Given that the above was clearly incorrect, I've struck it out. Note however that we discourage people from editing posts after they have been replied to, as it makes following a discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tousif❯❯❯Talk04:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 1Firang! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Anti-Hindu sentiment several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
I reverted him just once (that is, in that particular article). I don't have time for an edit war ("an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" according to WP:Edit warring), so i will avoid it completely.-1Firang (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this your only warning
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia. If you violate the policy again by presenting unproven accusations against named living individuals as fact, [1] I will report the matter. Given your relentless attempts to promote the conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, this is very likely to result in you being blocked from editing - quite possibly indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation
Your edit to Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1Firang You seem to be editing in contentious areas where in one need to be extra careful and study Wikipedia policies and editing culture a lot before editing.
Here is some friendly advice for you.
In any discussion do not ping users selectively, doing so is not considered neutral. One is supposed to ping all substantive contributors to an article.
Don't be in hurry to dabble in contentious areas. First and always edit in areas other than your usual focus and non-contentious areas.
Read previous discussions on talk page including that from talk page archives without temptation to react n the immediately.
In older discussion you may find users referring to various policies and essays read those policies and essays thoroughly.
Learn and get used to citing those policies in discussions.
Always avoid personal criticism against any user. (I have not seen you doing so still mentioning on safer side)
To begin with do not try to add large chunk of content. But go just with couple of sentences.
At least try to read and source from 2 to 3 reliable sources and then write in your own words. Wikipedia community has it's own take on which sources are reliable. be aware of those policies.
Learn to get into more depth of sources. Be frequent visitor to google scholar, google books, Wikipedia Library. Give preference to Academic sources. See if author is a professor for the same topic areas in an international university. If you are referring to news media see preferably see if any international media like aljazeera Washington post or New york times too are reporting. or at least 2-3 national level credible news media.
All this can be time consuming so go slow.
As of now I can not help you in Pakistan related women's rights and feminism areas due to editing restrictions on me. I have included you in my mentee list you can ask me policy guidance questions in other areas.
Inculcate patience, that will help you read what the other person is saying. I have already mentioned ".. As of now I can not help you in Pakistan related women's rights and feminism areas due to editing restrictions on me. ..". Even without those restrictions, you selectively pinged users then too it becomes difficult to provide help. Contentious topic areas are on watch list of many users you do not need to ping users - if you ping then ping every one concerned and substantial contributors to the article, even if you do not get immediate response at some time some one will read things you put on talk pages.
Where you find my help inadequate you can take issues @ WP:Teahouse.
Anyways you read what I have written earlier. Don't try to be too fast. That will help you understand the things first - that shall help you in long run. Bookku (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1Firang advice I gave in beginning is given is given after reasonable consideration of your present edit style and Wikipedia policies and culture. As much you take that by heart will help you more.
You need to have Wikipedia policies on your finger tips. For that to come naturally "Don't be in hurry to dabble in contentious areas to begin with. First and always edit in areas other than your usual focus and non-contentious areas." Add various central discussion pages in your watch list. Observe multiple RfC and AfD discussions without participating in them see what policies other users are talking about and how they are quoting policies.
Articles and talk pages are well watch listed with me. As mentor I can observe your contributions more easily. You do not need to ping me every time.
You need to be communicative on talk pages but you seem to have too quick response time that can be unhelpful. Learn and practice t take longer breaks. Spend that (break) time in reading on google books, and if you find academic literature on google books update bibliography sections of relevant articles. I believe this will help you in long run.
Mentorship is not a contract of supporting users in their mistakes rather they provide timely advice and course correction. That works when one heeds the advice.
Unless you get out of contentious topic area immediately at least for a while, I am afraid, I can foresee you standing up in at least topic ban Que if not sooner then later.
When some one replies to your comment you can not delete it but can strike out sentence indicating you are taking back your statement or changing it.
When mentee ignores friendly advice it's time for Mentor to ignore mentee. May be you request some warning givers to be your mentor than myself and this is a serious suggestion.
@Bookku: I am sorry if I have offended you. Should I ask you before I do anything (and no, I am not being sarcastic, I really want to know)?-1Firang (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1Firang, it is not okay to restore content (removed by an experienced editor who provided reasons for their removal) to a BLP without even checking the sources!.
And your revised version, while an improvement, was still deficient. For example, for some reason it used Kiran Bhatt's prior name "Lorraine Bright", and retained the mention of nikaah even though the form of the wedding is not mentioned in either of the cited sources and would be undue in any case. As you noted, I have copy-edited the content myself to fix these and other issues. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thanjavur Maratha kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thanjavur Marathi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
You were blocked after an edit war. If you reach a consensus on the talk page, that would be a good reason to unblock you early, but for now I think it is best to keep the block in place. PhilKnight (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I just noticed that you and Shinakho have also been edit-warring at Stoning in Islam. I am not extending the above block to that article for the moment but note that if the edit-warring and disruption resumes or spreads to other venues, the block may be widened or other sanctions applied. And, given the past issues with your editing, a site-wide block is likely. Use the article talkpages or other prescribed means to resolve the dispute. Abecedare (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding your appeal: this edit with edit summary Undid revision 1162908268 by Shinakho (talk). That is relevant here also was made after you approached me on my talkpage, and I advised both of you to stop reverting each other and use the article talkpage/dispute resolution instead. Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not blocked from the article talkpage, or any other venue on wikipedia. So you are still welcome to start the discussion. Be careful though that the bludgeoning and related issues that led to your topic-ban do not recur! Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Rape in Islamic law, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you'd like, I can give more details about how your editing has been disruptive, but we have already gone over the misrepresentations on the relevant Talk page.
It's possible, as Pathawicommented on my talkpage, that your personal views about sexual crimes and Islam are preventing you from editing with the expected competence and neutrality on the subject. Or, since similar issues arose at IPA-related help pages, the problem may not be restricted to any topic-area(s). Either way, it needs to stop since it is negatively affecting wikipedia's content and wasting its editorial resources. The next time such problems occur, you are likely to be indefinitely blocked from wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The text you added citing Kecia Ali was previously discussed at Rape in Islamic law. Adding it on other pages is not more acceptable. You have been seeking input on your topic ban at the Village pump and the Teahouse, & have received this advice: 'It appears you've been attempting to write things about rape in the context of Islamic law, and doing so in articles about every applicable country except for Pakistan. That violates the spirit of your topic ban.' You acknowledged this warning, but then continued editing on the topic in ways that were already verbatim identified as disruptive. Pathawi (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on the appropriate Talk page. The real core point, though, is that you have been advised by multiple editors, including at least one Admin (I think two), to steer clear of these particular contentious topics. You have stated expressly that the content you want to see added is critical of Islam, which is expressly not editing from WP:NPOV. Pathawi (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
It is you who is being disruptive by removing sourced content with this edit. Don't clutter my talk page, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.-1Firang (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you are talking to but I never made any edits on 'History of Slavery in the Muslim world' you can check the edit history of that article and I haven't edited anything there. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for continuing to edit-war at Rape in Islamic law after a topic ban from a related topic area, a partial block from a related page, and finally, on 17 July, a "final warning" about this exact kind of conduct at this exact page. Your subsequent conduct at AN/I, particularly your remark about "Islamophiles" (struck or not), makes clear that you are approaching Wikipedia with a fundamental battleground mentality.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I did not revert the last edit at Rape in Islamic law and started a dispute resolution after that as sourced content was being removed. I have been extra careful and asking and getting clarifications at the Teahouse and avoided disruptive editing after my topic ban. Please allow me to edit in articles other than those related to India and Pakistan (which I was topic banned from) and perhaps Islam (if told to). I will avoid contentious aticles and appeal my topic ban also in 6 months.1Firang (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
