Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia | 14 June 2025 | 8/1/3 | |
| Capitalization Disputes | Motions | 26 June 2025 | 6/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: Race and intelligence | none | (orig. case) | 4 July 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
- Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
- In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
- Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
- Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
- Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
- Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using
~~~~). - Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
- Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
- Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
- Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
- Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
- Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
- Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Clarification request: Race and intelligence
[edit]Initiated by Sirfurboy at 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Sirfurboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Lewisguile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff of notification of Lewisguile [1]
Statement by Sirfurboy
[edit]
Requesting clarification as to whether Grooming gangs scandal is covered by the Race and Intelligence CT, per the reasoning of Lewisguile, who wrote "Race and intelligence" doesn't just cover race and intelligence. Per the arbcom decision, it extends to the "intersection between race/ethnicity and human ability or behaviour". In other words, claims that ethnic group x is more likely to engage in behaviour y should be covered by that policy.
[2]. The grooming gangs issue is described by one academic source [3] thus:
"Britain has seen a series of high-profile convictions of groups of men found guilty of child sexual exploitation. The vast majority of publicised convictions have been of British Asian men, which was quickly translated into the media-speak of the ‘Pakistani Grooming Gang’. This moral panic replayed familiar mythologies of the ‘gang’ – characterised by alien cultural practices, operating under a racialised honour code, and demonstrating an uncontainable deviant masculinity – and yet the spectre of the Pakistani grooming gang also added something new to the repertoire of both official and popular racisms. The far-right English Defence League rebuilt its crumbling organisation on the basis of revulsion to what they termed ‘rape jihad gangs’"
The recent Casey audit found poor data on ethnicity, which is being leapt on by some parties with claims of a cover up regarding the above narrative - unsupported by WP:BESTSOURCES at this time, which note failings relating to child safety and in ethnic data collection but no cover up. Clearly contentious around race and religion.
Supplementary to the answer, if "no, it is not covered" I would like to request amendment such that it is included, or else addition of a new CT, as it is clearly a contentious topic, having attracted multiple press coverage (on Wikipedia's coverage alone) and comment from Elon Musk that has yielded personal attacks on Wikipedia editors on and off-site (off wiki evidence available but cannot be linked owing to WP:OUTING concerns. Please let me know if and how that evidence should be submitted. On-wiki, please see [4]). Supplementary if the answer is yes, I'd like to request WP:ECR in this topic area owing to deliberate and sustained off-site disruption (the support of which will require me to supply off-wiki evidence with OUTING concerns, but which states explicitly that such disruption has taken place and been successful). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- CarringtonMist A source that indeed sees this issue as a gendered crime is [5] although I feel GENSEX is still a push, personally. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Lewisguile
[edit]Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#List of contentious topics, the designated "area of conflict" for WP:R–I is described as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour". This is restated in the final decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Contentious topic designation, with the clarification that this should be "broadly construed". So, despite its name, this would seem to cover any article dealing with the putative association/relationship between ethnicity and a given behaviour (such as a certain type of criminality that might be more prevalent among an ethnic group), and should cover Grooming gangs scandal as well.
In any case, the broader topic has been raised in a high profile alt-right publication by a self-described banned WP editor, and gets lots of edit attempts in the subject area whenever it hits the headlines (including in related articles, such as about UK politicians). Clarity on this issue would be helpful. In the last AfD within the topic, a number of editors with <500 edits added their !votes with very similar wording to that used by the magazine article in question. Some of those editors are also responding to other (non-formal discussion) threads with the same "oppose" wording, suggesting they don't really know what they're doing besides objecting. See here and here.
