zlacker

If the rules were decided by the English Wikipedia community following their process for making such decisions then this would be a meaningful criticism. But this is an edict from the WMF ivory tower. To say it's representative of the Wikipedia editors is a gross mischaracterisation.

From my perspective it's naked entryism, striking at the centralised weakness in an otherwise robust, decentralised system.

>>cthor+(OP)
The English Wikipedia can be part of the problem in some cases. It's not a democracy but a "tight-knit" community where insiders have a lot of influence, and even harassing, uncivil behavior can go on for a long time if it's perceived as "defending" the community's precious "work" from new editors. Part of the problem is also that harassment concerns must often be disclosed in private for obvious reasons, so a community-wide dispute resolution process might just not work very well for those.

And then there's Wikipedias in other languages and other Wikimedia projects, which come with additional cans of worms.

>>zozbot+71
> where insiders have a lot of influence, and even harassing, uncivil behavior can go on for a long time if it's perceived as "defending" the community's precious "work" from new editors

It definitely happens, but the influence and uncivil behaviour by longtime editors are always, in my experience, very well disguised under a veneer of civility and lawyering. So the CoC will be completely useless against that, which is IMO the serious issue with Wikipedia right now.