Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad

Off-topic discussion about SMcCandlish moved out of voting section
Dear User:SMcCandlish. Why aren't you candidate yourself ? Are you afraid that it could be too soon for you, too ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't badger other voters. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL. No, I've been around over a decade. I'm not a candidate because: A) My to-do list here is already 40× longer than I can ever complete, and most of it is janitorial already, without needing additional tools. B) I'd rather see more low-impact tools unbundled like template-editor was; that was very successful, but I'd feel hypocritical supporting that while also seeking adminship. C) Most of the admin work doesn't appeal to me, especially the high-drama parts.  D) I have an anti-fan club, due to years of work on policy/guideline stability against cockamamie changes; this necessarily manufactures a negative retinue of  grudge-holders.  Only yesterday, someone went all the way back to 2007 diffs to try to show what a bad apple I am (9 years – that's like being in a post-grad fellowship and giving a colleague shit for something they said at the junior prom in high school).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear User:SMcCandlish. This is a great answer from your part, and its a pleasure to read such a plea against some of the defects of our actual RfA process. I was only saying: better recruit him before he becomes burdened with ten years of archives of what he ever has said once. Have a good day. Pldx1 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, generally speaking. I added it to WP:Non serviam at the bottom. This candidates problem (or potential one; I'm not going to try to Nostradamus the result) is he's not really entered the window of opportunity yet; he's no where near the end of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about general historic trends in RfA process
How old were the crocodiles when entering the bayou ? Let's draw the graph. And the result is: 275+296+206 among our circa 1330 admins were recruited with strictly less than three semesters of age. What shall we do with all of these people recruited too young ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only a small fraction of those are active, and many of them date to WP's "Wild West" days, when virtually anyone could become an admin who wasn't bat-shit crazy. I'd like to see that graph, if limited to data since, say, 2012. What tool is this coming from?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you guys stay  on  track? This is an RFA. This is the kind of thing that  drives candidates away from the process. Please consider taking  your conversation  to  another corner of the pub, or home.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. Moved to talk page. Pinging .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Admins by year of entry.png Another graph showing the year of entry of our 1313 admins. We can see that $$67$$ of them joigned the boat as an user in 2002 while $$ 27+ 	10+ 	11+  	2+ 	4+ 	3= 57 $$ of them joigned the boat as an user in 2009 of after. Only 10% joigned as an user in 2008 or after.  In order to comply with  User:SMcCandlish let us made our maths only with the RfA that occured in 2009 or after. Only 26 of these 282 "new" admins joigned in 2010 or after. This amounts to 9%. The conclusions are left to the reader. Pldx1 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)