On 6/18/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@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.