Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Wikimedia Discord Block (BZPN)

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.
Parties
Parties Notifications
BZPN (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
Seddon (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [1]
SHB2000 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [2]

U4C member alert: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515, Superpes15 BZPN (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BZPN

Description of the problem - (BZPN)

Hello. This case relates to a permanent block I received on the Wikimedia Community Discord server on 2 June 2025, without any warning, prior discussion, or formal process, after I raised a concern about the use of the Pride flag as the server’s logo.

Summary

I expressed my opinion respectfully and peacefully, and made no personal attacks. Nevertheless, I was targeted based on the content of my Discord profile, which included a biblical quote from Romans 1:26–27 and a symbolic cross emoji (which, of course, logically symbolizes the lack of support) before the Pride flags. As far as I know, no community member reported being offended. No moderator warned me. I was removed entirely without any avenue for appeal.

Full conversation

[12:00 UTC, June 2nd]

Jagoda123456769 (me)
Hi
Was there any vote on setting the rainbow version of the server logo?
I'm asking out of curiosity
AntiComposite (moderator)
No
We've been doing it for years
Jagoda123456769
Don't you think that a consensus should be reached on such a matter?
AntiComposite
Nope
Jagoda123456769
It seems to me that it is very controversial and non-neutral.
SHB (another moderator)
user description checks out...
[attaching a screenshot of my profile, which includes:
❌🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
"Men committed shameless acts with men..." – Romans 1:26–27
Truth ≠ hate. Sin ≠ pride.
]
Jagoda123456769
Well, I think I have the right to do that – I'm not spreading hate, I'm just expressing my opinion.

[I was given a 24-hour takeout here]

SHB
You can express an opinion... but your messages above should be no surprise when you've openly stated your stance on such issues on your user description.

[I was banned from the server after SHB's message]

Choucas0
WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA

A few others then posted mocking comments and memes, including references to LGBT militias (TQILA, IRPGF), anti-Christian sarcasm, and laughing emojis.

Ban

Following the ban, I received the following message from the moderator Seddon:

The Wikimedia Community Discord is an inclusive space and behaviour that causes others to feel unwelcome will not be tolerated. The messages and your bio are incompatible with you remaining on the server and are banned indefinitely. You may appeal this ban no earlier than 6 months from now

Let me emphasize: I did not discuss LGBT issues at all. I never initiated any comments about sexual orientation or gender. The only reference to such topics was in my Discord profile, which is public but personal – and which I did not mention, quote, or refer to during the discussion. It was moderator SHB who introduced my profile as a means of discrediting me, by saying: user description checks out... – and attaching a screenshot.

I believe this clearly shows that the entire incident was provoked not by me, but by a moderator's decision to turn my personal profile into the subject of debate and then use it to justify a ban.

Moreover:

  • Nobody warned me.
  • Nobody stated that my profile violated any rule.
  • No one in the conversation expressed being personally offended.
  • No rule of the Discord prohibits a user from having a visible personal viewpoint in their bio.

And yet, I was instantly sanctioned – first with a 24-hour timeout, then with a permanent ban, with no process, no prior discussion, and no transparency about who issued each action. For this reason, I am formally submitting this complaint against both Seddon and SHB2000, as I do not know who is responsible for which action, but both are involved in the abuse of moderator powers.

If inclusive space means that Christian users may not express disagreement – even passively – while others may openly promote symbols and ideologies without restriction, then that is not inclusion. That is ideological censorship, and it has no place in a project that claims to be free and open.

Why this violates UCoC

This case clearly violates multiple provisions of the UCoC:

  • 3.1 – Harassment: I was mocked and publicly attacked for my religious expression (Romans 1:26–27) and for asking about community consensus on a politically charged symbol. I was treated differently solely because I expressed a Christian viewpoint, which was equated with hate without any justification.
  • 3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence: Moderators acted without any warning, removed me for my opinion, and made sarcastic comments instead of moderating impartially.
  • 2.2 – Civility, collegiality, mutual support and good citizenship: None of the interacting moderators treated me with respect or neutrality. No efforts were made to de-escalate or invite discussion.

