[WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers

[WereSpielChequers]

Re the theory that making it easier to get rid of admins could be a
solution to the decline in their active numbers. This is one of those
perennial theories that often sidetracks any attempt at WT:RFA to
reform the process; But has at least once failed to get consensus for
change - not least because many of its proponents seem unaware of how
easy desysopping can now be and are therefore hazy as to how much
easier they want it to be.

I like counterintuitive theories, and the idea that to get more admins
you should  get rid of some of us and put the rest under greater
stress is IMHO counterintuitive. But I see the following flaws.

1  Concerns about the difficulty of desysopping admins long predate
the RFA drought that we've been in for the last couple of years.

2  It may have been true in the past that desysopping was difficult
and always traumatic for the community, but the reality of the last
few months is that whilst some desysoppings are highprofile and
dramatic, others are almost discrete and are only noticed by those who
watch Arbcom or those like me who keep an eye on the total number of
admins. I suspect that perceptions of the difficulty of desysopping
are based on the highprofile and contested cases, not the barely
noticed ones.

Any theory to explain the RFA drought needs to account for the
phenomenon of standards inflation at RFA, and explain why those
arbitrary expectations have continued to rise whilst desysopping has
if anything become easier.  I've approached a number of possible
candidates in the last few months, several have declined to run either
because the standards are so arbitrary or because they don't want to
be treated the way they've seen others treated at RFA.

As for the idea that we should move to "Hi, I noticed that you
speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria;
your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_". I've done
over 4,000 speedy deletions, and very probably there are more mistakes
amongst them that I know about, but if someone thinks I've deleted
something in error I'd expect a first approach along the lines of
"would you mind having another look at [[deleted article]],  I don't
see how it was an attack page".  Maybe I've made a mistake, maybe so
much has been oversighted that it no longer looks like an attack page,
maybe there are words involved that have very different meanings to a
Yank and a Brit. But a desysop first and ask questions later strategy
would in my view generate far more drama than would be justified by
the results.


WereSpielChequers
>
> IMHO, etc...
>
> The fundamental problem is the difficulty in *removing* SysOp, which *makes* it a big deal.
>
> If it really was no big deal, RfA wouldn't need to be such an ordeal; if a user is competent, reasonably experienced and no DRAMA, we should +SysOp them (AGF). If they fuck up, remove it (No big deal).
>
> 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.
>
> Imagine if it worked more like blocking - if an admin fucks up, remove their SysOp and have a chat about it. "Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_". No big deal, the admins shouldn't mind.
>
> If that were the case, there would be no need for the depth of analysis and horrible trial that is our current RfA.
>
> Sadly, AGF is missing from RfA.
>
>