Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ratings and rankings system

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was  delete. MER-C 05:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ratings and rankings system


This page is just bizarre. I understand most of the individual words and phrases (e.g. "holistic credit system", "giving an edit or series of edits a rating", "modular appendages"), but absolutely no idea what the page is supposed to be about. Some kind of suggested scoring system for editors? Without any kind of "Draft" tag at the top, this page is at best confusing and at worst an attempt at trolling. At the very minimum, I recommend userfying the page but deletion is (IMO) the best option unless someone can make sense of the page. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as devoid of useful function. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy until it further development occurs. I am having trouble understanding the above statements. How could the development of a trust metric on Wikipedia, which has been discussed in various places, be considered "bizarre"?  Also, how could Bilorv be so confused about such a simple subject?  This looks like more of a campaign to attack and harass the author than a legitimate MfD discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The only links on the page are WP:RRS and Honor in government, both of which are red. Can you point me to the discussions which have sparked creation of the page? I assure you that I have no personal vendetta against the author; given the delete !vote above and the G1 tag added by Wikidemon, I'm clearly not the only one that doesn't understand. Why does Wikipedia need a trust metric? What does "After edit submit, an article edit is delivered a number of ratings, (time and total number of ratings are left aside for different formulations), and the total value of the edit ratings depends only on the sum total of these ratings modulo (altered by) the rankings of each of the raters." mean? If you can rewrite the proposed metric in simple terms, explain why it's needed and tag the article with Draft proposal or Proposal or something else that will stop readers from confusing the draft with a policy, then I would be open to changing to Keep myself, although we both seem to agree that it's better off in userspace than in the Wikipedia namespace. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete — If anyone wants to copy this bizarre imaginary gibberish for their personal page they may, but they would be better off starting with something a little more cogent. The creator and only contributor seems unlikely to do so, inasmuch as there is currently a site ban proposal for them on AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete since the wording of the page gives the impression that the described rankings system is currently in place, and there is potential for new users to be confused by it. If retained, it needs to be marked as a draft and/or moved to user space.  An additional concern is that if such a ratings system were to be implemented, it would create additional incentives for sockpuppetry as it appears that editors would be ranked by their peers, and what better peer to rank oneself than one's own sock puppet?  I'm not saying that this is intended by the author of the page, but rather I am saying that this seems to be a likely result of such a rankings system.   Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Edit: I've added the draft notice to the page myself.  It can be undone if needed.   Etamni &#124;  &#9993; 
 * Delete. Userfying isn't really an option as the creator has been banned. That said, I don't see anything salvageable in this impenetrable mess anyway.--Atlan (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Just delete. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not MeowMeowBeenz. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2015 (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.