest in the subject of borg. I think it is fine. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Any similarity is excusable, considering the fact that "BorgQueen" is ''hardly'' a unique username (if it was something a bit closer, like "BorgKing", there ''might'' be an issue). Likewise, "freak" is hardly an offensive word. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The similarity to BorgQueen is negligible, and as far as the use of the word "freak" goes, it's neither profane nor going to offend our cyborg constituency. —] 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Similarity aside (which I dont' believe it's too similar), if freak is offensive then how come no one has a problem with my username? I think by definition, the term demon is harsher than the term freak. -] 04:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * No one's going to confuse ] (] <small>•</small> ]) with ] (] <small>•</small> ]) and don't forget we already have an admin called ]. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Borg Freak and Borg Queen are in no way similar, and I cannot see how 'Freak' could be deemed offensive.--] 02:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Username very closely resembles ] (spot the extra "i" for a free back rub from Jimbo), a professional footballer (soccer) with ] in the ]. User was blocked by myself pending discussion, unblock was requested and block was upheld by {{user|Yamla}}. The user edits on football topics and is a member of WikiProject Football, hence there is ample room for confusion between the username and the real player. Danny took several positions as to why he doesn't wish to change his name, but this quote: "The problem is yours if you have trouble spotting the extra 'i' in his name. Your own inadequacies of perception have nothing to do with me nor do I understand why you are attempting to pass them off as a problem of mine" neatly sums up his main position. He admitted the name was based on that of the player, and having received an email from him I can confirm his second name is not "Invincible". He also claims to be attached to the name as he uses it on various forums. | |||
| I don't contend that he is trying to impersonate the player, simply that the name is inappropriate per ]. After he refused to use a different signature I've agreed to unblock him (hey, it's Christmas) pending further discussion if he makes clear on his talk and user pages that he is not the footballer. I believe that the name violates ] and the omission of the "i" and fact that "invincible" is a common English word don't stand up, despite his wikilawyering. If the footballer had a higher profile this would likely be an open-and-shut case. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am the user in question. The initial discussion along with my argument can be seen on my ]. I think it would be to unfairly misrepresent me if the idea of failing to spot the extra 'i' in his name not being a problem of mine was accepted as a concise version of my main argument. I admit that this is a pseudonym influenced by Danny Invincibile's name and have never had any problem in doing so. My main case is as follows: | |||
| ::*My name is Daniel (and I am often referred to as "Danny") - I felt that the name of the footballer in question was quite an amusing name and decided to have my own take on it. | |||
| ::*"Invincible" is a common adjective and not a name. | |||
| ::*I am not attempting to impersonate Danny Invincibile, nor have I ever pretended to be him or attempted to do so. | |||
| ::*The two names vary in spelling, even if it is just the difference of an extra 'i'. | |||
| ::*The two names are pronounced very differently. "Invincibile" is pronounced as "in-vince-a-''bee''-lay". | |||
| ::*I have placed notes of distinction on both my user-page and my talk-page so as to prevent any possible confusion. | |||
| ::*There was an eventual consensus of 4 voices (including another administrator) to 1 for unblocking me when I agreed to place a note of distinction on my pages. | |||
| ::*The rule in question is one that prevents users from adopting the name of a well-known person, living or dead. I am not guilty of this as there is a difference in my user-name and the name of Danny Invincibile. The rule is not against similarity. The guideline rules accord me the right to create my own pseudonym if I so wish. | |||
| ::*When ] commented that he/she "actually had to compare them in a text editor to find the extra 'i'", I responded by stating that his/her failure to note that there is a difference of an 'i' should not be a problem of mine. I still believe this and feel that it is the responsibility of the individual viewing the name to take the care of reading it correctly. There ''is'' an 'i' in there. There is no illusion, nor am I trying to trick anyone. | |||
| ::*As an almost trivial point; I objected to amending the user-name as I have grown an attachment to the name and use the moniker regularly as an identity on various other websites and fora. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Hmmm interesting one. I have a question, is ] the players real name, or just a nickname? I would say, in my opinion, that if you are not using the real name of a celebrity it does not have to appearance of impersonation. For example, ] would be okay even though it is a nickname for a celebrity. However, if the players real name is ] it may be in violation. The question remains in either case, is ] a notable enough name to consider blocking. The policy is in regards to well known person, I see no sources of any sort showing this person's notability. Once I have more of this information I can give a yes/no opinion. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The name is the player's real name. He plays at the top level of football in Scotland, has previously played professionally in England and Australia and has represented Australia at international level in at least one age category. In short, ] is the real name of a notable person. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Misplaced Pages needs editors who are ''reasonable'', which I'll define as ''works well with others''. If the this user feels that consistency and other matters important to him have a higher priority than addressing the concerns of other editors (what, exactly is wrong with, say, ], for example?), then it's not clear to me that this community really should want him to a member. I'd really like him to display some flexibility here. ] | ] 04:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you are blowing this slightly out of proportion to be honest, and I almost get the feeling as if you're trying to alienate me simply for liking the user-name under which I operate. I don't believe that wishing to keep my username is ''that'' unreasonable, nor do I see how something as subordinate and secondary as my user-name would be of such grave concern to the community at large. Actually, I feel that I am reasonable in the sense that you speak of. By placing notes of distinction on both my user and talk pages, I complied with the eventual wishes of the two moderators who initially debated with me. I'm sorry that you should have to question my future membership of this priceless and worthwhile community. I still have much to contribute. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::John, I think Danny is acting reasonably within the community. Remember this user is ] and cannot be expected to know all of our rules. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seconded. I see no real grounds to block this username. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 05:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *It seems that this sort of play on a famous name is not completely unheard of on Misplaced Pages. There are ''administrators'' with names including: ], which is obviously based on ]; ], which is directly taken from the name of General ] (that editor contributes to the WWII articles); ] looks like ]; ] is one letter away from being ]; and ] is one letter away from ]. I know. All of those historical figures are dead and not likely to edit articles here, but it shows a sort of history of this matter. It's not unheard of elsewhere. Look at band names, such as the ] and ]. I have never heard of ] and I would imagine that the majority of Misplaced Pages editors could not name a single Scottish football player. If ] clearly states on his user page that he is not this footballer in question, I can't see how he's doing any harm. I mean, they ''are'' spelled differently. - ] 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think your last sentence is the fundamental point here. It would take the most stretched and stringent of interpretations of the rule in question to say that I was wrongfully using the name of ]. In fact, I'm not even sure if it is possible to stretch an interpretation so far. Technically, it's a different word altogether and there is no such person as Danny Invincible. I simply am not using the name of which I'm accused and I shouldn't have to make it any clearer as it's right here in front of us all. | |||
| ::The aforementioned rule also forbids the use of names of well-known persons who are now deceased. Yet, ] highlights numerous examples of administrators playing on the names of the famous dead. If their user-names do not fall foul of the rule then, similarly, I cannot see how mine does either. Invoking the idea that similarity fails the test for an acceptable user-name seems to be an application of a purpose to the rule I believe it doesn't possess in its current wording. The rule doesn't state its purpose or function. It simply states a prohibition - that names of well-known living or recently deceased people are not to be used - and, thus, I feel it is left closed to interpretation. To interpret the rule literally, I am not guilty as I haven't used the name of a well-known person. | |||
| ::Nevertheless, out of good will and due to the fact that there exists the potential for confusion, I have no problem with pointing out the distinction on my user and talk pages, as I have already done. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 07:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It looks fine to me. Very very direct reference, but not actually the same. It does give me an impression of slight arrogance on the part of the name holder, but that's certainly no grounds for blocking either. '''Allow.''' --] <small>]</small> 07:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I can see the ambiguity and I'd prefer the name be changed, but I don't see any reason to MAKE the change, as long as he keeps the disambiguation on his userpage. The only problem here is that he may be confused with the footballer, correct? It would be nice to avoid the issue entirely by changing his name, but I think just keeping the "I'm not the football player" on his userpage is enough. -] 13:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **As long as the note of disambiguation is on his userpage I think the name is okay, however '''Danny the Invincible''' or '''Invincible Danny''' or '''Danny Indestructible''' would avoid the whole issue. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I find this RFC a prime example of "making mountains out of molehills". -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I agree, I support a close as ''allow'' at this point. The distinction is adequate, and the disambiguation notice the user has put up is enough, in my humble opinion. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *** I don't feel strongly on this one way or another, so "allow" is fine with me. ] | ] 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I see it as meaning ''Pavak is a bitch'', although could mean ''Payback is a bitch'', what do you think? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Unlikely. The user posted a vanity article of someone who's first name is Pavak. -] 04:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::His surname could be Sabitch, but I doubt it as it doesn't seem at all common. I've come across one individual with the surname after a quick search on Google. That is Drake Sabitch - a fictional character from a 1996 movie called ''Black Sheep''. Then, there is ], but that is missing a 't'. My guess that Pavak is a close acquaintance whom he believes "is a bitch". He has uploaded a photo of "Pavak jousting an imaginary opponent". ]<sup>]|]</sup> 05:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Blocked'''. