As it seems that _plenty_ of people are dissatisfied with the Way Wikipedia Works (TM)
I'm not so sure about that - you have to remember that people that are dissatisfied are always far more vocal than those than are satisfied. There are certainly a significant number of dissatisfied people, but maybe not as many as you think (I don't know how many you think there are, obviously, so I'm just guessing).
No, no, no. This is where I strongly (but respectfully) disagree. Rules need to be _simple_, or their purpose is null and void.
Oh, I agree, rules should always be as simple as possible. The "as possible" part is key, though - they need to be complicated enough to do the job.
If you look at the "Rules" section in the Wikipendium proposal (http://wikipendium.blogspot.com/2008/07/vision-need-and-new-compendium-of-hu...), you'll see that the rules cover practically all situations that are likely to occur in an online community and can still fit into three policy pages - for example, content that does not comply with the "acceptability" rules will be eligible for immediate deletion, the "acceptable behaviour" policy will cover blocking, and methods for arbitrating disputes don't belong in policy (it could simply be stated in the "acceptable behaviour" policy when editors should pursue dispute resolution, and provide links to pages describing how to resolve disputes).
Your constables will unilaterally delete articles they think don't fit the acceptability policy? In that case, you will certainly need a policy for arbitrating disputes!