- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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:
Varied
- For shrooms and high the result is a technical no consensus, however as these are being hosted under an indefblocked username space (one of the deletion arguments) no maintain a no-consensus result they will need to be moved to a subpage of any user in good standing if they are to be default-kept. This should be done within the next 2 weeks, at which time the redirects can be speedied as housekeeping. If these are not moved by then, this closure shall commute in to a delete.
- User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms (see above)
- User:Geekler/High (see above)
- User:Gordonfreedman/heroin (Delete)
- User:X1987x/Userbox/War on drugs (keep)
- Boxes were adopted at User:CharonX/Userboxes/User Shrooms and User:CharonX/Userboxes/User High, originals deleted. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms
I'll nominate for deletion useboxes User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms, User:Gordonfreedman/heroin, User:Geekler/High, and User:X1987x/Userbox/War on drugs. They are related with drugs and I think they are divisive for the following reasons. There is a huge illegal business with drugs and it's mostly impossible to use them without having anything to do with illegal things. It's widely accepted that drugs are harmful and even those few who use them know that they have done harm to many people's life. To see a drug userbox is easily associated with trolling which creates tensions and prejudice between editors and hinders collaboration that way. Best regards Rhanyeia 07:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the first three as they are part of indef blocked accounts and really have no positive use. However the fourth one is a political opinion and I believe that this one should be a keep as there are many other similar anti-Bush policy ubxs. nat t a n g 08:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- The forth one does not comply with instructions on Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing a userbox which advices one to express things with a positive sentence (what you like). Best regards Rhanyeia 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the horse (no, just no), keep the others as harmless and WP:NOT censored. -- But| seriously| folks 08:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Userboxes are not encyclopedia articles so "Wikipedia is not censored" does not apply to them. Best regards Rhanyeia 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete User:X1987x/Userbox/War on drugs, as it expresses a political opinion in the negative ( WP:USERBOX#Potentially divisive words). Keep the others, especially User:Geekler/High as it can be seen as a joke. -- Alksub 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete the first three, Keep the fourth.If any user wants to mention any drug use in his or her userpage, go for it, but there's no need for a userbox. For the fourth, however, it's not too divisive or inflammatory. Also, WP:UBX is a guideline, not a policy. As WP:GUIDELINE states, a guideline merely "recommends actions that editors should either take or avoid" and that they "are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense". hmwith talk 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the first three, as they don't do any harm and don't break any guidelines (I personally see no need for the third, but there seem to be plenty of joke userboxes and I wouldn't nominate this alone for deletion). Strong Keep for the fourth, as deleting it amounts to using Wikipedia as a soapbox- there are many userboxes expressing political views and singling this one out is utterly unacceptable. Lurker ( said · done) 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the first three. As I've explained at a couple of prior MfDs, my interpretation of "Wikipedia is not censored" is that we don't censor encyclopedic content to avoid offending people; however, userboxes are not part of the encyclopedia, and so should respect decency and good taste and should avoid offending other members of the community. To be honest, I also think that anyone who admits to using drugs should probably be blocked, as it's an illegal activity, and we don't need criminals on Wikipedia. Keep the fourth box, because it's a legitimate political viewpoint (albeit one that I disagree with) and doesn't imply actual drug use. Walton One 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the precedent here is that users have more latitude in their user space than in encyclopaedia space. As for decency and good taste- its your opinion that taking drugs is indecent, and you should not impose that view on others. Just about any statement could offend others- should we delete thia template and others like it? - User:Sefringle/Pro-Choice. Deleting userboxes that mention an activity you personally find distasteful is a bad precedent. The key in deciding whether or not to delete is does it have any function other than offending people? As the first two userboxes are statements of fact, WP:FAITH should be our guide. I don't care about the allegedly humourous template, but see no need to treat it differently from any other joke template. Lurker ( said · done) 10:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep User:X1987x/Userbox/War on drugs. Users should generally be able to express their political opinions in a straightforward manner, since disclosure of possible biases is a net positive. Keep User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms and User:Gordonfreedman/heroin as plain statements of fact phrased as neutrally as possible; the point about disclosure of biases applies here too. Weak keep User:Geekler/High; I don't see anything particularly worthy about it, but neither do I see a reason to delete. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - There's a big difference between expressing a political opinion and saying that you've used heroin or are currently "high". I see no purpose of such userboxes. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep divisiveness is in the eye of the beholder: 1. Let's see support the Republicans vs. support the Democrats (in the US, abroad, pick any other political parties) userboxes seem calculated to divide - the nature of diviseness - but those are sacrosanct. Given that we allow userboxes of virtually every stripe, having those on both sides of the war on drugs debate is no more divisive that those on politics, religion, foreign relations, cultural conflicts, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- This:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war might have some relevancy here. In my own opinion, Userboxes are basically a way for people to gradually turn Wikipedia userpages into myspace. They really serve no purpose for advancing the encyclopedia. A few userboxes here and there won't hurt, But a userbox saying that "I've used Heroin" really serves absolutely no purpose for advancing the encyclopedia.
