>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 honest users.

>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.