I think we may have drifted a tad off topic, but I would like to make a couple points. No ill will, derision, or disrespect is meant by anything I say here.
Perhaps this is just semantics, but having a very plain default isn't the same thing as "forcing." KDE and XFCE are win-alike by default. This is just their nature and design, and that kind of layout has a very long history in Linux as well. As seen in the dragonized edition, KDE at least is clearly fully unbound from this default.
GNOME on the other hand has things like "Human Interface Guidelines" and ecosystem-centric lock-ins in the tools and frameworks for GTK-native app development. Their attitude towards things outside this, like Qt apps for example, is "not our problem." This behavior is far more akin to closed-source, company backed OS's, and is moving in an especially Apple-like direction.
The trajectory of GNOME's interface really doesn't remind you of anything? I realize that comes off as a jab, but consider: Iterating and innovating on existing designs/concepts is not a bad thing and is how arguably most UI experiences move forward. The vast majority of DE's now are a mangled web of borrowed concepts and complex lineages. Each has unique innovations and features of their own, and GNOME is certainly different in its default state than the larger family of more win-alike environments, but in many of its differences can be found a) "inspiration" from other extant desktops, and b) some of its uniqueness tied to the more "branded" look & feel.
Sure! It's still open source, still Linux, still readily extensible. However, heavily working with GNOME through a handful of major version upgrades and doing the same on another well-established "mainline" DE I think does show that the nature of GNOME is somewhat more temperamental. This is further seen in things like the open hostility towards theming sometimes expressed by GNOME devs, and the generally flippant/not-my-job stance GNOME has with regards to maintaining consistent behaviors for more extensive user-side customization. Reading my wiki page also expounds upon this, if somewhat indirectly. The real work in continuing to make GNOME as customizable as it is comes from the tireless outside work of countless extension and theme developers who dive right back in when GNOME throws a fresh wrench at them.
Once again, no disrespect! Just hoping to add a little insight to the discourse here. I love GNOME. I use GNOME every day. I come back to GNOME when I've had enough of tweaking whatever trendy tiling WM grabbed my attention. I've been doing so since Fedora 18. It provides an environment that, for me, is extremely useful and productive. But I think it's important to acknowledge that many of the criticisms against it, especially in recent times, do have at least some degree of validity.
I'm at fault here for running counter to this statement, but if anyone is going to walk away from this comment with anything, it should be the following - Differing opinions and places to constructively discuss them are vital and core to the foundation of free and open source software. What makes this work, though, is just a little extra effort to be thoughtful and respectful. 
if anyone notes any problems let me know.
Do I need to add a disclaimer on the Wiki?
Wise words. I am in the same boat. The last time I did it, Gnome 41 I think, it ended with my head in my hands thinking, there is an hour I can't get back.
So the drift into a little friendly discourse about the things I think anyone who's used GNOME for a length has come up against and people's various resulting takes is if nothing else more fun than a dwindling chain of "nice page" or whatever 