Wikidudeman
(talk) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Basically I agree with you, but the community has seen fit to allow userboxes for virtually every life experience, for political, religious, cultural, or ethical opinions, for opinions about WP, for memberships, ethnicities, where one is from, whether one contributes to WP in the nude, whether one has a varied sex lives or is a virgin, etc., etc. Whether one has used drugs doesn't seem so far off the way-too-wide path we've allowed. I think we should have a debate on what should be allowable rather than just find what's unpopular, call it divisive or offensive and take the POV that the opposite position (a drug-free box) is inoffensive is the wrong approach, imho. Carlossuarez46 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just don't know where we draw the line on userboxes. The community has agreed that userboxes saying that the user is a "Pedophile" are not allowed however userboxes saying the user has used heroin are allowed? Now, Don't get me wrong. I Clearly believe that Pedophilia in itself is disgusting and repugnant and I don't necessarily hold the same beliefs for Heroin(or other drug) use, however where must a line be drawn?
Wikidudeman
(talk) 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the ArbCom case is about wheel warring, not about deciding which userboxes are to be banned. There is no policy saying paedophilia userboxes are not allowed, just a vaguely-worded guideline saying "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." which is so subjective to be of use only in a very small number of situations. Paedophilia userboxes could be seen as clearly crossing the line- it's an activity almost universally loathed and anyone creating one is probably trolling. The drugs issue is not so clear-cut. As mentioned before, the war on drugs box is no more divisive than the expression of any other opinion, while most people tend not to see drug-taking in the same light as the sexual abuse of children. Where do we draw the line? Where we can be sure a template would cause revulsion in almost everyone who sees it, or where we can be sure the userbox creator is setting out to be inflammatory or divisive. and in those cases, the burden of proof must rest on those wanting to ban the userboxes. Lurker ( said · done) 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- This:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war might have some relevancy here. In my own opinion, Userboxes are basically a way for people to gradually turn Wikipedia userpages into myspace. They really serve no purpose for advancing the encyclopedia. A few userboxes here and there won't hurt, But a userbox saying that "I've used Heroin" really serves absolutely no purpose for advancing the encyclopedia.
Wikidudeman
(talk) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep on all of them. I agree with Carlossuarez46. Until there's some sort of rule about legality in userboxes there's no good reason for removal. But, even if such a rule were made it would hardly be fair in terms of the community. Wikipedia is international and ANYONE fluent in English can contribute to this version. Why should Dutch or Quebecois contributers have to worry about what's essentially a U.S. debate? I could get into some ironic stuff about using Saudi Arabian standard or some such thing, but I think everyone gets the point. Leodmacleod 06:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Except Heroin use isn't legal in Holland. And Cannabis use and legality isn't essentially a U.S. debate but more likely a worldwide one. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep war on drugs-- a perfectly legitimate statement of opinion. One can perfectly well have this opinion on grounds of unfortunate social consequences or individual liberty without every using them. The others, I'm uncertain. DGG ( talk) 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and being high does not foster encyclopedic contribution. Also, those people saying "Why single these out" would do well to read
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ^
demon
[omg plz] 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right, This isn't Myspace. Me knowing that an editor is high, uses heroin or crack cocaine doesn't help improve this encyclopedia at all. It could even be harmful for it in some ways. Even me knowing that an editor "opposes" or "supports" the war on drugs is irrelevant. So you oppose the war on drugs? So what? Does that mean you're going to try to push POV in articles on that topic? No? Then why make a statement about your views? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just read about a kid who lives on a street using heroin. This is too divisive. A political statement that someone is against something which tries to stop these illegal things? I don't live in the US and I don't know the conversation about this "War on drugs", for me the userbox sounds "this user supports illegal drug business". I can't deal with it. I'm about to lose my WikiLove attitude here. Rhanyeia 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Say what?
Wikidudeman
(talk) 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- This userbox has a lot of problems. It's not only incompatible with
Wikipedia:Userboxes with its negative statement "is against", it's also difficult to understand what it says. It doesn't state why the user opposes this thing and creates an impression that the user supports illegal drug business. Best regards
Rhanyeia 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fantasy corrupts the minds of our children and leads them to satanism. Please delete the fantasy userbox on your userpage... (just kidding) Sorry, I understand that you oppose illegal drug use and trade, but your arguments boil down to
WP:IHATEIT and that won't cut the custard.
Charon
X/
talk 11:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- A line has to be drawn somewhere. To start to support illegal things with userboxes would be terrible unhelpful. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- So again it boils down to WP:IHATEIT / WP:ITBOTHERSME. Homosexuality also still illegal in many countries, I suppose we need to crack down on those boxes too? How about all those religious boxes - they might been seen as attempts at conversion - which is illegal somewhere. How about those boxes promoting human rights and free-speech (not wanted in China). Give me a subject and enough time and I will find someone who objects to it. I feel you need to offer a better argument than "the line must be drawn somewhere" Charon X/ talk 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- A line has to be drawn somewhere. To start to support illegal things with userboxes would be terrible unhelpful. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fantasy corrupts the minds of our children and leads them to satanism. Please delete the fantasy userbox on your userpage... (just kidding) Sorry, I understand that you oppose illegal drug use and trade, but your arguments boil down to
WP:IHATEIT and that won't cut the custard.
