User talk:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records

Latest comment: 18 years ago by NoSeptember in topic Unsuccessful nominations

If you would like to know, this page is designed for fun, and as a personal sandbox to specifically test table layouts and styles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, have there been any unsuccessful RFA nominations with 50+? Just from memory, the closest I can find is Uncle G's first pass, where he got 45 support. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

So, now, can you convert raw scores into % of active users? :) Now, the next step you need to do is extend this list down to people with 40 support votes, or at least to 41 ;)- Guettarda 17:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
41's the perfect number. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
% of active users is a little hard because I do not have the raw stats for the number of active users, especially for the RFAs prior to January 2005. Also, I am hesitant because I have not found a way to effectively sort out vandal or sockpuppet accounts that would skew the data. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Would it be too much to ask who the nominator was?, I could make a separte column and help you if you wanted. Jobe6 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
If you are willing to do the research and fill that column in for the previous entries on the table, I'll be willing to include that data on future ones. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Idea?

edit

Maybe to keep this thing workable, you might want, in the future, to limit the list to people with 60 support votes, not just 50. Today, it would eliminate 30 people from your little list. Just something to keep in mind. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

    • I think I like it. I don't really see a point of being able to say, "Hey look, I am the 46th most supported RfA." or, "Man, one more support vote and I would have been the 38th most supported RfA instead of the 39th." I think it puts things in better perspective. (My apologies to whomever actually is the 46th or 39th most supported... it was just an example) See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Important note on late votes

edit

For your information, I am being strict on disregarding the counting of all late votes made after the voting deadline. Most of the late votes occur between the time when the vote ends and when a bureaucrat processes the nominations. This period does vary and thus gives may give an unfair, inflated advantage. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Linuxbeak's RfB?

edit

Will Linuxbeak's RfB be listed here? He's already topped 100 votes, and is still rolling along. BD2412 T 01:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Until further notice...

edit

... this page will only list those who acquired 70 support votes or above. Please see the discussion above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unsuccessful nominations

edit

I always thought that this list should include nominations that were not successful, so I have created a list that does just that at User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records, and I added a few sublists (such as a list of record setting unopposed nominations). Note that the recently closed Karmafist RfA fell just two votes shy of tying the BD2412 RfA for most votes cast. NoSeptember talk 06:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • Yeah, I never was interested in unsuccessful votes when I first created this page... come to think of it, this page for me has kind of lost its allure after the number of admins have exponentially increased since about this time last year. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Well, if you lose interest, there are those of us happy to keep it updated for you. These charts have a definite bias for recent nominations due to the growth of Wikipedia. Maybe the way to show record nominations would be by year (40+ for 2004, 50+ for 2005, 70+ for 2006, etc.) NoSeptember talk 13:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply