If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom will get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by kneecapping people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like arbitrary justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA is that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to deliver an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking someone for calling a troll "a troll".
What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm never greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you actually had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to pass RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't have consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues for years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've needed to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative, short tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in the midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it easier to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you tone it down a bit".
If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats. It is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to long-term frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on en.Wikipedia means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn to fight and equally you get frustrated.
As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change structures than to change people. And structures shape people.
But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
Scott (Doc)