Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

WP:ARCAWP:ARCA

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Michael Jackson	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	01 Jun 2026	15 Jun 2026

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Maghreb	28 April 2026
SchroCat	4 May 2026

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Indian military history	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2026

Arbitrator motions

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!)

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 direct violation report of an editor who has violated a restriction directly imposed by the Arbitration Committee.
- 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.

Clarification and Amendment archives

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-llists.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:

Clarification and Amendment archives

Clarification request: Indian military history

Initiated by Jéské Couriano at 19:33, 8 May 2026 (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:

Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

This is a fairly simple request, based on some potential ambiguity: Do Pakistani/Afghani tribes fall under WP:ARBIMH#Caste-related topics in South Asia extended-confirmed restriction? I ask because there is an article at WP:RFPP/D (Sudhan) which was protected before the scope was amended and is about a Pakistani tribe; the requestor isn't XC (though I would not consider this to be, practically speaking, a breach). Given asilvering's comment here, I want to be doubly sure I'm not reading too much into this.

Statement by The Bushranger

@Izno: I think the question is best framed as "do 'tribes' = 'castes'". I can see arguments either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cadddr: At that point, it would basically be right back to the old 'South Asian Social Groups' scope, undoing the recent narrowing, so I would suspect 'keep it narrow' is probably the preferred outcome here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slakr

So I probably kinda-sorta caused this with this RFPP reduction decline re: Sudhan, but I wanted to note that specifically in this instance it looks like ECP was applied not simply due to it being a south-asian social group but because of disruption/socks. I think everyone involved was eventually blocked, including even the RFPP requester. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cadddr

Possibly relevant context: We very recently recently reached a consensus at WP:VPP to semi-protect and PC-protect a whole bunch of articles related to ethnicity in Afghanistan. There's some interesting data and discussion there about the level of disruption that ethnicity-related Afghanistan articles get. (The comment that Izno linked below was a response to an earlier attempt to get ECP on that same set of articles.)

I don't have any particular opinion about whether tribes should be included. But if it were decided that they should, I think it would be best for that to be an explicit amendment to WP:CT/CASTE, not just a clarification. It would also lead to more questions. Would "tribes" in an Indian context (Adivasis or Scheduled Tribes) and a Bangladeshi context (ethnic minorities or Adivasis) count? Would all groups described as "ethnic groups" count? For simplicity, I'm guessing it would be best to either keep it narrow like it is now (just castes) or make it much broader (castes, tribal groups, and ethnic groups). Cadddr (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Yes, as I think about it more, I think keeping it narrow would probably be better. Cadddr (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: I think Meitei people is actually a good example of why "castes or tribes" would be confusing. The page Meitei people describes them as an "ethnic group" and doesn't contain the word "tribe". Apparently the Indian government considered but decided against designating them a Scheduled Tribe. The page Adivasi says this:

However, not all autonomous northeastern groups are considered tribals; for instance, the Tibeto-Burman-speaking Meitei of Manipur were once tribal but, having been settled for many centuries, are caste Hindus.

("Caste Hindu" means anyone who doesn't fall "outside of the caste system". People of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not generally considered caste Hindus.)

To further complicate things, Meitei people in Bangladesh are considered one of the ethnic minorities in Bangladesh, which are apparently sort of the equivalent of India's "Scheduled Tribes".

It's worth noting that the line between "castes" and "tribes" can be blurry too (see the third paragraph of Adivasi#Issue and politics). Though my guess is that it wouldn't be too much of an issue for Wikipedia's purposes.

