Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Shortcut WT:AEWT:AE Note: This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. All discussion about specific enforcement requests should be routed through the main noticeboard or other relevant pages for discussion. Discussion about the committee in general should go to a wider audience at WT:AC or WT:ACN. → Please click here to start a new topic. ←

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
	Note about these archives In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation.
	This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Hello. As I was reading the archives of arbcom, I saw a few discussions without a closure template, archived and forgotten. I saw this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive357. So I raised some questions in the talk page. But after stumbling to the same issue at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive355, I decided this may be a better forum. Diffs show that these were archived by the titular sigmabot. I hope this didn’t hurt any editors and justice, as I saw that one of the editors, whose case was subject to this bug? never edit again. Why did such issues occur? 85.98.23.90 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the bot is instructed to archive threads that have had no comments for at least 14 days. Are you suggesting that number should change? Are threads with no action for 14 days likely to see future actions if they are left on the page for a longer time? The "Information for administrators processing requests" says that a bot will archive closed requests in 7 days, but I don't see that configured anywhere; that may be old information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if some cases went unclosed because of it. I am not experienced in AE whatsoever so I don’t also want to propose useless/nonsensical changes. I think threads without an action for 14 days can see further actions. More evidence could come into light, ArbCom might request some more time to review the case, I think 30 days would be better? If the page gets too clustered we can collapse these pages with an explanation (suspended until off-wiki investigation concludes etc.) I have also seen a few people (whom I will not name) taking advantage of this short archiving period.85.98.23.90 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see why this page needs automatic archiving, at least of the standard variety. Threads should be archived, I dunno, 3 to 7 days after they're closed. We can probably rely just fine on humans to do that with one-click archiver, as already happens quite often. Or we could get some custom archival bot logic. But I don't see any benefit in archiving open threads. Even if there's just no appetite to do anything at all with some thread, it would be better to have an admin come along and say "No admin has replied to this thread in a month, so I'm closing it on the assumption no one thinks there's anything actionable here," rather than let it fall into the archives unacknowledged. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that number should change? Are threads with no action for 14 days likely to see future actions if they are left on the page for a longer time? I think the idea would be to turn archiving off completely, and then manually archive any section that has been formally closed. I think the benefit would be that no sections could be forgotten to be formally closed, which happens sometimes. This is actually how I thought AE worked when I was a newer editor since most sections do get closed, but I later found out that some sections do get archived without closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects in the next day or two, I'm going to just turn off automatic archiving on this board. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been 10 days, so I'll do it (per consensus here, noting that "the management and maintenance of order at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement has traditionally been left to the administrators active there", so not a clerk action). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are three proposed remedies in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Proposed decision that would limit AE participation by third parties either within WP:GENSEX (3.1), all topics (3.2), or particular threads (3.3). Comments can be left on its talk page in a new section. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that alternative 3.4 of this remedy has passed. I've updated the header to reflect both the new discretionary AEPR and the reïteration of admins' power to moderate at AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if the AE word limits apply to appeals. The header mentions the word/diff limit applying to "Enforcement requests and statements in response to them". It's unclear if appeals are "enforcement requests", and the two are distinguished in the header by differing processes.

The preload that generates the sections for enforcement requests adds two mentions of the limits, but the template used for AE appeals never mentions any (though it does direct involved editors to keep statements "brief"). We've been treating recent appellants differently: some have been held strictly to a 500-word limit, and others have been allowed many more.

I'm not sure if this is something we can change or if we need ArbCom intervention, but we should be clear about what the rules are. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPROC § Format of requests for amendment establishes a 500-word limit for ARCA amendment requests, so it'd be strange for AE appeals to have no limit when both AE filings and ARCA appeals do have one. But I also don't see this in black-and-white anywhere, so maybe an ArbCom action is due. Perhaps they could bundle this with a couple other procedural quirks I've noticed recently:

• There is nothing anywhere saying what the enforcement rules are for an editing restriction imposed by motion. Presumably it's the same as case-based enforcement, not CTOP, but that's not said anywhere.
• blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions in WP:ARBPROC § Standard provision: appeals and modifications doesn't seem to say what ArbCom actually means to say, since it would include blocks to enforce sitebans (which are excluded in the next sentence) and exclude blocks to enforce motions (which presumably are meant to be included). "blocks placed by administrators for violation of committee-imposed editing restrictions" would be better.

Not to hijack your point; just been on my mind for a while. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a bundling of the wonky stuff! I agree it'd be strange not to have an appeal word limit, and I support having one regardless of weirdness. I'm not solidly understanding your second bullet, but maybe the Arbs/clerks would pick it up right away. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe past me can explain it better?

blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions in the standard provision should probably say blocks placed by administrators for violation of committee-imposed editing restrictions. While I know what is intended, if read literally, 1) it's unclear how that scope differs from the subsequent sanctions directly authorized by the committee, the language used in the next clause to define what isn't covered, and 2) it leaves out blocks that enforce restrictions imposed by motion; I've made at least one of those.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with applying the limits to appeals, though I don't think appeals are enforcement requests. The thread establishing those limits for enforcement requests is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 3A#Structural improvements to AE threads (permalink) – not an action of ArbCom. I suppose L235's User:ClerkBot/ArbCom word counts assumes it applies to appeals. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in to say that to the extent that AE admins think the word limits should extend to appeals and not just enforcement requests, it's within the power of AE admins to make it so – this doesn't take ArbCom action. Personally, I think the limits should extend to appeals and not just enforcement requests. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the appeal template, AE header, and AE editnotice to reflect the consensus here that the limits should apply. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the AE header provides two options for users making a request: (1) a lengthy thread requesting enforcement against a user, or (2) a similar thread for appealing a sanction:

There isn't any option to request enforcement in the form of page sanctions or simple reversion of violations. On occasion people do request page sanctions here, but there isn't an official structure for it. (E.g., "Request for word limit at Kris (Deltarune)".)

