Wikipedia:What AE is not
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (AE) exercises ArbCom's delegated authority. Final responsibility for governing contentious topic areas rests with ArbCom. |
Since the early days of the Arbitration Committee, it has been clear that some sanctions are too situational and granular to be ruled on by the full committee every time. The Committee realized it could topic-ban a user and have individual admins decide when a violation occurred, or issue a suspended sanction and have individual admins decide whether to fully impose it. Gradually, they realized that they could even give admins a general blank check to use the Committee's powers in a certain topic area, which became discretionary sanctions, now contentious topics (CTOP). Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (AE), created in 2006, is the primary venue for enforcing these decisions, and as of 2025 is almost exclusively preoccupied with contentious topic enforcement.
A common misunderstanding about AE is that it is meant to act as a kind of trial court beneath the Supreme Court that is ArbCom. Sometimes, when matters are brought before ArbCom that fall in an existing CTOP, editors will object that AE simply hasn't been doing its job at policing the topic area. This fundamentally misunderstands the role of AE. AE's job is to enforce decisions of the Arbitration Committee. Its job is not to conduct its own arbitration-like proceedings. While AE admins will try their best to wrangle complex multi-party disputes, the venue is fundamentally ill-suited for discussing things more complex than "Did User:X violate WP:Y when they did Z?", which ArbCom has recognized by imposing a default limit that AE reports only concern the behavior of the subject and the filer. Furthermore, it is not AE's role to steer topic areas in new directions. AE actions should represent an interpretation of the will of ArbCom, not the whims of the individual admins involved. As a result, AE admins are often reluctant to rule on novel disputes where both sides make colorable good-faith arguments.
By definition, if AE is unable to rein in disruption in a topic area within the authority delegated to it by ArbCom, then ArbCom action is needed. Solutions might include adding to the normal set of CTOP sanctions in a topic area, issuing clearer instructions to AE admins about the Committee's desires, or taking on a new case to handle a dispute too complex for AE. Final responsibility for governing contentious topic areas rests with the Arbitration Committee, not its delegates.