Why this falls under U4C scope

The Wikimedia Community Discord server is:

  • Actively promoted on enwiki (en:Wikipedia:Discord),
  • Used by hundreds of Wikimedians for social coordination and events,
  • Described as for Wikipedians and bearing the Wikimedia identity.

It may not be formally governed by WMF, but it is clearly part of the Wikimedia ecosystem and falls under the scope of the UCoC as per its own wording (all online and offline Wikimedia spaces).

If we consider the Wikimedia Community Discord server as an unofficial entity, then there is no local jurisdiction, only public/semi-public interactions between community members, which fits exactly with the UCoC:

This Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. It applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces. This includes new and experienced contributors, functionaries within the projects, event organizers and participants, employees and board members of affiliates and employees and board members of the Wikimedia Foundation. It applies to all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, as well as the following instances:

  • Private, public and semi-public interactions
  • Discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community members
  • Issues of technical development

Aspects of content contribution

  • Cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners

Furthermore:

  • There is no functioning or fair appeal process on the Discord server.
  • Moderators operate without transparency or accountability.
  • Trust & Safety declined to act, stating the server is not under WMF control.
  • Even a member of the WMF Board refused to clarify the status of the space.

On freedom of expression and user identity

My Discord profile is public, but it is also my personal expression space. It did not contain threats, slurs, or insults – just a quote from the Christian Bible (Romans 1:26–27), a symbolic cross emoji before the Pride flags, and the words: Truth ≠ hate. Sin ≠ pride.

This is a peaceful, religious viewpoint – and nothing more. If other users are free to proudly display symbols like 🏳️‍🌈 and 🏳️‍⚧️ in their names, avatars, bios, and status messages – I too have the right to respectfully indicate that I do not share that ideology.

Nobody told me that my profile offended them. Nobody asked me to change anything. Instead, moderators used it against me, in front of others, to discredit and silence me – which is an abuse of power and a denial of equal treatment.

If freedom of conscience and belief are to be respected, the right to politely say I do not agree must be protected, especially in community spaces that claim to be neutral, inclusive, and open.

This is systemic failure

I did not insult anyone. No one asked me to change my profile. My opinions were framed as respectful questions. Instead of discussion, I was banned because someone disliked my profile and opinions.

If Wikimedia-branded spaces can silence users based on ideological bias, and neither T&S nor moderators nor Board members take responsibility, then the UCoC becomes meaningless.

Previous attempts at a solution - (BZPN)

  • Contacted T&S: received referral to ca@wikimedia.org, no substantive response.
  • Asked a WMF Board trustee about the status of the Discord server – was told that thay can't help me.
  • Submitted a private jurisdictional inquiry to U4C (June 5) – acknowledged but no ruling yet.

Suggested solutions - (BZPN)

  • U4C should formally recognize the Wikimedia Community Discord as a space under UCoC jurisdiction.
  • U4C should investigate whether the moderators’ actions violated UCoC, and require:
    • a transparent, impartial appeals process,
    • rules that respect diversity of belief and conscience,
    • accountability for ideological bias.
  • I ask U4C to decide whether the ban imposed on me was justified, and - if not - to possibly reinstate me to the server.

Comments

I must strongly object to the latest comment by @SHB2000, as it includes several serious misrepresentations:

  1. BZPN broke server rules

No specific rule has been cited. I was never informed that my profile violated any rule. I never received a warning. I was not told to change anything. If there is a specific rule prohibiting respectful religious quotations in bios, I would like to see it documented. Without such, this is a baseless accusation.

  1. ...a bio questioning the very legitimacy of LGBTQ+ people

This is a clear mischaracterization. My profile included a Bible verse (Romans 1:26–27) and a symbolic visual expression of dissent. It did not say LGBTQ+ people don't exist, nor did it attack anyone personally. It questioned a symbol, not individuals.

I must ask:

  • If a Catholic quotes the Bible, is that inherently hate speech?
  • Is disagreement with Pride messaging equal to denying someone's humanity?

That kind of framing turns every conservative or religious voice into a presumed aggressor. Respectfully expressing disagreement with an ideology does not mean questioning someone's legitimacy – otherwise, we would have to silence every disagreement in every direction.

Finally, I will reiterate: I never initiated any discussion about LGBT topics. The conversation began with a neutral procedural question about the server logo, and escalated only when SHB2000 introduced my bio into the discussion unprompted.

