Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't really care if I have less work, but my personal opinion on the matter is that protecting pages is one of the most radical things to do in a wiki. Nobody who does not belong to the trusted group of sysops will be able to make additions to the page during the period of protections, and this enforces a class distinction that I am not very comfortable with. I think it should be avoided.
I would agree with you completely that page protection should be avoided whenever possible. A better choice is for people to let the other person win for a day or two, and come back and change it when things have calmed down. A still better choice is to try really hard to accomodate their point of view while still fixing the problem (this can be hard to do, of course, but it's the essence of the wiki process).
And I would also tend to agree with you that making comments on the talk page is best avoided, or at least highly limited with respect to the debate. However, I can see some benefit in a semi-disinterested sysop coming in and making a stab at making peace on the talk page, and then when that fails, taking another step. It seems unwise to have a hard-and-fast rule here. Judgment will have to be used, and analysis after the fact can help to guide us to a better path in the future.
You endorsed the previous similar actions in the case of User:Kils, so it seemed logical to enforce the policy as I interpreted it. If, however, you do not want me to do this and want to handle all complaints about sysop status yourself except in cases of major vandalism that requires immediate action, then I will gladly forward such complaints to you. I'm sure the 1 person bottleneck will bite us in the ass sooner or later, though.
Tragically, I don't remember the exact circumstances of User:Kils, even though it was fairly recent. :-(
But, yeah, I do acknowledge the bottleneck problem.
There's something of an irony or paradox here. Should developers be an elite cabal acting to prevent the formation of an elite cabal of sysops? :-) Probably that's overstating it, but it does sum up the essence of the policy tensions here, I think.
--Jimbo