I'd like to fill that gap by creating a "Quick enforcement requests" section, similar to WP:SPIQUICK, for quick requests meant to be handled by a single admin and that are not asking for the user to be sanctioned. (For requests that don't fit that, or where discussion is desired, the responding admin could move it to a full thread or ask the filer to do so.)

Would y'all be interested in trying that out? ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. I remember mentioning a while back that we didn't really have a great way to request something like a page-level sanction, so I think this is well worth a try. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Thanks for proposing this, Jenson. I'd been meaning to start a discussion along these lines for a while, so glad that you have. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. For one thing, this would be a good entry point for admins new to AE, whose work there would allow other admins to focus their time and energy on the non-quick stuff. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In April, I asked about how filers should approach CPUSH concerns at AE (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 7#Clarification on POV pushing and AE action for my full request). No admin or committee member was able to describe how the process works. As WP:ARBPIA5 is approaching its one year anniversary and this is still an active issue, I wanted to follow up on this and see if there's been any progress in the last six months on figuring out how AE should function. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult because it's very subjective, it falls into "I know it when I see it." The best you can do is gather your evidence and present as clear and concise a case as possible. Sorry I don't have better advice for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Might I shill my essay WP:Partisans as a good framework for making a case for partisan POV-pushing? (And, secondarily, as an argument for why the term "civil POV-pushing" is unhelpful.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to define, tedious to gather proof for, and extremely tedious (to the point no one wants to wade in) for an uninvolved editor to assess. Like SFR, I know it when I see it, and particularly when I experience it, but every case is different. Motivations vary and the form it takes varies; I have personally experienced its sealioning form at articles that aren't even mildly contentious but there's WP:OWNership going on. I've seen it at food articles where there's a gastronationalistic argument between regions/countries/cultures over a certain dish. In some cases the POV pusher will use the highest-quality sources, but those sources are difficult to access/assess for whatever reason -- availability, language, length.

Okay, so that said: in my own personal opinion, filers should:

• Gather all the diffs you can find. This is quite likely to be 50 or more, but gather them.
• Create your complaint using the absolute minimum most compelling diffs that will clearly show the issue; it is likely this will be 15 or more. Which is part of the problem. Your goal here is to show behavior that clearly is requiring other editors to go round in circles, is moving goal posts, is disingenuously interpreting sources, etc.
• Offer to provide the rest of the diffs if anyone in the admin discussion feels more are needed.
• Do not respond to other commenters in the case. Respond only to admins. If there is something you absolutely have to correct in what another commenter is saying, address yourself to the admins with a simple, "What is being said about me [doing X] isn't really accurate; happy to explain if admins need that".

Valereee (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I wanted to let you know that as a result of a recent RfC, community-designated contentious topics can now be enforced and appealed at AE. I would much appreciate any help in updating the relevant documentation pages and templates! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah. WP:AN & WP:ANI are no longer the only places to report to, for those areas. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question but does this apply to community-enforced general sanctions? I'm specifically thinking WP:GSRUSUKR. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Swatjester: Certainly not a stupid question, and not yet, but this ARCA request is one step along the way to including those general sanctions authorizations as well. If you have thoughts on that, that ARCA request might be the useful place to mention them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does one find the "previous relevant sanctions" of a user? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

block log, editing restrictions, AE log, and GS log would cover it, usually? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how does one find AE log and GS log? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AELOG for the AE log. For GS log, Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions - not sure if there's a collated version like AELOG anywhere. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the header, I understand I need to request a word limit extension, as I wish to add to my existing comments in the section regarding Atsme. I assume this is the appropriate place to do so.

Many thanks, AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1] can I have a 300-word extension to briefly respond to GRuban's "We shouldn't punish people for what they think, only for what they do", since what Atsme has actually done (amongst other things, made absurd allegations against two named contributors in good standing, one of whom is readily identifiable by their real name) is the topic of this discussion. I'd also like to comment on the scope of any proposed topic ban, since it doesn't seem to cover the behaviour in question. Pinging @Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs) or any other admin who can give permission. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs) or any other admin who can give permission.

Given that Atsme has now chosen to make a series of accusations against me personally (almong with another person, with whom I've actually had very little interaction), [2] I would like another 200 words to respond.

And while I am here, could someone clarify whether policy precludes someone taking part in the discussion from either (a) starting a discussion at WP:ANI, proposing a CBAN, or (b) contacting ArbCom, in order to request that they deal with behaviour that the community seems to have had difficulty resolving, despite a pattern of behaviour dating back over a decade. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your second question, it is likely that new threads at other noticeboard will be quickly closed while this one remains open. I'd only recommend going to ArbCom if the thread at AE gets closed without a consensus to sanction. With regards to the extension, I'm of the opinion this is starting to verge into off-topic territory when it comes to Atsme's conduct, but I guess it's only fair that you are allowed to respond. Please be mindful that further word extensions are less likely. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is clearly off-topic (and an attempt to re-re-re-litigate something the community collectively did a decade ago), which is one reason why it merits a response. Many thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]