Charon
X/
talk 11:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- This userbox has a lot of problems. It's not only incompatible with
Wikipedia:Userboxes with its negative statement "is against", it's also difficult to understand what it says. It doesn't state why the user opposes this thing and creates an impression that the user supports illegal drug business. Best regards
Rhanyeia 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Say what?
Wikidudeman
(talk) 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the War on Drugs one and the "so high" one. Nuke the others. -- UsaSatsui 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Shrooms, heroin, High. Keep War on drugs.. OR Delete Shrooms, heroin, High. Change War on drugs to This user is interested in the War on Drugs. Domthedude001 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your proposed wording would make the meaning opposite. The box would need to be reworded some way if it's kept, but does anyone even know what it supports, illegal drug business? To state things as "is against" is not going to create collaboration. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 07:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Shroom, heroin and High boxes serve no positive purpose. They've been created by an indef blocked sock, and if they are not deleted how does that look to trolls and vandals? It would encourage them to create that kind of stuff here. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 07:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all
Weak Delete (without prejudice against recreation by another user) for the first three, solely on grounds that they were created by ifdef blocked sockpuppets. And Keep the"Against War on Drugs" and the others are a valid form of free expression - I believe (looking at the summary) that if that box read "Supports War on Drugs" the nominator would not have nominated the box. We tolerate the diverse views of our editors and attempt to avoid bias, and "This user is against the War on Drugs" is not more divisive than an userbox that declares an user an atheist (to a highly-religious person) or enjoys eating meat (to a hardline "save the animals" vegan). The boxes are not inheritly divisive or agressively worded, so the nomination boils down to WP:IHATEIT, which does not work. Charon X/ talk 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Many people have cited the "negative statements" clause of WP:USERBOXES as a reason to delete the fourth box. I don't think the spirit of that clause (of a guideline, not a policy btw) quite applied here. The clause seems intended to stop 'userbox wars' where people would spend their time making userboxes about things they hate, in order to piss people off. In this case, the box is intended to show a political viewpoint- that the war on drugs is wrong. It is not intended to troll or to annoy people (of course, it does annoy a small group of people but unintentionally annoying people is different from setting out to do so). It is not intended to be a justification for the censorship of political expression. I think we should take the purpose of that clause to be to prevent userboxes being used to anger others, and not insist on a too literal reading of the clause. In, other words, use common sense and apply WP:IAR.
- Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has also been cited above. I think this too is a misapplication of a guideline. This clause is intended to prevent the existence of certain articles being used to confer notability on other, similar articles. This discussion is not concerned with article notability, so this clause is, in my opinion, not too useful here. Here, we are talking about whether editors should be banned from expressing opinions in a certain way. This makes it basically a policy matter, and therefore looking for precedents is useful.
- Thirdly, I don't think the argument "this does not foster collaboration" is all that useful when talking about user space. Traditionally, Wikipedians have quite a bit of latitude in their user space. Many userboxes (such as the aforementioned fantasy userbox are not created to foster collaboration- a certain level of purely personal content is allowed in user space. Lurker ( said · done) 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- "This user is atheist" and "this user is against religions" are two different things. It's possible to hold a certain viewpoint and still tolerate other viewpoints. It's possible to be an atheist because not believing in God, think that people who believe in God are wrong, and still be tolerant for other people's freedom to think differently. I think it's very important to try to express userboxes in the positive way, so that it's possible for editors to try to tolerate each other's viewpoints. This is about userboxes, not about "banned from expressing opinions" which can be done in many ways. Userbox says one short thing, not explaining it in any way. The box "against War on drugs" does not explain the viewpoint, it only states what it's against, and that creates tensions among editors and makes it more difficult to concentrate on articles, which can already be difficult. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that this way you only allow half of the expressions. You allow someone to support something, but you don't allow someone to oppose something? That's a bit counter-intuitive. Example: I'd be allowed to say "this user supports abortions", but I'd not be allowed to say "this user opposes abortions", ok, now how about "this user supports the pro-life movement". Wait... the pro-life movement opposes abortions, so this actually reads "this user opposes abortions", which is not allowed. Similarly, if the userbox said "this user supports the end of the war on drugs" the userbox would be "worded in a positive manner" but still have the same content you object. And being forced to play a wacky
game of Taboo is just silly.
Charon
X/
talk 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I say in the comment after this I have no opinion about that "support" userbox. I have not been here when there's been the fights about userboxes and the migration, and I'm trying to not to take too much stand. But userboxes with "is against" I find inappropriate, and they are not approved by the
WP:UBX either. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded a tad agressive, but having experienced the userbox-debacle it remains a very touchy subject for me. But I must ask if you have no opinion on the "support" userbox, why nominate it for deletion? That simply strikes me as odd.
