Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of administrators by edit count

Wikipedia:List of administrators by edit count

This hasn't been updated for a long time (nearly a year), and I don't really see a need for this list. We already have the general list of Wikipedians by number of edits, and while we have a list of non-admins with high edit counts, that page serves a purpose (listing experienced editors who haven't yet gotten the mop and may be considered for RFA). Why this page when we have the list of Wikipedians by number of edits? Most administrators are on that list anyway. Melsaran 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'd be willing to delete all lists of Wikipedians by edit count. Unless there's an automated method to update the edit counts without human intervention - and I don't think so - it's a waste of anyone's time to maintain these lists of Wikipedia trivia. Shalom ^Hello 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Such lists as this help foster the idea that edit counts matter, that with higher edit counts you are somehow more important to the project or have a higher status simply by virtue of higher edit counts. This is inherently anti-wiki. Even if this list was routinely updated, it would still be a highly negative presence on the project. All good faith editors, whether making their first edit or 100 thousandth edit, are equals. --Durin 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Mark as historical. Created at a time when wikiholicism was more of an "in" concept, and people didn't take stupid things like edit count so damned seriously. Gracenotes^T § 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete we already have Wikipedia: List of Wikipedians by number of edits, which is better. This page is way out of date, as a few of the users listed there are no longer administrators. Also, there are numerous new administrators who would be on there that aren't. Administrators really don't need their own edit list; stick to the main list please. Acalamari 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Administratorship is no big deal. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historical per Gracenotes. ~ Wikihermit 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as Historical There is no reason for deletion (in my opinion of course), but tag as historical because it might have intrest for people who like to read historical pages.--PrestonH 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historical/inactive. I don't see any harm in keeping this page around, and there are people who are interested in these sorts of statistics. --- RockMFR 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Durin and Durova. ElinorD (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kbdank71 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Many Wikipedia statistics are kept in userspace these days (wouldn't be all that bad if all were). Therefore, userfy if anyone cares to update it (since it might be of statistical interest to some), otherwise delete. Миша13 20:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete edit counting isn't great, but separating lists and having a special one for admins isn't right. Majorly (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't quite get the "having a special one for admins isn't right" argument - it's just another statistic, derived from a bigger sample and cut down to a smaller population. Being a matematician I may be biased (as all I see are figures representing certain truths), but still, where's the logic that makes it "not right"? Миша13 21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think what Majorly is getting at is that pages like this make adminship seem more like a "rank" when it's not supposed to be, and shouldn't be treated as such. I may be wrong of course about Majorly's deletion reasoning. :) Acalamari 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, Acalamari, that's what I meant. Apologies if I wasn't clear. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historical/inactive. Dfrg.msc 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)