User talk:Tomruen

First of all, thank you for all the uploads of geometric figures you have contributed to Wikimedia/pedia. Really invaluable material! What do you think of replacing most polyhedral images and related images with neutral backgrounds? Do you imagine it to be a worthwhile endeavor? So as to have a more uniform display of images, etc. Radlrb33 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict. I've done it randomly, but a bit of work to do them "all". Tom Ruen (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I wanted to see if my thoughts were shared by others. I'm going to work on neutralizing backgrounds, then! ty Radlrb33 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

As far as I can tell, your GENSEX topic ban has not, since it was imposed, been modified or lifted. Am I incorrect about that? If it's still in place, why were you discussing the matter in a section above? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed to nothing. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not claiming you agreed to something; I'm asking whether you had ever appealed the topic ban and had it lifted, and if not why you were violating it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to care, I'd have to agree to something. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Tomruen. Thank you.

October 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated and willfull topic ban violations, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

Tomruen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have done nothing wrong. My contributions over 21 years have been made under my real name, with transparency and integrity. I’ve consistently engaged in good-faith editing and discussion, even on difficult topics. I believe the enforcement actions taken against me reflect ideological bias rather than genuine violations of Wikipedia’s core principles. I stand by my right to express reasoned dissent and to uphold editorial standards rooted in evidence and neutrality. I reject the judgment that has been imposed on me, and I ask for a fair and open review. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not worth posting to the AE board, as it would just waste time there. That you choose to use your real name is not relevant, that you deliberately and clearly violated the topic ban imposed on you(instead of just appealing it) is relevant. Since you seem to disagree with the topic ban and have deliberately violated it, the block is necessary to enforce the ban. It's not permanent without possibility of removal; it could possibly be lifted if you can make an AE request where you can convince others you will abide by the topic ban. You have no right to express any particular viewpoint here; as a private entity Wikipedia can prevent you from this for any reason or even no reason(see WP:FREESPEECH). That said, dissent is fine when it doesn't violate a topic ban and doesn't harm this collaborative, civil environment where we welcome all types of human beings and reflect published reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2025 (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.

Note that the appeal was already copied over to WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Tomruen. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually want to be unblocked, you are not going about it the right way. You were topic banned in 2023 for making personal attacks in the area of gender & sexuality (calling other editors "ideologues" and "cultists" while attempting to advance your cultural/political agenda on Wikipedia). Then, just days ago, you posted comments in violation of your topic ban on your talk page, and, while the matter was under discussion, you posted a statement on your userpage violating the TBAN again. You have been around here long enough to know that:

civility is a core principle for the community;
personal attacks against other editors are never acceptable;
being right isn't enough;
Wikipedia is not a place for political advocacy and righting great wrongs; and
willfully violating a topic ban and refusing to stop will get you indef'd.

As @DanielRigal said in 2023 after your TBAN: Are you really going to throw away your almost two decades old Wikipedia account by behaving like this? I hope not. That would be truly sad. You don't have to do this. Please, just drop the WP:STICK.

I recognize the value of your contributions to the project and I hope that you can one day return as a productive editor. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomruen, the appeal has been unanimously declined. See the closed thread (and within that the comments of responding admins). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad wikipedia has been captured by bullies who advance their POV as neutral, and silence people who see factual reality. What a waste. But now I have no doubts that wikipedia is the wrong model if it can't keep bullies out. What a shame. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have continued to violate your topic ban here after your unblock appeal was declined, I have removed your ability to edit this page. In addition, since talk pages are for communicating with other users, not for making personal statements and so forth, I have removed the statement and barnstars, as well as the results of the appeal, which are better viewed in the original location, as linked above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]