User talk:Ammonium

Formal warning

Hi,

This is a formal warning due to your participation in coordinated harassment of a member of staff. Misrepresenting someone's explanation and appealing to emotions instead of facts is neither helpful nor productive. Continuing to stoke the flame in a closed topic was also unnecessary.

Regards,

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Erus Iluvatar,

I would like to state that I categorically reject this warning on the bases that it is completely incorrect and accuses me of wrongful behavior that never happened.

You accuse me of "participation in coordinated harassment of a member of staff", but this is completely untrue. I will not refuse that there were definetly some "bad actors" on the thread that may have acted in such a way, but my comments were all focused directly on the topic instead of attacking the author, and attempts at seeking a respectful and civilized resolution. Whenever I questioned the author, it was in direct reply to their comments, always quoting them directly and explaining their direct relationship to the topic at hand, not bringin up any off topic arguments. You and everyone else is welcome to observe the (now deleted) topic on the archived version.

Your claim of me appealing to emotions instead of facts is also completely unfounded. As I already stated, my comments never directed attacks or harrassment against anyone. You could try and find any comment by me on the link provided of me doing otherwise, you can't. My intention from the beginning was always to find a peaceful solution to the topic. You also accuse me of "continuing to stoke the flame" by replying to a closed topic, but topics are closed when a consensus or otherwise decision/conclusion is reached. However, the topic was closed without any conclusion being taken, the author just made a single comment where he literally stated they were "not going through this whole mess", which could be taken as an act of cencorship towards the community. If there is a problem with a recent action taken by a member of the community, but said member decides to immediately close the topic discussing it without allowing anyone to express their concern, what is someone supposed to do?

Dear Erus, for these reasons I completely disagree with your decision and would like to appeal it. I firmly believe that your accusations are unsubstantiated/lack any proof of wrongdoing, and I am being unfairly "grouped up" with other potential bad actors just because I made an honest attempt at seeking a resolution for a problematic topic.

I have already submitted a ArchWiki talk:Requests#Request for arbitration regarding Xlibre page deleted for political reasons for a neutral third party to arbitrate this whole mess.

To repeat myself, this is not an attack on any party involved, but if questioning or starting up a topic to express a concern regarding a recent admin's decision gets received with immediate dismissal by closing the thread without reaching any resolution, and even worse warning users who just tried to reach a resolution by accusing them of unfounded claims, this paints a very poor picture towards the wiki's community. I have participated in other wikis, and I know they usually have a more direct procedure to appeal or request a Third Opinion/3O. Is this not an existing mechanism on the Arch Wiki? If so it is very disappointing that admins/high ranking wiki contributors can just act as they please and cause active damage to the Wiki's informational value based purely off of their personal beliefs and opinions. Ammonium (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The warning is a reminder to avoid replying in a heated discussion, especially on a user's talk page after they expressed their unwillingness to continue discussing the issue. I'm not saying that your personally organized the harassment, but simply participated in what devolved into a written lynching which warranted a formal response.

-- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)