Charon
X/
talk 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, are we missing each other? :) The "support" userbox meant "supports War on Drugs", and I don't even know if that box exists. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 17:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had mental blank just there (read oppose when you actually wrote support). Of course there is no "support" userbox. But to directly ask the question, you would not mind the wording "This user supports demands to end the war on drugs"? But you'd object to "this users opposes the war on drugs"? Ungoodthinkwise! Charon X/ talk 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, are we missing each other? :) The "support" userbox meant "supports War on Drugs", and I don't even know if that box exists. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 17:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded a tad agressive, but having experienced the userbox-debacle it remains a very touchy subject for me. But I must ask if you have no opinion on the "support" userbox, why nominate it for deletion? That simply strikes me as odd.
Charon
X/
talk 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I say in the comment after this I have no opinion about that "support" userbox. I have not been here when there's been the fights about userboxes and the migration, and I'm trying to not to take too much stand. But userboxes with "is against" I find inappropriate, and they are not approved by the
WP:UBX either. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that this way you only allow half of the expressions. You allow someone to support something, but you don't allow someone to oppose something? That's a bit counter-intuitive. Example: I'd be allowed to say "this user supports abortions", but I'd not be allowed to say "this user opposes abortions", ok, now how about "this user supports the pro-life movement". Wait... the pro-life movement opposes abortions, so this actually reads "this user opposes abortions", which is not allowed. Similarly, if the userbox said "this user supports the end of the war on drugs" the userbox would be "worded in a positive manner" but still have the same content you object. And being forced to play a wacky
game of Taboo is just silly.
Charon
X/
talk 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- "This user is atheist" and "this user is against religions" are two different things. It's possible to hold a certain viewpoint and still tolerate other viewpoints. It's possible to be an atheist because not believing in God, think that people who believe in God are wrong, and still be tolerant for other people's freedom to think differently. I think it's very important to try to express userboxes in the positive way, so that it's possible for editors to try to tolerate each other's viewpoints. This is about userboxes, not about "banned from expressing opinions" which can be done in many ways. Userbox says one short thing, not explaining it in any way. The box "against War on drugs" does not explain the viewpoint, it only states what it's against, and that creates tensions among editors and makes it more difficult to concentrate on articles, which can already be difficult. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 | This user is drug-free. |
- I'd be ready to see that deleted, it doesn't matter to me. I think drugs are so divisive that it would be better without boxes about them. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then we come back to WP:IHATEIT. Lurker ( said · done) 12:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It's a different thing to "hate" something and think that something which is not legal in most places is divisive. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 13:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose it is more a WP:ITBOTHERSME then... But seriously said, I've see no convincing reasons so far that this mildly worded userbox is divisive in a way that warrants deletion. Charon X/ talk 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It's a different thing to "hate" something and think that something which is not legal in most places is divisive. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 13:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can't deal with this. I can't deal with those boxes. If one of the first things I found out about a new person is that he supports some illegalities, I'd walk out of the situation. That's totally different than finding out that a friend was using drugs, I would already know him and how he's like. I'm not ready to hear that someone uses drugs unless I already know and trust him, I can't build trust on an information like that. Here I don't know anyone. User page is the first thing I see about a new person I'm supposed to work together here. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 07:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- To delete the boxes would help a lot. User page is an interface to co-operate with other editors, and userboxes serve that with giving some simple information about the user, and drug interests or support for illegalities would better not have userboxes. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 11:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Resetting indentionSo you admit that your main issue with the userboxes is not that they are "worded negatively" or something (as you claimed in regard to the opposes war on drugs box) but that they state said user either uses drugs or opposes anti-drug efforts. I strongly suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I_don.27t_like_it. We don't dictate the views of other users, nor is expression of said views disallowed. Your argument "User page is an interface to co-operate with other editors, and userboxes serve that with giving some simple information about the user, and drug interests or support for illegalities would better not have userboxes" boils down at to WP:ITBOTHERSME. And to point out a possible uses of said pro-drug userboxes: Edits of users with pro-drug userboxes to drug-related articles could be put under additional scrunity (as could anti-drug userbox displaying users; both variants are a disclosure of possible bias). And Editors with interests in drug-related topics can identify other editors with similar interests and for a cooperation while writing articles. And as far as I know " don't ask don't tell" is not a policy here on Wikipedia, whatever the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharonX.
- I think you don't read me correctly. The main problem with all these boxes are the drugs, that they connect to illegalities. "Is against War on drugs" has another problem too, that it's "against" something. And it doesn't matter whether I "like" or "don't like" drugs, they are divisive anyway, to many. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 16:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the first three, Keep the third. Would we like to see userboxes citing "This user has raped x women" or "This user has committed murder"? The only reason to have drug use as part of a userbox would be as a political statement (which might bo OK under certain circumstances), or if the drug use is so integral to the user's life that they are probably too high to contribute effectively. If the user wants to offer his/her views on drug use, then the fourth userbox should suffice that; as well as any other ubx citing an opinion on the controversey, rather than flaunting how they broke the law. bahamut0013 ♠ ♣ 00:16, 9 October 2007 (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 miscellany 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:
Varied
- For shrooms and high the result is a technical no consensus, however as these are being hosted under an indefblocked username space (one of the deletion arguments) no maintain a no-consensus result they will need to be moved to a subpage of any user in good standing if they are to be default-kept. This should be done within the next 2 weeks, at which time the redirects can be speedied as housekeeping. If these are not moved by then, this closure shall commute in to a delete.
