Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator!

On Wikipedia, no editors are given tiaras or fancy ceremonial tassels. Not editors with tens or hundreds of thousands of edits. Not even administrators.

Sometimes in discussions on Wikipedia, one editor's argument may be given more weight over another simply because one has more edits on Wikipedia or one may even be a Wikipedia administrator. Don't fall for it.

At the time this essay was created, the original author Paulmcdonald submitted this:

I have over 35,000 edits recorded on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, I am ranked 1,927 in terms of most edits among all registered Wikipedians. I'm not "number 1" but I've done a lot. And I'm wrong a lot.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Each argument should stand on its own accord and on its own merits in Wikipedia discussions. That means the newest editor, with the fewest edits, may have the best idea or the most relevant point of view. An anonymous IP editor who just began editing the project last week may have the best idea.

Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has knowledge that leads them to hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey it in an argument that other editors can judge on its own merits.

In other words, provide details for the experience and explain your argument, don't just respond with "Because I'm an admin/top editor, so there."

See also

• Wikipedia:Equality
• Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless
• User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles #2: "there must be no elites..."
• Wikipedia:Ten Year Society
• Wikipedia:Fifteen Year Society
• Argument from authority