User talk:Frobozz1

Welcome!

Hi Frobozz1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 A

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Impeachment. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I have reverted your recent edits, for the reasons already given by User:GreenFrogsGoRibbit. When somebody challenges you, as they did here, please don't just revert them. Take your suggestions to the talk page, and see if you can get the agreement of others. Please read WP:BRD. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Please see WP:NOTVAND, and resume normal discussion without edit warring your specific preferred version back in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Impeachment, you may be blocked from editing. Please read the above comments, and take note. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Impeachment in the United States. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Second impeachment of Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. No, this edit is not acceptable. You are making the Washington Post article say something it doesn't say, and you are removing valid and sourced content. The edit warring and other disruption might be bearable, but an outright distortion of the sources, that goes too far. I will not hesitate to block you if you do this again, and/or apply a topic ban, per the discretionary sanctions approved by ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Action to request that you be blocked

I have sought advice from User:Novem Linguae to ask what next steps should be taken, given that you are clearly in breach of the discretionary sanctions mentioned above, and that you are ignoring all calls to obtain consensus for your edits. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Important note

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No original research, including the WP:SYNTH aspect. Neutrality^talk 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Frobozz1! Your additions to Appointments Clause have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 B

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very clear about being sensitive to Biographies of Living Persons. The policy is as follows:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about ‘’’the use of high-quality sources.‘’’ All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. ‘’’Contentious material about living persons’’’ (or, in some cases, recently deceased) ‘’’that is’’’ unsourced or ‘’’poorly sourced‘’—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—‘’’should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.‘’’[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist,

or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives

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).

Frobozz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I followed BLP policy precisely. The burden of evidence rests with ‘’’the person who adds or restores the material’’’. I removed non-compliant material. Pressing “undo” violates BLP principles; the content I removed/replaced belonged in the Talk page ‘’’before being restored‘’’. If you feel my additions were contentious, then replace them or remove them. I opened up a Talk thread for that. REVERTING my edits to place that material back in print was in all cases a violation of the burden of evidence in a BLP page. Facts below. This article flatly ignores the Presumption of Innocence Frobozz1 (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned(blocks and bans are different). Without getting into the merits of what you are saying, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if those sources are not being summarized correctly, and others have reverted your edits, you should discuss it on the article talk page instead of disrupting the article with threatening edit summaries. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

1. ‘’’LOW QUALITY SOURCES:’’’ I CORRECTED the titillating and sensationalist claims of the article, BOLDY, WTHOUT DISCUSSION, because they were plainly WRONG. Blatantly OLD. Purposefully BIASED and CONTEXTOMIZED. Wholly DISRESPECTFUL in tone, and completely disregarded the ‘’’presumption of innocence’’’ policy of Wikipedia articles.
2. ‘’’POLICY:’’’

   A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
   If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance. (See Mandy Rice Davies applies).

The word “Alleged” does not appear one time in that article, and the couter reports do not either; nor do the victim’s own statements to the matter. A Very loud and obvious BLP violation which I strove to correct By deleting the offending content, wholly ignoring if it may be in the cite. It was wrongly editorialized, and was corrected and balanced with well-cited counterpoints per policy.

1. I inserted balanced citations from the original editors own references: to wit, My edit;

   On the day that Congress was counting the electoral votes, Trump’s speech included no overt calls for his supporters to actually enter the Capitol or resort to violent means.

   is an EXACT copy and past from Aaron Blake’s Washington Post article (the one the OP cited but context omitted).
2. “Trump supporters illegally crossed”... there has been new news, police investigations. Oath Keepers plots to infiltrate. The news is outdated, it is creating a narrative, it needs the couterpoint to become encyclopedic. “According to who?” Is perfectly relevant, because that was according only to the breaking news from Jan 6.
3. It is a hard and undisputed fact that the non-profit March to Save America organized the protest, NOT Donald Trump. Wikipedia readers DESERVE to hear undisputed facts, and they deserve to have BLP articles policed for one-sided partisan rants. I did that hard work, and I followed the Wikipedia policy exactly.
4. This mind-reading has NO PLACE on Wikipedia, let alone in a BLP article: ‘’“ During the riots, Trump was "initially pleased" by the attack on the Capitol and took no action.[21] In a speech hours into the event, Trump told the rioters "We love you. You're very special," restated his false claims of electoral fraud, and then asked them to go home.”’’ The tag “according to whom” would apply if it were not a BLP. DELETE applies in this case. The article does NOT say Trump was “initially pleased.” It says ‘’’“officials said...”’’’ The “attribution” tag applies normally, but DELETE applies in a BLP. Who are the “officials?” Why don’t you want more current information than breaking news evolving that day?
5. If it is your place to be an op/ed tabloid, then keep the ban. Please, I have no want for Yet Another National Enquirer. Your decision to protect plainly partisan edits which clearly violate the Wikipedia standards, at the expense of diligent neutral parties, is noted.