- User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms (see above)
- User:Geekler/High (see above)
- User:Gordonfreedman/heroin (Delete)
- User:X1987x/Userbox/War on drugs (keep)
- Boxes were adopted at User:CharonX/Userboxes/User Shrooms and User:CharonX/Userboxes/User High, originals deleted. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms
I'll nominate for deletion useboxes User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms, User:Gordonfreedman/heroin, User:Geekler/High, and User:X1987x/Userbox/War on drugs. They are related with drugs and I think they are divisive for the following reasons. There is a huge illegal business with drugs and it's mostly impossible to use them without having anything to do with illegal things. It's widely accepted that drugs are harmful and even those few who use them know that they have done harm to many people's life. To see a drug userbox is easily associated with trolling which creates tensions and prejudice between editors and hinders collaboration that way. Best regards Rhanyeia 07:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the first three as they are part of indef blocked accounts and really have no positive use. However the fourth one is a political opinion and I believe that this one should be a keep as there are many other similar anti-Bush policy ubxs. nat t a n g 08:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- The forth one does not comply with instructions on Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing a userbox which advices one to express things with a positive sentence (what you like). Best regards Rhanyeia 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the horse (no, just no), keep the others as harmless and WP:NOT censored. -- But| seriously| folks 08:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Userboxes are not encyclopedia articles so "Wikipedia is not censored" does not apply to them. Best regards Rhanyeia 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete User:X1987x/Userbox/War on drugs, as it expresses a political opinion in the negative ( WP:USERBOX#Potentially divisive words). Keep the others, especially User:Geekler/High as it can be seen as a joke. -- Alksub 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete the first three, Keep the fourth.If any user wants to mention any drug use in his or her userpage, go for it, but there's no need for a userbox. For the fourth, however, it's not too divisive or inflammatory. Also, WP:UBX is a guideline, not a policy. As WP:GUIDELINE states, a guideline merely "recommends actions that editors should either take or avoid" and that they "are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense". hmwith talk 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the first three, as they don't do any harm and don't break any guidelines (I personally see no need for the third, but there seem to be plenty of joke userboxes and I wouldn't nominate this alone for deletion). Strong Keep for the fourth, as deleting it amounts to using Wikipedia as a soapbox- there are many userboxes expressing political views and singling this one out is utterly unacceptable. Lurker ( said · done) 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the first three. As I've explained at a couple of prior MfDs, my interpretation of "Wikipedia is not censored" is that we don't censor encyclopedic content to avoid offending people; however, userboxes are not part of the encyclopedia, and so should respect decency and good taste and should avoid offending other members of the community. To be honest, I also think that anyone who admits to using drugs should probably be blocked, as it's an illegal activity, and we don't need criminals on Wikipedia. Keep the fourth box, because it's a legitimate political viewpoint (albeit one that I disagree with) and doesn't imply actual drug use. Walton One 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the precedent here is that users have more latitude in their user space than in encyclopaedia space. As for decency and good taste- its your opinion that taking drugs is indecent, and you should not impose that view on others. Just about any statement could offend others- should we delete thia template and others like it? - User:Sefringle/Pro-Choice. Deleting userboxes that mention an activity you personally find distasteful is a bad precedent. The key in deciding whether or not to delete is does it have any function other than offending people? As the first two userboxes are statements of fact, WP:FAITH should be our guide. I don't care about the allegedly humourous template, but see no need to treat it differently from any other joke template. Lurker ( said · done) 10:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep User:X1987x/Userbox/War on drugs. Users should generally be able to express their political opinions in a straightforward manner, since disclosure of possible biases is a net positive. Keep User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms and User:Gordonfreedman/heroin as plain statements of fact phrased as neutrally as possible; the point about disclosure of biases applies here too. Weak keep User:Geekler/High; I don't see anything particularly worthy about it, but neither do I see a reason to delete. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - There's a big difference between expressing a political opinion and saying that you've used heroin or are currently "high". I see no purpose of such userboxes. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep divisiveness is in the eye of the beholder: 1. Let's see support the Republicans vs. support the Democrats (in the US, abroad, pick any other political parties) userboxes seem calculated to divide - the nature of diviseness - but those are sacrosanct. Given that we allow userboxes of virtually every stripe, having those on both sides of the war on drugs debate is no more divisive that those on politics, religion, foreign relations, cultural conflicts, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- This:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war might have some relevancy here. In my own opinion, Userboxes are basically a way for people to gradually turn Wikipedia userpages into myspace. They really serve no purpose for advancing the encyclopedia. A few userboxes here and there won't hurt, But a userbox saying that "I've used Heroin" really serves absolutely no purpose for advancing the encyclopedia.
Wikidudeman
(talk) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Basically I agree with you, but the community has seen fit to allow userboxes for virtually every life experience, for political, religious, cultural, or ethical opinions, for opinions about WP, for memberships, ethnicities, where one is from, whether one contributes to WP in the nude, whether one has a varied sex lives or is a virgin, etc., etc. Whether one has used drugs doesn't seem so far off the way-too-wide path we've allowed. I think we should have a debate on what should be allowable rather than just find what's unpopular, call it divisive or offensive and take the POV that the opposite position (a drug-free box) is inoffensive is the wrong approach, imho. Carlossuarez46 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just don't know where we draw the line on userboxes. The community has agreed that userboxes saying that the user is a "Pedophile" are not allowed however userboxes saying the user has used heroin are allowed? Now, Don't get me wrong. I Clearly believe that Pedophilia in itself is disgusting and repugnant and I don't necessarily hold the same beliefs for Heroin(or other drug) use, however where must a line be drawn?
Wikidudeman
(talk) 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the ArbCom case is about wheel warring, not about deciding which userboxes are to be banned. There is no policy saying paedophilia userboxes are not allowed, just a vaguely-worded guideline saying "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." which is so subjective to be of use only in a very small number of situations. Paedophilia userboxes could be seen as clearly crossing the line- it's an activity almost universally loathed and anyone creating one is probably trolling. The drugs issue is not so clear-cut. As mentioned before, the war on drugs box is no more divisive than the expression of any other opinion, while most people tend not to see drug-taking in the same light as the sexual abuse of children. Where do we draw the line? Where we can be sure a template would cause revulsion in almost everyone who sees it, or where we can be sure the userbox creator is setting out to be inflammatory or divisive. and in those cases, the burden of proof must rest on those wanting to ban the userboxes. Lurker ( said · done) 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- This:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war might have some relevancy here. In my own opinion, Userboxes are basically a way for people to gradually turn Wikipedia userpages into myspace. They really serve no purpose for advancing the encyclopedia. A few userboxes here and there won't hurt, But a userbox saying that "I've used Heroin" really serves absolutely no purpose for advancing the encyclopedia.
Wikidudeman
(talk) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep on all of them. I agree with Carlossuarez46. Until there's some sort of rule about legality in userboxes there's no good reason for removal. But, even if such a rule were made it would hardly be fair in terms of the community. Wikipedia is international and ANYONE fluent in English can contribute to this version. Why should Dutch or Quebecois contributers have to worry about what's essentially a U.S. debate? I could get into some ironic stuff about using Saudi Arabian standard or some such thing, but I think everyone gets the point. Leodmacleod 06:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Except Heroin use isn't legal in Holland. And Cannabis use and legality isn't essentially a U.S. debate but more likely a worldwide one. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep war on drugs-- a perfectly legitimate statement of opinion. One can perfectly well have this opinion on grounds of unfortunate social consequences or individual liberty without every using them. The others, I'm uncertain. DGG ( talk) 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and being high does not foster encyclopedic contribution. Also, those people saying "Why single these out" would do well to read
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ^
demon
[omg plz] 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right, This isn't Myspace. Me knowing that an editor is high, uses heroin or crack cocaine doesn't help improve this encyclopedia at all. It could even be harmful for it in some ways. Even me knowing that an editor "opposes" or "supports" the war on drugs is irrelevant. So you oppose the war on drugs? So what? Does that mean you're going to try to push POV in articles on that topic? No? Then why make a statement about your views? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just read about a kid who lives on a street using heroin. This is too divisive. A political statement that someone is against something which tries to stop these illegal things? I don't live in the US and I don't know the conversation about this "War on drugs", for me the userbox sounds "this user supports illegal drug business". I can't deal with it. I'm about to lose my WikiLove attitude here. Rhanyeia 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Say what?
Wikidudeman
(talk) 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- This userbox has a lot of problems. It's not only incompatible with
Wikipedia:Userboxes with its negative statement "is against", it's also difficult to understand what it says. It doesn't state why the user opposes this thing and creates an impression that the user supports illegal drug business. Best regards
Rhanyeia 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fantasy corrupts the minds of our children and leads them to satanism. Please delete the fantasy userbox on your userpage... (just kidding) Sorry, I understand that you oppose illegal drug use and trade, but your arguments boil down to
WP:IHATEIT and that won't cut the custard.
Charon
X/
talk 11:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- A line has to be drawn somewhere. To start to support illegal things with userboxes would be terrible unhelpful. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- So again it boils down to WP:IHATEIT / WP:ITBOTHERSME. Homosexuality also still illegal in many countries, I suppose we need to crack down on those boxes too? How about all those religious boxes - they might been seen as attempts at conversion - which is illegal somewhere. How about those boxes promoting human rights and free-speech (not wanted in China). Give me a subject and enough time and I will find someone who objects to it. I feel you need to offer a better argument than "the line must be drawn somewhere" Charon X/ talk 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- A line has to be drawn somewhere. To start to support illegal things with userboxes would be terrible unhelpful. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fantasy corrupts the minds of our children and leads them to satanism. Please delete the fantasy userbox on your userpage... (just kidding) Sorry, I understand that you oppose illegal drug use and trade, but your arguments boil down to
WP:IHATEIT and that won't cut the custard.