I hope the Committee can see the growing pattern here: my beliefs are not being judged by my actions or words in the conversation, but by assumptions about my identity. BZPN (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several recent comments have further illustrated the ideological asymmetry at play here.

SHB now claims that the issue was not the Bible verse, but the "❌🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️" emoji sequence, stating: There is nothing respectful about that.

I must respectfully disagree. This symbol is simply a visual expression of dissent. Just as users are free to include symbols indicating support (e.g., 🏳️‍🌈, ✊🏾, ☭), others should be free to include symbols of *non-support*, provided they are not hateful. ❌ is the universal emoji for do not support or oppose – not hate.

@Ferien and @Sohom claim I did not attempt a ban appeal. However:

  1. I was explicitly told in the message from Seddon that the ban was *indefinite* and could not be appealed for *six months*.
  2. It's illogical to demand that a user wait six months to report religious discrimination.
  3. Moreover, the appeal process on en:Wikipedia:Discord#Ban appeals is not clear, and not user-friendly – and since the moderators involved were the ones who banned me, any '"appeal would be directed to the same individuals.

Ferien also refers to a userbox I placed on my enwiki and simplewiki pages: This user does not support en:LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons (essay).

He claims this is provocative. But this statement is:

If I had written This user does not support communism with a ❌☭, would that be considered disrespectful to communists editors? Of course not. Opposition to an ideology is not the same as hatred of people.

This is the very definition of civil discourse. If users are allowed to publicly state that they do support certain ideologies, then surely others can respectfully explain why they do not. If such a balanced expression is now considered unacceptable, then we no longer have neutrality – we have enforced consensus.

Multiple users invoke Discord-specific rules or moderator authority. But those rules cannot override the Universal Code of Conduct, which applies to all Wikimedia community spaces, including off-wiki and semi-public interactions.

If ideological symbols of support are welcomed in user bios and avatars, then ideological dissent – expressed respectfully – must be welcomed too. Otherwise, we are simply enforcing ideological conformity. BZPN (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt: I have just been openly discriminated against by a U4C member (you) for my religious beliefs, which I included only in my personal profile and did not reference during the Discord discussion. By attacking me for citing a verse from the Bible — a sacred text for over 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide — you are not just silencing me, but sending a message that Christian beliefs are unwelcome in Wikimedia spaces. This is outrageous, violates the U4C’s duty of neutrality, and directly undermines freedom of expression and religion. Equating Scripture with hate is both offensive and deeply dangerous. I respectfully request this statement be reconsidered and withdrawn. BZPN (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon

Comment by Seddon

The factual elements have been covered above fairly well and given my limited interaction with the user I don't have much to add to facts but I would like to provide some context to the discord server.

The Wikimedia Community Discord server exists to facilitate discussions relevant to Wikipedia and related projects. Whilst the servers primary language is English, it hosts a geographically and culturally diverse group of individuals. We recognise that it serves to further the work of the projects whilst also being a social venue. We try to support free flowing discourse where we can but not at the expense of causing harm and we try to strike a balance where the line is in terms of disruption to its users.

This server is for discussions relevant to Wikipedia and related projects. [...] Wikimedia supports free speech but some statements can be disruptive and are usually inappropriate in channels. - Wikipedia:Discord#Guidelines

Regarding the specifics: The server has a large LGBT community on it and in support of that community, we've recognised pride month with dedicated banner for a number of years. Insensitivity can occur without self aware intent, and harm can occur without intended malice and that is the best good faith interpretation one can have in this situation. Although BZPN may not have intended for their comments and user profile to be insensitive or harmful, I assessed that here the potential risk of harm outweighed a discussion where there was, and remains, a clear lack of awareness about why the words they spoke were not compatible with their ongoing participation in the server. People do not have a right to express harmful opinions in such spaces, even if well intended. As with any ban, our hope is that the user can reflect on their actions and return to the server in time and align with the expectations we set. Seddon (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SHB2000