Frobozz1 (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Jon Kolbert, AmandaNP, I'm about to dig a bit deeper, but first results of my search suggest either one of you might have some information to offer here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Absolutely no information. That's a very generic block meant to handle generic vandalism from a certain ISP. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you User:AmandaNP. Frobozz, I don't think you realize that you are blocked, and what you are blocked for. If you continue in this vein I think a topic ban might be in order. I'll repeat that you made the article say "Trump’s speech included no overt calls for his supporters to actually enter the Capitol or resort to violent means", which is indeed a direct quote from the article--but the ONLY exculpating passage from a long article of quite damning material. It is as UNDUE as one can get on Wikipedia. Moreover, referring to the text that you found as a "partisan rant", when it contained verified and neutral statements like "Trump as well as other speakers repeated the false claims that the election was stolen" suggests that your issue is with the reliable source that published the article (that is, the Washington Post), not with anything done by any Wikipedia editor. In other words, you kept the source, but cherry-picked one quote out of it to make it say that which, I gather, you believe in. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Of the editor's comments, only #4 seems like a reasonable point worth even debating (though not a BLP violation). Apart from the plagiarism, #1 and #3 are emphasizing a minor detail (and the editor keeps removing the well-sourced statement that Trump repeatedly encouraged people to attend), and #2 seems to be just promoting some conspiracy theory. If they are intent on partisan warfare, they should probably just go to reddit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Officer under the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Officer under the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Officer under the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Office under the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Office under the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Office under the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of First woman on the Moon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First woman on the Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First woman on the Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Directive 1.png

Thank you for uploading File:Directive 1.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 00:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Directive 1.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Directive 1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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).

Frobozz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am accused of no words resembling a personal attack, if I offended anyone let me know the language I used. I removed vandalism, the user ignored FAILED VERIFICATION content which I placed under discussion and properly tagged. It was removed by myself and another user, RandomCanadian ignored discussion and the personal talk notice and began an edit war. I corrected the improperly sourced content and politely requested the user to engage in discussion. I acknowledge a layman's interpretation of the source can imply some eligibility restrain on a President but his sources do not ever state as such, the conclusion is OR. His sources again fail: the "secondary source" for Article 1 is actually a Reuters news article about the 14th Amendment - neither authoritative nor topical. Before assuming your source is valid, it needs to be discussed and at least attempted to reach consensus, which is why I put the effort to tag the content. Brute force ignoring content removed for discussion should not be endorsed by admins. Frobozz1 (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block appears to have expired. SQL^{Query me!} 04:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

March 2021 A

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You were edit warring and asked for a ban of your opponent, whom you accused of vandalism: request denied. Now, you've been blocked for edit warring and for personal attacks, and this last block might as well have been for edit warring as well. I will promise you that further infractions of this kind in this topic area will lead to an infinite ban for edits in AP territory (see above, the notice for your edits in "post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people"), unless there's more personal harassment, in which case it will be just an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• These are not my standards: falsely accusing another user of vandalism, when you have been here long enough that you should know what WP:VANDAL says, is a personal attack. (In response to your email.) Drmies (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Frobozz1, you sent me two emails. Did they come before or after the unblock request you placed here? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Drmies the email was sent Feb 28, the unblock was sent March 1. I argue that the policy in Wikipedia:No personal attacks nowhere mentions the word "Vandal" nor "Vandalism" in its extensive list of What is considered to be a personal attack?, as I indicated both in my email and the unblock request. It could not be known to any new editor that those words constituted a personal attack. Likewise, neither does the WP:VANDAL section do anything more than suggest avoiding the word, certainly it never makes a case that the word itself is a personal attack worthy of blocking.

