On 6/18/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Sam Blacketer wrote:
It is headed 'special enforcement' rather
than 'special policy', and I
think
the distinction is more than merely
terminological. The policy basis is
WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I
agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
This seems like a lot of semantic play between "enforcement" and
"policy". The right to enforce needs to be supported by specific
enforcement policy, and enforcement policy needs to be in addition to
the wrong defined in the rule. Enforcement policy is not implicit to
the description of a wrong.
I know that the line between a policy, and the way that policy is enforced,
is easily blurred and sometimes arbitrary. However I think defining a new
class of 'enforcement policy' is not helpful as it tries to annex more and
more Wikipedia practice within the envelope of 'policy'. If you check recent
Arbitration Committee decisions you'll see that there is concern among some
members of the committee at the type of finding which "urges" or
"encourages" editors to act in a certain way, the concern being that they
are empty remedies because they lack any mechanism of enforcement.
It's a common assumption that administrators will act responsibly, but
that has not consistently been borne out by the facts.
I think the greater danger would be the assumption that administrators are
bound to act irresponsibly. The Arbitration Committee should avoid falling
into the trap of the crabbed old Magistrate, who only sees young people when
they are brought in having committed crimes, and therefore assumes that 'the
youth of today' are all criminals. Likewise when we see errant
administrators we look at them as exceptions.
--
Sam Blacketer