A Polish Wikipedia editor earlier this year complained about religious discrimination to a committee that enforces the “code of conduct” imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia. The editor expressed opposition to LGBT ideology, citing Bible verses condemning it in his profile on a Discord Wikipedia chat group, prompting mockery and insults from others. Members of the committee rejected his claims and suggested instead the Bible verses were a violation.
Committee members further initiated discussions to delete Wikipedia pages the editor created expressing his Biblical views and opposition to policies and practices prohibiting the voicing of opposition to same-sex marriage. Months after the pages were deleted and his complaint rejected, the editor was banned from Wikipedia partly citing his complaint to the Committee.
The Universal Code of Conduct imposed by the Foundation applies to sites owned by the Foundation, including Wikipedia, along with related events and Foundation staff themselves. Plans for the code of conduct were first announced in 2020, prompting significant concern about intervention in the normally self-governing community. A year earlier, the Foundation’s unprecedented one-year ban of an administrator sparked an editor revolt leading to the ban being referred to a community body, which overturned the decision. While the community objected to the proposed code of conduct for these reasons, as well as perceived left-wing bias and free speech implications, it was ultimately approved by the Foundation.
Following approval of the code of conduct, further discussions followed on enforcement. While generally left to local communities, the Foundation sought to create a body that could handle complaints when it was determined local communities were failing to enforce the code’s provisions. Subsequent community votes regarding proposed enforcement guidelines and revisions based off comments provided during the process, were followed by a committee developing a charter for the proposed top-level enforcement body, which received voter approval early last year. The enforcement body, called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) began its work following a community election for members last year. Foundation lawyers also serve on the Committee as non-voting members.
Code of Conduct Case
In June of this year, Polish Wikipedia editor “BZPN” posted a case request for the U4C regarding his ban from the Wikimedia Community Discord group where people from various sites owned by the Foundation can discuss Wikipedia and its affiliated sites. The request included a transcript of a conversation BZPN had with others after seeing an LGBT Pride flag being used for the Discord group’s logo during Pride Month. He questioned whether there had been a vote on the matter, but was told bluntly by a group moderator that there hadn’t and wouldn’t be one.
After someone pointed out his Discord profile included a Bible verse and other messages opposing homosexuality, another moderator banned him stating the Discord group was “an inclusive space and behaviour that causes others to feel unwelcome will not be tolerated.” He was told that his comments and profile were “incompatible” with remaining in the group and he was banned. BZPN stated that others in the Discord group had “posted mocking comments and memes, including references to LGBT militias (TQILA, IRPGF), anti-Christian sarcasm, and laughing emojis.” One referenced a “No Queerphobia” essay on Wikipedia, which some admins have invoked when banning editors expressing conservative views.
BZPN complained that prior to the ban he received no warning and was not told of any rule violation with his profile nor did any rule in the group mention profile requirements. He argued the actions violated the code of conduct as he was “mocked and publicly attacked for my religious expression” and “treated differently solely because I expressed a Christian viewpoint, which was equated with hate without any justification.” Further claiming moderators abused their power and acted without civility or collegiality, BZPN argued this warranted committee action as the Discord group was promoted on Wikipedia and functioned as a community space.
Committee member “Ghilt” declined taking the request, stating his citing of the Bible verse was a violation of the code of conduct’s rules on discrimination and complained: “There has been no reflection on that by the filer BZPN.” Another committee member declined stating there is no “right to religious expression on a private platform” where “that expression denies or otherwise objects to the rights of others.” Several more committee members similarly suggested BZPN had violated the code of conduct. One argued another part of BZPN’s profile including an “x” symbol next to gay and transgender flags was a concern.
Deletion Efforts
Responding to the request, enforcement committee member “Dbeef” argued a case could be accepted to examine BZPN instead, citing “userboxes” on his profile pages at several Wikipedia sites expressing opposition to “LGBT+ ideology” as violations of the code of conduct. Dbeef subsequently recused after proposing deletion of the userbox on the English Wikipedia. Committee member “BRPever” proposed deleting the userbox on Simple Wikipedia, which is used for basic English, but did not recuse on the U4C case. Dbeef cited a prior discussion that supported deleting userboxes stating marriage is between a man and a woman, a decision widely condemned by Christian and family groups.
The userbox BZPN created stated “This user does not support LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons” citing an essay subsequently nominated for deletion. Before proposing deletion, editor Joyce Fisher, who edits as “SilviaAsh” on Wikipedia, cited the “No queerphobia” essay and the “paradox of tolerance” in support of deleting the related userbox. The latter is a concept espoused by Karl Popper, commonly misinterpreted and misused on the left, stating intolerant philosophies that favor violent solutions over debate should not be tolerated. Fisher’s Bluesky account, linked from the editor’s profile page, includes comments rejoicing over the assassination of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk.
Discussing the userbox, U4C member Dbeef complained BZPN was framing “my existence as an ideology” and being “dehumanizing” as a result. Dbeef’s profile page includes “they/them” pronouns and a “trans rights” image. The same claim about “dehumanizing” was reiterated by Simon McNeil, who edits as “Simonm223” on Wikipedia. McNeil also advocated deletion of the article on the United Kingdom grooming gangs scandal, which prompted social media outrage, particularly over a blog post he authored supporting children being exposed to kinks and fetishes at Gay Pride parades. While some supported keeping the userbox, it was ultimately deleted. The Simple Wikipedia discussion saw similar arguments ending with deletion.