  I further point out that the No Personal Attacks policy has a very plain handling of first offensives and a section dedicated to the proper guidelines for first offences. Using the word "Vandalism" won't be used again, I assure you, however nothing could have allowed an editor to understand that doing this as a first offense will result in a block.

  I now see I made the mistake of interpreting what RandomCanadian was doing as "Revert vandalism" - as the content had already failed verification, had been submitted to discussion, had been plainly tagged for discussion with very specific request to discuss before reverting, and was also removed separately as WP:COATRACK. My research concluded that a good faith correction by Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. I accept now that RandomCanadian has firm beliefs that his primary sources conflating "office" with "Presidency" justify the inclusion of the content and were likely made in Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and possibly he thought they were secondary sources; the choice to bypass the the WP:BRD cycle of an article which was plainly tagged "for discussion", and his choice to remove the Under Discussion tags then allege in comments he is beginning a new "BRD" cycle, sent a message that consensus was not a priority. It is difficult as well to interpret the actions of the Admins here as supporting the consensus policy of Wikipedia, when good faith edits do diligent work to vet citations, tag citations which fail verification, create Talkpage discussion threads, and inline-tag the article opening the content to discussion, advise visitors to engage the WP:BRD cycle, and enforce the WP vandalism policy; then get blocked for "edit warring"

  RandomCanadian has since made mostly corrective edits, and deserves credit. The following content deserves to remain public for posterity in this seemingly confusing topic.

In either case, there is still no valid citation for the content to be included, and I am now forced to again point out that the arbitrary citations being thrown into this article need discussion before inclusion, to wit:

1. Article one "ineligibility" cite [2] is a WP:PRIMARY source OP/ED in The Atlantic, without crediting the author or including the author's counterpoint.
2. Article one is further cited a Reuters news article as [1] which very plainly spells out the reason it is a WP:PRIMARY source:

Including content which conflates the word "public office" which is in all cases a tenured position with the President's elected seat is in all cases WP:OR and should be boldly deleted as ridiculous and sent to discussion. At absolute best the inclusion of "public office" or "federal office" into any articles about the elected Presidency deserves the Template:disputed tag.

Since you emailed me about this (no comment on whether that was ok or not); I'll answer here. FWIW, the version I reverted to was this; which has no disputed tags in the section (and the others I removed afterwards since if they were there, they were wrong - also the discussion on the talk page seems to be about "which includes that of president." - even though as I said the distinction is made in some sources [the senate.gov page, which explicitly mentions the president, VP and all other offices), I did not re-instate that wording, or if I did I modified it afterwards). My bigger objection was to you removing the whole of the section (including the non-controversial basic constitutional requirements); and seemingly not understanding what WP:PRIMARY means: we most definitively CAN use primary sources, where appropriate. Citing a text of law directly seems one such case. Re. "the Framers' intent was to never subvert the will of the People," - that is clearly at a very direct contradiction with the Electoral College, because they "didn't trust direct democracy" (source - searching for "electoral college ruling elite" will also yield a litany of op-eds in the same direction).

Reuters is citing a law professor (subject matter expert, no?). I don't think attribution of this is required, and in anyway a ssource (Reuters) which clearly is analysing the issue and providing critical commentary is not a primary source (the primary source would be the opinion of the law professor on, say, his twitter account; or the text of the constituion).

