- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep - Wide latitude is afforded userboxes, particularly those in userspace, as per recent RFC and longstanding precedent. Although nomination was defective, it was in good faith and nominator stated that he or she was not sure that it was properly completed - still the fact that the creator of the box ( User:Gyan) was given no reasonable opportunity to comment and the box was not tagged at the time of nomination was taken into consideration. The examples of boxes that have been prohibited in the past are extreme examples advocating violence or hate; this is neither and the most extreme interpretation, advocated by those in favor of deletion is that it advocates the use of drugs which are illegal in Florida, or in the United States in general. However, other interpretations are probable and ambiguity was likely intended and is clearly present. It was unnecessary to engage in a technical attempt to parse the single phrase on the userbox to determine that the consensus is keep. It is also noted that this template was deleted from Template space in 2006 and was recreated specifically for movement to userspace under WP:GUS, although consensus can change, the fact that this was considered in the past is relevant. Doug.( talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Userbox perhaps encouraging illegal activity. Which wouldn't be advisable to have on site. I'm tired and haven't done this before lol so sorry if I've formatted this request wrong. If he just means he's against the War on Drugs then he perhaps needs to word it a bit more carefully. special, random, Merkinsmum 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Danger, Will Robinson - it is more than common courtesy to indicate on the page involved that a deletion discussion has been started regarding itself (we have special templates for that), and to notify parties which might hold a major interest in the page (i.e. who primarily edited the page). Technically speaking the entire discussion could be closed down as an incomplete nomination. Please fix that ASAP. Charon X/ talk 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed request. Lol, but what?
BoL (
Talk)
03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- How polite of you. It says "This user urges others to make peace, not war, with drugs" and has a picture of a big pile of bush or something. I don't think it's 'lol' preposterous to say that could be read as encouraging drug use because it helps us accomplish peace. Well that's what I read it as at first. I'm in the UK so 'war on drugs' wasn't the first thing that occured to me, I more thought he was refering to 'make love, not war', and thought he just meant "smoke dope, rather than have a war.' You can also see this in that he says 'make peace, not war with drugs' not 'war on drugs' which he would probably have said if he was referring to the War on drugs. Some other people, perhaps from the UK, perhaps from a different age range to this user, I expect would read it that way too, I doubt I'm the only one.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Use of recreational drugs (except alcohol, tobacco and caffeine) is, quite rightly, illegal in most jurisdictions, including the State of Florida (where Wikipedia is based). Just as userboxes which promote terrorism or racial/religious hatred are not permitted, neither are userboxes which promote any other kind of illegal or grossly immoral activity. WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply to userboxes; Wikipedia is not a free speech forum. While users are allowed to express opinions on userpages, there are limitations on this in order to promote community cohesion. Walton One 11:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Free speech is great, but not encouraging illegal activity. This protects the site as a whole from accusations of doing so.
special, random,
Merkinsmum
11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I agree with you. Hence why I !voted "Delete".
Walton
One
12:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I know, I was just agreeing with you back and some lol:) Sorry. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I agree with you. Hence why I !voted "Delete".
Walton
One
12:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Free speech is great, but not encouraging illegal activity. This protects the site as a whole from accusations of doing so.
special, random,
Merkinsmum
11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment what about in countries where it isn't illegal? Seddon69 ( talk) 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- In most of the area served by en.wikipedia it is illegal, it's also illegal where the wikipedia servers are placed, so in its own state having this here 'urges' -in the box's own words- others to commit an illegal act. Unless he means something else by this, in which case it needs to go in it's current form and be reworded. Merkin's mum 19:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't agree with the assertion that it encourages illegal activities. How does one exactly make war or peace WITH drugs? Charon X/ talk 18:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because people who believe in the use of cannabis say they can get peaceful feelings WITH the aid of it, and like the hippies, that world peace in general is fostered with it. Regardless of your feelings it may be interpreted as that by a lot of readers who aren't pro-drugs or even by the state. And you say yourself the statement is like, eh? he needs on such a sensitive subject to reword it so that his meaning is clear. Merkin's mum 19:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep While I can't speak for the userbox's creator, it seems that the wording of this box is intentionally taking advantage of ambiguities in the English language. I think it's more making a political statement rather than encouraging drug use in the "hippie" sense of "don't make war, smoke weed." Let me break down the statement to explain:
- First, take the statement, "This user encourages others to not make war with drugs." This can mean one of two things; it could mean essentially the same thing as "This user encourages others not to make war with other countries," or it could mean the same thing as, "This user encourages others not to make war with guns." The former interpretation implies the view of drugs/the drug industry as an active enemy entity; the latter interpretation uses drugs as an implement of war, in other words, using drugs or the idea of drugs as the spearhead of antagonistic international (or domestic) policy.
