Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Article titles and capitalisation 2 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 01 Aug 2025 15 Aug 2025
Transgender healthcare and people (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 11 Aug 2025 25 Aug 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Indian military history 18 Jul 2025
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Race and intelligence none (orig. case) 4 July 2025
Clarification request: Indian military history none (orig. case) 22 July 2025
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing none (orig. case) 31 July 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. 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.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132

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:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132

Clarification request: Race and intelligence

[edit]

Initiated by Sirfurboy at 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Just a ping on this - so is it agreed the CTOP covers this? or can we get it made a new CTOP by motion, per SMarshall? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Black Kite: who was involved in protecting some of the redirects e.g. [7]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Riposte97 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman I don't really see how the examples you have cited justify CT protection. It seems like there is just disagreement about content. Riposte97 (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by LeChatilliers Pupper

[edit]

Nowhere in the article or any talk discussion or any previous edit has anyone ever made a connection between grooming gangs and intelligence.

RS as I understand, have some uncertainty on ethnicity. RS are clearer on the role of a deregulated nighttime economy and also on state failure to investigate credible claims and support victims.

Further, I find the notion that intelligence would be connected to the propensity to commit grooming to be offensive, we have seen many examples in recent years of high-profile grooming behaviour from highly intelligent, successful people Epstein, numerous catholic church scandals were committed or covered up by people with pHDs in divinity.

S Marshall

[edit]

It's not race and intelligence. It is about the allegation that paedophile rings in the UK are disproportionately likely to be South Asian Muslims -- an extraordinarily toxic matter, and one that would clearly benefit from the sysop scrutiny and the additional tools and protections that come from a CTOP designation.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Later, after Primefac's contribution] No, look, Muslim isn't a race. Nobody is saying Hindus or Sikhs are paedophiles. This doesn't fit in Race and Intelligence. Give it a separate CTOP designation by motion, please.—S Marshall T/C 01:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Woshiwaiguoren

[edit]

This seems inapt. The article and mainstream sources do not at all say that the so-called "grooming gangs" are inherent to the Pakistani ethnicity or to South Asians racially. But simply that it is an observable criminal phenomenon with a disproportionate ethnic representation. Ethnic affinity networks occur in many contexts, and indeed crime is one. The Mafia, the Russian Mafia, Albanian Mafia, etc. In none of these cases is an inherent disposition key to the topic.

There are fringe racist views that claim an inherent Islamic or Pakistani nature to the "grooming gang" phenomenon, but this hardly dominates the topic and hasn't featured prominently in the page discussions.

I also note that this request was submitted following attempted deletion and then renaming of this article (which failed or are likely to fail). While that doesn't affect the merits of the request, it is important context. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

[edit]

I am divided on if there is no CTOP topic area that fully captures the core of this. Personally, I think Contemporary UK Politics should eventually become a ctop area, which would cover this topic nicely. on a sidenote, here is a tangentially related article [[8]] - significant right wing attacks on this article, corresponding to race (south asian/muslim) and UK politics Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom, seems that there had been an attempt to push race-based analysis for grooming gangs onto this article by @Kioj156 here [9], before it got reverted by hemiauchenia. of note, Kioj156 made the original Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom article here [10].
even before Kioj, there appears to be a biased article tag on the article since 2010. In comparison to Race and crime in the United States, which argues differences due to material conditions in the US, the UK version appears to blame disparities in crime on "cultural explanations", and does a lot to suggest that black and brown peoples are more predisposed to crime. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

[edit]

Since arbs seem to be leaning towards the CTOP covering this, should a rename for it perhaps be considered? If it covers both race and intelligence and race and crime (or race and behavior), a broader name might be necessary. Possibly something along the lines of a CTOP for scientific racism. It might be slightly tricky because ofc people will argue over whether something is scientific racism or not, but generally that's not a problem in practice because the existence of a serious dispute along those lines among high-quality sources would be enough to make something part of the CTOP anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]
  • 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 by broadly 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)[reply]
    @Riposte97: To be clear, I consider the designation to cover correlation and causation as intersection is a broad term. @LeChatiliers Pupper: I touch on this in my comment above, but while the case is called Race and intelligence, the current contentious topic designation is broader than that. I think that human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed can cover criminal conduct. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to close this with a rough consensus that grooming gangs scandal is covered, but did not do so because of the last two comments. I don't think that there is any appetite to create a new contentious topic just for this issue. I guess I support changing the CT: maybe renaming it to "race and behaviour" would provide more clarity, since there has been obvious confusion. Given that there would be no change to the actual scope, only moving the subpage and updating its related templates etc, I assume that a motion isn't needed (for clarity, I don't support renaming the actual case, just the CT subpage). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original intent from the original amendment was to cover "race and crime", so if an article is having issues with the intersection of race and a crime then it logically stands that it fits the intention of the motion made to amend the (what is now a) CTOP. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article's content does not cover race and intelligence, that's not all the CTOP covers. Specifically, the behaviour part of the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour does seem to cover much of the article's content and sourcing. - Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Sdrqaz, Primefac and Aoidh. Anything to do with "X race is said to engage in y behaviour" is covered under the CTOP, even if it is discussion of sources to dispute a claim of that nature. That doesn't mean articles can't discuss those topics: it means that editors have to abide by the CTOP and be extra careful when editing in that topic area. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't actually agree that the CTOP was definitely intended to cover an article like this – the original dispute seems to have center much more specifically around academic discourse related to race and genetics and ability, which is a little narrower. But I do think it's a borderline call as to whether it falls under 'broadly construed' and even if it didn't, on the balance, I'd for sure be willing to grant an extension to that effect. To clarify: I'm not going to hold this up and request a motion, I'm happy for this to close with consensus that the CTOP really does cover the intersection of race and ability, broadly construed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support moving and renaming as proposed by Sdrqaz here. I agree that the article that spawned this original request is covered by the CT. Daniel (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Indian military history