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *When I saw that name, I figured he just forgot a space in making "Pavak Sabitch", some kind of Slavic name. No biggie either way though. ] 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This username violates our username policies as it is clear to me that this user is not ] himself. I've posted a warning on the user talk page of this user, advicing him to change his user name, but he ] while ignoring my messege. Therefore, I am opening this RfC. I will not, however, report him this quickly to ] to allow him to respond on the case. '''<span style="background:#000">] ]</span>''' 13:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If his real name is James Brown, then he slaps a note on his talk and user pages and we can all move on. If his legal name is not James Brown then it's inappropriate, I think that's pretty open and shut. Michaelas, you could ask him to provide satisfactory evidence to yourself by email in confidence. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Deizio, have you '''''looked''''' at ]? <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''17:53, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| :I agree with ]. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see your point, and he might is probably telling the truth about his real name. I will ask him that, but I do not understand what do you mean by "satisfactory evidence", is there any any way anyone can prove his real name? Birth information maybe? '''<span style="background:#000">] ]</span>''' 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The user will need to demonstrate within reason it is his real name, perhaps a scan of ID or mail addressed to him. However this user does not need to make this information public. This proof could be sent to an admin via e-mail who would vouch for this evidence without revealing the information. This is a similar procedure to giving copyright permissions without revealing personal information. Of course I could be wrong about all this, I don't think so though. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why? ] ... James Brown is one of the more common names among people who speak English ... I've known at least three people with that name. Heck, ] has plenty of people by that name ... unless there's actual evidence he is trying to imitate one of them, why should he have to change? ] 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Like I said, I could be wrong. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've told the user he can send me a scan of an ID or personal mail if he wants this wrapped up quickly. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Uh huh. You asked a 15-year-old kid to send you his ID containing personal information? If he were claiming that his name were ], ], or ], ok, those are uncommon, but names like James Brown, John Smith, Jason Davis, etc, are so common. At any rate, asking a 15-year-old to send you his ID is NEVER acceptable. ] 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see the problem unless he's a vandal (or considering the user name, if he's ]) ] 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Looking at his contributions and the history of his username, I can't see any evidence whatsoever that he's either a vandal or that he was trying to impersonate any of the notable people who are named '''James Brown'''. His userpage was clear that he's 15 years old even before a comment was left on his Talk page complaining about his username. ] 17:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :On his userpage, ] makes very very clear (repeatedly and emphatically) that he is not the American singer of that name, so this is obviously not an attempt to pass himself off as that celebrity. Why doesn't that userpage suffice as a rebuttal to any charge of impersonation? <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''17:46, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| I made it clear that he need only reveal his name, not any personal details, as an option to end this RfC quickly. I appreciate the need for privacy in these sensitive times, but think you have to make some pretty big leaps to perceive any impropriety in my actions. I do agree that his userpage goes to sufficient pains to point out that he is not James Brown and don't personally have a problem with him using the name. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 17:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(1) He declares his real name on his userpage. (2) I have neither perceived nor alleged any impropriety in your actions. (3) Should your comment be regarded as a vote for closure without requiring action by the user? <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''18:02, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| ::My above comment was not an assertion that anyone had done so, nor a direct reply to you SAJ, just a general point. And sure, let's allow James Brown to use the name. Per ], it may be appropriate for him to remove some of the age-identifying information from his userpage. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :My opinion? The name is fine. Yes, it is similar to that of a notable celebrity, but that's bound to happen with such a very generic name. If it was something a bit more specific, like ], it would warrant a reaction (and yes I'm aware that Colbert's user account has been blocked for that very reason). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Concur''' with Deizio and EVula: allow the name, no impersonation involved. <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''19:13, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| * '''Disallow''' the very fact that there is a Misplaced Pages article about a notable person with the same name could lead to defamation if it can not be confirmed that this is the same person. I assume there are many notable people named James Brown; if the person who uses this account doesn't have his own article on Misplaced Pages then this name shouldn't be allowed. ] 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you visit ], you'll see that he makes it ''abundantly'' clear that he isn't ]. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::(''checks out this ] page'') I am still voting '''Disallow''' as per ], given that he has already volunteered both his real name and his age. ] 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Most every name has multiple persons with the same name, and "James Brown" is an especially common sort of name. A policy of disallowing names of famous people is nearly equivalent to a policy of disallowing the use of real names entirely. If someone is not pretending to be the famous person, there is no problem. —]→] • 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Allow''' -- I went to school with a chap named James Brown (not this one, or the entertainer). There's nothing wrong with this username. - ]\<sup>]</sup> 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''', clearly. There is no reason not to think his real name is James Brown, and no reason to invade his privacy by demanding proof.--] 05:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' Seems okay. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I think we can close this one? <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes — and please modify the comments on the user's talk page accordingly, strike through the previous demands for change or proof, and point to this RFC's approval in case anyone else might bring up the same objection. <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''20:55, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| Well, ] is now dead, so there's no more argument that he could be posing as the R&B singer. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Don't go offending the ] now... ;-) ] 21:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can't wait for him to put out "Papa's Got a Brand New Braaaaaiiiinnnnnssss". ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thought I'd point out that ] also mentions recently deceased people. ] 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, living and recently deceased people are afforded the same status with regard to ], hence his passing has no relevance on this debate. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{User|Cheqbot}} has chosen a name that sounds like a bot. Comments on user's talk page left by ] on August 3, 2006 indicate that Cheqbot is aware of the problem but has not acted to resolve it (perhaps due to unfamiliarity with the procedure used to change username). --] 11:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disallow''', pretty clear. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 12:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I'd just like to point out this edit. ] 12:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': there are two things I find confusing: | |||
| :# The user has no edits, see ]. | |||
| :# The user page was edited by {{user|Cheqbo}}. Does this user have two accounts? --] 12:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Weird, seems there never was a Cheqbot, unless some magic renaming trick went on somewhere along the line. The userpage was created as Cheqbot by Cheqbo. I'v moved the page, that should be the end of this? <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 13:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::**Mystery solved. Thanks for your help! --] 13:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{vandal|Smelly wog}} == | |||
| wog is an offensive term. Only contribution (] -- ] for ] apparently) is idiotic juvenile nonsense. ] 18:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Indef blocked. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 18:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user|Kuntan}} == | == {{user|Kuntan}} == | ||
| Line 194: | Line 55: | ||
| 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 "James Brown" case above 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> | 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 "James Brown" case above 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) | |||
Revision as of 03:25, 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)
- 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)
Kuntan (talk · contribs)
The ID has already received a WP:USERNAME 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 WP:USERNAME issues only.
Reasons for this block included: "Inappropriate username" and "Your username is an offensive slang in Malayalam".
No citation was given to support this claim.
In fact, Kuntan is the name of a town in Malaysia (here's a citation), as well as a real-world given name:
- "Kuntan Singh Kanwal", a football player, in The Hindu sport news
- "Kuntan Krishnan", a Senior Superintendent of Police, in The Hindustan Times
- "Kuntan" meanings, including "a strong, stout person (coll.)", in Tamil-English dictionary
Clearly "Kuntan" is not exclusively "offensive slang".
Other usernames contain town names, e.g. User:BostonMA and User:Newyorkbrad. If someone from Hell, Norway wanted to do the same, e.g. User:HellNorway, the fact that "Hell" might be an offensive expletive in other contexts should not make it inappropriate for this context. We have a User:Dreko, 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 has responded, in part:
I don't care whatever definitions exist for the word "Kuntan", he created the account for trolling and hence the WP:USERNAME was absolutely inappropriate. Also, do not come up here after receiving requests from trolls.
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 WP:USERNAME 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 WP:RFC/NAME 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. – SAJordan contribs 21:56, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).
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 simply deleted without reply. – SAJordan contribs 22:23, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Also please note: I am concerned about the precedent being set here. Previously usernames that possibly could be taken in some sense as violating WP:USERNAME were allowed if a non-violating sense could be established, following "assume good faith". (See the "James Brown" case above 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? – SAJordan contribs 03:10, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
- Username seems fine, reports of other policy violations belong elsewhere. Deizio talk 03:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)