From what I can tell, you are not capable of editing on a collaborative project, nor from avoiding WP:OR. Moving disruption from topic to topic is not beneficial to the project, because you are not attempting to build an encyclopedia.Courcelles (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Courcelles: I've avoided WP:OR and disruptive edits after my topic ban. I am attempting to build an encyclopedia by providing balance to articles that have been whitewashed of criticism. Please let me know what to do next.-1Firang (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explain, in detail, what you did that got you blocked, acknowledge that you were in the wrong, apologize, and explain, in detail, what you'll do differently if you get unblocked. CityOfSilver02:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I apologise for my behaviour. I will attempt to work with others and understand their concerns. I have been extra careful and asking and getting clarifications at the Teahouse and avoided disruptive editing after my topic ban. I will continue to seek advivce before doing anything. Please allow me to edit articles other than those related to India and Pakistan (which I was topic banned from) and perhaps Islam (if told to). I will avoid contentious aticles, make sure there is no problem with my edit/s by asking someone and appeal my topic ban also in 6 months. I want to avoid sock puppetry. I don't mind a restriction which says that I must seek advice from my mentor Bookku before making any edit.
Decline reason:
A lot of editor time has been spent commenting on and fixing 1Firang's contributions. After being blocked from editing in one contentious area (India and Pakistan) they continued their battleground behaviour in another (Islam). In the unblock request, 1Firang did not address the specific problematic edits that led to the block and explain why these were inappropriate. Also, while a self-imposed contentious topic ban is a great start, 1Firang did not specifically say what topics they would edit instead. Therefore, I am unconvinced that 1Firang understands what to do differently in order to avoid the same mistake again.
I suggest that 1Firang spend a couple of months away from Wikipedia and, if they want to come back, address the concerns that I outline in this decline response. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Given that sock puppetry hasn't been discussed here, and wasn't discussed at WP:ANI either, why are you bringing it up at all? Someone reading the above might well read it as hinting that you intend to sock if your block isn't lifted. I sincerely hope that wasn't intended. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read this as a strong threat to sock puppetry if they don't get their way and frankly the evidence is contradictory to the claims made in their review request. AlanStalk05:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was due to a mistaken identity and after a check user confirmed that I am not that other person, the admin who blocked me, unblocked me.-1Firang (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I request that this block not be reconsidered at this time. If the block is repealed, I suggest that it be accompanied by an indefinite topic ban for Islam & all contentious topics. An initial clarifying disclosure: 1Firang (talk·contribs) & I have had difficulty on multiple pages related to their block. I think it would be wonderful if Firang eventually became a contributor to Wikipedia who could work in a collaborative spirit, but I think it's unlikely that that will happen while they're working on contentious topics.
To date, very nearly all of their edits have either been in contentious areas, or have been in relation to the phonemic/phonetic representation of South Asian languages. Edits in the latter area were a core factor in their India/Pakistan topic ban, prompted by WP:COMPETENCE concerns, 'tendentious editing and bludgeoning issues'[2]. There was already a problem cited in that discussion with promotion of Islamophobic conspiracies. There is a possibility that they gamed permissions in order to be able to edit protected articles.
Since that time, they have focused their edits exclusively on Islam-related articles. In many, many cases (I think the majority), added material was not supported by sources. In response to critique from other editors, they have alleged that their critics are biased Islamophiles [3] who are white-washing Wikipedia of material critical of Islam[4]. I think that this last statement (echoed in their above comments) is revealing of what it is that they have hoped to accomplish recently at Wikipedia, & betrays a current difficulty in editing from a neutral point of view. (To be clear, I agree that there's definitely room for material 'critical of Islam' on Wikipedia. To me, that's not what's at issue.) This refusal to listen to critiques of editing instead seeing it as obstruction of critique of something in the off-Wikipedia world gets in the way of collaboration.
