There seems to be a consensus among the witnesses that any criticism in the form of a post by a blogger referring to what they see as bad actors and using terms such as pest, parasite, greedy, criminal, duplicitous, etc., are unwelcome to be heard and they either vote such articles down themselves or condone others doing so.

No matter how much factual information the article may contain, it disqualifies itself by containing name-calling.

I observe that criticism, where it is formulated as such, without insulting or denigrating, and the formulator is someone who is either a whale himself or an established blogger with some stake, tends not to be downvoted.
Criticism where it directly attacks actors and makes criminal intent or arbitrariness the strong subject and it comes from a small fish is more likely to be downvoted.

While the whales can use a caustic tone or schoolmaster, the small fish cannot afford to do so because they lose out, since there is no authority to which they can turn.
Since such an authority does not exist (there is no consensus to impose self-regulation on the witnesses) this non-existence of an address gets out of hand in the fact that there is outrage. Which is expressed in articles similar to the one here under which we are commenting.

I would beg to differ. A judge is needed since it can be that in the investigation of a case of suspected abuse of power (stake) there can be conflict within the partaking witness or wale himself and he cannot be objective towards his own interests if they are conflicting him. Often in such a way that it does not even becomes conscious. But before that a power abuser needs to come to a hearing (now, what if he just won't and don't?)

You cannot follow a protocol and be attacker, defender and judge in the same person. You therefore need - once you have reached a consensus as witnesses - an independent body to stand by as arbitrators when cases of abuse of power are brought to their attention. To do this, they must be found, i.e. they must have an address.

I do not see this form of consensus coming.

Your suggestion of punishment or the imposition of impressive financial penalties already exists on the Chain, but "the people" and also the participants themselves are very divided on this.

Ultimately, there seems to be no will to work properly here.

Then you can also start to take the whole thing from the funny side, at least I tell myself in doing so would be better for me.