[edit]

Initiated by Toadspike at 11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Toadspike

[edit]

1. Does the Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction apply only to military history on the current (post-Partition) territory of the country of India, or does it include military history that took place entirely in another South Asian country?

2. If a conflict took place between a party in India and a party outside of India, does the extended-confirmed restriction apply? Does this depend on whether battles in the conflict took place within the current territory of India or not?

3. How do we treat AfC submissions that were written before the enactment of this remedy, but are only now being reviewed? If they are suitable for acceptance, can they still be accepted? If not, should they be deleted (from draftspace)?

These questions were prompted by the contributions of a specific editor. As this request for clarification is about the general principles, not that specific case, I have chosen not to name them here. If Arbs would like me to add them as a party, I will do so.

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you for your reply. Does "India" mean the current territory of India or the current state of India? What I'm really getting at is whether predecessors of India like British India also count as "India", since those entities included significant territory outside of the modern state of India.
The problem with wording like "if India was involved" is that nearly all of the conflict about "Indian military history" does not involve the modern state of India.

Statement by voorts

[edit]

Since we're already here, does "Indian military history" encompass contemporary conflicts? If not, what's the cut off date or era? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

[edit]

I was planning to initiate this request per my comments on the case discussion thread.[11] Just as voorts asked above, you can see the linked discussion there, which also has no answer regarding the scope.

Does the scope of "Indian military history and the history of castes in India" cover times before the establishment of British Raj or the times before the foundation of India? Koshuri (あ!) 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: Reading the evidence and proposed decision of the case itself, it appears that only the diffs involving the events before 1857 events were found to be actionable for being within the case' scope.
You have made a mention of the United States, however, the DS regime covering this country also concerns its politics specifically after 1992.[12]
That said, I think a period should be thoroughly clarified. It would be reasonable to agree on events before 1947 as history because the period since 1947 is regarded as "contemporary India", not that of historical India also in scholarly sources.[13][14][15] Koshuri (あ!) 06:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Donner60

[edit]
  • Please note that the military history project has an Indian military history task force shown at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force. The page includes: "This task force covers the military history of India. This includes ancient India, medieval India, early modern India (including the period of British rule), and modern post-independence India." Many, perhaps even all, articles that gave rise to this proceeding are assessed B class or below. The task force page shows all of the articles within the scope of the project that are featured articles, former featured articles, featured lists, A-Class articles, good articles and did you know articles. This may provide some guidance as to the scope of Wikipedia articles considered as involving Indian military history. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

[edit]

(pinged) To me, the logical scope of "Indian military history" would be

  1. The military history of any entity, or vassal/proxy of an entity, based in
    1. the present-day Republic of India and/or
    2. territory that was at the time considered India
    and/or
  2. Any military activities by any other entity that took place in that region.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Koshuri Sultan: I think this answers the time question as well. But to be clear, no, I don't impute any time-based limit to this. Maybe hypothetically it wouldn't cover conflicts prior to the Indus Valley Civilisation, but honestly even there I'm not sure.
I also stopped to think about whether this covers actions by Indian-originating forces far removed from the region. I knew a woman who was the lone survivor of a Free French unit slaughtered by what she described as renegade British imperial gurkhas, but according to a historian I talked to were more likely soldiers of the Nazi Indian Legion. Should those fall under Indian military history? But then I thought, yes, they should, and Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose can speak for itself as to why. Ultimately, any aspect of Indian military history, whether it's from 10 years ago or a thousand years ago, whether it happened in Mumbai or Marseille, has the same tendency to be politicized by contemporary Indian political movements. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

[edit]

also (pinged), I'd mostly agree with Tamzin's description, although I would add that when considering that it is "broadly construed", this would also include any topic that is centrally relevant to the wars historically fought in the Indian subcontinent, in particular definition of borders and ethnic/national/religious/caste claims to land in the Indian subcontinent. signed, Rosguill talk 16:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Tamzin's further comments on scope, including ancient history and operations by Indian military groups outside of India. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Indian military history: Clerk notes

