I think the time has been reached for another ARBPIA case. The specific trigger has been the recent ANI thread where the person fixing a CCI was accused by the copyright-violator of being motivated by bias, then when a third-party admin blocked the violator, he was in turn accused of being biased against one side of the debate] because of his history as an active admin at WP:AE. Both WP:AE and WP:CCI are thankless areas where very few editors are prepared to do the donkey work. These editors need support from the community. When their credibility is attacked, they need support from the community and from Arbcom.

I also feel that recent developments require a renewal of commitment to previous Arbcom actions. Instead of being a place to talk about the moderation of behaviour, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues is very much part of the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (West Bank) has been subject to interpretations that stretch my personal ability to WP:Assume good faith though may not stretch others'. When the previous solutions are being abused or thought to be bring abused, then Arbcom needs to look at them again.

(More to follow but this should be enough to test whether there is a feeling of whether my calling for a case is premature or timely. I'm off to IPCOLL to invite people to add themselves as parties. I would rather have the obvious people on each sides volunteer than be nominated.)--Peter cohen (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Michael for his evidence. I've toned down what I've said above somewhat.

In reply to Risker, I would not regard an Arbcom case that purely resulted in half a dozen topic bans as useful. What I'm looking for more is an examination of how the current weapons such as AE, IPCOLL, the naming conventions etc are functioning. My perception is that there is more battleground behaviour taking place in what were once areas used to resolve issues. And also some of the AE admins are being accused of being partial, which is no good.

A further issue is the socking by Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · count) who was topic banned under two different identities in one of the previous ARBPIA cases. People who react to his socks and try to deal with them are vulnerable to be being accused of a battleground mentality in the process of doing so. I'm aware of a user on the other side of the battle who editors also think is topic banned sock. So this can be discussed as a more general issue and nto made specific to the one person.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michael Netzer

Thank you Peter cohen for bringing this to Arbcom.

In understanding passions that drive the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it's not a big wonder that it reverberates loudly also at Wikipedia. But regardless of how aggressive or loud both sides might become, the integrity of the encyclopedia remains contingent on a fair balance of information. It would not be objective to infringe on positions such as "the villainy of occupation" or "the appropriation of a people's land", by the same measure that it would not be so for "a people's historic belonging in their homeland" or "the aggressions that wrought the calamity".

There are two issues, which seem to be intertwined, that I've tried to point out in articles on settlements (and perhaps others in the IP area). They both rest on previously achieved agreements: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) and Wikipedia_talk:Legality_of_Israeli_settlements.

It seems to me that these agreements have been applied a little too aggressively by some editors, in a way that overextends their original intent. My involvement in the editing of Alon Shvut drew me into a series of lengthy debates with editors who seem to have imposed a standard that shifts the weight in the article (and subsequently other articles where the same standard has been applied) towards an over-empahsis of some issues of the conflict, to the detriment of others that would produce a more balanced and objective representation.

Though I would not envy arbitrators who'd need to review the lengthy discussions that have led us here, it seems to be a necessity for understanding the nature of the dispute rising from them, certainly better than any collection of diffs could tell. The relevant sections on talk pages are:

I'd think the various positions are made clear by everyone's arguments in them. I've summed up mine in the beginning of the subsetion at IPCOL: Main Points. My primary concern is to know whether Arbcom ratifies the 5 main points of my summation derived from the two agreements (without exclusion of anything else in them), and whether a clear statement on these issues can become a more enforceable policy.

This is only an opening statement and will certainly need some elaboration. I somewhat shudder, however, at the possibility that the same drawn out and often tangential argumentation that's characterized the discussions so far will repeat itself here, so I'll try my best not to feed the fire. I'll comment more if asked for clarifications or if there seems to become a serious need for it.

Thanks again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peter. I understood your concern from the beginning and appreciate the clarification. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jsolinsky, the debates grew from failed attempts to resolve edit conflicts through existing procedures. The other choices were to either engage in disruptive edit wars, or ignore a serious POV push that's being aggressively applied on these pages. The atmosphere there is one of a visceral battleground of political rhetoric and intimidation. The debate reveals serious disagreements on the word, spirit and intent of existing compromises. Arbcom's clarification of what the previous agreements intended is very much needed, and cannot be brushed off by trivializing the heat rising from the debates. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a somewhat lengthy appeal to arbitrators but was advised to shorten it. It was as succinct as possible given what it needs to say. I've seen another one like it here but I can't be sure it permits me to do it also. So it's now in a sandbox page. I ask arbitrators and anyone interested to read it in the following link:
Appeal to Arbitrators --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Background WP:WESTBANK was devised to resolve chronic edit-warring over the vox propria for that region. For 2 years, experienced editors on both sides abstained from inserting the casus belli terminology, 'Judea and Samaria' arbitrarily into articles on settlements. Michael in his sandbox appeal to Arbitrators writes:

