File talk:RFA date by candidate age scatter.png

Interesting work, but I think it is missing nearly twenty RFAs, and there is a stray successful candidate from 2010 which doesn't seem correct to me. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not too sure why there seems to be some missing, might take a look at that if I get the time (atm I'm concentrating on some coding for bots), but it still gives a fairly general overview. I believe the stray successful candidate is User:Tim Song, who renamed his account, making the old one (the one which passed the RfA) look like it was only created a few months ago (because it was). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly picks up the Not know phenomenon of people running too early, and the successful chart shows both the gap in March and the cluster of RFAs that occurred after the signpost article in August. What would be really helpful would be some graph of the population of potential admins - editors with over 12 months tenure, averaging over 200 edits a month in recent months, with over 4,000 edits in total and no blocks in the last 12 months. I'm assuming there are a lot of such editors who started in late 2007 through to the end of 2009, and relatively few non-admins from earlier wikigenerations still to come through. But it could be that we really have an editor recruitment problem and that editors who started in recent years rarely last 12 months. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that a version with labelled axes be uploaded? It takes a while to figure out, otherwise. -- Lear's Fool 11:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]