Charon
X/
talk 11:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- This userbox has a lot of problems. It's not only incompatible with
Wikipedia:Userboxes with its negative statement "is against", it's also difficult to understand what it says. It doesn't state why the user opposes this thing and creates an impression that the user supports illegal drug business. Best regards
Rhanyeia 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Say what?
Wikidudeman
(talk) 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the War on Drugs one and the "so high" one. Nuke the others. -- UsaSatsui 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Shrooms, heroin, High. Keep War on drugs.. OR Delete Shrooms, heroin, High. Change War on drugs to This user is interested in the War on Drugs. Domthedude001 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your proposed wording would make the meaning opposite. The box would need to be reworded some way if it's kept, but does anyone even know what it supports, illegal drug business? To state things as "is against" is not going to create collaboration. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 07:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Shroom, heroin and High boxes serve no positive purpose. They've been created by an indef blocked sock, and if they are not deleted how does that look to trolls and vandals? It would encourage them to create that kind of stuff here. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 07:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all
Weak Delete (without prejudice against recreation by another user) for the first three, solely on grounds that they were created by ifdef blocked sockpuppets. And Keep the"Against War on Drugs" and the others are a valid form of free expression - I believe (looking at the summary) that if that box read "Supports War on Drugs" the nominator would not have nominated the box. We tolerate the diverse views of our editors and attempt to avoid bias, and "This user is against the War on Drugs" is not more divisive than an userbox that declares an user an atheist (to a highly-religious person) or enjoys eating meat (to a hardline "save the animals" vegan). The boxes are not inheritly divisive or agressively worded, so the nomination boils down to WP:IHATEIT, which does not work. Charon X/ talk 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Many people have cited the "negative statements" clause of WP:USERBOXES as a reason to delete the fourth box. I don't think the spirit of that clause (of a guideline, not a policy btw) quite applied here. The clause seems intended to stop 'userbox wars' where people would spend their time making userboxes about things they hate, in order to piss people off. In this case, the box is intended to show a political viewpoint- that the war on drugs is wrong. It is not intended to troll or to annoy people (of course, it does annoy a small group of people but unintentionally annoying people is different from setting out to do so). It is not intended to be a justification for the censorship of political expression. I think we should take the purpose of that clause to be to prevent userboxes being used to anger others, and not insist on a too literal reading of the clause. In, other words, use common sense and apply WP:IAR.
- Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has also been cited above. I think this too is a misapplication of a guideline. This clause is intended to prevent the existence of certain articles being used to confer notability on other, similar articles. This discussion is not concerned with article notability, so this clause is, in my opinion, not too useful here. Here, we are talking about whether editors should be banned from expressing opinions in a certain way. This makes it basically a policy matter, and therefore looking for precedents is useful.
- Thirdly, I don't think the argument "this does not foster collaboration" is all that useful when talking about user space. Traditionally, Wikipedians have quite a bit of latitude in their user space. Many userboxes (such as the aforementioned fantasy userbox are not created to foster collaboration- a certain level of purely personal content is allowed in user space. Lurker ( said · done) 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- "This user is atheist" and "this user is against religions" are two different things. It's possible to hold a certain viewpoint and still tolerate other viewpoints. It's possible to be an atheist because not believing in God, think that people who believe in God are wrong, and still be tolerant for other people's freedom to think differently. I think it's very important to try to express userboxes in the positive way, so that it's possible for editors to try to tolerate each other's viewpoints. This is about userboxes, not about "banned from expressing opinions" which can be done in many ways. Userbox says one short thing, not explaining it in any way. The box "against War on drugs" does not explain the viewpoint, it only states what it's against, and that creates tensions among editors and makes it more difficult to concentrate on articles, which can already be difficult. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that this way you only allow half of the expressions. You allow someone to support something, but you don't allow someone to oppose something? That's a bit counter-intuitive. Example: I'd be allowed to say "this user supports abortions", but I'd not be allowed to say "this user opposes abortions", ok, now how about "this user supports the pro-life movement". Wait... the pro-life movement opposes abortions, so this actually reads "this user opposes abortions", which is not allowed. Similarly, if the userbox said "this user supports the end of the war on drugs" the userbox would be "worded in a positive manner" but still have the same content you object. And being forced to play a wacky
game of Taboo is just silly.
Charon
X/
talk 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I say in the comment after this I have no opinion about that "support" userbox. I have not been here when there's been the fights about userboxes and the migration, and I'm trying to not to take too much stand. But userboxes with "is against" I find inappropriate, and they are not approved by the
WP:UBX either. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded a tad agressive, but having experienced the userbox-debacle it remains a very touchy subject for me. But I must ask if you have no opinion on the "support" userbox, why nominate it for deletion? That simply strikes me as odd.
