Rick wrote:
I second Sascha's concerns. If you're an official representative of Wikipedia and are serving on a committee designed to make sure that people are following the policies, then it's not your place to pick and choose which policies you will enforce.
My problem with this is that it's very unclear what is and is not Wikipedia policy. There are a lot of pages which purport to be policy, but some of them have been written by a single person and mostly ignored by everyone else, so at best can be called "one person's attempt at a proposed policy". There are some others that have some support, and multiple contributors, and still others than have a good deal of support. Then there are some procedural things, like VfD and the sysop-request process, that are de facto policy by virtue of the fact that they do what they say they'll do. But, apart from the fact that we strive for a "neutral point of view", I'm not aware of anything else that can be said to be "official policy", just a lot of things that have greater or lesser degrees of support as policy. For example, "no autobiographies" is a proposed policy with some support, but can't really be said to be official policy. "No personal attacks" likely has much more support, but I see it as quantitatively different rather than qualitatively--it should be given more weight since it has much more support, but none of our "policies" are really set in stone, since any of them can be modified at any time. In fact, the Wikiquette page was modified by User:168... just yesterday! So which version is official policy? The new one, or the old one? My answer would be neither--they're both proposed policies, with greater or lesser degrees of support.
-Mark