Wikipedia:Adminship survey/D

(08/44/07) All bureaucrats should stand for reconfirmation annually
This should confirm that their judgment is still trusted by the community. There are only a few dozen bureaucrats so this produces no real overhead (unlike reconfirming all 1000+ admins yearly).

Agree

 * 1) Seems sensible --Mcginnly | Natter 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely, with bureaucrats sat back not using the tools given to them years ago, I see no benefit in them having them. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) There really is no reason anyone should not, if they have the faith of the community they will easily be reelected to that position. There is no reason to lock anyone into a position for no reason. For those that believe 100% in those for election, it should only take 5 minutes of your time to state why, once a year. Doesnt seem like asking much to maintain a sense of community control. --Nuclear Zer0 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I support this product or service. I would support fresh new voices as bureaucrats... Given all the problems, real or imagined, with RfA, it would be very beneficial I think. But it's evident from this survey and from previous discussion that it's unlikely to be implemented in the future. Grand  master  ka  08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I think that bureaucrats are powerful enough that extra accountability should apply. There's been one incident last year that left a sour taste in my mouth. We re-elect the top layer of government every year in the expectation that the accountability will filter down. - Richardcavell 04:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Absolutely. This keeps individuals accountable of their own actions.  . V .  [Talk 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per above. --GHcool 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Sounds like a good idea. With great power... etc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Pretty good idea, yeah.  J- stan  Talk  02:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) The issue I have with admin reconfirmation is only partly the overhead, it's more that you can't make controversial decisions well if you have to worry about maintaining enough support to keep your adminship. It's no better for bureaucrats, especially since bureaucratship requires a nearly impossible percentage of support. -Amarkov moo! 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think we should have fewer procedures and rules. This is a procedure and rule to change what is not broken. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I trust our bureaucrats. We should only take their tools away if they abuse them. Kusma (討論) 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Look at politicians. Those who need to be elected make stupid, populist decisions that only work for the short term. Those who don't fear the voters can take contentious but needed actions without fearing for their bit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Useless instruction creep. Proto   ►  16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm opposed to mandatory reconfirmation as this isn't a democracy. Also, concur with Hipocrite. MLA 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) This is a solution in search of a problem. I also second what Dev920 said above regarding how the spectre of re-election affects actions. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Chairboy and Dev920.  Not really a problem at this point.  Ral315 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) No. Unnecessary at this time. ST47 Talk 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) No.  Amarkov's point about independence is very important.  We also need to keep the old hands around (with their authority) to be points of continuity for the project.  I wouldn't object to a more formal recall process but restanding for election is a bad idea.  Rossami (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) It would just provide another place for quarrel. The best way to administer WP is to have one which minimizes the opportunities for the expression of negative feelings--something we have in great excess. But there perhaps does need to be a way of removing inactive ones.DGG 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Can't see it as achieving much, potential detriment in making some decisions more political, the standards people expect of RFB candidates would probably mean we end up with none/or few remaining... --pgk 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Process creep which provides no appreciable benefits, and as noted, would potentially result with populist b'crats. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but would switch to support if RFB standards were lowered significantly. Grace notes T  &#167; 20:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Ridiculous. Are we implying that the judgement of the bureaucrats decreases over time, when it probably increases? Yuser31415 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Why take these tools away? { Slash -|- Talk } 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) What problem is this supposed to solve? Guy (Help!) 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Although 'crats have made mistakes in the past, and they may in the future, this is not the solution. — Moe  23:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No crats have yet acted in a way that would warrant their removal, so this seems like a solution without a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Pointless. —Doug Bell talk 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Not only unnecessary but counterproductive. I want bureaucrats who are willing to make tough calls without worrying whether a coterie of edit warriors will try to skew consensus during election time.  If there's a serious problem we can handle it on an ad hoc basis.  Durova Charge! 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Nope - another method of Bcrat actions dispute resolution is needed, as opposed to this nonsensical recall business. It does not address the problems.  Daniel.Bryant  04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Counterproductive drama-inducing time-wasting instruction creep. Opabinia regalis 05:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) What s/he said ^^. Viridae Talk  07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) This "solution" doesn't seem to address any of the issues with bcrat decisions. ChazBeckett 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Absolutely not. I feel that such a process would affect the judgement of some bureaucrats, particularly those close to their re-nomination. If there is an issue, let ArbCom or Jimbo sort it out. Rje 19:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Not reasonable. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) If this happens, we'll have two or three bureaucrats this time next year. Picaroon 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Horrible idea. If anyone has issues with an admin, they should use appropriate channels. If not, what's the point in making them stand again? --Dweller 10:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) I would not like to see an annual re-election, but what might be advantageous to examine would be bureaucrats or even admins for that matter who stop editing for 3 months, (or a less arbitrary criteria) have to be re-instated by existing admins or bureaucrats.  Khu  kri  12:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Hell, no.--Docg 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Just what we need, yet another forum to vote. That means... no!. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Why fix what isn't broken? They do a good enough job, so why make it more difficult for them by micromanaging them? Koweja 16:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) It's more efficient to remove bureaucrat status in the event they do something for which such action is warranted. --Seans Potato Business 19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) We don't need a three-ring circus. Tito xd (?!?) 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) God no.  This is not a democracy.  We make choices here.  We chose our crats and we chose when they go away.  Why set a date on it? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Well that wouldn't be a giant mess... -- Kicking222 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Per above, this is just unnecessary. Bureaucrats need to have some measure of separation to do their jobs correctly.--Danaman5 07:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Because we have only a few bureaucrats as it is, we should not remove them at a whim.  Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Per Amarkov. The last thing we need are bureaucrats worried about their future election prospects. --210 physicq  ( c ) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) For the exact same reason why U.S. Supreme Court Justices stay up for a lifetime, or until they retire. Besides, if one shows conduct unworthy of their position, it would be up for comment.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Tony Sidaway 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC) The potential for abuse of such a process is too great. The stewards already act as a check on inappropriate promotions.
 * 29) Strongly disagree. The RFB standards are ridiculously high already, without running the risk of losing more crats without reason. That's not to mention the extra bureacracy. If a crat is truly bad, ArbCom can deal with it. --kingboyk 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) It's would be hard enough for a admin to get confirmed. Take 1 crat + 1 unhappy opposer + 1 controversial RFA = gong show. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) Not convinced this is the best answer to a complex question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think reconfirmation is great and I do not understand why it has not always beeen a part of adminship or b'cratship. Other wiki's have no problems with the idea.  That said I do not think saying "Agree" to a reconfirmation question on en.WP will be takien at face value so I am replying here.  Since it has not been a part of tradition here it seems to take on a different meaning.-- Birgitte SB  20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't know that b'crats should have to stand annually, or serve limited terms, as the formal duties of b'crats aren't very many. I do think inactive ones should be dropped after a certain period of inactivity, and if they want to return, stand de novo. Αργυριου (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm not opposed to the idea, however I don't know if this would solve the problem people have with inactive or controversial 'crats. James086 Talk  14:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Instead of reconfirmation, I think it should be simpler. A:Crats may be de-cratted (but not de-sysoped) if they haven't used the tools in two months. B:If there's no abuse, there's no need to for reconfirmation. --TeckWizParlate Contribs@ 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) This should put an end to the silly "we already have enough" opposes, which I think is the only thing this has going for it. GRBerry 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't think they should have to stand for annual reconfirmation. However, inactive ones need to be dropped to make room for those who will use the tools provided to them. This is especially true in light of the limited number of bureaucrat positions and the weight they can bring to bear with their few tools. Vassyana 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)