Template talk:Palestine-Israel enforcement

Use of template after problematic editing
The template is used to warn editors about their conduct. The template currently states: "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem..."

However, can't an uninvolved admin modify the text to emphasize that the recipient has been causing a problem? For instance: "You are receiving this message because your current editing has been problematic..." Thanks. HG | Talk 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi HG, I think what should happen is that editors are notified after they start editing I-P articles, and then if there are problems, they are counseled about their editing patterns. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil -- Have a look see at the two balkans templates. (same category of templates, below) You'll see one for notice beforehand, and one for a notice for problematic behavior. As a practical matter, from what I've seen, people are not routinely notified simply for editing in I-P but typically because they're perceived as problematic. In any case, it would be good for the template to either be neutral on this score or we could have 2 versions, like Balkans. What'd yer think? HG | Talk 14:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes certainly - we could have 2 versions. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Who can leave an efficacious warning?
The template now says: "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator..."

However, I don't see this requirement in the ArbCom decision. ("Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision;....") Why can't any user, esp an uninvolved editor, leave the warning. To be sure, any follow-up sanctions would have to be applied by an admin. Your thoughts? HG | Talk 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There was an edit war in early June on the WP:ARBPIA case page, so I fully protected the page, and modified this template. Hopefully, the disagreement has finished now, so I've unprotected the page, and undone my edit. PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am re-adding the "if given by an administrator" wording. This is standard practice on all of the other ArbCom enforcement areas, and in synch with the wording at WP:ARBPIA.  I believe that this was also discussed at ANI, so if anyone has concerns, let me know and I'll pull up diffs. --Elonka 18:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See also this recent comment from (previous) arbitrator . --Elonka 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification
User:AndresHerutJaim should be notified. There are also some IPs and new editors always popping up. What is the best venue to request that this template is used by uninvolved admins over at their talk pages?Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To request arbitration enforcement, try starting a thread at WP:AE. --Elonka 07:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not looking for enforcement. Looking for notification.Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the user mentioned above is now being pretty cooperative so there shouldn;t be any worries. However, how to get the notifications made to editors new to the topic area still needs clarification.Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin/non-admin warning (again)
I've read the discussion above, and I'm more confused than I was before. I'm an uninvolved non-admin, and most of what I do is good old-fashioned vandal-fighting. But sometimes edits like this show up in my anti-vandal tool. I think it's clear enough that such an edit can be reverted on the grounds of being POV-ish, unreferenced etc.. But the point is, surely the editor should be warned (gently) that he's working in a particularly sensitive area where, Arbcom has decreed, sanctions can be brought against uncooperative editors particularly quickly. Is that what this template is for? Is it for the use only of admins? Do we need a second template, for ordinary non-admins to use? I'm less concerned here about tracking whether an editor has received the required sequence of warnings than I am about ensuring that new editors get the right guidance quickly enough that they don't find themselves at the centre of a storm before they know what's hit them. Advice please. Philip Trueman (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the warning is so that the user will be aware of the restrictions. I don't see a good reason whatsoever that it should have to come from someone uninvolved. --B (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

500/30
Perhaps it might also be useful to add WP:ARBPIA3 to this template.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Void or merge?
Hi all; and ping

WP:AC/DS is really clear that it expects

nb the emphasis (underline) is not mine. I think we ought to:
 * 1) Subst the template into documentation, for historic reference
 * 2) Mark the template deprecated
 * 3) Replace its contents with a "No longer in use" message, to prevent new substitutions
 * 4) Add a soft redirect to ds/alert.

Thoughts? I noticed ARBGMO alert which might also fall into the same category.

Finally, if this template is to remain, I wondered whether it would not be easier to merge it into ds/alert and existing functionality. AGK &#9632;   17:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)