Well, it seems like you haven't had much exposure to Wikipedia's user-contributed 'guidelines', for which you should be thankful... Wikipedia has lots of rules to prevent their other rules from being refuted, giving leverage to insiders when discussing decisions. Case in point:

* Disruption to make a point, which would be used to shoot down Plan A - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT

* Strict invocation of the rules - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAWYER

* 'Gaming the system' in general. See how they forbid pointing out contradictions in the application of the rules! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system

I can see how the spirit of them was to lubricate discussion and decision making, but when you have such a complex etiquette which can be used to silence newcomers upon breach, you have just a recipe for abuse.

I'm sorry that you are incapable of taking 5 minutes to find read the specific Wikipedia policy pages that mentioned by name. Just because you know nothing about subjects and like to bullshit about them on the internet does not mean that everyone else does the same. Since you mostly seem to be interested in hearing yourself speak I will not engage you further.

I'm sorry that you're incapable of taking the 5 seconds to realize that the overabundance of specific Wikipedia policy pages are the reason why people have given up trying to fix it from within and are content to lob stones from outside without digging into the rules.

Just because you know so goddamn much about policies and the like, doesn't mean anybody else cares.

Since you mostly seem to be interested in seeing yourself further existing bureaucracy and not IAR to create the best a resource for wikipeida users, I will engage you in a futile attempt to point out the reason that people are not doing what you ask.