Previously, this subject was part of another "main" article that was merged into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom, after several debates about naming ("Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" was redirected to "Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom", before the merge). The last version of the main article had page protection, but because "Grooming gangs scandal" is a new article on the same topic, it hasn't been carried forward. This has potentially contributed to the issues at hand, but reinstating PP would, IMO, be a quick fix in the interim, as it will resolve most of the concerns about possible canvassing, tendentious editing, SPAs, etc. It may be that this can only be enacted after the ongoing RM on the page, since some people have already !voted, and that would probably allay complaints that this was done to skew the results (although there is an ongoing discussion above the RM which is likely more constructive, and is already reaching consensus per here, here, here, here, and here, so the RM is less essential anyway).Lewisguile (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- In response to @ScottishFinnishRadish, see above. If you read the responses detailed in the article (take the "Research" section, for example), you'll see that a large amount of space is dedicated to the argument in the media and politics that men of British Pakistani origin are particularly overrepresented among perpetrators of "grooming gangs". That's clearly a putative link between ethnicity and behaviour. See also the second paragraph of the lede, where we talk about the moral panic around Muslims and the claims made about British Pakistani men. The first clause of the first sentence of that paragraph isn't exclusive—it's intended to mean that media discussion has focused on ethnicity, as well as said ethnicity apparently impeding investigation. The second and third sentences of this paragraph state this more clearly anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- In response to @CarringtonMist, @Thryduulf, and @Riposte97, and the trickiness of CTOP categorisation in general:
- I take the points about WP:GENSEX and rape/CSE, but WP:R–I seems more applicable. I agree IPA is perhaps also stretching things a bit too far, unless that were worded to cover people of Indian, Pakistani and Afghan descent.
- I note that Race and crime, however, is explicitly covered by R–I, and that was why the wording was broadened here. I think the issue is that "Race and intelligence" suggests a certain narrow reading, which appears at odds with the broader topic designation. "Race and behaviour" might be better (or, in line with GENSEX, something much broader like "Race and ethnicity" in general, since all these topics end up being controversial in practice). I don't think an explicit link to such behaviours being inherited is necessary for R–I to apply, though, as the wording says "the intersection of" (i.e., where the topics meet), "race" is an invented social category rather than a purely biological one anyway, and "ethnicity" is cultural as well as lineal.
- To Riposte97, specifically: if you read my statement above, I suggested that any PP that gets added could be done so after the RM to avoid any impression of discounting !votes. I think we all pretty much found consensus on there anyway, which included keeping the page and adding a new one, so I don't think it's fair to say this is about overriding any closure result. Rather, I think there is genuine concern among many editors about outside influence (which may be emboldened if it pays off/goes without challenge here), which has led to one editor being doxxed already, and accounts with <500 edits can be a symptom of that influence. In general, inexperienced accounts aren't advised to take part in contentious discussions, but I don't think it would have changed the consensus we reached on that page (as most editors were more experienced), which was more productive than a list of "support"/"oppose" !votes. Lewisguile (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement by CommunityNotesContributor
[edit]I added talk/edit notices for this, after previously thinking this was covered by IPA, but changed this to R-I based on assessment from Lewisguile. I'm here to understand what's what and get told off if necessary for making any potential mistakes. CNC (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement by CarringtonMist
[edit]Not to create even more uncertainty here, but couldn't this also be covered by the Gender/Sexuality CTOP? ...Not sure what the general etiquettte is for non-extended confirmed users and ArbCom commentary, but I've been semi-following this mess for the past few days CarringtonMist (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly I'm in the minority here, but rape is a gendered crime, and I'm not sure it's so absurd to connect sex trafficking with gender and/or sexuality. And for the record, while I sympathize with the desire to impose a little more order on a very heated discussion (to put it mildly), my reading of R&I is such that it would be a bit of a stretch to apply it here, and I don't think India-Pakistan fits either. CarringtonMist (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Hemiauchenia
[edit]I do think that the topic is covered by the current contentious topic wording: intersection between race/ethnicity and human ability or behaviour
, because the central issue of the controversy revolves around whether British Pakistanis are more predisposed to group-based child sexual "grooming"-based abuse than other ethnicities, not just whether police did/did not act upon such gangs based on their ethnicity as suggested by SFR. See for example Cockbain and Tufail 2020: [6] "The central argument of the ‘grooming gangs’ narrative is, in short, that a ‘disproportionate’ number of Asian/Muslim/Pakistani-heritage men are involved in grooming (mostly) white British girls for organised sexual abuse. These claims are often substantiated with reference to a spate of high-profile prosecutions of so-called ‘grooming gangs’ in towns and cities such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Derby, Telford, Oxford, Huddersfield and Newcastle"
Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: who was involved in protecting some of the redirects e.g. [7]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement by LokiTheLiar
[edit]I think the request here is to clarify that the race and intelligence case covers assertions that a certain race or ethnicity is particularly predisposed to crime, or to a specific type of crime. Loki (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
[edit]From the perspective of someone completely uninvolved, this topic being within the R&I CTOP area feels like a bit of stretch but I'm on the fence about whether it's too much of a stretch or not - I can see arguments both ways. A cleaner way of doing it would be to make the intersection of race and criminality a CTOP area. That could be done as a stand-alone designation or as an expansion of the R&I case designation (change the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour
to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, and to the intersection of race/ethnicity and criminality
).
