French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast
majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took
place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the
arbitration rules.
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)."
There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or
articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
The current poll is expected to last until nov. 7 and could lead to
enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line
regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a
dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes
sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support
her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing.
So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village
pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation,
especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Thanks.
villy