Wikipedia talk:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an RFX
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an RFX page. |
|
Liz edit
I have gone ahead and added Liz to the list, one support voter was identified as a sock account in the "crat chat" before Liz was promoted to admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify as the above statement is poorly worded: a support voter was confirmed as a sock before the promotion took place. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I did not request my name be removed, my comment was concerning the snide wording of the original version.
Goalposts moved? edit
With the recent reforms to the RfA process, it appears RfAs are solidly getting the 100 support votes that used to be hard to get. With the goalposts moved, should this process be marked as historical? Do we need a long-term study of this trend? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: I'm inclined to agree-- successful RfAs these days always appear to exceed 100 supports. I'd be OK with marking this as historical, though if folks want to continue to update it, they surely can. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? edit
It seems nearly all successful request for adminship get at least 100 votes if not more these days, I see no use in this article as anything else than a piece of trivia. I hope this post does not offend anyone (an congratulations to all new administrators!) but I simply cannot see the need in this. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)