I am not an admin, I'm just an ordinary guy trying to help improve breadth and accuracy of the information on Wkipedia. Please feel free to leave comments if you want about the edits I've made.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Declaration of war) for edit warring at Declaration of war, per the reasoning explained at the AE case.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

formal warning to be more mindful of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly Palestine-Israel articles pursuant to the edits you made related to the conflict at Declaration of war.

You have been sanctioned as part of the January 2025 AE case concerning your edits.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that I've been sanctioned under an arbitration procedure I wasn't aware of for breaching a contentious topics procedure I wasn't aware of for edits on article I didn't know was subject to the regulations I wasn't aware of. My response was to an editor apparently (as it appeared to me) arbitrarily reversing my edits, in way that served to enshrine a political assertion on a page that should not be subject to political bias. I get too that I'm not part of your private elite of people who are more concerned about wiki regulations that the integrity, validity and truth of the information on the page. The page in question continues to present the politically biased assertion.

So on that basis I get that I am sanctioned and now feel less inclined to contribute to wikipedia.

Thank you

Marlarkey (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marlarkey: I know you were not aware of breaking the CTOPIC rules. However, every attempt was made to tell you that there were rules in place and you seemed to ignore them. on November 21, 2024, you received a notification that rules were in place. These were archived fairly quickly by your talk page archiving bot, which at the time was set to archive every message within 24 hours. The recommended archival period is at least 5 to 7 days, unless you are really active on Wikipedia. The general assumption is that a fast archival period means you are actively checking it. I do see that you have set your archival period now to 90 hours, which should help prevent similar situations.

However, the other attempts continued to communicate that there were rules in place. When you reverted this edit, the edit summary on the edit reverted was, "Restoring stable version Per WP:ARBPIA". It is presumed that you read the reasoning the edit was done in the first place, which linked to the CTOPIC rules (the "WP:ARBPIA" link). Based on what you said here, you reverted the edit without even reading or seeing the reasoning that it was reverted in the first place. This was also repeated the second reverts you made, where "WP:ARBPIA" was linked yet again as the reasoning it was removed.

No one was out to get you at all. To everyone, it seemed you were just ignoring the rules, given the three attempts to alert you to them. The article is not for the "private elite" editors as you claim, but rather for everyone. You basically just kept ignoring any communication attempts that you were not eligible to edit the page yet. During the big edit war on January 13, you were at roughly 490 edits. At 500 edits, you were (and now are) eligible to edit in the realm of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Every single time, we have attempted to explain that to you and every single time, you have either (1) ignored the guidelines and/or (2) called those trying to enforce the guidelines "elites". You were 10 edits away from being eligible to make the change you wanted. Ten edits, and every attempt to tell you that was ignored. That is why the block was put in place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you are more concerned to beat people up about the rules and allow politically biased invalid information to remain on the page, than about the integrity, validity, truth of the content of wikipedia.

My discussion with you is at an end. You've won. I assume that you are pleased with yourself

Marlarkey (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no winning or losing on Wikipedia. Please stop making this harder. I have already opened a formal discussion to see if the war should be removed from the declaration of war article. You received a notification about it below and you are welcome to comment in it. No one is against you. You see to be taking everything as a personal attack, which it isn’t. There are rules.

If you break the speed limit, you will get pulled over by the police. You can tell the police the best reasoning why you broke the law, but they can still give you a ticket. Even if you were absolutely morally right to break the law, you still broke the law in that example.

The example above is exactly what the problem here is. You broke a rule. Whether you are right or wrong is not the reasoning you got blocked from editing the article. The page block itself is equivalent to the speeding ticket in the example above.

Either way, I highly recommend you participate in the discussion you were invited to below. The community will not determined based on a consensus if the war should be removed or included in the list. It is not up to one editor. Who knows, at the end of the discussion, the war may indeed be removed and your edits were right. We have to wait and see. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new, ongoing discussion to determine whether the Israel–Hamas war & the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (2024–present) should be included or excluded on the list of declarations of war. You have shown interest in this topic in the past and my wish to participate. If you wish to add your opinion, feel free to do so Here! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two entries in question do not include the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that you mentioned. The entry in question is Israel-Hezbollah, which is not the same thing. But I've made my point. That's me done. Marlarkey (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So on the article, it lists the "Israel–Hezbollah war", which actually redirects to the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon article. That is why the invasion article was listed, since there actually no "Israel–Hezbollah war" article. Anyway, I do appreciate your reply! The exact discussion that I started is called a Request for Comments or often shorted to "RFC". An RFC is a 30-day-long discussion. At the end, an uninvolved editor (someone who did not participate in the discussion at all) will evaluate the discussion and see what the overall consensus between all the editors is. Based on that "consensus", the article will change appropriately. Hopefully that explains the discussion process. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to extent an olive branch and apologize if you feel that I "attacked" you in anyway. You stated this discussion has discouraged you from editing. I truly apologize that this situation occurred to you. You have great potential on Wikipedia! You may never want to talk to me every again, which would be very understandable. But, I am here to help you in anyway possible. If you truly have any (and I really do mean any) questions at all about something on Wikipedia or even if you want some help with editing, you are always free to message me.

Being blocked is extremely discouraging. Trust me, I've been blocked before. In fact, back in 2020 and 2021, I was actually entirely blocked from all articles that regarded U.S. politics for an entire year! It was extremely disheartening to be blocked, so I know exactly how you feel. Think of it this way, you learned how contentious topics work! You have millions (literally) of articles to edit and so many others that can be created.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to message and I will do my absolute best to assist you! Keep up the amazing work on Wikipedia! ("But you gotta keep your head up, oh oh" The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]