- Second, take the statement, "This user encourages others to make peace with drugs." Now, certainly this could be interpreted to mean that if everyone toked up once and awhile that we could achieve world peace, though it could also mean that we'd have a lot more peace if drugs were legalized and regulated. However, it could also be interpreted to mean that people should "make peace with drugs" in the same way that one might "make peace" with their maker/mom/estranged friend. In other words, reconcile with the their feelings about drugs and with the fact that there's little that can be done about their existence and use.
- So, given the above possible interpretations as a whole, the text of the userbox is a short, clever way of delivering a number of views about drug policy and drug use. It only peripherally encourages an illegal activity within a significantly more complex context, and even then only if that's really what you want it to mean, perhaps thus furthering the point of the box's text.
- Keep per LaMenta3; she put it better than I could. I'd also like to point out that the time between this discussion being opened by User:Merkinsmum and when I was notified by User:Jahiegel was fairly long (about 16 hours?), especially considering that there were no edits to the actual box when it was placed for deletion (it would have shown up on my watchlist). It's generally courteous to notify a user that you've opened a deletion discussion of something in their userspace, or if they're a primary editor of a page. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep user is free to express his opinion on the War on Drugs. Likewise, you are free to express your opinion on the War on Drugs in the state of Florida, where a large majority of the servers are.
Monobi (
talk)
02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- True, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, including the right to disagree with existing drug laws. However, Wikipedia, as a privately owned website, does not have to allow unlimited freedom of speech on its servers. Although, per longstanding precedent, we do allow users to express political and religious beliefs on their Wikipedia userpages (and I myself do so), we also have a standard practice of deleting userboxes which are inflammatory or encourage unlawful activity. For example, we have deleted userboxes promoting terrorism or racial hatred in the past. This is a case which falls clearly within that category, IMO. Walton One 11:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Rephrase - why not just rephrase it so it is clearer? Something like "This user opposes the War on Drugs"?. + Hexagon1 ( t) 03:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep - Wide latitude is afforded userboxes, particularly those in userspace, as per recent RFC and longstanding precedent. Although nomination was defective, it was in good faith and nominator stated that he or she was not sure that it was properly completed - still the fact that the creator of the box ( User:Gyan) was given no reasonable opportunity to comment and the box was not tagged at the time of nomination was taken into consideration. The examples of boxes that have been prohibited in the past are extreme examples advocating violence or hate; this is neither and the most extreme interpretation, advocated by those in favor of deletion is that it advocates the use of drugs which are illegal in Florida, or in the United States in general. However, other interpretations are probable and ambiguity was likely intended and is clearly present. It was unnecessary to engage in a technical attempt to parse the single phrase on the userbox to determine that the consensus is keep. It is also noted that this template was deleted from Template space in 2006 and was recreated specifically for movement to userspace under WP:GUS, although consensus can change, the fact that this was considered in the past is relevant. Doug.( talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Userbox perhaps encouraging illegal activity. Which wouldn't be advisable to have on site. I'm tired and haven't done this before lol so sorry if I've formatted this request wrong. If he just means he's against the War on Drugs then he perhaps needs to word it a bit more carefully. special, random, Merkinsmum 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Danger, Will Robinson - it is more than common courtesy to indicate on the page involved that a deletion discussion has been started regarding itself (we have special templates for that), and to notify parties which might hold a major interest in the page (i.e. who primarily edited the page). Technically speaking the entire discussion could be closed down as an incomplete nomination. Please fix that ASAP. Charon X/ talk 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed request. Lol, but what?
