Is there a Wikipedia policy that comes close to being enforced as written?

I would say probably the banning policy. That is not because the choice between a ban and a block is in anywise made logically or consistently. Those choices are just as illogical, arbitrary and vengeful as any other admin action on Wikipedia. It is rather because the policy limits itself primarily to the procedure to be used in applying and enforcing bans. It says virtually nothing about the type of behavior that will trigger a user ban beyond mentioning the vague catch-all of "disruptive" editing. As most wiki-watchers know, "disruptive" means whatever the admin putting the boot in on you says it means. As a merely procedural rule, it lacks much of the wikispeak one would otherwise expect, that is, ordinary English words and phrases twisted into counter-intuitive and bizarre meanings. It would seem, as a matter of procedure anyway, that bans are actually fairly consistently applied and enforced pursuant to this policy, with the caveat that "the community" means "the community of admins and their adherents who are out to get you".

It is notable that the Frei Kultur Kinder that run Wikipedia have a certain mania for witch hunts, which may well be a natural result of the largely open and instant editing regime that Wikipedia has. Their practice of purging Holy Mother Wiki of both the heretics and their hellish edits is rooted in the policy's statement that NO editing from a banned user, "good or bad", is to be permitted. This not uncommonly results in vandalism, bad phrasing and inaccurate statements removed by a heretic being restored to an article. Still, the policy does not serve as the "Malleus Maleficarum" of the wiki inquisitors; it is just a procedural rule. Wikipedia being Wikipedia, however, the policy must contain at least one bit of cynical eyewash that only "clueless noobs" would take at face value, and here it is:

"Conduct towards banned users

Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them."

This is an interesting question because they are all enforced exactly as written. Not just at en., but at de., es., fr., all of them. Praise be unto Jimbo.

However, given the low average intelligence of Wikipedia opponents, they may be unable to tell the difference between policies and guidelines. An anti-Wikipedia idiot then notices that a guideline is not enforced and then jumps to the conclusion that a policy is being enforced arbitrarily. But that's not the case at all: all Wikipedia policies are enforced in holy perfection.

old testomony became initially written in Hebrew. New testomony initially written in Greek. Bible pupils, exceedingly interior the final century or so, have shown that the King James version is exceedingly a lot riddled with mistranslations in the two testaments. Given the greater moderen source cloth discoveries interior the 2nd 0.5 of the twentieth century, the final rule of thumb could be that the greater moderen a translation is, if from an independent scholarly source, the greater probably that translation is to be precise.

Don't pick my answer, because Eddie obviously spent a lot more time and effort on his. But, I'd say Wikipediots do a pretty good job of enforcing "No Legal Threats" as written:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_th...

Except that they interpret EVERYTHING as a potential legal threat.

Here are some exchanges that would be interpreted as a legal threat:

*** "Oh my God, it's like you're making a federal case over my userbox!"

*** "Jeez, I'm sorry I didn't sign my talk page comment. So sue me!"

*** "Some of these rules are so complicated around here, I need a lawyer to interpret them for me."

*** "Good gravy, you remind me of Fred Bauder and the time he was disbarred."

All of those would get you a permanent, community ban on Wikipedia.