Jean-Christophe Chazalette a écrit:
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
The translation is not very good villy. The word relate does not translate well the french term.
the originals are
10.A. L'arbitrage n'est applicable qu'aux conflits entre éditeurs sans jamais porter directement sur la pertinence des contenus encyclopédiques ni sur leur neutralité. Les arbitres examinent des comportements individuels sans être les juges de la validité des contenus.
10.B. l'arbitrage s'applique à tous les conflits sans distinction et peut porter directement sur la pertinence ou la validité des articles
Translation of 10A is this :
Arbitration will apply only to conflict between editors, without being related to accuracy or neutrality of encyclopedic content. The arbitrators will look at individual behavior without being judges of content validity.
----- Translation of 10B is this :
Arbitration will apply to all type of conflicts, without distinction and arbitration decisions may directly be applied to relevance/accuracy or validity of contents.
-----
Arbitration applied directly to validity of articles may be interpretated by "arbitration comittee will have the authority to do anything it will decide to ensure neutrality or accuracy of articles. Anything might be reverting to a specific version or deletion."
In short, I claim that the sentence as written is allowing arbitration committee to become a sort of super-editor which has authority to decide over the community what is correct from what is not.
I do not recognise this as being acceptable within wikipedia rules, and I do not see that as being helpful in any way in our theoretical goal of reaching NPOV. Quite the opposite.
This said, there are two different groups of people, and each group is giving a different interpretation of the sentence. I proposed a new sentence to replace, but this does not hide the fact that some users indeed *want* an arbitration committee to decide for the community what is neutral and accurate in case of dispute, rather than the community itself.