User talk:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records

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]

I like it :) R adiant _>|< 09:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Congrats to Func, who surpassed my vote by... 1 :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 | W_S 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. Job e 6

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]

For me, it is not a problem to update it yet. However, I might consider your suggestion after I start getting the warning message that the page is over the recommended size limit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't figure it was bad now, but the scalability issues people always seem to talk about might lead this to be very large (some may already consider the list too long), very quickly. It's just something to keep in the back of your mind. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, this page is small compared to WP:LA... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Tis true. My, how that list has grown in my short time here. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I will try your idea as an experiment, but the mark will be 70 and up since users getting into the 60s are also becoming more common. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:19, 12 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]

For example, Ann Heneghan's RFA, was closed by a bureaucrat almost a full day after the deadline – 4 late votes were made. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that I normally add new enties to my User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records after each RFA is processed. Since bureaucrats cannot de-sysop once one is promoted, I would really only make the adjustments when I definitely know it will not affect the outcome. For extermely close calls, I would probably add a footnote to my page instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:23, 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]

I have no plans to list RFB nominations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? There's so few, and fewer still with 70+ votes. BD2412 T 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not interested. There have been only 19 successful RFB nominations with most of them barely reaching 30 support votes. And at the rate that bureaucrats are promoted, I would probably forget about any RFB records page. Of course, you can always create User:BD2412/RFB nomination records... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here you go. User:Ashibaka/RFB nomination records Ashibaka tock 05:35, 23 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]
  - When I broke my list into date ranges I found out that there have been more record RfAs in the first 2½ months of 2006 (24) than in the last 6 months of 2005 (19). NoSeptember ^talk 15:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]