Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trusted Users


 * 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 No consensus/default keep, although proposal is emphatically rejected. Xoloz 02:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Trusted Users
It's gone -- Tawker 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

An unused page whose only purpose is to create a new level of users: "Trusted users". However, as this will only serve to create more bureaucracy and red tape, I am nominating it for deletion. The creator claims it to be for apporving users for automated tools like AWB and VandalProof. He has also stated on the talk page that he doesn't care if it's deleted. May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(review me!) 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion has been reopened. Prodego  talk  17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. NSL E (T+C) at 10:15 UTC (2006-06-05)
 * Delete per nom. --Coredesat 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as a rejected proposal. We don't delete rejected proposals, do we? --Tango 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep tagged as rejected, per above. Pointless, but we have many pointless failed proposals. Just zis Guy you know? 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to mark this as rejected - it has never been rejected since it was never even proposed.  If we kept every pseudo-policy page that was inexpertly created in the wikipedia: namespace we'd be up to our ears by now.  Delete its shortcuts too.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. QuizQuick 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as rejected. Wikipedia policy proposals should generally be kept so that we don't waste times with new proposals that are the same as previously rejected ones. David | Talk 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag with rejected. The concept of trusted users is good idea in general, but there's simply way too many editors around for it to work even remotely smooth. Misza 13 T C 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag with delete for ever - the concept of trusted users is one of the worst ideas -- Drini 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with rejected so that we can continue to learn from such good faith proposals. Rossami (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as it's the way this seems to be going, I've preemtively tagged it as rejected, also changed the transclusions of all admins to a link. — xaosflux  Talk  17:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with rejected status. Keeping old proposals help enhance new ones. // The  True  Sora  00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good-faith proposals don't need to be deleted. -- Tantalum Telluride 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete instruction creep. Computerjoe 's talk 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as rejected per other proposals. RN 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag, blah, blah as above. Metamagician3000 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Misza13. Trusted according to whom? We all have our own ideas of who's trusted (even if there's some sort of consensus, there will still be some disagreement). This is why I think it will never work. — Natha  n  (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in this case. Troll magnet. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as rejected for wikipedia's own history. This in not article space and policy proposal was made in good faith. `'mikka (t) 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. By the way, the proposal is not so pointless as it may seem. In the case you didn't notice, we already have several levels of "trustedness": admins, anon users (who are not allowed to start an article) and we have semiprotection with its built-in "truct threshold", and we have users on probation (read: not very trusted yet). Also, in some e-mailing systems there is a notion of "trusted sender", so the guy didn't get the idea out of the blue.`'mikka (t) 23:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag as rejected. Promotes cabalism. Werdna (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, why keep it? It was never even proposed. Prodego  talk  00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, put it out of its misery. Ral315 (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Ian13/ talk 20:14, 9 June 2006 (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.