Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:SA-mastereditor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Edit count is insignificant in determining the "value" of any Wikipedia; indeed, the "value" of every good-faith contributor is equal. These awards are, thus, practically meaningless; however, other useless ephemera is allowed for user amusement in the name of humor and goodwill. The consensus to delete below does not exist, and policy does not compel deletion. A broader discussion of all such "service awards" (at MfD, Centralized Discussions, or RfC) might always reach a different result. Xoloz 13:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested in a more detailed explanation of the reasoning underlying this closure may see here. Xoloz 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:SA-mastereditor

I'm not taking this to templates for deletion, as it's an award. I think it's more appropriate on MFD.

My concern is that the requirement for this award is 5 years editing and 40,000 edits. I find that this is highly inappropriate. Almost no one qualifies for this award. It doesn't talk about consistency of editing, namespaces counted in the edits or quality of the edits. Heck, in a few years time a few bots might get this award. I'm also concerned that it looks at the number of years that an editor has been on Wikipedia. That's honestly not how we work, we work on quality of contributions, not years of service.

So I would like this deleted, as it's a award given to editors for bad reasons. The award criteria, incidently, has been enforced. User:SandyGeorgia had it removed by another editor as she didn't meet the requirement. What a slap on the face! Ta bu shi da yu 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Important Point This award is part of a lerger scheme of awards called the wikipedia service awards. Not all levels have the 40,000 edit/5 years requirement. The service awards, when taken as a whole, are available for all wikipedians to give themselves or be given by others.--Dr who1975 23:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - All the service awards work this way. They simply are awards that tell the community how much experience an editor has. It is possible for a user to warrant this award as Wikipedia has been around since January 15, 2001, which is nearly 8 years ago.
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:23, 10/10/2007
    • So you are telling me that someone who has been on Wikipedia since 2001 is better than someone who has been on Wikipedia since 2003? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It has nothing to do with "better". Rocket000 09:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure it is, you aren't allowing newer yet just as valuable editors get this award. And it has nothing to do with edit quality, but only edit counts and time spent on the site. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • You still haven't told us what "better" has to do with it. Yes, this award has nothing to do with the quality of edits. It's just a measure of experience.
            Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:27, 10/11/2007
            • I oppose it because it is the complete anti-thesis of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goals aren't base whether it believes a contributor is good based on their length of experience. It should be solely based around the quality of the contributions given to the project! Wikipedia is not a club for editors who have been here a long time. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
              • No one said an editor with a service award is "good". It is simply a notice of the extent of a user's experience. How a person's amount of experience reflects on their editing abilities is left up to the interpretation of the viewer.
                Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:42, 10/11/2007
                • I remain opposed to the award. I'll most likely be eligible fairly soon, but I find it to be elitist and a worrying portent of what is to come. Wikipedia is turning into a club, and is destroying itself from within. It's very depressing. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - 40,000's not that much for the highest award [1]. Rocket000 08:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Not a single one of those editors that I can see would qualify for this award. None of them have been here for 5 years. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • This is just after a quick look, but the 3rd editor in that list meets the criteria: User:Charles Matthews has 124,416 edits, and has been here since February 25, 2002; that's over 5½ years ago.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:11, 10/12/2007
  • Keep These awards are tongue-in-cheek... and the higher ones over the top. That's my opinion at least--Victor falk 09:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Right now, it can only be held by a limited number of people. As time goes on, more people will be eligible, and I can very much see that it would be an incentive, if even a small one, to having people remain with the project. I am curious what the 10 year award will be named and look like, though. John Carter 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, except to say that this is classicly embarrassing in a way that only Wiki can achieve. Someone gives me an award that I had no idea I wasn't "entitled" to (gosh, I should have investigated what it was, but I thought it was some MilHist thingie), and then someone else I've never heard of strips it from my carefully formatted userpage months later, meaning that I have to reformat the page to fill the hole (and since I barely speak HMTL and all that other gobbledy-gook I got from Kirill's page, that should be fun), and of course, I'm the last to know I've been the undeserved recipient of some computer code :-). Gosh, I'd better go check out everything else on that page now and see if I should return any others. My two cents: awards are not what helps retain good editors for five years. Courteous, concerned, conscientous, fair and neutral admins who respect and enforce the code of conduct and five pillars is what will ultimately retain the good editors for five years, and we should worry about how few make it regardless of edit count; ever increasing lack of same chases them away faster than speeding bullets. Tip for the person who stripped it from my userpage; it would have been graceful to approach the editor who awarded it to me in error, bring this to his attention, and have him discretely replace it and acknowledge his error, rather than leaving me to reformat a bunch of HTML. I'm announcing a contest where the winner will find the funniest thing to fill that hole with, but the winner has to code it in, too. Cheers to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep on the basis that this is part of a hierarchy of awards with specific edit and time statistics (I rank as a Journeyman Editor, IIRC), so most regular editors qualify for one of the lesser awards. If this were a stand-alone award, I would certainly regard it as somewhat elitist, but that isn't the case here. (Although as a side point, I think they should be awarded on editcount alone and not on time; one's timecount can't be changed by working harder, so it isn't really very fair.) WaltonOne 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think if they were changed to edit count alone then we would start seeing some editors performing large numbers of inconsequential edits just to warrant a better award. Having time as an added criteria prevents that.
      Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:47, 10/10/2007
      • I feel that you are merely underscoring my point about this award. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not. I'm saying that another user's suggestion for changing this award would be unhelpful, and that as the award criteria stands now, it's fine and not prone to cause inappropriate editing behavior. No one is going to stay here for 5 years just to get this award -- but if the time criteria were not there, it is possible that someone would try to perform as many edits as possible (perhaps even via some automated method), no matter how inconsequential, knowing that the faster he makes edits, the sooner he'll get the award.
          Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:17, 10/11/2007
          • Actually, anyone who did this should be blocked from editing, as it's a violation of WP:POINT. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Hang on - you're arguing that someone should be blocked for making inconsequential (but presumably valid) edits in order to bump up their editcount? Surely, if they're doing something to benefit Wikipedia, their motivation is irrelevant? (This is a side point, not necessarily about this award itself.) WaltonOne 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: What's stopping me from sticking the image on my userpage? Nothing. What's stopping me sticking a caption below in which I claim I'm a master editor? Nothing. These awards are silliness, really. Daniel 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's on the honor system :) I don't really see anything wrong with that. People just like to publicize how much experience they have. It's easier than going through their contribs or using an edit stats tool. It's just like a user box, really. You might think it's silly, as I'm sure many people do, in which case you don't need to use them.
      Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:22, 10/11/2007
      • I'm confused... editors award this to themselves?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as this award always plays an important role to encourage and motivate people to contribute significantly. This is the height award, like a Chief of the Army Stuff and people always feel for obtaining this one. There is a group of people on WP who does not like awards. I think they may simply ignore these stuff, but it is not expected that they will tag such an important template for deletion. Cheers -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 07:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And how, precisely, does it do this? How is the length of my service on Wikipedia going to encourage me to contribute significantly? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • If it doesn't encourage you, then don't use it. No one is forcing you.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:55, 10/11/2007
        • Completely agreed with Equazcion. Ta bu shi da yu, let me tell you my personal feeling. Whenever I touch a new milestone, I feel recharged and more energetic! Instantly I make up my mind to go for the next milestone which means more contributions to Wikipedia - SIMPLE :-) . -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Don't worry, with time that feeling will evaporate. It took me a few years, but I got there. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
            • No one is worried. You see that way of thinking as a problem that needs fixing. It is not. If people feel a sense of pride for having been here a long time, who are you to tell them they're wrong? And not only that, but you're now admitting that even you have had that feeling -- so for the first couple of years, even according to you, these awards are encouraging.
              Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:42, 10/11/2007
              • I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment. So what if I've been on the site for 3.5 years and have done 35,000 edits or so? It's not about that! What about someone who makes 35,000 edits to policy and AFD for 5 years? Are they eligible? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The award is just like the "this user has x amount of edits" userbox, but is in ribbon form and encourages a user to stick with Wikipedia and contribute. - NeutralHomer T:C 08:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. No real harm in this, since it's not really an official award. You give it to yourself. I don't think anyone who uses it has really earned it right now anwyays. Also, it's a slippery slope, deleting this leads to deleting the other ones, and there is no way I'm giving up my Fuzzy Squirrel in Wiki-land book. --UsaSatsui 15:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • All these silly editcountitis-promoting arbitrary "awards" with strict requirements need to go, in my opinion, but it would be better to nominate them all at once (the best way to do this would be to MFD WP:SERVICE). Deleting only one of them and leaving the rest around isn't really a good idea. Melsaran (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Aren't all the awards around here arbitrary anyways? I mean, all you need to get a barnstar is for someone else to give it to you. Or you can even give one to yourself if you're that desperate for one. In fact, I'd say these awards are less arbitrary than others, there's set and delibrate criteria for them. It's just like any other award around here: They make people feel good about themselves, and if anyone takes them too seriously or thinks they're important because they're a freaking Veteran IV or something, they get laughed at. --UsaSatsui 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • This is most definitely not arbitrary. It has specific criterion, and runs counter to Wikipedia's core principles. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's what I meant, they have silly strict requirements and promote editcountitis. My above comment seemed to be slightly confusing, I have attempted to clarify it. Melsaran (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
          • This award is part of a larger set of awardscalled the wikipedia serviceawards. Theyare the mostarbitrary awars a usercan get because ausercan give them to themselves. Whileausermay not qualify for theMaster editor award they will always qualify for some level of wikipedia service award. By seperating out the Master Editor award from the service awards Ta bu shi da yu is playing a trick on all of you (perhaps he is doing this inadvertently, if I had a less incendaiary way to say it I would).--Dr who1975 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If you don't qualify, just use the award anyways, its criteria are not enforced. It is a shiny piece of glitter, nothing more. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I fail to see how "its too hard to get" is an argument for deletion. Feel free to add it to you page yourself, it's requirement won't be enforced. Just remember that if other people notice that you added it yourself and did not fulfill the requirements they might think how odd, if you get my drift. CharonX/talk 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a part of the service award hierarchy, and they all work that way. They are not a measure of who is better, it is just a nice way to show how long you've been around. Neranei (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Delete, as we should with all this crap. Edit count doesn't matter. ^demon[omg plz] 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Editcountitis is a BadThing(tm). There's no reason to believe this kind of award encourages making good edits. --Aqwis 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the whole shebang. We're not here to invent pointless rankings of editors. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not play children's games. Lupo 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or give a more derogatory name, per above reasons - David Gerard 13:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - whilst edit count boxes are factual and reasonable, a box that declares some user is a "master editor" or "entitled" to display a specific box is not. Wikipedia:User page: "[If] user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." Wikipedia:Userboxes: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive" and "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for... self-promotion". Delete and burn with sulfur and brimstone, along with any other userbox that purports to create special classes or hierachies of "I'm more special" editor which run contrary to the egalitarian spirit of the project. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Raise an eyebrow Seriously, taken in the context of the other "awards", it made me smile. I personally don't like the idea, but this doesn't drive people of the goal of writing an encyclopedia. So why not? -- lucasbfr talk 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's elitist, it doesn't bother look at quality, and it assumes that length of time on the project equates to how good an editor you are. All very bad reasons, and something we should nip in the bud as soon as possible. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You're calling this award elitist!!!!! There's an entire community of people giving each other Bartnstars and patting each other on the back... if you're not part of this community you can't get a Barnstar.... and you call this, one of the only barnstars someone might be able to give themselves, ELITIST You just want to maintain your groups monopoly on Barnstars. You are elitist.--Dr who1975 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Please see WP:NPA as well as WP:AGF. That's a horrible and stupid comment to have made. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Let me correct. The idea that the other (non service award) Barnstars should remain while this one is removed is elitist. No it;san attack on the idea...not you.