Charon
X/
talk 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, are we missing each other? :) The "support" userbox meant "supports War on Drugs", and I don't even know if that box exists. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 17:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had mental blank just there (read oppose when you actually wrote support). Of course there is no "support" userbox. But to directly ask the question, you would not mind the wording "This user supports demands to end the war on drugs"? But you'd object to "this users opposes the war on drugs"? Ungoodthinkwise! Charon X/ talk 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, are we missing each other? :) The "support" userbox meant "supports War on Drugs", and I don't even know if that box exists. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 17:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded a tad agressive, but having experienced the userbox-debacle it remains a very touchy subject for me. But I must ask if you have no opinion on the "support" userbox, why nominate it for deletion? That simply strikes me as odd.
Charon
X/
talk 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I say in the comment after this I have no opinion about that "support" userbox. I have not been here when there's been the fights about userboxes and the migration, and I'm trying to not to take too much stand. But userboxes with "is against" I find inappropriate, and they are not approved by the
WP:UBX either. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that this way you only allow half of the expressions. You allow someone to support something, but you don't allow someone to oppose something? That's a bit counter-intuitive. Example: I'd be allowed to say "this user supports abortions", but I'd not be allowed to say "this user opposes abortions", ok, now how about "this user supports the pro-life movement". Wait... the pro-life movement opposes abortions, so this actually reads "this user opposes abortions", which is not allowed. Similarly, if the userbox said "this user supports the end of the war on drugs" the userbox would be "worded in a positive manner" but still have the same content you object. And being forced to play a wacky
game of Taboo is just silly.
Charon
X/
talk 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- "This user is atheist" and "this user is against religions" are two different things. It's possible to hold a certain viewpoint and still tolerate other viewpoints. It's possible to be an atheist because not believing in God, think that people who believe in God are wrong, and still be tolerant for other people's freedom to think differently. I think it's very important to try to express userboxes in the positive way, so that it's possible for editors to try to tolerate each other's viewpoints. This is about userboxes, not about "banned from expressing opinions" which can be done in many ways. Userbox says one short thing, not explaining it in any way. The box "against War on drugs" does not explain the viewpoint, it only states what it's against, and that creates tensions among editors and makes it more difficult to concentrate on articles, which can already be difficult. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
|
| This user is drug-free. |
- I'd be ready to see that deleted, it doesn't matter to me. I think drugs are so divisive that it would be better without boxes about them. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then we come back to WP:IHATEIT. Lurker ( said · done) 12:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It's a different thing to "hate" something and think that something which is not legal in most places is divisive. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 13:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose it is more a WP:ITBOTHERSME then... But seriously said, I've see no convincing reasons so far that this mildly worded userbox is divisive in a way that warrants deletion. Charon X/ talk 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It's a different thing to "hate" something and think that something which is not legal in most places is divisive. Best regards
Rhanyeia
♥
♫ 13:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can't deal with this. I can't deal with those boxes. If one of the first things I found out about a new person is that he supports some illegalities, I'd walk out of the situation. That's totally different than finding out that a friend was using drugs, I would already know him and how he's like. I'm not ready to hear that someone uses drugs unless I already know and trust him, I can't build trust on an information like that. Here I don't know anyone. User page is the first thing I see about a new person I'm supposed to work together here. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 07:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- To delete the boxes would help a lot. User page is an interface to co-operate with other editors, and userboxes serve that with giving some simple information about the user, and drug interests or support for illegalities would better not have userboxes. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 11:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Resetting indentionSo you admit that your main issue with the userboxes is not that they are "worded negatively" or something (as you claimed in regard to the opposes war on drugs box) but that they state said user either uses drugs or opposes anti-drug efforts. I strongly suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I_don.27t_like_it. We don't dictate the views of other users, nor is expression of said views disallowed. Your argument "User page is an interface to co-operate with other editors, and userboxes serve that with giving some simple information about the user, and drug interests or support for illegalities would better not have userboxes" boils down at to WP:ITBOTHERSME. And to point out a possible uses of said pro-drug userboxes: Edits of users with pro-drug userboxes to drug-related articles could be put under additional scrunity (as could anti-drug userbox displaying users; both variants are a disclosure of possible bias). And Editors with interests in drug-related topics can identify other editors with similar interests and for a cooperation while writing articles. And as far as I know " don't ask don't tell" is not a policy here on Wikipedia, whatever the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharonX.
- I think you don't read me correctly. The main problem with all these boxes are the drugs, that they connect to illegalities. "Is against War on drugs" has another problem too, that it's "against" something. And it doesn't matter whether I "like" or "don't like" drugs, they are divisive anyway, to many. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 16:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the first three, Keep the third. Would we like to see userboxes citing "This user has raped x women" or "This user has committed murder"? The only reason to have drug use as part of a userbox would be as a political statement (which might bo OK under certain circumstances), or if the drug use is so integral to the user's life that they are probably too high to contribute effectively. If the user wants to offer his/her views on drug use, then the fourth userbox should suffice that; as well as any other ubx citing an opinion on the controversey, rather than flaunting how they broke the law. bahamut0013 ♠ ♣ 00:16, 9 October 2007 (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.