I solicit your opinion--yes, you, humble (or exalted) list member.
I ask you, dear reader and fellow Wikipedian, to offer your mere opinion. If you want to support it with reasons, that's great, but I'd like us to hold off on attack each others' opinions for right now, so that we can actually get an idea of what we all simply think.
If you don't want to send your reply to the list, send it to me, and I'll do my best to compile a summary.
As I see it, there are two issues under debate: whether there is a problem; and if so, what the solution should be.
=======
ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies (and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.
CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their numbers and effects are perfectly manageable and are not particularly egregious. Either "well-respected, clearly productive members of the community"--whose value is probably overrated--are not being driven away, in fact, or if they are, so much the worse for them, if they can't thrive in an open, free atmosphere.
OTHER: [Insert your take on this debate here.]
=======
ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers to ban and to delete pages permanently. "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
The Status Quo Option: We should continue on as we have been in recent months, viz., everyone has, for the asking, the power to delete pages and to ban IP numbers. There doesn't need to be set policy on when this is appropriate and when not.
The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out by our sysops.
The Moderators Option: Rather than having giving power to all sysops who ask for it, we should give the power to moderators on a rotating basis. They act explicitly as judges, adjudicating disputes and building up a history of cases that allows us to find-tune and rationally apply the rules that eliminate from our presence trolls and others who simply refuse to play by the rules. They are responsible for judging by the rules fairly, and as a result the office of moderator is rewarded with moral authority.
Other Option: [Describe your solution here.]