Great sentiment, but the rules and policies are, in many cases, inherently, explicitly bad. If they were fundamentally sound, they wouldn't yield such preposterous results they so often do, particularly on political/economics articles. Believe it or not, but I've actually try to edit within those flaws, and it doesn't work. 

OR is one of my favorites. You can add completely relevant, well-sourced text with great informative value, but are explicitly prohibited from doing so, and are thus unable to correct a distorted rendition on a given topic. When editing so called fringe articles, this becomes almost comical. Since fringe by its very definition means that it is outside what is considered mainstream, it is easy to find mainstream articles that criticizes the fringe position, but nigh on impossible to find a mainstream source that counters that position, since the mainstream by and large is critical of that position. So you need to find an article that explicitly counters the (arbitrary chosen) article used by the mainstream editor. Obviously that will be very difficult, since fringe articles are, again, by its very definition, scarce. And if you do find one, the mainstream editor calls on the RS rule, thus ruling out the use of that source because, and here's the kicker, its fringe. And there is nothing you can do about it, because that is what the rules say. Talk about catch 22.

Thus you can add whatever demonstrably false bullshit you want in order to inflate the criticism of the fringe position. This easy to do, since there's an endless amount of mainstream articles to choose from. These criticisms become virtually impossible to counter because of the OR, RS or some other bullshit rule. According to the rules, it is better to have false and distortive information on the article (provided it is critical) than correct and informative material. This is not the consequence of some manipulation of otherwise good rules and policies, this is the explicit goal and purpose of WP. Truth is not an issue, the High Lord Jimmy Wales tells us, only whatever delusional, bullshit claims that can be "verified" by delusional, bullshit mainstream sources.

I've got blocked many times, that is true. But why I have got blocked? Well, in most cases it's the result of me trying to defend an article against what any sensible person would have to call vandalism. But of course, vandalism is just keeping with rules and policies in the WP world. Also, if you happen to be alone in defending a certain edit, and you have two opponents, they can just take turns reverting your edit until you hit the 3rr rule. Another charming aspect of the WP rules and policies.

So no, the rules and policies are not mostly okay. Very far from it. They are the very reason why WP cannot be used as source on information about economics, not even in a youtube commentary debate. It works fine when it comes to physics or other natural sciences. But not when it comes to economics. That is a shame, but it is the inevitable consequence of fundamentally flawed rules and policies and the implementation thereof. I may not have been around as long as you have, but I've been around long enough to know how fucked up WP's rules and policies are. And they are holding WP back.