Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Smcafirst

User:'s edit stats using wannabe Kate tool as at 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC): Category talk:	1 Category:	165 Image:	47 Mainspace	758 Talk:	15 Template:	43 User talk:	73 User:	265 Wikipedia talk:	4 Wikipedia:	136 avg edits per article	4.86 earliest	19:59, 27 September 2006 number of unique articles	310 total	1507

Is Edit Counts that important?
In my opinion, edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value and faithfulness one is toward Wikipedia. I questioned that why is everyone opposing someone from becoming an administrator if their edit count is only 1500? You can create 1500 articles and only counts as 1500 edit counts. Unlike some others, who is "faking" edit counts, they created 1500 articles with an edit count as high as 15000. Why? What is the difference between the two? The only one I could think of is that one does not have an adminship, but the one with 15000 edit count does. This is VERY unfair, I am sorry to say. -- Smcafirst or Nick  • Sign   • Chit-Chat •  I give ''' at 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In general, editcountitis is bad and should not be used exclusively to judge anyone's contributions. However, it can be useful in combination with lots of other factors.  Low contributions to user talk pages, for example, can show a lack of experience in dealing (either positively or negatively) with other editors, something that is critical for an administrator.  Low contributions to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces can indicate a lack of experience dealing with Wikipedia policy and process, another thing that is critical for administrators.  In short, no, edit counts are not that important in and of themselves, but they can indicate areas that should be examined more closely.
 * However, your edit count is not the reason your request is presently failing. You'll find lots of good suggestions in the comments provided by other users.  —bbatsell  ¿?  00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)