Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User Status

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, no consensus to userfy. Daniel Bryant 02:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:User Status

This proposed policy page does not suggest any policy and attempts to rank users based on trivialities like barnstars/awards given. There's no place for a page like this and no reasonable way to incorporate all of the different "user states". Furthermore, most user states don't fit a hierarchy/ladder as suggested by this page. All in all, it is not worth the discussion time to decide if it should become a policy/guideline/etc. ju66l3r 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the fact that it has a seperate class for award winners, and that it says Arbcom deals with vandalism, is enough that it isn't worth keeping for the record. -Amarkov moo! 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to have such a hierarchy - not even admins and Jimbo Wales are supposed to be viewed as anything but regular users (usually). Koweja 04:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment userfying would be an acceptable alternative to deletion for me. Koweja 19:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy or Delete - comes across as a harmless attempt to understand what Wikipedia looks like, but it's not exactly deliberate, well-weighed material that we're looking for in project-namespace essays. If the user wants, it could be stuck to the userspace. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (an admin and recipient of barnstars and awards, but still basically a rather forgettable person =)
• Delete. I fail to see the purpose of this page. Attempting to rank users by the awards they have received, or how recently they have registered, or whether or not they are admins, doesn't seem to help build the encyclopedia. The ranking system suggested here is also incorrect, as Koweja said. Furthermore, many people fall into multiple categories (admins who have received barnstars, for example). --Kyoko 19:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Transferring the article to userspace would also be acceptable. I do suggest removing the "proposed policy or guideline" template, because I don't see anything that is actually proposed on the page. --Kyoko 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not Delete I created this page (and it took me 2 weeks of reasearch) I just recently fixed the award controversy(man that's a big word to type with just your index finger) If you want to yell at me, do it on my User Talk Page Sethdoe92 19:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy - creator wants to keep it, although it's incorrect in many places, as well as in the basic idea behind it. So perhaps, in the spirit of compromise, userfy. Gracenotes^T § 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (or if you must) Userfy - Firstly, any more statuses (checkuser, etc.) are not mentioned and are already on other pages (maybe on meta, I'm not sure as I can't remember right now). Next, how is this a proposed policy or guideline? And finally, how hard this page has been worked on by you means nothing in a deletion debate. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely wrong, the correct hierarchy is, of course, given at Wikipedia:Do NOT bite the developers. Addhoc 19:02, 16 March 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.