Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Great User Awards

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 Speedy Deleted per author’s request —Travis^talk 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Great User Awards

What purpose does this serve other than to create a feeling of superiority within wikipedia? Isn't every user a great user? All we need is another cabal. Tiptoety ^talk 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This award is to reward certain users who have made large significant edits. What about Barnstars and other awards? SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk contribs} 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

delete - or maybe keep the award itself as something like a barnstar - too bureaucratic as it is. --Random832 (contribs) 13:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I was about to bring this here myself. There's plenty of precedent for having awards - we have barnstars that require nothing of the awarder other than good feelings. There's also plenty of precedent for deleting bureaucracies that serve no purpose other than to hand out titles or status. Moreover, there's precedent for deleting bureaucracies that only exist to hand out ill-defined awards. If this award were better defined, I'd suggest merging it with the barnstars, but, as it stands, its only distinguishing feature is that it's propsed to be awarded by one bureaucracy instead of another. With due respect to User:SimpsonsFan08, we don't especially need this. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete having awards given out by bureaucracies is a bad idea. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you think someone is a "great user" then tell them so, or give them an existing barnstar. We don't need an approvals board to decide if someone is worth an award. Secondly, the decision as to whether or not to give someone an award will end up in long and divisive argument, which will produce bad feelings without producing any sort of beneficial effect. This needs to go. Hut 8.5 14:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - There are quite a few things inherently wrong with this idea. Firstly, there is a massive overlap with barnstars which are topic-specific and more well-recognised. Secondly, bureaucracy-creep is a Bad Thing and should be eradicated. Thirdly, and possibly most importantly is the fact that these may lead to feelings of superiority and even a hierarchy which is to be avoided. See the MfD on Wiki Doctorates for precedent. ><RichardΩ612 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -> similar in the concept to the wikihalo, which the community (sadly :P) already deleted in the past. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus can change. We don't have stare decisis on Wikipedia, so precedent is not necessarily binding; thus the earlier deletion of a similar page is not, in itself, a conclusive argument for deleting this page. Walton^One 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks Walton, but I'm perfectly aware that consensus can change. In quoting an earlier decision, a user generally means that he feels that decision was correct and that the reasons there brought up are the ones he feels in either direction on the issue his judgment s/he's stating. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • True, sorry, I misunderstood you, and I didn't express myself very clearly. It's just that I got the impression, from your "sadly" remark above, that you felt the Wikihalo should not have been deleted; hence I assumed that you were !voting to delete this simply because of the earlier decision, and not because you personally felt that such pages should be deleted (which would be, in effect, a reliance on precedent). Obviously, there's nothing wrong with citing earlier MfDs for their reasoning. I simply misunderstood the basis for your argument. Walton^One 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
        • My fault, it wasn't much clear :( The sadly comment was because while I liked the concept, and I worked on it in its last weeks of life (lol), the community was right in deleting the page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but userfy. Excessively bureaucratic processes are only a problem when they interfere with the smooth running of the encyclopedia. This only occurs when vital processes become hyper-bureaucratised. Thus there is a need to avoid the growth of bureaucracy in essential areas, such as dispute resolution or the deletion process; but in non-essential voluntary projects, such as an awards project, the bureaucracy does no harm. Simply put, no one is compelled to use this process; therefore, if its creator wants to make it bureaucratic, it doesn't matter. It doesn't contribute to bureaucracy creep, because it doesn't impede editors from getting things done. However, it should be userfied, to emphasise that it is run by an individual user and is not an official process. Walton^One 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the page per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. If he wants to give awards, let him give them, but not using this bureaucratic system. Macy (Review me!) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I went to this page wondering if it should be deleted, and saw that it was already nominated. There is no need for a voting system to determine whether anyone can get an award. I agree that this may cause more harm than good, either by creating the feeling there is a cabal, or by hurting users whose nominations do not succeed. If SimpsonsFan wants to give these awards out himself he is more than welcome to, but I don't think having a page for voting like this helps wikipedia. Mangostar (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if the idea is silly then it will be ignored by most of the community anyways. I can't see this being of any real harm, nor do I see it being overly bureaucratic. Personally I wouldn't bother with the project, but if others want to explore it then fine. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Leave it be - I don't see the major damage this is doing to the community, be it by taking up space or by being bureaucratic. If anything, keeping this will encourage good works, and deleting it may lose us a potential editor.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The present page is a bit WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. There are others around (I think I noticed on The Rambling Man's userpage an Awesome Wikipedian award), and it may offend the user if the decision isn't in their favour! If someone deserves to be rewarded, there's a barnstar, or even better, a complimentary note on the user talk page. PeterSymonds | talk 19:56, 17 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.