This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) at 10:37, 11 January 2013 (→Motion: Jerusalem discussion appointments: s.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

• WP:A/R/M

Motion: Jerusalem discussion appointments

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").

• In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
• The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
• To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
• The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
• The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.

We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

1. Keilana (talk · contribs)
2. RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
3. Pgallert (talk · contribs)

We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

Support

1. Proposed, with the following obiter dicta: (1) We approached the appointees through e-mail, to give them the opportunity to quietly decline to become involved in a project concerning such a contentious topic. (2) The appointees were simply editors that we arbitrators knew to be suitable for the roles to which we are appointing them. At another time, we might have held a call for interested editors to volunteer. However, for my part, I thought that arranging these appointments as speedily as possible was better, and that holding another round of "appointments" (preceded by the ArbCom Elections and succeeded in a short time from now by AUSC and CU/OS appointments) would induce election fatigue in the community. My thanks go again to the four editors above for agreeing to assist with this discussion. Community comment on this motion is most welcome, in the section below. AGK 13:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
2. As an addendum to AGK's post: if anyone wants to volunteer to be involved in helping out with a similar discussion in the future, let us know and we will add your name to a list to consider for the future. NW (Talk) 13:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
3. — Coren  13:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
7. I've recused on some aspects of the underlying dispute, but I don't think there's any problem with my supporting this procedural/personnel motion to move the process forward. As a heads up to everyone, when this process ends I'm likely to ask whether it was effective, and should be considered as a model for future, similar disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Worm(talk) 08:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Salvio 10:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Community comments concerning motion

• Good choices. NE Ent 14:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that it looks like you've made a good choice, and thank you to the four editors from me too. I would also like to thank AGK for the detailing of the reasoning behind the chosen course of action - here's hoping that it prevents drama! Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• This looks like a good way to implement the earlier motion. We've in the meanwhile had some discussions on talk:Jerusalem on which question to put to the RFC and we've made some progress toward that. Appointing a moderator to assist in the set-up sounds like a very good idea. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Mr. Stradivarius is excellent with these sorts of discussions, I am sure he will do a great job. Steven Zhang 04:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is very promising. I love the moderator idea. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)