The objection I have to CoC documents is that by design they reward people who litigate language to push agendas instead of participating in the community they

The objection I have to CoC documents is that by design they reward people who litigate language to push agendas instead of participating in the community they are designed to support based on genuine welcome. This legalism empowers people who specialize in exploiting leverage to achieve governance, while policing and alienatating contributors. In this sense, CoC's are an anti-pattern that exacerbates the very problem they ostensibly solve. In Canada, we have a colloquialism that says, "well, that opens up the constitution," which means that when you open up founding principles for change, every obscure chancer takes a shot at getting their niche interest encoded into it. Builders aren't engaged in political struggles, but political strugglers' whole existence is around finding new communities to exploit and govern. For Wikipedia to spend time on this seems like bike shedding, and there is literally no upside to appeasing the social litigants who benefit most from code of conduct pseudo-legalisms. Products are not countries and they are not societies. They are things, which people make and take responsibility for. Forfeiting responsibility and discretion to these exogenous power struggles arguably betrays the people whose work makes it valuable.