Previous attempts at a solution - SHB2000

I'd like to start out by saying I'm not even a moderator/server admin on the English server so I have no idea what BZPN means by I abused my perms – not like Seddon did either by banning BZPN. All I wanted to express was that BZPN's questioning of the pride banner should have come out to everybody else as no surprise given the contents of his user openly anti-LGBTQ+ description. This entire situation by BZPN feels analogous to them starting a pub fight (with their initial messages and their user description) and then being shocked to find out that expressing views that make LGBTQ+ editors feel unwelcome have consequences. //shb (t • c) 23:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, SHB. First, I would like to apologize if I wrongly attributed the ban or timeout to you personally. As I was removed from the server without prior warning or explanation, I had no way of verifying who took which action, and naturally assumed that those involved in the conversation (including you and Seddon) were responsible. I understand you may not have had the technical ability to issue the ban, but your comments did contribute to the atmosphere that led to my exclusion.
That said, your response raises some serious concerns: This entire situation by BZPN feels analogous to them starting a pub fight...
Comparing my respectful question about the use of a symbol (the rainbow flag) to starting a pub fight is... inappropriate and inflammatory. I did not attack anyone, insult anyone, or violate any rules. I merely asked whether a consensus had been reached about the logo. The escalation began only when you chose to screenshot and share my profile – which I had not referenced – as justification for why my question was, in your words, unsurprising. This is a clear case of bad faith assumption. You judged my intent not based on what I said, but probably on my religious beliefs displayed in my user description. That's equivalent to saying (no offense): Well, they’re Christian, so of course they’d say that. That logic is discriminatory and dangerous. You also claim that my presence and viewpoint made LGBTQ+ editors feel unwelcome. I would genuinely ask: how does the mere presence of a Catholic, with a public Bible quote, create a hostile space?
No one reported discomfort to me during my long presence on this server. No one objected. No discussion occurred. I was simply removed. This is exactly why I submitted this case: because in this environment, it seems that only one viewpoint is allowed – and anyone who expresses respectful dissent, particularly from a Christian perspective, is not welcome. This isn’t inclusion. It’s an exclusion. BZPN (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less about the quote from Romans – what I (and many others) had an issue with was "❌🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️" that you had in your bio. There is nothing respectful about that. //shb (t • c) 03:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BZPN, did it once occur to you that you may be the one out of line here with your hyperidealist viewpoints? Since you're the one who brings religion into this discussion: this world has countless religions and religious beliefs, the only way to coexist peacefully is to keep views that attack or undermine others — including views that spread anti-LGBTQ+ (or undermine any other marginalised group) rhetoric — out of shared spaces. You are doing exactly the opposite of that. //shb (t • c) 12:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SHB, I’m ending this exchange. I did not bring religion into that discussion — you did, by choosing to single out and attack my Discord profile, which simply quoted Scripture. If your response to respectful disagreement is to attack the person, their beliefs, and the Church they belong to, then there is no point continuing. That’s not dialogue. That’s hostility. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions - SHB2000

I suggest this case be entirely dismissed. I fail to see how 3.1 applies and nothing in the conversation indicates "harassment". 3.2 does not apply given BZPN broke server rules and as such them being banned was not an "abuse of power". For 2.2...where do I start – BZPN was the one who initiated all of this – and as I said earlier, that response from me is to be expected when BZPN has a bio questioning the very legitimacy of LGBTQ+ people. //shb (t • c) 23:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

  • Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
  • Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
  • Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
  • All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (Ferien)

A few observations I would like to make on this case.

  • Ban appeals for the Discord server are made on w:en:Wikipedia talk:Discord as a first port of call, per w:en:Wikipedia:Discord#Ban appeals, but BZPN doesn't appear to have attempted that to solve the problem.
  • In the weeks since this occurred, BZPN created a userbox on both enwiki and simplewiki – see w:en:User:BZPN/LGBT and w:simple:User:BZPN/LGBT – saying, This user does not support LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons (essay). Of course, one is not required to support LGBTQ+ "ideology" in order to contribute to Wikimedia projects, hence why I do not see the essay as largely problematic, however such a userbox is again simply provocative to our many LGBTQ+ contributors. It certainly would not be appropriate for me to form a userbox replacing LGBT+ with an ethnic group, race, religion ideology, so I do not see why it is here either.
  • While the Universal Code of Conduct applies to off-wiki spaces, neutrality does not. Simply showing support for a group of people simply existing as who they are is not controversial, and questioning that is going to make LGBT+ contributors feel unwelcome. Discord moderators did not need to cite a policy or guideline to ban you, as an off-wiki space, but w:en:WP:NQP, as an essay, could be applied here. --Ferien (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reality that also should be noted is that homosexuality, being transgender etc is not a choice or ideology, so it is not in any way comparable to communism. --Ferien (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Sohom)

