Except if a user holds strictly to written policy they
really can't do a lot
of stuff that results in disruption, damage and hell. Community consensus
would result in changed written policy to replace such parts of written
policy that are "ill-thought-out and often unenforced legalistic jargon".
Other than that you seem to have summed it up pretty well.
In practice, community consensus results in "proposals" which remain
forever in limbo because the objections of those who would be
sanctioned under those proposals are given as much weight as those of
In other words, heroism is not necessary on your part
to "save" Wikipedia.
Just steady pressure on those who as you put it, "cause as much disruption,
damage and hell as possible".
I'd hardly classify doing what the Arbitration Committee has
neglected for months to do as "heroism" but whatever.