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 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".
Fred
From: John Robinson <john@freeq.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:20:36 -0500
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
So let me see if I have this straight.
As long as a user holds strictly to written policy, he/she may cause as much disruption, damage and hell as possible, and community consensus on a matter is secondary to ill-thought-out and often unenforced legalistic jargon.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
-Hephaestos