Wikipedia:Confirmation of sysophood

There is a certain unwarranted mystique about sysophood. Some people seem to think that it offers unlimited privilege and power. Others think that a sysop is not very different from other users, except that after a certain amount of time they have earned the trust of the community to perform certain functions that new users need more time to learn about. In either case, the attitude toward sysops is based on trust. Do we trust someone to have that "unlimited privilege and power"? Does that person still have the trust of the community to perform those functions?

Trust is not a constant. It is something earned and sometimes lost. That would certainly be true about the trust invested in sysops.

People like to point out that we have 200 sysops and that this is not enough. We do and we don't. Many of the officially listed sysops no longer contribute regularly. Some have left Wikipedia altogether, so that, in fact, there is a far smaller number of active sysops who patrol Recent Changes and do what they can to ensure the high quality of our content (and see that it the content is provided in an amicable manner).

I would therefore like to see a situation in which sysops are up for reelection at regular intervals (every three or six months). Let everyone decide who should still be a sysop and who should not. Such a decision would be based on reputation, number of edits, and most of all, trust.

I understand that I cannot coerce other people to accept that. I can, however, do it for myself, and I urge other Wikipedians who have been sysops for more than six months to do the same.

I therefore put myself forward for confirmation of sysophood. I would like to be a sysop, however, if, after 7 days, I do not get the support needed, i will ask that my sysophood be revoked. I will, nonetheless, continue to contribute to Wikipedia like any other contributor. I hope you will support me. Danny 11:56, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Danny
Support Danny's continued adminship

JRR Trollkien (see warning) 22:53, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Permanent sysop status is a very bad idea. All sysops should spend at least some time out of the sysop power structure so they see its problems.
 * moink 23:30, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 23:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not sure I agree with the idea (though I find a lot of it compelling), but I'm sure I want Danny to remain an admin.
 * Exactly what Jwrosenzweig said. Angela. 00:08, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Three to six months seems like too short; I'd support a year. Also, I support Danny. Tuf-Kat 00:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * No comment on the proposal, but I support Danny's adminship. Johnleemk | Talk 11:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I support Danny's proposal at yearly intervals, not three-six months. And Danny can definitely continue his excellent work.   &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  03:20, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
 * Gzornenplatz 02:33, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * What Jwrosenzweig said. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What Jwrosenzweig said. Rad Racer | Talk 19:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opppose Danny's continued adminship