This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deiz (talk | contribs) at 03:25, 26 December 2006 (com, rm (imo) closed debates. is there an archive for these?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:25, 26 December 2006 by Deiz (talk | contribs) (com, rm (imo) closed debates. is there an archive for these?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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)