BoL (
Talk)
03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- How polite of you. It says "This user urges others to make peace, not war, with drugs" and has a picture of a big pile of bush or something. I don't think it's 'lol' preposterous to say that could be read as encouraging drug use because it helps us accomplish peace. Well that's what I read it as at first. I'm in the UK so 'war on drugs' wasn't the first thing that occured to me, I more thought he was refering to 'make love, not war', and thought he just meant "smoke dope, rather than have a war.' You can also see this in that he says 'make peace, not war with drugs' not 'war on drugs' which he would probably have said if he was referring to the War on drugs. Some other people, perhaps from the UK, perhaps from a different age range to this user, I expect would read it that way too, I doubt I'm the only one.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Use of recreational drugs (except alcohol, tobacco and caffeine) is, quite rightly, illegal in most jurisdictions, including the State of Florida (where Wikipedia is based). Just as userboxes which promote terrorism or racial/religious hatred are not permitted, neither are userboxes which promote any other kind of illegal or grossly immoral activity. WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply to userboxes; Wikipedia is not a free speech forum. While users are allowed to express opinions on userpages, there are limitations on this in order to promote community cohesion. Walton One 11:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Free speech is great, but not encouraging illegal activity. This protects the site as a whole from accusations of doing so.
special, random,
Merkinsmum
11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I agree with you. Hence why I !voted "Delete".
Walton
One
12:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I know, I was just agreeing with you back and some lol:) Sorry. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I agree with you. Hence why I !voted "Delete".
Walton
One
12:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Free speech is great, but not encouraging illegal activity. This protects the site as a whole from accusations of doing so.
special, random,
Merkinsmum
11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment what about in countries where it isn't illegal? Seddon69 ( talk) 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- In most of the area served by en.wikipedia it is illegal, it's also illegal where the wikipedia servers are placed, so in its own state having this here 'urges' -in the box's own words- others to commit an illegal act. Unless he means something else by this, in which case it needs to go in it's current form and be reworded. Merkin's mum 19:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't agree with the assertion that it encourages illegal activities. How does one exactly make war or peace WITH drugs? Charon X/ talk 18:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because people who believe in the use of cannabis say they can get peaceful feelings WITH the aid of it, and like the hippies, that world peace in general is fostered with it. Regardless of your feelings it may be interpreted as that by a lot of readers who aren't pro-drugs or even by the state. And you say yourself the statement is like, eh? he needs on such a sensitive subject to reword it so that his meaning is clear. Merkin's mum 19:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep While I can't speak for the userbox's creator, it seems that the wording of this box is intentionally taking advantage of ambiguities in the English language. I think it's more making a political statement rather than encouraging drug use in the "hippie" sense of "don't make war, smoke weed." Let me break down the statement to explain:
- First, take the statement, "This user encourages others to not make war with drugs." This can mean one of two things; it could mean essentially the same thing as "This user encourages others not to make war with other countries," or it could mean the same thing as, "This user encourages others not to make war with guns." The former interpretation implies the view of drugs/the drug industry as an active enemy entity; the latter interpretation uses drugs as an implement of war, in other words, using drugs or the idea of drugs as the spearhead of antagonistic international (or domestic) policy.
- Second, take the statement, "This user encourages others to make peace with drugs." Now, certainly this could be interpreted to mean that if everyone toked up once and awhile that we could achieve world peace, though it could also mean that we'd have a lot more peace if drugs were legalized and regulated. However, it could also be interpreted to mean that people should "make peace with drugs" in the same way that one might "make peace" with their maker/mom/estranged friend. In other words, reconcile with the their feelings about drugs and with the fact that there's little that can be done about their existence and use.
- So, given the above possible interpretations as a whole, the text of the userbox is a short, clever way of delivering a number of views about drug policy and drug use. It only peripherally encourages an illegal activity within a significantly more complex context, and even then only if that's really what you want it to mean, perhaps thus furthering the point of the box's text.
- Keep per LaMenta3; she put it better than I could. I'd also like to point out that the time between this discussion being opened by User:Merkinsmum and when I was notified by User:Jahiegel was fairly long (about 16 hours?), especially considering that there were no edits to the actual box when it was placed for deletion (it would have shown up on my watchlist). It's generally courteous to notify a user that you've opened a deletion discussion of something in their userspace, or if they're a primary editor of a page. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep user is free to express his opinion on the War on Drugs. Likewise, you are free to express your opinion on the War on Drugs in the state of Florida, where a large majority of the servers are.
Monobi (
talk)
02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- True, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, including the right to disagree with existing drug laws. However, Wikipedia, as a privately owned website, does not have to allow unlimited freedom of speech on its servers. Although, per longstanding precedent, we do allow users to express political and religious beliefs on their Wikipedia userpages (and I myself do so), we also have a standard practice of deleting userboxes which are inflammatory or encourage unlawful activity. For example, we have deleted userboxes promoting terrorism or racial hatred in the past. This is a case which falls clearly within that category, IMO. Walton One 11:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Rephrase - why not just rephrase it so it is clearer? Something like "This user opposes the War on Drugs"?. + Hexagon1 ( t) 03:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.