  • SHB is not a moderator on the server, they simply have the Stewards/Sysop role (that is given to folks who are stewards/sysops on major projects). This grants them the ability to look at comment on and view previous user-conduct reports but does not grant them the ability to take any actions. The ability to block/ban a user is only reserved for folks with the Moderator role.
  • No attempt to appeal the ban has been made, instead they have gone ahead and created userboxes in explicit violation of English Wikipedia's userbox policies (Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive, particularly opinion pieces, on current affairs or politics are disallowed) -- Sohom (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Pigsonthewing)

So far, two separate editors have tried to fix the accessibility of the markup in BZPN's malformed quoting of the Discord discussion, and he has reverted both of us.

He acknowledges the problem, at least in part, but says it can be fixed after this request has been closed.

It seems his disdain for his LGBT colleagues is matched by a disdain for people with sight loss and others who rely on assistive technology, whose needs, he apparently believes, must take second place to his esoteric personal preference for visual presentation.

Why such people should not more easily be able to read what was said, while this discussion is open, he does not say.

His disruptive reverting needs to be undone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to read the unread message on your talk page. BZPN (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your message there (which, contrary to your false and misleading claim here, I have read) reinforces the points I make here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

  • No, you may believe what you want (there are several thousand religions out there), but your liberty of expression in wikimedia context ends where the UCoC is violated. And as i wrote, i see it violated. You may not use discrimination even if it stems from any form of religious scriptures. --Ghilt (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not too much trouble, please cite the specific UCoC provision that prohibits quoting Scripture in a personal Discord profile. BZPN (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write that. Ghilt (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing that Romans verse is a UCoC violation of discrimination [...] :). BZPN (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"your liberty of expression in wikimedia context ends where the UCoC is violated. You may not use discrimination even if it stems from any form of religious scriptures." Ghilt (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghilt, I respectfully ask you to step back from this case, refrain from attacking my religion or background, and take a moment to read the essay I wrote before making sweeping judgments. You may disagree with my beliefs, but that does not give you the right to treat Scripture or religious conscience as violations. This is not how a fair and respectful process should look. Please reconsider your tone – and your role here. I'd be happy to discuss this topic, but with respect and specific references to the UCoC (you claim I broke it - which point?). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As i wrote, there is a difference between belief and liberty of expression in wikimedia context.[3] I will not recuse myself, so my colleagues will decide on this request. --Ghilt (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @dbeef: you have cited w:en:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric#Criticism as evidence that my reference to LGBT ideology is inappropriate or dangerous. I would like to respond to this by asserting that my position is not an attack on individuals, but a critique of a specific socio-political movement — which I have every right to reject, based on legal, religious, and moral grounds. My userbox states:
This user does not support LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons (essay).

I have clearly linked to an essay which explains this respectfully and in detail: en:User:BZPN/Right to hold dissenting views about social issues without malice. This statement is:

  1. Based on legal reality - article 18 of the en:Constitution of the Republic of Poland defines marriage strictly as a union between a man and a woman. Poland does not legally recognize same-sex marriage or parentin, and I am obligated to obey this law.
  2. Aligned with Catholic doctrine, upheld by over 1.3 billion Catholics, and reaffirmed by en:Pope Leo XIV, to whom I also obey.
  3. Reflected in the public discourse e.g. of J.D. Vance, the Vice President of the United States, who openly opposes LGBT ideology as a political force and supports religious freedom and family values.

