I've been following the various commentary about 24 with interest, and maybe I can offer some thoughts for consideration.
We have run into at least one character similar to 24 in the past - Cunctator. (Although 24 seems worse). That is - a person who is clearly quite intelligent, capable of making very worthwhile contributions at times, but frequently unable to distinguish between the encyclopedia agenda and their personal agenda.
The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the silent ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to reason with 24 repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is nothing else to do but protect the project.
As much as people seem to hate admitting it- there is a "cabal" in operation at the Wikipedia. However, rather than being some secretive and exclusive operation, it is a freely admissive assembly: Live by the rules and you're in.
I know of no occasion where someone who accepted the central editorial guidelines was ever made to feel excluded - one's "respect and authority" is purely a measure of one's level of participation and commitment, not a matter of "who you know" or (especially) "how long you've been here". Jimbo retains ultimate control of the project (by virtue of his paying for the damn thing), but the remainder of us are its true authority structure. The Wikipedia Militia was assembled along these lines - some howled with outrage, but most of us understood its purpose.
So this is a time when the "cabal" or "militia" must rise to the occasion - we must simply edit quietly and remove the detritus to either meta or to oblivion, as is appropriate. 24 is chiefly motivated by his ability to engage us - people such as this live for their ability to command the attention of people, and to eliminate his negative behaviour we must remove this incentive. Two things will result - he/she will either learn to play by the rules, or he/she will go away. Either way, the project is better off.
There is no shame is using our "collective authority" - we do not need any special measures. We edit, delete, and watch each other. If Maveric, Vibber, JHK, Jimbo, KQ or someone similarly respected elects to delete content of 24, I'm probably going to be fairly accepting of their judgment. This is motivated by my trust of them as rational beings who understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This trust is not absolute, but certainly substantial (and I mean no disrespect - absolute trust is not possible as we are all fallible)
If the "Militia" were an exclusive operation, then there would be shame to it, but that has never been the case, nor could it ever be (without some seriously fundamental changes to the structure of Wikipedia, which I suspect would never happen.)
Why do people like 24 appear? Well the 'pedia is growing in stature. Everyone wants to have their voice heard (including us), and when you have an agenda, it is a lot easier to try and usurp the audience of an existing structure rather than build your own. The difference is - we have elected to live within the rules of Wikipedia while getting our voice heard.
So I do not think there is any reason to be afraid to exercise our collective authority. The day will come when entire teams of people will attempt to attack or hijack the project - as Wikipedia grows in stature its prominence will be too enticing to resist for certain "agenda-driven" elements of the cyber-community. There will be marginal areas, where some of us feel the content is appropriate and others don't. But it's always been like that. We've always managed to sort those problems out.
However, entire articles which usurp recognised terms for personal dogma are not controversial at all - they have to go, and that's that. Collectively it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
Warm regards
Manning
Sydney, Australia