Regarding "the number of active editors has fallen 10% over the last 12 months. It's entirely to be expected that the number of active admins would also fall by 10%", in fact the number of active admins decreased by 12% (from 869 to 768) in 2010. That compares to an 8% decrease in 2009 (from 943 to 869), and to a 6% decrease in 2008 (from 1004 to 943). (data) Given that the population of admins is "aging" (for the past three years, the number of new admins has been decreasing significantly), it's quite likely that the trend (of a decrease in active admins) will accelerate. (Another reason to think acceleration is likely, if nothing changes policy-wise, is the potential for a vicious cycle, where unpleasant tasks are spread among fewer and fewer admins, who have less and less time to do the non-admin things that got them interested in Wikipedia in the first place.) -- John Broughton(♫♫)13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if all of those "This user doesn't want to be an Admin" userboxes will be so popular if your predicted crash in the number of active Admins does happen. -- llywrch (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the "beat Jimmy" banner submissions were actually tested? Less than 1/3 of those submitted, as far as I can tell. As variant as they proved to be in terms of their ability to attract donations, why didn't they test all the submitted banner texts? 208.54.5.51 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to 2010 in review