Just a thought, would it not be preferable to group log entries by topic area and within these by year, rather than the other way around as now? I think that it would be more useful to be able to take in the totality of sanctions within one topic area at a glance, to assess how problems evolve within the area over time, and whether sanctions are still needed. And it would allow Template:AE sanction‎ to link to the section of the log that is relevant, although perhaps that is also feasible with some template magic.  Sandstein  11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandstein. The history as topic areas evolved over time is crucial to understanding this. But this is not evident the way it is now. EChastain (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very hard to navigate. An editor has to already know that there is a sanction and in what year, since the sanctions have mostly been selectively removed from the specific cases. I guess only the 1915 ones(?) have been retained on specific cases, leading to the impression that there haven't been previous ones in years past. (Hope I'm not violating anything by asking here.) EChastain (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a TOC would help. All the Arbitration stuff is so hard to find. EChastain (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This still looks like a great idea and much preferable to breaking down the sanctions by year and then by topic. For example, if I want to see log entries for Pseudoscience I have to look at 2015, then the topic area, go back to the table of contents to see 2014 and then back down to the topic area. How about having all of the topics together and within the topic area have it broken down by year? What would be the next step, Sandstein, propose a restructuring at WP:AN or ArbCom? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a request could be made at WP:ARCA? But I'm not active in enforcement currently, so I'll leave this to others.  Sandstein  18:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it'd be WP:ARCA, but I'll ping Roger Davies since there is a housekeeping motion on the way soonish so he might want to be aware of this suggestion/proposal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is six of one and half a dozen of another though. The existing set up is meant to find cross-topic stuff easily. Perhaps a search box is the answer.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A different approach might be to have a page for each topic area each year (e.g. The Troubles 2014, The Troubles 2015) and transclude each onto two log pages - one by year and one by topic. This results in more pages needing to be watched, and a bit more maintenance overhead but would make finding cross-year and cross-topic stuff equally easy (although I suspect the former is more frequently desired). Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is transcluded and the admin only has to enter the information in one location, that would be fine. I found it more helpful when entries were logged on the case pages. You could easily see who had been warned or sanctioned by going to the case page. I think that is a more common inquiry than trying to see cross-wiki connections where an editor is sanctioned in a number of different subjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there would be no additional workload for people entering the information, it would only be more work for whomever sets up the log pages each year.Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note nearly a year later: This seems to have run into the sands. I agree with the people above that it would be a lot easier for admins (and maintainers!) to handle if the list was alphabetical by topic area. Breaking it down by year within the topic area isn't even necessary, as the sanctions in each area would of course be entered chronologically. I don't see anything wrong with being able to scan the log for an area smoothly from 2007 to 2016, as it would be stuck full of chronological timestamps. Roger, can you give an example where somebody wanted to find cross-topic stuff and was pleased the log was by year? It seems a marginal concern, compared to the difficulties the present setup creates. As for having a page for each topic area, that's what we used to have, right? And it was changed to this central log in 2014, I think it was. Why not keep it simple, with a central log organized chronologically by topic? A search box wouldn't really make any difference btw. (Pages can be searched anyway.) Bishonen | talk 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The case, "Dbachmann" was changed to "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" after the motion. "Footnoted quotes" was changed to "Editing of Biographies of Living Persons". Kindly use the current name on these[1][2] sections. . OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{Wikipedia accounts|state=collapsed}}. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a rationale for the change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A link to this page is in the template. The template helps in navigation to pages related to accounts (in this case account sanctions). Generally all pages in navboxes also contain the navbox. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please move this page to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, per this motion. (I'm am enacting this motion as a clerk on behalf of the Committee). Kharkiv07 (T) 14:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can a clerk (or whoever is authorized) create a page for 2018? I need to log a GamerGate block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Bishonen created last year's page, I've followed their example and created this year's. If I've messed anything up, I'll be in 'Zilla's pocket. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NeilN, or anyone else watching, can you please check this and related edits to see if I got it right? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An issue relating to this page is being discussed at WT:AC#Remove past transclusions from AELOG and full announcements. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, or anyone reading this, this user has changed their account name. Perhaps that should be noted here? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather give them the benefit of whatever privacy the new name might afford them for the time being. It redirects fine. A glance at their talk page shows that things look okay'ish. The custom soft ban is still in effect, so as far as I'm concerned, so long as they don't violate it in a serious way, I'm inclined to do nothing. But if, unfortunately, there are new log entries regarding them, they almost certainly will account for the name change. El_C 15:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page has become so long due to transcluding the past 6 years that I have trouble loading this page on my browser. Maybe show only the one or two most recent years instead of six, and defer to the archives for previous years? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defer to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#AELOG_loading_problems_due_to_lengthy_transcluded_content –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review § Arbitration enforcement log
and the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Logging – wbm1058 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee and its clerks are currently transcluding the past 6 years 2018–2023. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: I too found this page loading slowly, so much that my browser (Chrome) gave me "page is unresponsive, do you want to wait?" prompts. Then I went to talk to look for any discussion about the matter, and then followed and updated the links, including to the now-archived WT:Arbitration Committee discussion. Can you at least maybe remove 2018 too, or do you need another Committee vote on the matter? wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058, hi. The change you linked in the 2020-21 review was made so that the number of years shown could be changed without the need for an arbitrator vote. I'll sort this now. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed 2018 and 2019. 2020 may be removed too, but that's under discussion. Does removing 2018 and 2019 solve the issues @LaundryPizza03? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: 474 KB of transcluded subpages is still larger than most articles, but it is a marked improvement over the status quo ante. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed 2020 too now, though that may change back. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, we're down to 336 KB now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]