I'm not sure what happened over the last two years because I wasn't involved with this area of the encyclopedia. What I do know is that when I did become involved about a month ago, the terms were pretty much non-existent in articles about settlements. I soon discovered that some editors who sought to prohibit the use of the terms reverted an edit that added it.

Exactly. That was the result of a policy-based consensus he alone started to insist was misguided.

What we now have is an innovation, in which one editor has begun to assert that WP:WESTBANK has not been understood, and that in fact one can begin to reintroduce 'Judea and Samaria' (settler POV) as gloss where The West Bank is identified as the area where settlements are established. Those party to the original agreement say the Protocol established a strict delimitation on the term 'Judea and Samaria' (being a settler POV) and this innovation therefore constitutes an abusive misreading of the Protocols (WP:WESTBANK #4#6). It is not a content issue primarily - we haven't edit-warred - but a rerunning of the pre-Arbpia dispute, which I, for one, thought resolved. So clarification is required. Has the ARBPIA agreement of 2 years ago been thoroughly misunderstood by nearly everyone, as Michael Netzer claims may well be the case in his reply to my comment here and here? Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand made this edit.
Alon Shvut became the prototype for the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria

Note. She did not start by glossing The West Bank with 'Judea and Samaria'. Click on 'Judea and Samaria' and you are taken to Judea and Samaria Area, which says 'For the geographical regions known by the biblical names Judea and Samaria, see Judea or Samaria.'. I.e. it is an administrative term. The article by the way is poorly written and not particularly au fait.

She then moved it up in the lead to make it gloss The West Bank
in the West Bank, a geographical district known in Israel by the biblical term Judea and Samaria

Note. Here Gila uses the same link 'Judea and Samaria' which tells us we are dealing with an administrative area, but very subtly alters her edit in order to transform it from an administrative area into a geographical region coterminous with the West Bank, which it isn't.

which Michael then trimmed to
the West Bank, a geographical area historically known by its biblical names Judea and Samaria

Note. Totally untrue, by the way. See Lustick below.

If one can, as these two editors have tried to do, gloss The West Bank by Judea and Samaria in the article on Alon Shvut, logically, every settlement in the West Bank can be glossed in the same way. In short, propositionally, Michael and Gila are asserting that where you have The West Bank, you may add Judea and Samaria. That makes all of the work and extensive negotiations undertaken two years ago essentially void.

My understanding of the protocols (#4) is that The West Bank is the default term ('is to be used'). If the precedent Michael and Gilabrand are trying to insert is established, it strikes me as linguistic legerdemain, it would mean that #4 is not to be taken the way, for 2 years, everybody save anonymous and automatically reverted IP editors have construed it to mean. It means that the IP editors' abusive defiance of our common understanding of the protocols was actually prescient and correct. We chose The West Bank as the default term for wiki's neutral voice. If it is to be accompanied invariably by the settler-partisan gloss 'Judea and Samaria' the whole point of the protocol is lost.Nishidani (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To provide arbitrators with a thumbnail quote from one of the world's leading authorities on this subject:

'Judea and Samaria are the biblical names for the general areas south and north of Jerusalem (respectively). Historically, they include substantial portions of pre-1967 Israel, but not the Jordan Valley or the Benyamin district (both within the West Bank). For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationalist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the green line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank, but as Judea and Samaria. Ian Lustick, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, 1988 (1994) p.205 n.4.

Statement by Jsolinsky

I'm new to these disputes, having become an active editor Israel and Palestine related articles very recently.

