Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/Elections July 2008/SVTCobra Questions

Question from GW_Simulations: There has recently been some controversy on the English Wikipedia about the extent of ArbCom's power and influence. Do you feel that it is ever ArbCom's place to dictate policies, even against community consensus, or just to make rulings on individual cases, on a case-by-case basis? I am asking this question to all candidates --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the situation over at Wikipedia. ArbCom should never be proactive, and only handle cases put before it. However, this could include resolve issues of policy, I suppose, if consensus somehow adopts a policy that goes grossly against project and foundation aims. I will need to read more about this. Do you have a link to the debate at Wikipedia? --SVTCobra 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the ruling which started the controversy. A lot of the subsequent discussion is located on this page. How do you feel about this case? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that (or most of it) and re-reading the mandate that WN:ARBCOM has been given, I will say that in my opinion 1) ArbCom should never issue remedies that amount to policy. ArbCom rulings set a precedent that can be used as guides in future disputes that are similiar, and, hopefully, keep them from rising all the way to ArbCom; 2) I think that it would be a natural function of ArbCom to strike down—not rewrite—policies that were adopted by consensus, but run afoul of the project mission or foundation policy. However, I would like to see that agreed to by consensus and written into the WN:ARBCOM policy before attempted. 3) I will refrain from commenting on the specific case which is about WP:BLP. --SVTCobra 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Anonymous101. You do not provide your real name on wiki. Would you identify yourself to the foundation in order too get the oversight /checkuser rights? If not, do you think this will limit your ability to serve as a member of the Arbitration Committee.? Anonymous101 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to identify myself to to members of the foundation, so long as the information is not posted publicly online. I believe that is how they do it, so I foresee no troubles. --SVTCobra 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]