--Dr who1975 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nuke 'em all. While Barnstars, by contrast, are an innocent, subjective and friendly way of showing appreciation, these pseudo-official "service awards" with specific criteria are ridiculous. Veteran editors are appreciated, but we should venerate quality over quantity, as many have already stated here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't believe it hasn't been deleted already Delete. And I'll nominate all the other service awards for deletion if this MfD is successful; unless someone else gets there first. My reasons are similar to many found above- it promotes hierarchy and if you really must give awards to senior editors you should be rewarding quality, not quantity. There are already barnstars to reward good contributions- they are generally based on something specific and don't attempt to create hierarchical categories of editors. Lurker (said · done) 15:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; this is much worse than Wikipedia:Wikihalo, which suffered from the same problems. Ral315 » 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Why are people offended by this award. It is meant to have very basic criteria (and yes, there are people who qualify for it). If you don;t match the criteria for this specific award, then there are other ones that can be given in the same category. By the logic of the deletor... all barnstars should be removed because they have criteria (i.e. you cannot give yourself a regular Barnstar... I tried this once and it got removed... maybe I should call for the deleteing of the Working Man's Barnstar because I was once "slapped in the face" and told I couldn;t give it to myself). It's just an award. Considereing that any Tom, Dick ,or Harry can give a regular Barstar to somebody because of one edit they made to Klingon Mating Rituals while somebody who diligently updates and keeps current the various lists of U.S. Senators by Seniroity has to keep on trucking without so much as a thank you... I don't see why this award would offend anybody any more than the other Barnstar awards. Bottom line... it spreads the Kindness Campaign and wikilove. It excites people to work harder on expanding and improving wikipedia. I hope to qualify for the Master Editor Awards some day myself.--Dr who1975 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry? How does this spread wikilove and kindness again? Almost no editors are eligible for it. The length of time you hang around Wikipedia and the number of edits aren't what we are trying to encourage. We are trying to encourage quality, not quantity, which is what this award does. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It encourges people to show wikilove and kindness because it gives them an incentive to work hard on wikipedia. There are many mechanisms to ensure quality on wikipedia, that's not entirely what this is about. One day, I will be eligable for the Master editor Award (and there are 100s of users eligable for it now. Wikipedia has been around for well over 5 years) so that is an incentive for me to keep making edits for the next several years, eidts that are not of quality get removed, most human beings aren;t going to update wikipediafor the sake of quanty, and vandals get blocked very quickly.--Dr who1975 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Awards have a long tradition at WP and the reasons given for this deletion discussion--"I find that this is highly inappropriate. Almost no one qualifies for this award."--are personal opinion and not valid reasons for deletion. The main issue people have against this award is that it considers edit count and years of service, which many editors rightly say are not as important as an editor's contributions. However, this award isn't about an editor's contributions--there are already a number of awards which honor contributions. Nor is this award a request for admin discussion, where there are valid reasons why one shouldn't merely consider an editor's edit count or years of service. Instead, this is an award which carries no added powers or official credibility and is merely a way to honor those editors who stick around and contribute year after year. As such, this award can have its own criteria and, in my opinion, should be kept.--Alabamaboy 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep no valid reason has been given for deletion. Almost all deletion votes scream of I don't like it, so lets nuke the bastard. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, all the keep votes are just the same way. hbdragon88 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, the above "keep" is quite ironic, given that it is "keep, I like it". I did give a valid reason for wanting it deleted: it encourages people for the wrong reasons: amount of edits and length of time on the project, neither of which are important reasons, or in fact even things that we want to emphasise. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I believe the onus is on those against. There are generally no policies that require things like this, or even explicitly state that they're allowed. If someone wants something deleted, they would generally need to back that up with a policy or at least some reasoning as to why it's somehow a detriment; so the rationale that "no one's stated a valid reason to delete yet beyond 'i dont like it'" is valid.
          Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:21, 10/13/2007
          • Equazcion, you took the words out of my mouth; if someones wants something deleted, they need to give a sound, valid reason for deletion. And in this instance, none has been provided, outside of "I don't like how to get this award, you need to contribute here for x years and make z edits" I don't think thats a policy or guideline. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 06:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I have given a good reason, if you can't read I can't really help that much. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Do me a favor, and find a policy or guideline supporting your reason, then we'll talk. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
                • I have given my reasons. These awards don't encourage quality of editing, they only encourage elitist behaviour. That's a good enough reason for me to ask for it to be deleted. It's not like this hasn't happened before, we deleted the whole Esperanza project for this reason. So, good back and read my comments and, yet, let's talk. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • We've all read your comment, and as has been said repeatedly, they come down to you not liking it -- they don't cite policy. And it would be nice if you would refrain from suggesting that people can't read just because they disagree with you.
