Delirium wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Therefore (Point Three) there really is a valid distinction, at this top level, between "policy" (read here "content policy") and "enforcement". In the big picture, what is allowed in Wikipedia, and what Wikipedia does about conformity to the content policy, are two different things. I see this getting lost in the second para above. The ArbCom are not "overturning" BLP as content policy. No such idea in the Arbitrators' heads.
There are policies about enforcement as well, though. Things like [[WP:3RR]] are policies not about content, but about how editors are expected to interact. The Arbitration Committee generally enforces such policies; it cannot create them itself.
-Mark
Yes, there are the "social policies". But that whole area, surely, is less vexed. The idea that admins have wide discretion, when uninvolved at least, in sanctioning those who break 3RR and similar codes, is broadly accepted and has been for quite some time. The ArbCom couldn't suddenly decide that reformatting references, for example, was against policy. But in practical terms it doesn't have to, and almost any aspect of enforcement of social policy comes under some or other form of "disruption" patrolling. The "content policies" are on a quite different footing.
Charles