Requests for comment/Persian wikipedia: censorship over political userboxes
The following request for comments is closed. Requester has said this is resolved over six months ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement of the issue[edit]
Greetings. Dear Stewards, I (User:The Stray Dog) am an active user in Persian Wikipedia, and hereby want to report certain censorship over my political views which were declared in some of my userboxes. A Persian wiki user User:Mehdi put three of those userboxes in deletion discussion page which is a Persian relative of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (1, 2, 3). Two of those three userboxes are about opposing to :en:Islamic Republic regime of Iran and one of them is about opposing to the Saudi government. These oppositions were not insulting at all and were polite. I made English versions of them before in English Wikipedia which you can see translations and example of them there in User:The Stray Dog/Userbox No Islamic Republic and User:The Stray Dog/Userbox No Mulla. In my opinion this act of User:Mehdi was an Inquisition-like action and certain censorship. As you know Wikipedia is not censored and we have this right to declare our political views through userboxes politely per [:en:Wikipedia:Userbox|Wikipedia:Userbox]]. Consequently, I want you to investigate this act of this Persian wiki administrator and not to let these userboxes be deleted. Regards. The Stray Dog (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- @The Stray Dog: Meta is not a higher court, in which you would make complaints about other wikis. Also, you have not made this complaint on fawiki yet. Lastly, fawiki has an entity (similar to enwiki's Arb Com) which I am confident you are familiar with, namely the fa:ویکیپدیا:هیئت نظارت whose role is to do exactly what you seek here, i.e. review complaints about local admins. I don't think this RFC is appropriate. Huji (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Huji: Please stop. You are the second administrator who is involved in this alleged censorship. You in this edit attempt to delete one of this userboxes. My political views are polite and unnegotiable. I've been the goal of more area of censorship abuses by Persian wiki admins who even wanted me to change my username because admin said it is not polite!!!. In my opinion Persian wiki is not well right away, it was distracted by the majority's ideas. I hereby call for a deep investigation over this tendency of political censor in Persian Wikipedia. Regards. The Stray Dog (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @The Stray Dog: I did make the edit you linked; but you reacted to it on fawiki, changed the template, and I changed my vote accordingly. To selectively point out at the first edit and not the second one, makes you unfair. I don't have any interest in continuing this discussion with you, if you fail to be at least fair and honest. Huji (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Huji: Please stop. You are the second administrator who is involved in this alleged censorship. You in this edit attempt to delete one of this userboxes. My political views are polite and unnegotiable. I've been the goal of more area of censorship abuses by Persian wiki admins who even wanted me to change my username because admin said it is not polite!!!. In my opinion Persian wiki is not well right away, it was distracted by the majority's ideas. I hereby call for a deep investigation over this tendency of political censor in Persian Wikipedia. Regards. The Stray Dog (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @The Stray Dog: I doubt the recommended dispute resolution steps have been followed. Thus the escalation to the meta is neither justified nor appropriate as the meta is not a higher court. Taha (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @طاها: I am here for a steward's comment because I don't trust in Persian Wikipedia's administratorship since two admins are involved in this alleged censorship. I consequently want a neutral steward to settle this problem. This is an insult to me and Wikipedia society. No views must be systematically censored in user pages unless those which are abusing. Wikipedia is not censored and is not a democracy too, so you can not put any polite political views on deletion discussions for votes of other users. Regards. The Stray Dog (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, obviously I am a dissident of the Islamic Republic regime of Iran and I tend to declare it through a userbox. I strongly believe that no force must be allowed to manipulate any user's views or userboxes. This is exact censorship. Consequently, I fight for my fundamental rights as a member of this great project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. My rights as a user are unnegotiable in any session. Regards. The Stray Dog (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @طاها: I am here for a steward's comment because I don't trust in Persian Wikipedia's administratorship since two admins are involved in this alleged censorship. I consequently want a neutral steward to settle this problem. This is an insult to me and Wikipedia society. No views must be systematically censored in user pages unless those which are abusing. Wikipedia is not censored and is not a democracy too, so you can not put any polite political views on deletion discussions for votes of other users. Regards. The Stray Dog (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The point that no one clarified is User:Mehdi is NOT an admin in the Persian Wikipedia.