1Firang has sought advice in the Teahouse & Village pump, as they say. At these locations, 1Firang has overwhelmingly received advice from other editors that they might be in violation of their topic ban or (I think more accurately) the spirit of their topic ban; they have been urged to stay away from contentious topics & to find other areas in which to edit. They have ignored this advice completely. There's no point in continuing to seek advice if their pattern is rejection of that advice. On at least two prior occasions, they have stated an intention to stay away from contentious topics. On neither occasion did this last longer than a day. They have suggested following the guidance of their "mentor" Bookku. I'm a little skeptical of this choice, but Bookku has given good advice above. 1Firang has not followed it.
I believe that this is the first time that I have written in support of a user ban. If it is useful for me to provide diffs to support any of the above, I can take the time to look them up. Thank you. Pathawi (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restating just to be clear: My request is that the block remain in place for now, & not be reconsidered until much later. The proposed topic bans are a secondary request if the reviewing admin should decide to accept the above appeal. Pathawi (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if another admin wanted to downgrade this to TBANs right now, I would probably try to talk them out of it. For TBANs to work, the banned user needs to have a) a desire to build an encyclopedia and be part of a collaborative project (else they'll constantly nibble around the edges) and b) an ability to comply with the terms of the TBAN (else they'll flat-out violate it, intentionally or not). So far, with the ARBIPA TBAN, we've seen neither from 1Firang (nibbling @ Rape in Afghanistan & Rape in Islamic law; outright violations as well at the latter with respect to Zafran Bibi, subject of a political controversy in Pakistan). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, because of the reams of behavioral issues that User:Pathawi has documented, issues that a TBAN (or two or three or ten) might not be enough to fix, I oppose an unblock. I'd like to know exactly what, if they were banned from Islam plus every single CTOP, they'd do on here. CityOfSilver20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have paraphrased and added sentences using reliable sources. Someone told me that if an editor adds two sentences which balance each other, it will not be considered tendentious editing and I will do that if unblocked.-1Firang (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly advise against taking advice on how to edit Wikipedia from said 'someone', in the event that you are unblocked. It is sheer nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia#Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight, it says, "When writing about complex issues, try to cover all significant viewpoints and afford each with due weight, but not equal weight. For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the scientific consensus and significant fringe theories, but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held.". I will follow that if unblocked. -1Firang (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to provide evidence from your past editing history that might indicate you have the ability to make such nuanced judgements? This is tricky stuff that even the best and most experienced editors get wrong sometimes, and frankly, given the problems you've had, I can't think of any good reason to simply take your word for it that you will be able to follow the 'rule'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've been given about a dozen different chances to improve your behaviour, but you don't seem to have paid attention to any of them. You've been warned here, at ANI, at Abecedare's talk page and on the talk pages of various articles. You've been topic banned, partially blocked and given a final warning. If you haven't learned from all the people telling you what you've been doing wrong or the multiple sanctions you've received why should anyone believe that your behaviour is going to change here.
The fundamental issue is that you do not seem to have joined with the intention of writing neutrally worded articles, you joined with the intention of making wikipedia say that love jihad is a real thing and that Muslim men are sexual predators. Some of your earliest edits were trying to get the phrasing "conspiracy theory" removed from love jihad[5] and trying to present The Kerala Story as a "true story" [6]. Editing like this combined with your disruption in various IPA guides lead to your topic ban from India and Pakistan.
Since the topic ban your editing has largely focused on trying to work around the topic ban and continue to make edits to the topics you were banned from indirectly. You are constantly trying to load articles up with information about how "Muslims are rapists". You have been repeatedly asking questions about how you can find holes in the topic ban that would allow you to continue editing about the same topics indirectly [7][8][9].
