Wikipedia talk:Unacceptable userspace material

message: I think this is going to end up a long list of "do nots", ever growing with each troll's attempts at gaming the system. (For instance, "The rule didn't say I couldn't promote bestiality in my userbox!", "It didn't say I couldn't say I supported the 9/11 attacks!", ad nauseum.) I think we're better served saying what is appropriate, and limiting templates and categories to that, rather than trying to plug all the holes in a seive. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Going to end up a long list

message: That one (at least!) may be a bit broadly drawn. These are all forbidden under this point:
* I like LEGO and I think people who like Mega Bloks are making a big mistake because they're using an inferior product.
* I think deletionism is misguided and inclusionism is a better approach.
* Mean people suck.
* I am a boy and most girls are prettier to look at than I am.
Where do you draw the line? WP is not a free speech zone (all those statements would be A OK if it were, and I am not arguing it should be) but this may be a bit broad. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to say "I am X which is better than Y" rather than simply "I am X". In some cases, bias is evident from the statement "I am X" as in "I am a deletionist". In other cases, where bias is not evident, bias should not be welcome ("I am a boy" vs. "I am a boy and boys are better than girls" are not equivalent). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel you're trying to achieve something worthwhile but am unsure whether it's achievable, which is why I asked what I asked. Let's begin at the beginning... Do you agree or disagree that all the above statements are banned under the way the policy is worded now? If not, which ones are not? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Why you would need to denigrate another group (person, company, etc.) in order to state a personal interest is beyond me. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Example: 'This user opposes abortion' would be fine, 'This user thinks all abortionists are murdering scum' would not be allowed Cynical 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason in that example I might suggest going even lighter, due to the contentiousness of the issue and its implications ("this user opposes abortion" can mean "this user wouldn't have an abortion", which is one thing, but it also can mean "this user thinks all people should be prevented from having abortions", which is a bit different). But basically, yes, that's what I'm saying. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind on that one. In the interests of exposing bias, it would seem unnecessary to go that far. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Any sentiment asserting superiority over another group 

message: One of your criteria is not attacking any religion, while in another you cite a religious belief as an example of fraud. Perhaps this would be taken more seriously if it didn't contradict itself. Cynical 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the whole page, please. You have misunderstood the discussion. I didn't put forth those examples. Someone else did, and I rebutted each one. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I still don't agree with the policy. 'Incitement to violence'? What exactly does that mean? Stating a verifiable fact (e.g. 'the Iraq War was illegal' - whether you agree with the war as a moral/political matter or not, it was illegal [art. 2 UN Charter]) could incite violence. 'Sentiment expressing superiority' surely EVERY positive userbox is doing that (well with the possible exception of 'this user uses Microsoft Windows, but thinks its rubbish'). Obviously I understand that neither of those is the intention of the proposal, but having seen the debacle caused by CSD T#1 (with certain admins pretending that 'inflammatory' means 'anything I disagree with') this proposal would cause incalculable harm if it ever became policy (unless we de-sysop all the vandaladmins in which case it would be fine) Cynical 21:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incitement to violence would be just that -- urging or advocating that people commit violent acts. And no, not all userboxes express superiority. Stating that you use something does not allege superiority, except perhaps for the individual, but not as a rule. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory 

message: * Oppose -- Instruction creep. People who waste their time peeking into others' user pages looking for something to get annoyed about should not be given another weapon. We already have plenty of policy on this subject. John Reid 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: First, what are the next plans? How to troll in five easy steps? You can't just start making a list of things that aren't acceptable, because they aren't acceptable to you. The current policies are sufficient, and you are only inflaming the matter further. I hope this comes to a poll so that I can indicate my super lesbian oppose (apologies to Cyde). ... aa:talk 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know, I was continually told the "the current policies were sufficient" when this was active. But the causes of the userbox template controversy proved otherwise. Boxes were attacked under rationale such as those here. The difference is that those rationales were completely subjective and personally defined, and not defined by Wikipedia consensus. What it comes down to is that there will be a wheel-drive to delete "objectionable" material, no matter what. The difference is whether you want it done by a million definitions of "objectionable", or by one, that went through the consensual process on which WP is (suposedly) based. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is insane.