I know it is not the consensus of the Contributor Covenant; and very obviously, the people behind that document do not place themselves under its rules (I have seen the so called "opalgate" before). It is common in radical groups to only apply rules to those they fight and judge, and not to themselves (open history books for further information on that subject).
However, that does not legitimate this behavior, and behaving in the same way the people behind the Contributor Covenant behave is quite clearly not the solution to the problem; as they already shown that their belief and entitlement goes much farther than the extent of their reflection. Yet this humorous issue is a good thing in the sense that it allows for the present discussion to be had; and creates a precedent where they are legitimately placed in the role they ordinarily place others in, hastily, and with striking impunity. Maybe a few of them will take the time to analyze the situation and ponder whether their course of action so far (punishing mercilessly vs. educating) has been the right one.
About the except you quote, I have read the Contributor Covenant, and it is clear that the stated goal does not align with the applied usage1. This seems to indicate that the document which is now adopted by a large number of FOSS projects is meant to be a political tool with a total disregard to the time-related resources of those projects; much more than a unifying document acting for their development.
However, it is not our role, nor our place, to tell those projects what Code of Conduct they should adopt. We can only try to write better ones, hope that they will see the flaws of their current ones, and provide better tools to enable any project to regulate the conduct of their members readily, merely by including to their project an existing, maintained document.