[WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins Matt Jacobs

[Charles Matthews]

Michael Peel wrote:
>> We block our precious new users at the drop of a hat, but an admin has to do something pretty damned horrific to even consider removing their status, and even then it takes months.
>>     
>
> This depends on what you define as 'pretty damned horrific". I'd say that it's currently more that they have to do something high-profile (e.g. vandalise the main page) or controversial. 
>
>   
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