More contentious was discussion about BZPN’s essay accompanying the userbox. In the essay, BZPN argued true inclusivity means allowing viewpoint diversity, particularly having “traditional, religious, or culturally informed views” be accepted. Numerous editors supported keeping the essay as legitimate expression on Wikipedia policy, though most favored deletion. Editor Paul Lee, who edits as “Valjean” on Wikipedia, was among those arguing deletion, claiming essays should not dwell on social issues. Lee, the primary author of the Steele dossier article, maintains an essay suggesting Donald Trump would disappear journalists if re-elected and implies he had Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi murdered, though later edits stated this was not explicitly claimed.
Just as with the userboxes, BZPN’s essay was also deleted and the code of conduct case request was declined by the enforcement committee. Notably, a simultaneous discussion on Wikipedia’s “village pump” regarding political userboxes included mention of BZPN’s opposing LGBT ideology alongside others and editors generally advocated no change in the site’s approach of allowing such userboxes with some stating all the listed userboxes should be allowed. However, some editors argued for getting rid of all political userboxes with others arguing for more case-by-case approaches.
Banned on Return
This month, after a months-long hiatus on the English Wikipedia, BZPN expanded the “heterophobia” section at the homophobia page and added numerous academic sources on the topic. BZPN further removed a lengthy quote from a nearly 30-year-old conference workshop description by a minor academic. Administrator “Black Kite” subsequently restored the quote twice with BZPN removing it two more times. Black Kite did not identify any problem with the removal, only insisting on a discussion, while BZPN questioned the material’s neutrality and the reliability of the cited source. Black Kite previously accused BZPN of trolling and suggested he should be banned in the deletion discussion about his essay.
Black Kite warned BZPN over the dispute that he could be banned if he removes the material again, citing Wikipedia policy that prohibits undoing a change more than three times. After leaving the warning, Black Kite undid BZPN’s change for a third time and repeated his warning. Going to Black Kite’s personal discussion page, BZPN elaborated further on his objections to the content, but Black Kite did not respond to his objections or explain his undoing of the removal and simply reiterated his demand he go to the discussion page and “wait” for other opinions. Such behavior is often deemed “status quo stonewalling” and is strongly discouraged on the site.
When BZPN complained about Black Kite’s behavior at a noticeboard for administrators, Black Kite noted the prior deletion discussions as an argument against BZPN editing articles on the topic, omitting his own participation in those discussions attacking BZPN. Previously, Black Kite was involved in suppressing content and editors sympathetic to the GamerGate anti-corruption movement in gaming maligned by left-wing media with false claims of being a harassment campaign. He has also attacked Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger over his criticism of the site’s left-wing bias. Admin “Valereee” meanwhile seemed somewhat sympathetic to BZPN and objected to Black Kite’s restoration of the quote.
Despite the issues with Black Kite’s behavior, transgender admin Tamzin Hadasa Kelly responded by unilaterally imposing a ban against BZPN on editing about “anti-LGBTQ sentiment” and related concepts claiming it was continuing a “history of disruptive on-wiki activism on this topic” citing the U4C case as an example. BZPN’s appeal of the ban was met with prompt rejection from transgender admin Isabelle Belato and subsequently rejected by numerous other admins without explaining why the initial edits warranted a ban. One comment specifically cited arguments from the U4C case accusing BZPN of violating the code of conduct.
At the noticeboard discussion, McNeil proposed further banning BZPN from the English Wikipedia entirely claiming all he brought was arguments “about precisely how much Wikipedia should tolerate homophobic views from editors.” In that discussion Kelly again cited the U4C case with multiple editors citing Kelly’s comment in supporting a ban. The discussion was soon closed with BZPN banned in a “boomerang” action mockingly referring to cases where someone complaining about another user’s conduct instead becomes the target of the discussion, a common occurrence in Wikipedia’s arbitrary mob-based policy enforcement process. On Simple Wikipedia, a user suggested he be banned there due to the English Wikipedia ban.
LGBT Bias
In recent years, Wikipedia has exhibited a significant bias regarding LGBT issues as this incident indicates. Aside from the previous decision to prohibit profile pages expressing opposition to same-sex marriage or merely endorsing the idea marriage is between a man and a woman, policy requiring use of preferred pronouns once temporarily got an editor banned for rejecting “tree” as a pronoun. One editor was temporarily banned after refusing to use singular “they” and instead just using a person’s username. Some in that case even argued it was a violation of the code of conduct.
Earlier this year, Wikipedia’s front page was used to promote a gay sex spot with an article heavily consisting of evocative sexual descriptions. The left-wing code of conduct’s requirements also affected Wikipedia globally. One of the early cases pursued by the enforcement committee involved the Swahili-language Wikipedia. Committee members barred admins on the site from taking action regarding LGBT content, noting laws against promoting homosexuality in many African countries, and instead deferred authority over those articles to “global admins” and “stewards” who have privileges across multiple sites owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Bias on LGBT issues reflects Wikipedia’s wider left-wing bias.
(Disclosure: The author has been involved in disputes with several of the parties mentioned in the article)
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.
The post Wikipedia Enforcement Committee: Site ‘Code of Conduct’ Should Ban Bible Verses Opposing Homosexuality appeared first on Breitbart.