The Atlantic, even if we classify it as an op-ed, is also from a subject matter expert, and I don't think anybody can seriously dispute that "In addition to the list of people who are ineligible for reasons of mere demographic chance, the Constitution adds a category of people who cannot be elected as a result of their misdeeds. This category includes presidents (along with vice presidents and federal “civil officers”) who are impeached, convicted by two-thirds of the Senate, and disqualified for serious misconduct committed while they were in office." The story is also credited to the National Constitution Center ("This story is part of the project “The Battle for the Constitution,” in partnership with the National Constitution Center."); which certainly gives enough of a reputable status to this information. In-text attribution should be used when we are citing a contested statement, or something that is very clearly a personal opinion. I don't think there is any controversy about the matter as written, i.e. that these are plausible scenarios for why somebody seemingly eligible could still not be eligible for the presidency, although there is some amount of legalese-ish debate as to the exact details (I don't get the distinction between "president" and "presidential seat" (this second term I could not find in a full text search of the US constitution, anyway) - you cannot be one without occupying the other). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also that is all completely without bearing in mind the fact the article is mostly about such legislation in the context the Obama birther conspiracy (I see the Republican party has not changed that radically in the past decade), which as we know is only about the article II requirement that the president "be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States". The section could still probably go somewhere else if it is out of scope for this article. Or the whole article could potentially be shortened and merged (with potential renaming of the target article) with Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation (both are mentioned at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Legislation and litigation, and frankly the only thing this has to offer is mostly one-line statements about bills that never became law) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reason this article has (and most likely always will have) only failed legislation is because the Supreme Court has in every cases come down on the side that legislation can neither add to nor abridge what the Constitution actually says in regard to elected seats. 23 states attempted various legal methods to limit terms on Congress in 1998 and in all cases the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional. As to legislation to prevent any citizen from becoming the President or Vice President, it remains untried law and is limited to the realm of academic debates.

• The Electoral College has been given absolute power over deciding the President and "choosing as they desire" without any influence. This is the current formal holding of the 10 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Co.;

  The appeals court ruled that the Constitution provides “presidential electors the right to cast a vote for president and vice president with discretion. And the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right.”

This has long been the understanding and until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, it is the current law.

To your argument that the Framers did not trust a direct democracy with the executive, you are technically correct; but it does not follow that they DID trust the Legislature with power over that position as they clearly empowered the Electoral College to choose it; and clearly gave the States absolute power over the choice of electors.

There simply is no nexus within the Constitution between what the Legislature has control over and how the President is elected, and certainly the citations offered do not disagree with this at all.

What the Congress does have power over however, is that if they choose to disqualify a President from future "office", they may attempt to unseat that properly elected President through impeachment as soon as they take the oath; which implies enforcing the disqualification of a President requires a simple majority vote in the House followed by a supermajority vote in the Senate, enacted on the sitting President. --Frobozz1 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Re. "there is no ... and how the President is elected": Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional (i.e. yes, states can make laws restricting what electors do, including I would assume preventing them from voting for ineligible candidates). Now I might not be a legal expert but I know that the Supreme Court usually has the final say, and the SCOTUS decision is from July last year, so since you seem to be so well versed in the matter I wonder why you missed it. Anyway, this is not the point of the dispute. The point was that you removed the content about valid eligibility concerns. None of the sources I found seem to have any doubt that these processes could be used to make a candidate ineligible; the debate is whether they are enforceable or not because of uncertainty whether the language of disqualification includes the office of President. You case use {{ping|RandomCanadian}} when you leave a message if you want me to see it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest the greater point is to weather an academic debate deserves to be presented within an article about legislation, when no relevant legislation exists to support either side of the "debate." What does mention of Article 1 or 14th Amendment contribute to this article topic beyond feeding a fleeting media buzz?

Likewise, I concurred with Weazie's WP:COATRACK assessment and chose to instate his removal; I did not remove the section of my own opinion - I was concurring.@RandomCanadian: --Frobozz1 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that content was in the article since it's creation; and the consensus on the talk page (even if I ignore myself saying earlier that 3 editors without back and forth is not consensus) was not about the removal of the whole section or even the whole disqualifications (hence there was no consensus to remove it) but but only about the "which includes that of president." fragment; which as per my research was a correct removal since there is debate about it. As to whether academic debate deserves to be presented, it's clear that it should probably be presented somewhere, although arguably since the locus of the dispute is an article mostly about stuff related to the birther conspiracy we could find a better target. Do you have such suggestions? FWIW, President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility seems to be an exact copy of what is in the disputed article (before my modifications - I've now copied the new information there too). I'll leave a note to the editors on the talk page there. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Article 1 and 12th Amendment edits were noted as a direct copy-and-paste by user Drdpw at 19:09 on February 7, 2019. Its fair to undo that addition entirely. However, the discussion here should properly be had on the article talk page for the benefit of other editors who may make the same mistake. I have been unsuccessful trying to WP:FIXIT in that article.