I think it is definitely not covered by the India/Pakistan CTOP, and nor should it be. Gender and sexuality is even less relevant here (imo) than India/Pakistan is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Riposte97
[edit]It seems inappropriate to attempt to extend this CT to Grooming gangs scandal, whether by ruling that the current designation catches the topic or by extending it to do so, for a few reasons:
1. I have not seen anyone make the argument that any race or ethnic group is predisposed to committing the kinds of crimes described in the article, merely that British Pakistanis may be overrepresented. That says nothing about heredity, which is what the CT is really concerned with. 2. There is no evidence of disruptive editing in the topic area, and no explanation of how the expansion of the CT might help the encyclopaedia. 3. It is not clear how CT deignation would address the external attention this topic has gleaned, nor why that would even be an appropriate objective for Wikipedia to attempt.
The page in question was recently the subject of an AfD, which failed, and is currently the subject of an RM, which also looks set to fail. Left unsaid in this filing is that many of the editors in those discussions have been relatively inexperienced, and the request for ECR, if granted, might alter these outcomes.
Procedurally, I also note that most of the editors involved in the various discussions that Sirfurboy has contributed to or opened regarding this topic have not been notified of this filing. I only happened upon it by chance.
Statement by Dimadick
[edit]If the matter concerns ethnicity, religious intolerance, and moral panics largely spread though the yellow press, "race" is an awfully misleading title to cover the topic. Is there any chance to draft a specific policy concerning ethnic tensions that does not use terminology from the Victorian era? Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
[edit]Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
[edit]- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
[edit]- I don't think we should interpret ARBIPA as covering anyone of any of those nationalities anywhere in the world. It's already overbroad, and broadening it further isn't the fix for that. Gensex also doesn't really fit, since that's about gender and sexuality disputes, not about responses to child sexual abuse. Race and intelligence is the closest, but I think that's targeted towards discussions of x race displaying y behavior, not a scandal about how law enforcement handled a situation potentially being affected by the ethnicity or nationality of the perpetrators. Race and intelligence isn't meant to cover anything involving race, ethnicity, or nationality. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think that
intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed
covers the article, as I think that the scope covers race x being allegedly more likely to do y; see the ARCA that introduced that language too, as the intent was to cover race and crime. I don't think that this is a real gender-related dispute or controversy (it would be one if the dispute was framed on the gender of the perpetrators instead of the ethnicity) and think that IPA would be a stretch (it would be covered if the location was in one of those countries instead of the UK), though maybe it could be covered bybroadly construed
.@CarringtonMist: As long as the topic area does not have a extended-confirmed restriction (list of topics), you are free to participate here. As for whether one should be imposed, I would really need extraordinary evidence of our normal processes failing to contain disruption. I see very few logged enforcement actions regarding Race and intelligence this year and last year. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)