User talk:DanielRigal

Hello, welcome to my talk page! If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. Thank you!

Archives 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011. 2012. 2013. 2014. 2015. 2016. 2017. 2018. 2019. 2020. 2021. 2022. 2023. 2024. 2025. Automated Messages.

I wasn't sure whether to upgrade my "User frustrated" template to "User contempt", "Discouraged" or "Considering retirement". "Discouraged" makes it sound like I need cheering up, which I don't, and "User contempt" makes it sound like it is a me problem and not a Wikipedia problem. And, yes, I am genuinely considering retiring from the project.

I'm still waiting to see if anything can be saved from the shameful handling of the arbitration case on Transgender healthcare and people. This much needed case has been bothsidesed and the guilty and the innocent are being punished pretty much equally. The editor who brought the case is being straight-up banned instead of thanked for her heroic efforts. Yeah, shooting the messenger along with a few of the worst troublemakers might quieten things down for a little bit, until the next batch of faux civil transphobes get their feet under the desk anyway, but the collateral damage is truly painful to behold. No good deed goes unpunished but this is taking it to a ludicrous degree.

I feel that Wikipedia has failed to defend women and LGBT editors and that it has actively participated in forcing some good editors out rather than support them. I have to ask myself whether I am OK with the fact that I'm not getting trouble on here largely because I am a cisgender man? That really eats away at me. It just doesn't feel moral for me to be participating on that basis.

What does this mean? For now, it means I can't be bothered to work on articles or drafts. I'm still going to be hammering the revert button, and dishing out warning templates, whenever I spot vandals, bigots and trolls, so please don't be thinking that you've "won" anything there! But if Wikipedia can't expend a little effort to support some of its best editors then why should I be expending more than very minimal effort for Wikipedia? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional note:

• Please do not post replies seeking to defend the indefensible. I don't want to hear it. I'm done with this. This applies to replies that might be made in good faith. Rather than try to convince me that what is going on is morally acceptable maybe take some time to ask yourself how on earth you convinced yourself that this was morally acceptable or compatible with Wikipedia's mission. There are dark times ahead. If you can't be a source of light then at least ask yourself whether you want to be remembered as a beacon of darkness.
• Please do not post replies trolling. That's not impressive. Furthermore, it would only serve to prove my point about what has gone wrong with Wikipedia. Bullies are being protected, and allowed to rule the roost, at least up to the point where they become so blatantly disruptive that they embarrass the project, while the innocent are punished for pointing that out or for failing to handle harassment with perfect grace. The least trolls can expect is to be kicked off this page. (Yes, I do have the right to do that. Yes, I can do that myself. Yes, arbitrarily. No, that is not hypocrisy. I'm only kicking trolls off this specific page because I don't want bullshit on this page which has my name at the top. It's not impeding their ability to be obnoxious in general, which is still subject to the usual rules, insofar as they are still enforced.) --DanielRigal (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi DanielRigal. I moved a page and it was quickly reverted. Can you give me a rough idea how many editors will be threatening me about this? You are the second. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not characterise valid warnings as "threatening". You got off lightly here. If you keep digging then that will only make it worse. Please just drop the matter, don't do it again, and everything will soon be forgotten. DanielRigal (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

was having a terrible day, this diff is fantastic. you're doing great! <3 pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 03:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about your misconduct on the Administrators' noticeboard. ~2025-36066-88 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I did try to warn you that doing that would not be a good idea. Let's see how it pans out for you... DanielRigal (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

DanielRigal, the reported information by yourself is simply untrue and anyone can see the edits and I’m glad as they can make their own unbiased opinion. I have not presented any negative opinion here, I am in support of Polanski but have not made my edit positive either. Anyone can see the last edit I made was just a heading, which separates a summary of part of his career in “early life” as it is not part of his early life, but part of his career and I think this is very important to note. You are reverting to a less evolved article. I’m not sure what you have against my editing, suggesting you don’t like it because you saw it initially as I was negative, but when I worded it exactly how you approve of it, you still come up with another excuse to undo again and again and then have the nerve to report it here. Please take another look now you are more informed. PolitickingAnalysis (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not waste my time with such obvious nonsense. The content you added was very clearly intended to be viewed negatively and to draw excessive attention to a matter which Polanski's enemies perceive as a scandal. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Is that why you are doing this? Because you are so pro-Polanski you are trying to protect him?

Your opinion on here is genuinely ridiculous and I’m glad this is public.

Please explain yourself further. PolitickingAnalysis (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

OK. It's back to the noticeboard then... (sigh...) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I am simply speaking with you here to try to understand further (sigh…) PolitickingAnalysis (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am unconvinced by that. Please stay off my User Talk page for the duration of the ANI thread and post anything you want to say there instead. That way everybody can see it and the administrators can decide what to do. --DanielRigal (talk)