As for the argument that LGBT is not an ideology, this is itself a matter of political debate — not settled fact. While people with LGBT identities deserve respect and safety, it is legitimate to oppose certain movements, political campaigns, and policies that are often labeled as LGBT ideology. Calling that disagreement dangerous is not a defense of rights – it is a method of censorship. If Wikimedia projects are to reflect pluralism and neutrality, we must be able to respectfully disagree about political and moral questions without fear of retribution. Again: I have not insulted anyone. I have simply refused to support an ideology that contradicts my faith, my country’s law, and my conscience. This is not discrimination. This is basic freedom of thought. BZPN (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Civvì: could you prove that every LGBTQ+ user identifies with the rainbow flag (because that's what the ❌ symbol was about)? If not, what right do you have to speak for other homosexual/transsexual users and judge how they would feel with ❌ symbol next to a socio-political movement flag? BZPN (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BRPever: could you point out a specific quote where I personally insulted a specific user, violating point 3 of section 2.1 (because it concerns users, not flags of socio-political movements)? BZPN (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t recall saying that you insulted a specific user. What’s not helping, though, is that you continue to argue your point even after multiple communities have made it clear that expressing your views in this way is unwelcome in an inclusive environment. I don’t think anything productive will come from continuing this discussion when you’ve already formed a strong opinion on the matter. As for the Discord moderators, I don’t believe they did anything wrong in excluding someone whose profile details appeared to express disapproval of sexual or gender identity. That decision is within their rights. Did they violate the UCoC by doing so? In my view, no. And that’s enough reason for me to vote to decline this case. BRP ever 07:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. Nothing productive will come of this discussion because the U4C members taking part in the discussion are biased and very active in expressing their views (which they should not be expressing), you do not demonstrate the ability to read with comprehension (because no one read my request in its entirety, I am certain of that), and you are essentially expressing reverse bigotry towards people with unpopular views. BZPN (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also suggest that you recuse from this case @BRPever, because on simplewki you were the one who opened the RfD over LGBT userbox expressing your highly subjective opinions, so I have concerns about your neutrality. BZPN (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seddon: so you admit that I got banned because you saw a religious quote on my profile that you considered harmful (and that's called religious discrimination), even though I didn't say anything inappropriate? That's interesting. By the way, do you have the right to make the rainbow the default symbol of the community, but I don't have the right not to express support for that symbol in my own profile? BZPN (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reread my comments. I was quite clear that both your comments on the server and the entirety of your user profile was part of my assessment, and the clearly problematic parts have been idenfitied by many individuals on this case request.

    By the way, do you have the right to make the rainbow the default symbol of the community, but I don't have the right not to express support for that symbol in my own profile?

    I do believe that a chat server that has inherently social aspects to it, should it so choose, has a right to celebrate the diverse members of its community, and as part of something celebrated by many across the world. You have a right to hold whatever views your choose and if you wish to express them on your user profile you may continue to do so. However you do not have a right to express them on or as a member of this particular server. I don't intend to debate this further. Seddon (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

  • Citing that Romans verse is a UCoC violation of discrimination. There has been no reflection on that by the filer BZPN. Also, this is the wrong venue.--Ghilt (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is a right to religious expression on a private platform, such as these projects or affiliated discords, where that expression denies or otherwise objects to the rights of others. While I am usually hesitant to hold up one way of thinking as the "right" way, particularly in the context of other parts of the world not agreeing with that conceptualization, I think we need to do so here. Those who personally object are under no obligation to raise their objection publicly on these platforms - the constitution of Poland, for example, may prohibit same sex marriage but does not compel its citizens to publicly oppose same sex marriage elsewhere. I believe the sanction in question is appropriate, and no further action is needed by the U4C here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think the UCoC was violated by the mods in this case. Instead, BZPN appears to have violated point 3 of section 2.1 – Mutual respect, which states: Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. That said, I believe such violations should be handled locally by enforcement bodies.--BRP ever 16:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like BZPN to spend a couple of minutes thinking about how an LGBTQ+ user would feel in a conversation with someone with a symbol "❌.. universal emoji for do not support or oppose" in their profile. "Be part of a global community that will avoid bias and prejudice". --Civvì (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Discord mods acted in reasonable ways to enforce the UCoC. Other issues can be (and in some cases were) handled locally. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the user's sub pages you created, I cannot consider this freedom of expression or highlighting your religious identity. Rather, it is clear that you have intentions towards these groups, and therefore the decision to ban you cannot be considered discrimination against you. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Wikimedia_Discord_Block_(BZPN)&oldid=29365745"