Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians

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 delete, the category stays, as it was not a part of the debate and needs to be listed at CFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians

Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-12. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians/2005-08-12.

Flamebait that needlessly divides the Wikipedia community. I think that User:Android79 put it best: "Seems to me that if a silly "community" page is causing this much acrimony it ought to be done away with. Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians ain't a part of the encyclopedia, guys. Try to remember that's what we're here to write." [1] I agree with this statement completely. This article was previously nominated on AFD, but it really belongs here since it is outside the main article namespace. Firebug 09:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The previous debate can be read here. The outcome was "No consensus" after 10 days of debate. It was nominated on 12 August, which iirc was about the time of the change from VfD to AfD and MfD (originally "Non-main namespace pages for deleteion"), hence it was not nominated here. Thryduulf 10:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So this is where I join, right? El_C 12:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Another question: once I'm a member, where do I pick up my free drugs? El_C 15:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This question has never been answered, which has lead many to become disillusioned with the whole idea. Friday (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Free coffees at my place, SqueakBox 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the "keep" votes in the previous discussion expressed a viewpoint that "it's harmless", something that no longer holds true given the bad feelings an edit war over this page has caused. And, frankly, I don't see the point of this page in the first place. android79 13:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete and congrats to the person who proposed it for deletion. This was a POV platform set up by Cognition with one intention: to promote his anti-pot views. That is not what wikipedia is about. To then invoke vandalsim policy to protect his POV is clearly an abuse of wikipedia NPOV and the abuse must stop, SqueakBox 13:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. It's just a magnet for POV pushing. Although, part of me is sad to see the little jab I inserted there go away, without even being noticed. Friday (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  Clarification: I know that advocating a point of view about Wikipedia is OK for Wikipedia-space content. But the POV being advocated here has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. When one member tells another member Your help in fighting dope and its pushers is truly heroic. not talking about real drug dealers but about purging the page of those who are pro pot I think we can safely say this page, far from having anything to do with wikipedia, seems to be here to disrupt wikipedia in the name of pursuing the POV personal crusade of one member, SqueakBox 14:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that I also fail to see how this moves the project forward in any way. While we generally allow more latitude outside the article space, we are still supposed to be focused on writing an encyclopedia. Unless someone can present a compelling argument for how this page will improve the project, I have to recommend deletion. Rossami (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, still harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Question, is this about deleting the category too? As uncool as popular opinion around here apparently holds being drug-free, I think it's as useful a category as any of the others out there. As for the list... I took myself off it because I wasn't sure if it was a joke or what. --W.marsh 16:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I am sure the category, without this articles' POV pushing statements, will remain as it is not under threat of deletion and I would vote to keep myself were it so. This page started as a highly POV piece see here by anti pot activist using it as a launchpad for his POV and it has been riven with POV struggles sinmce as other editors are clearly not willing to see wikipedia misused in this way. I would urge anyone who wants to let people know they are drug-free and are happy with the little pot forbidden symbol (which probably means they see pot as a drug of which they are free) to put themselves in the category. This page is a different matter. Many pages like this have been turned into categories with the page deleted in order to avoid the kind of problems we see here, SqueakBox 16:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While I agree it is harmless to have this page open, it just causes debate among wikipedians that is anything but harmless. If you still want to be listed as "drug-free" you can add the user box to your user page called {{User Drug-free}}. It creates a category called Category:Drug Free Wikipedians, that way you are categorized as drug-free without furthur debate. Its just useless trying to debate over something that can never really be answered like how benefical pot really is. I agree with SqueakBox with many pages like this have been deleted to avoid this and I think most pages, like this one, should be put up for deletion and replaced with categories. SWD316 17:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The page, together with signers' comments, is at least as funny as much of what passes for humor in Wiki-space. However, this page doesn't advance the project, and has nothing to do with the project that I can see. WP is not PetitionsOnline.com. Xoloz 17:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The potential for libel is too great.Mareino 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --HappyCamper 01:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. --Ixfd64 03:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete anything that violates WP:NPA or is an outright insult. If the user readds it then warn him and if it persists then block him. I see nothing wrong with a list like this. I understand the what the delete votes have said, but I think an enforced cleanup would work just fine. gren グレン 01:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Enforced cleanup. In what way and by whom? The only thing going for this page at the moment is that it is reasonably NPOV (in the sense that it expresses differing opinions). An enforced clean-up could cause more problems than it solves, and of course anything can only be enforced through consensus, the lack of which is a fact right now, SqueakBox 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose I don't understand the "pushing his point of view" part of your argument since this is not in article space. I always find user categorization interesting to some degree or another. I do agree that this has gotten some negative attention... which is regrettable... but, not the end of the world. By enforced cleanup I was referring to things like "only losers, hippies, and dumbass misguided teens with too much angst and not much else use drugs." It has no purpose but to disparage and should be summarily deleted. Only enforce things that are blatantly against wikipedia policy, etc. The page is full of nonsense and I am not sure how that should be dealt with... but, if users did this to other "Wikipedians" pages how would we deal with it. .....Midway through writing this I came up with a solution that is perfect for me. Categorization. No worthless comments that lead to edit wars... but you can show your opinions. Discuss them on your userpage if you're so inclined. gren グレン 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I missed the point a lot. Categories will suffice. gren グレン 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - ordinary user categorisation page. People who don't like it don't have to tag their userpages with it (just as an atheist might find the Christian Wikipedians category offensive) Cynical 13:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment And I am sure if a Christian page was criticising atheists or an atheist page was criticising Christians you would get a page looking like a bit like this, SqueakBox 14:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think that there may be somewhat of a pro-drug usage in some articles, particularly the pro-LSD mystical nonsense referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience. Perhaps a project by "drug-free" users may be able to counteract such bias. 172 16:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• The page referred to was found to be encyclopedic, this is evidently not. Bias doesn't come into it. --Sachabrunel 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Should we create a list of suspected wikipedian drug abusers?, or is that now already made by default?--sansvoix 22:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mushroom 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be causing a fair bit of unecessary hostility. Category:Drug-free Wikipedians would be much, much better. -- MegamiX 11:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Has now spawned a category. Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous host for good causes, it is an encyclopedia writing project. Rhollenton 01:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep One of dozens of similar user categorization pages. Cognition 02:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive -- and frankly stupid -- user-superiority page, with the LaRouchite chief offender posting just above me. Check out his user page for a peek into his mindset. --Calton | Talk 07:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sansvoix right on man, your list would be fairly long. I agree with Calton. I see it's encouraged some other dodgy pages at Category:Wikipedians --Ballchef 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive and unnecessary. -Willmcw 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And note my objection to User:Calton's ad hominem argument, above. --HK 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

...says the ArbCom-sanctioned LaRouchite. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Read the page through and give me one reason this should be kept. --Sachabrunel 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I voted delete too... but... just to point out... this isn't in the encyclopedia. gren グレン 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected. Still early here! --Sachabrunel 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Vizcarra 19:11, 14 December 2005 (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.