Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent

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

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Race and intelligence}}

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

• {{userlinks|Sirfurboy}} (initiator)
• {{userlinks|Lewisguile}}

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff of notification of Lewisguile [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALewisguile&diff=1298749228&oldid=1295770584]

Requesting clarification as to whether Grooming gangs scandal is covered by the Race and Intelligence CT, per the reasoning of Lewisguile, who wrote {{tq|"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.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottishFinnishRadish&diff=1298739926&oldid=1298738584]. The grooming gangs issue is described by one academic source [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1g6q8z4.13?seq=2] thus: {{tqb|"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.{{pb}}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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Darkwarriorblake_and_personal_attackshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Darkwarriorblake_and_personal_attacks]). 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)

:{{U|CarringtonMist}} A source that indeed sees this issue as a gendered crime is [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv31zqc9m.8?seq=1] although I feel GENSEX is still a push, personally. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-Historyexpert2-20250704025000-LeChatiliers_Pupper-20250703140900 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-Tamsier-20250704083900-LeChatiliers_Pupper-20250703140900 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=1254782344&oldid=1249966223 redirected] to "Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom", before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1254629517 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-Lewisguile-20250701082900-Scope/title ongoing discussion] above the RM which is likely more constructive, and is already reaching consensus per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1298489519/1298489658 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1298490672/1298490749 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1298517781/1298517917 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1298567926/1298568558 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1298604844/1298606451 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)

I added talk/edit notices for this, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#c-CommunityNotesContributor-20250704105300-Sirfurboy-20250704081300 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)

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)

I do think that the topic is covered by the current contentious topic wording: {{tq|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: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306396819895727] {{tq|"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)

: {{Ping|Black Kite}} who was involved in protecting some of the redirects e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=1250145114&oldid=1250105266]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 {{tpq|the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour}} to {{tpq|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)

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 {{u|Sirfurboy}} has contributed to or opened regarding this topic have not been notified of this filing. I only happened upon it by chance.

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.

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

• 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 {{tq|intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed}} covers the article, as I think that the scope covers race {{var|x}} being allegedly more likely to do {{var|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 {{tq|broadly construed}}.{{pb}}{{re|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)