The debate likely belongs in the Officer of the United States article as it questions those definitions rather than any legislation. In the POTUS article it should be separate from the factual eligibility criteria and put into a “legally ambiguous” section (if such a thing is proper). The debate itself is surely notable and has been asked since Blount in 1789.

In the POTUS article, Impeachment as an “eligibility requirement” was added on January 20, 2008 by 209.247.23.143 without citation. I found it 13 years later with only a primary source citation of the Constitution itself; there is likely no secondary source for this given the time it’s had to find one.

The “Twelfth Amendment” eligibility has come in by citing Wikipedia’s 12th amendment article some time in 2009, with no independent citation. It strangely started as “Scholars disagree is a person disqualified from being President under the Twelfth Amendment is also disqualified from being Vice President” (no citation), and that eventually morphed into the list we have today, with dubious citations at best.

Likely unless a consensus discussion gets posted on one of those articles including eligibility the problem will come back. Frobozz1 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If it had been added on February 7 2021 then yeah, fair to remove it. But it was there for over two years so I think that stands as the "stable version". As for "there are likely no secondary sources" and "based only on a primary source", we appear to disagree on what constitutes such as source; see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY so we might start from the same basis - in any case the information does belong somewhere;. 12th amendment - wrong number? - the 12th is about the process of choosing the president... As to the "officer" vs "office" distinction, we might all have been wasting our time, as Article II says clearly that the president holds an office: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows". The distinction seems to be purely legalese to me, though, FWIW. Anyway, since there are secondary sources, such as the ones I added, which explicitly refer to this, the debate is probably moot. Besides choosing a proper target (there doesn't appear to be any objections on the POTUS page so far, though), we should rather focus on representing the debate in a fair and neutral manner. My proposals on the potential merge still haven't been answered. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I did research the wrong amendment in POTUS at first. “Stable version” vs. “12 years no citation”? Which one wins? Recommend pushing editors to the talk page with a {discuss inline} to try for consensus.

RE: The Fourteenth Amendment blurb was dropped in by --Foofighter20x (talk) with no citation 12 years ago, it still has no verifiable cite. The Heritage Foundation article now cited has zero reference to the President at all let alone his eligibility; it very specifically talks about "government officers" (which are very clearly defined in Officers of the United States) and Congress. The poor little 14th Amendment blurb has worked long and hard to earn its WP:BURDEN badge but the hill was too steep. It can enjoy a nice retirement by now. Frobozz1 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply the president isn't a civil officer? That's a new one... --- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No in the United States the idea that he is an officer is new and trendy. It's been well understood since the Constitution put "President" and "Civil officers" in two different boxes (The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment). In this country we elect the President. So,... how exactly could he also be an "officer" in legal context? If you don't understand the oxymoron, you might check legal definitions. Kings and princes were officers because we don't get any say in their job. Police "officers" obviously are not asking our approval to throw handcuffs on us. Because they are officers, and that word means they don't need our permission or consent to take our rights. Judges are officers, same reason. Presidents are hired by us, and fired by us. They obviously can't be "officers" ruling over the people who hire them? If you can hire and fire someone at your pleasure every 4 years, pretty obvious they need our consent to keep the job - they're not "sovereign" over you? Well, I suppose you could tell the courts to use the dictionary and try to prove them wrong. For now, we have a 270-year long understanding of what an "officer" is and now magically people are lumping elected officials into that box somehow. OK. But you won't believe some random internet post, and I don't want anyone to. This encyclopedia is for that. Publishing WP:MAINSTREAM concepts, and avoiding Mainstream Media concepts. Cheers.@Foofighter20x:

--Frobozz1 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Also the Subject Matter Expert in Reuters does not take a side. Read Brian Kalt’s quotes, he simply says some law experts say the clause applies and other say it doesn’t, looking at historical documents. That fully sums up the Reuters article. Is this really supporting what is being said in the articles? Frobozz1 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Just some clarification, Presidents aren't "fired", by the electorate, their term simply ends. If it's their first term, they can run again, but losing the election isn't the same as being "fired" (or terminated for cause). Also, you use judges as an example of officers, but in many jurisdictions, judges are elected for set terms, same as the Presidents. And finally, I don't see the quote; "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment" as supporting the notion that Presidents are not civil officers. If anything, it confirms that they are. (jmho)

