Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:10, 11 March 2007

• WP:RFC/NAME
• WP:RFCN

Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Misplaced Pages's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

• Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

Do NOT post here if:

• the user in question has made no recent edits.
• you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy § Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

• has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
• has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
• is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Misplaced Pages's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

Cuddlebitch (talk · contribs)

No contributions, use of the quasi-curse "bitch" could be considered offensive by some, and thus violation of WP:U. —Krellis (Talk) 04:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disallow as potentially offensive. --24fan24 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow potentially offensive. The Behnam 04:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow I don't find the word bitch to be offensive, it is a legitimate word that has been taken over by slang. I can see how this is potentially offensive, but I can also picture a cuddly female dog. Call my crazy but I don't see this as a problem. _InBC 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, but it is possibly offensive. It is probably safe to say that offensive "bitch" is used more than technical dog term "bitch". The Behnam 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, anything is possibly offensive to someone. Son of a gun. RFerreira 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That it is a point of subjectivity that this RFC is responsible for handling. We have the policy to guide us as we decide whether or not they are sufficiently offensive. Of course, the policy is against 'offensiveness', which is subjective; hence we run this RFC. In really advanced cases we have actually referenced sources to establish the offensive nature of the phrase, but in this case it will probably be obvious enough to make that measure unnecessary. The Behnam 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the "B"-word is refering to a female dog and so it would be really offensive to female editors..--Cometstyles 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Allow - controversially, the word bitch can be empowering if used in the right circumstances. Here's an example. Then there's Image:Bitchstar.JPG which survived an RFD and is now used amongst editors (including two admins) as a 'badge of honour' in reverting vandals - Alison 06:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow but only if name is self-referential by a female. :P Nardman1 12:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow - if reference to dog then is hardly offensive: if reference to woman is paradox. Moreschi 12:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow - If we allow one person with that name others will follow with more weirder names...--Cometstyles 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disallow per Cometstyles. // DecaimientoPoético 15:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow, it isn't User:Allahsbloodygapingvagina or anything. I'm sure the nomination is well intentioned, but c'mon, this needs to stop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Disallow - While this name may not be that offensive, it is at the top of a wildly slippery slope per Cometstyles and it is just bad enough to be disallowed.--William Thweatt | 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because we solve the ambiguity of policy with discussion instead of creating more and more detailed rules, the slippery slope phenomenon really does not apply, imo. _InBC 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Clear Disallow contains explicit profanity: "bitch". NikoSilver 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to allow per HighInBC and Kukini below. Pardon my non-nativeness. It would have been more insulting in my mother-tongue (which actually uses the same parallel for the female dog). NikoSilver 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While bitch may be a naughty word to some, is it actually profanity? I here it on sitcoms and the radio, by what standard is it profanity? _InBC 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Allow I think we need to be careful about blocking too quickly based on issues like this. Have any of you heard of Bookslut . Quite the zine! And note the use of the word "slut" in a positive fashion? Kukini 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wykypydya (talk · contribs)

Account created a few days before the new rule on Misplaced Pages terms in usernames was created. However, I still think it should be disallowed, given the statements on the user page. RJASE1 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)