                    Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:24, 10/13/2007
                    • How about a bit of civility from you as well? You are the one claiming that I didn't have a point to make, when patently I do. Stop saying I don't. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
SashaCall, it is not a good idea to dismiss out of hand every vote which you disagree with. People have given reasons why they want this template to be deleted. You don't have to agree, but you should not simply dismiss our arguments. Let's have a grown-up debate here. Lurker (said · done) 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
TBSDY, disagreeing that you have a point is not being uncivil. You can't call people uncivil just because they disagree with you, and you can't tell people to stop saying you don't have a point when we're here to discuss the very matter of whether or not you have a point. And Lurker: Sasha would hardly be the first person to ever say in a deletion discussion that the delete rationale thus far have come down to "I don't like it". It's a perfectly valid response.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:09, 10/14/2007
  • Keep, although I do believe that the criteria is too much for slow editors like me. If I continue editing for 3 more years and manage to obtain 40,000 edits, I do believe that trumpets will sound in heaven and hell will freeze over and belch all its lost souls out. bibliomaniac15 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak KeepIt does seem a bit contradictory, as to be a "master editor" you must have so many edits, and those who write articles may never reach that and thus fail to get the award. But it does go with the other editor awards, and if this is deleted I would like to see all of them deleted. Phgao 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • German Wikipedia Userbox Solution: Delete all awards or move them to the userspace. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: under the who cares about this policy? I see no evidence that these awards are in anyway harmful to the encyclopedia, just a whole lot of I don't like its, for whatever reason. It seems there will always be an element on the project who feels that anyone who is proud of their contributions is somehow a detriment to the project. I will never feel this way. IvoShandor 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, in scouting, fire departments, police departmrnts, and millitaries a "service star" is given over years of service. This is something like a "thank you" from the organisation to her members. It merely means you have served the community for a certain amount of time. It does not give you any kind of authority even in the millitary where there is a hierarchal structure. I do think edit count may be removed from criteria as it is of no importance but this mfd really isn't the place for this kind of discussion on minor details on the topic. -- Cat chi? 15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No real problem with it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, or at the very least Userfy. Get rid of this sort of spam from Wikipedia ASAP, including similar things such as "barnstars" which don't help the project. It does no good and clutters the site. Do people really care about faux awards? Do arbitrary guidelines make you a better editor than another? Is someone making 100 valuable, indepth, specialist edits "worse" than someone who edits 10,000 pages but adding little? How does this actually help Wikipedia become a better encyclopaedia? -Halo 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Arbitrary guidelines"?
      Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:27, 10/14/2007
      • Perhaps you misunderstood me, but who made up that it takes 5 years and 50,000 edits? Perhaps "arbitrary requirements"-Halo 12:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. per the entirely unconvincing nomination. Yes, removing the award from the userspace of someone who doesn't "qualify" is beyond lame, but so is deleting a bit of harmless acknowledgment. IronGargoyle 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I didn't even know these awards existed. At the rate that I edit, it would take me decades to get this award. I don't care if I get it anyway. I think both sides have a point. Maybe there are people who will want the award so much that they'll stick around Wikipedia and make lots of edits. At the same time, those who want to delete the award also have a point: people who don't spend a lot of time online or whose contributions are mostly entire articles will take a lot longer to qualify for the award than people who do a lot of semi-automated anti-vandalism work. Both are important for Wikipedia, but in different ways. So it's neutral for me. --Kyoko 14:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong who the hell cares — so what if people want to make amusing awards to send to one another? The argument presented is that it is an "impossible" standard, and encourages "elitism". Anyone who is elitist about their edit count is beyond hope, and I don't think getting rid of the joke awards is going to help with that. --Haemo 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - 5 years and 40K edits is not a "bad reason" for an SA template. In fact anyone who last five years at WP and makes 40K edits deserves an award or two even if they are just a joke. And this is just a joke award. I see no reason to delete this at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cailil (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep what is the problem with this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reconstruct - While the award in itself is fine, the category with the wording of being a "Master Editor" is very probably not. Awards shouldn't be competing or showing a higher "rank" over other editors, but instead be pleasing and refreshing to yourself. This award could be seen as a great memory to yourself because of all the hard work you have server Wikipedia, and the graphics of the image are not all that bad either. Plus, I can't think anyone who would have served Wikipedia for a total of 5 years with 40,000 unuseful edits, so I'd see this as a honorable mark in an userpage to show that the editor has certainly been editing to Wikipedia a long time. Just like {{user contrib}}, uncategorized edit marks are not very harmful if those are just showing up on an userpage.
Category:Master editors however, should be deleted because it is a "promoting" category of people, and a category seen as abusive towards to other editors because of classing themselves being "master editors" without a sourced research of how should someone be classed as a "master editor". This could be seen just like previously deleted/historized editcount articles/categories such as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits, all having a reason that sorting people by an edit count is a bad thing. In short, I'd keep the image and the text describing having served Wikipedia for 5 years with 40,000+ edit counts, but I'd remove the "Master" wording and the category sorting Wikipedians being "Master Editors". ~Iceshark7 13:13, 15 October 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.