For this particular conflict, it would help if someone could be found
who
knows and even holds the Palestinian POV *but* understands NPOV and why it's good - to show those who hold that POV how to do things properly
here.
We had one. He basically left in frustration over POV warriors and Wikipedia's failure to deal with them. There's one more, but he isn't very active in this area right now.
How ... annoying.
The trouble with trying to make rules from extreme cases is that they'll become a bludgeon for idiots to wield in other places. Look how hard the idiots wield rules like 3RR - trying to treat it as a floor rather than a ceiling.
True, "hard cases make bad law."
Can we think of rules that will ameliorate the effects of stupidity in these contentious areas, but be light on the unintended side effects elsewhere? It's a huge wiki. And, of course, rules that are likely to actually be accepted by the volunteers. Every proposal will drive away someone.
I think swift but light justice helps. The way things work now, a rogue editor runs rampant over Wikipedia for a couple of months, till ArbCom can finally deal with it. By that point their "rap sheet" is so long that the only reasonable remedy is a lengthy ban of many months. If we were able to hand out one or two day "cooling off" bans very soon after the behaviour started, I believe it would make the rogue editors start taking Wikipedia policies seriously enough that they might actually move their disputes and concerns to the Talk: pages, rather than the articles. I understand that temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but, ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.
Jay.