Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
 | 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. ← |
|
|
|
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. | |
Quick "clerk" note
editSome of Sweet6970's responses to Raladic are currently in the wrong section. They're under the section for notification of the subject while they should be just above, in "Additional comments".
(Sweet can also easily fix this herself, which is why I pinged her.) Loki (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Loki. Is my statement now correctly placed? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
More improvements to Contentious topics/talk notice
editHi all—{{contentious topics/talk notice}} has been improved some more. I pushed a change allowing more date formats in |placed-date=, and automatically converting them to the DMY format. As a result, you can use five tildes (~~~~~) and it will automatically remove the time, leaving just the date. (Technical geeks: it now accepts anything {{#time}} accepts, plus YMD: e.g. 2025 June 29.)
But the biggest thing is support for section-by-section contentious topics. I'll start by warning that sectional topics get really complicated, really fast. Be judicious; you don't need to specify that the two sentences mentioning Joe Bloggs caught COVID are covered by WP:CT/COVID (unless that is genuinely a source of conflict). With that out of the way, how it works:
- You can use the
|section=parameter to indicate every single CTOP in the banner only applies to a section.|section=yesindicates that they apply to an unspecified part of the page (useful if it is obvious), or|section=<a description of which parts are covered by the CTOP>will include that description in the banner itself. The description will be the same for every topic. This is most useful if there is only one CTOP in the banner. - To indicate that a specific topic only applies to part of the article, add a
|<code>-section=yesor|{code}-section=<a description of which parts are covered by the CTOP>parameter. For instance,{{contentious topics/talk notice|covid|covid-section=yes}}or{{contentious topics/talk notice|covid|covid-section=the person contracting COVID}} - When CTOPs only apply to a section, any inherent restrictions (e.g. PIA's word limits) are not enabled by default, as often they need to be customized. Which brings me to...
- Customizing restrictions on a section-by-section basis: use
|other=,|other2=,|other3=etc. to spell out exactly what parts are covered and what exactly the restriction is. Again, this gets really complicated, really fast. Use common sense.
When writing section descriptions, write them without trailing punctuation, and they display following the word "about".
Later today, I'll add this to Template:Contentious topics/talk notice/doc. Questions, comments, and concerns all welcome! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Extension request
editI'd like to request 150 (in addition to the 82 I've already overstepped - sorry about that) words to respond to MjolnirPants' statement. It included repeated accusations of dishonesty against me. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
One comment per day
editI've asked this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#One comment per day but thought the regulars here might be more likely to know: Is there a standardized sanction (i.e., written down on a page somewhere) that restricts a disruptive individual to one or two comments per day/per talk page? I'm sure I've seen this in practice in the past, but I can't find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)