QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:54am)
Yes, but, first, 50 people is enough to block any change in Wikipedia's broken "consensus-based" environment, and second, while most of the admins in question have nothing to worry about, they have been convinced by the propaganda that they might be put at risk at some time in the future, and so object themselves. It's rather like how many people are in favor of eliminating estate taxes, even though there is no plausible chance they will ever be in a situation to pay them, because they believe against all logic that they will someday be rich enough to have to pay them.
There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.
My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.
There are obviously a lot of admins who need to be desysopped, but it needs to be done carefully. The preferable way would be via arbcom, but sadly, it has demonstrated that it is highly inconsistent in its application of sanctions and that's being generous.
I don't have the right answer - I have no idea what it is. But I really think that lynchmob-based desysopping is worse than the present system of adminship for life.
If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.