I think that the previously existing compromises are excellent, and do not need to be changed. I do not believe that any Arbcom case is required. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that the scope of the debate surrounding this matter is grossly disproportionate to the actual underlying disputes which are, themselves, amenable to being addressed through existing methods of dispute resolution. Jsolinsky (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it not reasonable to expect a global compromise like WP:WESTBANK to provide an unambiguous resolution in every instance to which it is applied. Reasonable people can disagree about what the compromise means in the context of a given article. We have existing procedures that can be used when reasonable people (or even questionably reasonable people) disagree about a particular article. Rather than having a freewheeling debate and attempting to impose some global solution, the disputes should be addressed at (and in the context of) their source. In my opinion, this is happening because people on both sides WANT to have a freewheeling debate. Arbcom does not exist to provide a forum for pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors eager to score a win in editor on editor combat. Jsolinsky (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I've not been involved in an ARBPIA case so I'm not exactly sure how they work but I do wonder whether it may be worth revisiting the wording of the discretionary sanctions. It's always struck me as odd that while editors are absolutely required to edit from a neutral point of view in the topic area, many don't. Obviously this won't come as a surprise to anyone but why isn't it a surprise ? There's a rule, people don't follow it, and nothing happens to them unless they happen to break a technical rule about revert counts etc. Is the "Editors counseled" section of the discretionary sanctions clear enough ? It says

5) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area.

Should it say something like the following ?

5) Editors who can be shown to be consistently editing a particular article or topic from a non-neutral point of view without a valid reason and not adhering to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may be topic banned.

I know many people have reservations about trying to measure neutrality or expecting individuals to be neutral but editors are already expected to be able to reliably assess neutrality, recognize non-neutrality and help build neutral articles. I can imagine scenarios where an editor might make a whole bunch of edits to an article or topic that is hopelessly biased and needs fixing. Those edits, taken out of context, might superficially resemble the actions of a non-neutral editor but real POV pushing, consistently non-neutral editing, is usually pretty obvious. I don't think the message that editors must edit neutrally is getting across and I don't think there are working mechanisms in place to deal with editors who consistently edit in a non-neutral way, use low quality or partisan sources to POV push, tendentiously challenge reliably sourced material etc. I don't know what the solution is but I don't think the current wording of the discretionary sanctions is helping. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

The purpose of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) is to prevent the ideologically loaded phrase "Judea and Samaria" being used in the voice of Wikipedia instead of, or with equal status to, the neutral common English name "West Bank". There are of course those, of which MichaelNetzer is currently the most insistent, who don't like the convention and are attempting to thwart it by a combination of violations, endless rhetoric, and wikilawyering. This needs to stop, and the convention needs to be enforced. Examples of the argument presented are:

"Based on Article #5, it should be possible to say 'Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, administered by Israel as part of the Judea and Samaria Administrative Area.'" — This simply ignores the wording of article 5, which prohibits the use of this formula when "referring to a specific land area". The very reason the words "referring to a specific area" are present there is to prevent the purpose of the convention being circumvented by adding the word "area" to an otherwise forbidden phrase. The positive aspect of article 5 is to permit articles like Judea and Samaria Area, which is about an Israeli administrative unit, not to allow this alternative way of saying some location is in "Judea and Samaria".
"the West Bank, a geographical area historically known by its biblical names Judea and Samaria" — this again is a stunt intended to bypass the intention of the convention by pretending that the word "historically" somehow makes article 6 inapplicable (which lists allowable uses that do not include this one).

There is no point in having conventions if they aren't enforced, and to the extent the wording of conventions is ambiguous they should be interpreted according to their clear intent. I don't know the best way to handle this, but there should be a way to get an enforceable decision regarding the interpretation of a convention. If this request is not the right way to do it, please specify what is. It does not work for interested parties to discuss it, it needs outside intervention, either arbcom or some collection of uninvolved admins. Zero^talk 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/1/3)

Before joining ArbCom, I was an admin who was active in WP:ARBPIA arbitration enforcement, and in this context, I'll recuse. PhilKnight (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Not sure a case is actually needed here, as the editor involved is currently indefinitely blocked and the community appears to be addressing this situation as I write. Perhaps the folks who might otherwise post here would do a greater service to the project by helping to conduct the CCI and the necessary restorative edits. Risker (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that there are still issues in this area that need to be resolved. However, I am not yet convinced that this would be the best place to resolve them (SPI for socking, the CCI investigation continuing etcetera). I will wait for further statements before issuing a formal decline however. SirFozzie (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning oppose, per Risker and SirFozzie, but willing to be persuaded by additional statements that there are ArbCom-level interventions needed, again. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - I was involved in the beginning of the current flareup but have been diverted for a time. Now we might need a motion to get some fine tuning done at West Bank naming guidelines. I will read and see what we need to do. We do need to do something, just cogitating for a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]