All of these guidelines go directly against how online fora work.
In particular, your suggestion that people shouldn't split posts into smaller, relevant quotes and addressing them one by one - that's exactly what they should be doing. The alternative is what we get from noobs these days - an enormous quote followed by a response to god-knows-which-part of the original post.
You're also advocating against transparent moderation. Again, that's unlikely to garner much support. The moderators issue warnings publicly, because the alternative is a world of unsubstantiated accusations.
The argument against Wikipedia is nonsense. Yes, it can be edited by anyone, but if you try to edit it to reflect something untrue, it will get reverted within a minute. Their peer review system works just fine for debates here. Instead of prescribing approved sources, if you disagree with something Wikipedia is saying, present sources to the contrary. And, protip: edit Wikipedia and include your references to help everyone else out.
The same goes for telling people when they can speak. Sorry, not gonna happen. I don't care how many people are speaking for either side. If you find a particular debate "not fun", may I suggest the radical approach of not participating? It's vastly preferable to your attempts at controlling what everyone else does.
I'm sorry that you dislike the style of this communications medium, but I strongly disagree with adopting your personal preferences above common practice. Given the responses in the CN thread, various individuals disagree with various subsets of your suggestions. That alone should be telling.