At this point I am fairly certain that if we unblocked you you would go straight back to articles about sexual assault and Islam to continue making the same edits, or you would try to find some way of making those edits in spite of a topic ban. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed the point I was making - you haven't violated the exact wording of your topic ban but you have been violating its spirit. rather than staying away from the topics where you were being disruptive you've been trying to find ways that you can continue to write about them indirectly. Given that your edits to love jihad were one of the things that led to the topic ban you should have been staying far away from the topic of "Islam and sexual assault". 192.76.8.66 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will follow the rule at Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia#Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight, which says, "When writing about complex issues, try to cover all significant viewpoints and afford each with due weight, but not equal weight. For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the scientific consensus and significant fringe theories, but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held.". If another editor reverts my edit, I will discuss it on the talk page and if there is still no consensus, I will seek dispute resolution. I think that is pretty much the process here.-1Firang (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1Firang has now promised that if they're unblocked, they will not edit in the Islam topic area nor any topic areas listed at CTOP.
On one hand, it's arguable that a topic ban from CTOP, which includes an enormous percentage of this website's articles, is not practically different from an indefinite block. If that's the case, that plus this user's failure to adhere to TBs in the past mean this request should be declined. On the other hand, if the requirements for an unblock have been met, the request should be granted. Either way, it's been more than 3.5 days so something really ought to happen. CityOfSilver18:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a significant backlog in unblock requests, & this has been reviewed a couple times, so it might take a little bit. Pathawi (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to turn this into a pile-on, but since my exchanges with @1Firang were one the triggers for the ARIPA TBAN, allow me this remark. If another editor reverts my edit, I will discuss it on the talk page and if there is still no consensus, I will seek dispute resolution. I think that is pretty much the process here. Even if you might eventually change your persisiting editing habits (it is for the reviewing admins to decide whether to give you an opportunity to prove it against all previous experiences), you have left out an important option, which is to let go, or as Wikipedians call it, to "drop the stick". It is part of battleground attitude (and puts a big strain on this community) always to insist on one's idea of how an article should like until you have gone through all institutional means to fight for it. –Austronesier (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed that exact same passage in the second link that they copied and pasted into another article and found that the sources did not justify the claims made and therefore reverted. This is a pattern that others have commented on elsewhere. AlanStalk00:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles, given you were the last admin to take action on this account. Do you think there is any scope to salt this account given this? If so where would be the appropriate place for me to raise this? TarnishedPathtalk10:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I wasn't sure. I know there's a similar word in Thai 'farang' (ฝรั่ง) which is a derogatory term for Caucasians. I didn't know about this one. TarnishedPathtalk09:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I speak Thai. I don't think faràŋ has a denigratory connotation. It is the standard term that comes closest to corresponding to 'caucasian' or 'white' as racial categories. The relevant sentence in Thai Wikipedia appears to be ถือเป็นคำที่มีความหมายกลาง ๆ แต่ในบางครั้ง ก็มีความหมายเชิงดูหมิ่นหรือแปลกแยกได้เช่นกัน, which means 'It's held to have a neutral meaning, but sometimes it can have an insulting or distancing meaning as well.' I don't think these meanings are inherent in the word, but—as in many speech communities—when one person is speaking disparagingly of another physical characteristics & race or ethnicity may be made salient. There are also contexts in which it can be simply indelicate to talk about someone's race/ethnicity. I think there are some other inaccuracies at Farang: I don't know what the usage is in Lao, but in Thai ฝรั่งขี้นก is not an insult for white people—it's an insulting term for Thai people who try to act like Euro/American foreigners. Pathawi (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is all really tangential. The real point I should probably be making is: Tho there are very good reasons not to let 1Firang back in (yet), I don't think that it's clear that their screen name is meant to be a racial insult. Pathawi (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah in 1Firang's case I didn't really know that's why I haven't bothered to bring it up with the global stewards. As you've stated there's good reason why they're banned. TarnishedPathtalk03:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.
I'm linking to today's sockpuppetry investigation here for ease of reference in the future. It appears that 1Firang did indeed resort to sockpuppetry, unfortunately. Pathawi (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Tips
