Michael Peel wrote: I think we should be clear that the problem with RfA is negative voting. The logic may be that "there would be fewer opposes at RfA if desysopping were easier", but I wonder if that stands up. The fact is that there are not many "rogue admins". Mostly admins do fine. It doesn't seem that the general standard for promotion is too low. There are a few people who can't handle the powers well once they have them, something that tends to show up in a few months. There are some admins who make too much of the status. There are indeed some who think it should give them some rights in content matters, which is dreadful. When it comes to desysopping, it's an ArbCom matter except in emergencies, and fairly obviously the approach is to point out to admins when they are doing it wrong, on the grounds that they will be smart enough to get the point. It's the "not getting it" that causes difficulties, and is laborious to establish. I suspect, though, that what would affect RfA more would be the idea that "desysopping for being unpopular" should be more prevalent. Some of the other wikis do confirm admins every year, but this is certainly not going to solve enWP's problem. I do think this is more about recruiting the right people to stand, than about accountability built into the system. Charles