[edit]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
    1. Only India or related to India.
    2. Yes, if India was involved it doesn't matter where the conflict took place.
    3. They can be accepted.
  • This is obviously just my view, but it seems fairly clear-cut. #1 does get at one of my concerns about the grand unified CTOP, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mixed feelings on what "Indian history" means for arbitration enforcement because we need to balance the need for the definition to be easily understandable against the historical reality of the term.
    In my opinion, we indicated in "Breadth of topic bans" that Indian history also includes history prior to the Partition. Just as how Chinese history spans the various dynasties prior to the PRC/ROC (even if it wasn't called China at that point) and how American history doesn't just begin in 1776, I think that Indian history covers the current republic as well as clear predecessor states like the British Raj and Mughal Empire, even if they go beyond the current republic's borders. The term "India" was used before the Partition as well: the Raj was commonly called "India" and the term was used for many years prior to the current republic's creation. Hopefully that also answers Koshuri Sultan's question as well and I otherwise agree with SFR regarding Toadspike's Q2 & Q3.
    Voorts: I don't think that there is a good place to cut off when history begins – aren't we all creating history now? – so would rather that we kept contemporary conflicts as well. If enforcing administrators wish to sanction people from (eg.) pre-Modi Indian military history instead of the entirety of Indian military history, they would have support in doing so. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: PIA Canvassing

[edit]

Initiated by Dovidroth at 06:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Motions: PIA Canvassing (January 2024)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Dovidroth

[edit]

Hello.

I am humbly submitting an appeal on my topic ban in ARBPIA.

In the last year and a half since my tban, I have taken great pains to reflect upon what happened, as well as reaffirm to the wiki community that I can once again be considered a trustworthy and valuable contributor.

The period in which the proxying happened was in the days after October 7th. Emotions were very high, and the PIA space was as combative and high tension as it ever has been. We were all being bombarded in many directions, and I made a grave mistake by copy pasting a couple unsolicited requests on a topic I personally agreed with that had come in via email. I would also like to admit that I did what I did because I felt the situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors. I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this.

I had always taken great pains to strenuously avoid any type of prohibited edits.

I recognize that during the proceeding I was not forthcoming regarding the proxy editing. Many people were subject to constant scrutiny and false reports, and I was very much afraid that if I had admitted to what really happened (which was a couple isolated isolated instances), I would be rolled into larger accusations being thrown around at the time of wider potential editing efforts, which I am not a part of and have never been a part of.

Furthermore, I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it, but I genuinely was scared and did not feel I would have been judged in accordance with my transgression. For the record now, I wish to apologize for both the couple edits, as well as the omission.

Since being unblocked almost a year ago, I have continued to contribute in other topics, having done well over 1,000 edits. Among my edits, I have created a new article (Rabbinic period) which was featured as a DYK and for which I received a barnstar from another user. I also received a "nice work" comment from another user for work that I did on another page. I have also contributed substantially to Kiddush Levana, which I have nominated for GA status, and it is awaiting review.

More than a year has passed since the closure of the Arbcom case, and I have been very careful not to touch any topics related to the conflict. I would appreciate another shot at ARBPIA, and hope that Arbcom will consider my case favorably, or at least establish a path or timeline to restoration of full edit status.

Firefangledfeathers - The original ARBCOM case was here, my appeal of the site ban was here, and I filed one appeal that I later realized was prematurely that I withdrew.
Firefangledfeathers - There was ban on restoring content from banned users. I never appealed this. And there was a previous 3 month topic ban, for which I opened an appeal, but it was closed due to the ARBCOM case. Dovidroth (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to questions from other editors, I fully intend to follow the rules fully. If there is any cited violation of rules in ARPIA, it would be fair to return the TBAN. Dovidroth (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

[edit]

That Dovidroth states that their conduct was in part based on a "situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors" does not fill me with confidence that they won't engage in the same behaviour again if they feel that others are at fault. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

[edit]

Dovidroth, to make it easier for others to review your appeal, could you please link the discussions that led to your past and present sanctions, as well as any failed or successful appeal requests? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dovidroth, any other PIA-related sanctions or appeals? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

[edit]

I find it puzzling that in a PIA topic ban appeal to ARBCOM, the appealing editor says that I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this ... disruptive behavior of experienced editors (I shifted the quotes around). So essentially the appealing editor is praising ARBCOM for, I believe, topic banning other editors from PIA in a recent case. Well, if ARBCOM is doing a good job at topic banning editors from PIA, then why should they reverse this topic ban then, given that disruptive behaviour has been admitted by the appealing editor? starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

PIA Canvassing: Clerk notes

[edit]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

PIA Canvassing: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1304280645"