Attacks on users and sysops - particularly highly dedicated ones - are much more dangerous to the Wikipedia than simple attacks on a few pages. If these kinds of attacks cause people to stop weeding out bad pages or vandals for fear of retribution, the project is doomed. ... At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable by NAME?
As with many features, removing the possibility of abuse would also hamper our ability to detect it. If the software were as you suggest above, for example, Mr. No-Fx would not have been able to to demonstrate to us that he is so clearly outside the realm of rational adult behavior that we can summarily block him with clear conscience and no further ado.
The net has a long and glorious tradition that anyone who does anything useful will be attacked unmercifully. Most of us get used to it and get on with the job. Was Zoe frustrated because she couldn't block the idiot, or for some other reason? I can't imagine that she would be so dismayed merely by the opinion of someone whose opinions clearly aren't worthy of any respect or notice.
Here's a more controversial idea: perhaps some information relating to deletion of pages and banning of users should be hidden from non-sysops. For example, since "delete" can only be done by sysops, why not just tell non-sysops that a deletion occurred, but not WHICH sysop did it?
I much prefer the combination of freedom and accountability: let lots of people take appropriate action, but track what they do so it can be fixed or discussed after the fact if necessary. That's usually a powerful system with good, stable, negative feedback.
By the same token, perhaps some discussion areas should be only readable/writeable by sysops, in particular a discussion area to discuss banning someone. Perhaps there could be a way where anyone (non-sysop) could suggest that someone be banned, without having their name revealed to non-sysops. Since real deletes and banning can only be done by sysops anyway, and sysops are trusted, there's no reason this information MUST be public.
But I really don't see any reason to hide it either. Sysops are trusted. If a Sysop blocks someone, we have a public record that someone we trust has made a specific judgment about an action he or she felt necessary, and unless extraordinary cirsumstances come to light that it may have been a particularly bad judgment, that really should end the matter. Sure, people may complain, but let them. Just because an action is unpopular that doesn't mean we can't stand up for it and take responsibility.