— Arashツ 13:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- A misunderstanding made me think that he is an admin. Yes, User:Mehdi may not be an admin, but this subject was supported by at least an admin. My claim is not only about an admin, please notice that my comments are about Persian wiki's society, administratorship, and well-being. The userboxes must not be put in any deletion discussions and mass deletion of political userboxes is exact censorship. And the duty of an admin is to withdraw the censorship process. There is a lot of userboxes which are the same as mine and they have been used by active users and even administrators all around the projects. I have three examples of files which show you tens of dozens of users use such userboxes: 1, 2, 3. The Stray Dog (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@The Stray Dog: Meta is not a higher court. You will need to resolve your issues on wiki. Each wiki sets their standards through consensus. All you will get out here is general opinion, though little that will be able to understand the local situation. There can be no sanctioned action of an administrator, nor review of templates to be used; that is the local community's to manage. If you have an Arbitration committee they are generally the highest place within a local community to which you can escalated an issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I clearly know, the other user said the exact thing, but I say what if the so-called Arbitration committee did something against the Wikipedia policies? The Persian Wikipedia is a little Wikipedia with 33 admins and not diverse like English Wikipedia. An admin objected about my username (The Stray Dog) twice, that could directly be related to their social beliefs. So by that, I mean the social views of the majority must not manipulate the policy process. The majority's opinions and emotions would wrongly affect the truth of an investigation somehow. Nevertheless, I am here just for opinions and guidance, not anything else and your opinion is welcomed. Regards. The Stray Dog (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: So what is your opinion about the deletion of political userboxes? Your comment could be helping. The Stray Dog (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- 1) Userboxes are a decision of the community, and their deletion is management where the community has consensus. It is not censorship against your ability to express your opinion. 2) Usernames are universal, and may be considered by some in a culture to have a level of offence, though they need to be looked at holistically. I would expect comment and maybe some light pressure, that is the nature of a community. You should argue that you should be judged on the quality of your edits and your participation in the community, not on the basis that someone may take offence to your username based on a singular cultural sensitivity. 3) If your AC is not aligning to WM values, you should argue that in your community. 4) If you are trying to argue all three at the same time and not contributing to the community's scope, in this case an encyclopaedia in Farsi, then you are not seen to be there to enhance the scope, you are seen to be there for your personal reasons, and you can expect that to be challenged. 5) You are editing at faWP, do not expect it to be the same as enWP, expecting that is doomed to failure. There could be essays on each of these five points; come to Australia and we can talk through all five over coffee; otherwise that is the end my expressed opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. I will soon come to Australia and wanna see some Aussies there. :) Also I think this RfC is over now because I resolved the problem with the community as you suggested. So consequently the admins can close the discussion. The Stray Dog (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- 1) Userboxes are a decision of the community, and their deletion is management where the community has consensus. It is not censorship against your ability to express your opinion. 2) Usernames are universal, and may be considered by some in a culture to have a level of offence, though they need to be looked at holistically. I would expect comment and maybe some light pressure, that is the nature of a community. You should argue that you should be judged on the quality of your edits and your participation in the community, not on the basis that someone may take offence to your username based on a singular cultural sensitivity. 3) If your AC is not aligning to WM values, you should argue that in your community. 4) If you are trying to argue all three at the same time and not contributing to the community's scope, in this case an encyclopaedia in Farsi, then you are not seen to be there to enhance the scope, you are seen to be there for your personal reasons, and you can expect that to be challenged. 5) You are editing at faWP, do not expect it to be the same as enWP, expecting that is doomed to failure. There could be essays on each of these five points; come to Australia and we can talk through all five over coffee; otherwise that is the end my expressed opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: So what is your opinion about the deletion of political userboxes? Your comment could be helping. The Stray Dog (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I clearly know, the other user said the exact thing, but I say what if the so-called Arbitration committee did something against the Wikipedia policies? The Persian Wikipedia is a little Wikipedia with 33 admins and not diverse like English Wikipedia. An admin objected about my username (The Stray Dog) twice, that could directly be related to their social beliefs. So by that, I mean the social views of the majority must not manipulate the policy process. The majority's opinions and emotions would wrongly affect the truth of an investigation somehow. Nevertheless, I am here just for opinions and guidance, not anything else and your opinion is welcomed. Regards. The Stray Dog (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)