Wikipedia talk:Trusted Users

Huh?

What's the point of this page? Johnleemk | Talk 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Delete it if you want. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. You created it. What purpose does this serve, exactly? Johnleemk | Talk 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to help make a new status like "Admin" or "Beaurocrat" or "Steward" or "CheckUser", but I see nobody uses it. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it was never publicised. Even then, what purpose would this new status serve then? Johnleemk | Talk 17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. To be a requirement for RfA's. 2. To be a whitelist for certian vandal-fighting tools. 3. To help approve people to use certain tools (VandalProof, AWB, etc..). 4. To help users know if somebody is trusted. 5. etc.... --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 17:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many people use this site? It would take years to get everyone that is trusted through an RfA like process... Making people go through 2 RfA's doesn't improve anything. Vandal-fighting/automated tools work fine as they are. I can't see why anyone would need to know if someone is trusted - assume good faith unless you have a specific reason not to, not being on a list is not a specific reason. It looks like you're trying to fix a problem that is not there with a very clunky solution... --Tango 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if you want. I really don't care. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..."Huh?" - "Yep."

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.

But clearly the proposal is undercooked. `'mikka (t) 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 11 June 2006. The result was No consensus/default keep. The proposal was rejected unanimously. Xoloz 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]