In the case of India, the government has enumerated lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, so if we chose to just follow that, it would make it easier to distinguish each of these terms. But I'm concerned about whether we would be able to distinguish between "tribes" and "ethnicities" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. (I know more about India than the other countries.) Cadddr (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just thought of another concern with including "tribes." In an Indian context (not sure about the other countries), not everyone is part of a "tribe." Saying "topics related to tribes" in India wouldn't be analogous to "topics related to caste"; it would be more like "topics related to Dalits". It would arguably make articles relating to Adivasi communities harder to edit than articles about other communities. Cadddr (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I asked about this recently. See Wikipedia_talk:Contentious_topics/South_Asia#Scheduled_Tribes_of_India. My interest is limited to being able to easily decide whether a talk page should or should not have a ct talk page template with an sasg decision code so that the page is included in Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction. That categorization is the only way the Gaming Check tool can see whether accounts with newly and rapidly acquired extendedconfirmed grants suddenly leap into a South Asia related ECR zone. Visibility into the SA topic area is very limited compared to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area from an ECR perspective, so I have been trying to template pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the current state in this graph with the Scheduled_Tribes_of_India category selected. Orange circles are templated talk pages, gray are untemplated talk pages. The slightly larger gray circles are talk pages for subcats (and the red/blue things are unprotected/EC protected non-talk pages). If I need to go back and remove the sasg decision codes from the tribes pages that's okay. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toadspike

The community recently reached consensus (VPP thread, AN thread) to pending changes and semi-protect several hundred pages in this area (exact list in Special:Diff/1351190521), including semi-protection for what appears to be all ethnicities in Afghanistan. This is fairly convincing evidence that there is persistent disruption in this topic area and, speaking for myself, I would appreciate keeping the ECR around. Though Arbs may be tempted to take this consensus for protection as evidence the community is able to handle this issue itself, it is in fact the opposite: Admins and the broader community are ill-placed to respond to disruption in an area most of us are very unfamiliar with and bad changes stay undetected and unreverted for years. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I am no expert on the history writ large, I think wording like Topics related to castes or tribes in South Asia would fit the bill. Somewhat predictably, articles like Meitei people (not protected, but the last several dozen edits are mostly reverts/reverted) and Kuki people (repeatedly protected [1] even before it was ECP'd under GS/CASTE) are contentious despite not being castes. (I originally had "ethnicities" in there as well, but was pleasantly surprised by the lower level of disruption in articles I checked.) Toadspike [Talk] 19:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cadddr Thanks for catching my mistake and clarifying everything. I see no clean solution here... Toadspike [Talk] 22:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

Castes and tribes are both social groups but explicitly said, "castes" != "tribes" and in most cases, they may or may not be dissimilar social groups (basically a simple Venn diagram). That said, assuming "castes" to be broadly construed (which they are), I'd say tribes should be implicitly covered to be part of the scope. My two cents. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Are tribes castes HouseBlaster The Bushranger? No, castes are social groups and tribes are territorial communities. That said, there is considerable overlap; see Adivasi#Issue and politics. Sometimes the question of whether a particular community is a caste or a tribe comes down to perception (self-perception and outside perception). SilverLocust, yes, but most often in Pakistan/Afghanistan-related topics, where the tribe is more important than the caste in the social sphere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

I mean. Izno (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Bushranger's comment is correct—the real question is are tribes castes, or at least close enough to be covered by "broadly construed". And I don't think they are inherently covered, though I'd welcome comments from editors more familiar with the history. someone who is more familiar with the history.
That being said, it looks like the protection which spurred this request was labelled as an arbitration enforcement action, so regardless of what we say here, it would need to go through WP:CTOPAPPEALS to be modified. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are articles in this topic (South Asian tribes, not castes) most often subject to hierarchy-/class-based disruption? That would influence whether I think the topic is covered as "broadly construed" (or should be). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this is in the fuzzy edges, but falls under broadly construed. If that doesn't end up being the consensus view, there's still Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Extension of extended-confirmed restriction (limited duration) which would let AE set this as ECR for up to a year. If that happens and it proves constructive then it could be made permanent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While acknowledging that there are some blurry edges, no, tribes are not castes (though the Scheduled Tribes of India apply, I'd say). So edits about tribes of Afghanistan are not ECR. But that doesn't mean that an admin can't ECP a tribe-related article to counter disruption there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]