Lastly, I had actually come here to remind you to indent and sign your posts. Thanks - wolf 20:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild If they made Art. 2 only say "All civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment" we would be in a monarchy. You would try to impeach the president after he rigged his own election, then he would ask the Court, "Can they impeach me?" The judge would refer to Vol. 15 Annals of Congress at 888–89, and read, "There is a Constitutional definition of the word officer in the third section of the second article of the Constitution, which provides that the President ‘shall commission all the officers of the United States.’ Here then is a Constitutional definition of what is meant by a person holding an office, viz., a person commissioned by the President." The judge would then point to Article 2, §3 and confirm this: "[The President] shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." He would then ask you, "Does this man have a commission from the President of the United States?" And you would say, "No, he didn't give himself a commission." "OK then," he would say. Then the judge would point to United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303 (1888) and read, "What is necessary to constitute a person an officer of the United States, in any of the various branches of its service, has been very fully considered by this court in United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508. In that case, it was distinctly pointed out that, under the Constitution of the United States, all its officers were appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, or by a court of law, or the head of a Department; and the heads of the Departments were defined in that opinion to be what are now called the members of the Cabinet. Unless a person in the service of the Government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of Departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States. The judge will ask you if he was appointed to his position. And you will say, "No, he was elected to the Presidency." The judge will then say, "Well, then that clears things up." He will open 561 U.S. 477 (2010) and read, "The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2.". He would then open Buckley v. Valeo, then United States v. Germaine (1878), and then the judge would cite the 1798 impeachment of Senator William Blount, who also was not an officer, and found they had no jurisdiction. And the judge would tell you, "I'm sorry, but you can not impeach this man. It would seem that if they had wanted to impeach the President, they would have said as much in the Constitution, by adding his title along with the officers he commissions in the impeachment clause. But they did not." And you would then say, "But the Oath! He said and Oath of Office!" And the judge would say, "Well, that is true. In fact, there are many different kinds of offices. But in my court, we are in the United States. And if I were to have some officer from Mexico try to arrest someone here, he would have no power to do so. Because this is not Mexico, even though he is an officer. No, the officers we hold to this Constitution are officers of the United States, and those officers, with that classification, are well known. The Constitution does not ever make the President an officer of the United States, because as you can see, the President did not commission the President. So whatever "office" you may put him into, it is not an office of the United States, and so he is not an officer of it. You see we can not impeach every officer of the United States, the military officers can not be impeached, clearly. So this is why they only wrote the civil officers in the clause. But they did not include the President in this clause, whether by reason or oversight."

And at that point we would have a despotism, and we would likely have a civil war, just so we could be able to amend the Constitution so it will let us impeach the President.@Thewolfchild:

--Frobozz1 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know what you're going for here. No admin is going to want to read this, and no one is going to go "yeah, he's right". You keep arguing content, which is a roundabout way of saying it was not your fault. And I may add that "RandomCanadian has since made mostly corrective edits, and deserves credit" is more than a bit patronizing: they were not at fault. Now that bit about the definition of vandalism, that had some content to it, and that's why I asked what I asked--because this long talk page comment really undermines all the good things you were saying you realized. Next time, even though it's hard, just don't try to deflect. It just doesn't work. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Court judgements and law texts are WP:PRIMARY and it is inappropriate to use them for anything else but to cite them directly or for uncontroversial facts. So 561 US 477; Buckley v Valeo; et al. are of no importance to us. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

And please learn the art of conciseness (and don't use colours needlessly), your reasonings are even harder to follow when they're so long... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You are saying that citing the US Constitution is different from citing law? What about citing Senators who are Constitutional experts, as I did?@RandomCanadian: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Your emails A

Hello Frobozz1,

I received your emails but I am not quite sure why you selected me to get involved. Unless a situation requires confidentiality, I prefer to discuss things in the open. One point that I will make is that vandalism has a narrow and precise meaning on Wikipedia, so false accusations of vandalism can be considered as disruptive editing, personal attacks or harassment, given the circumstances. So, please be cautious about using that word. Also be careful about the word libel, which certainly does not apply as you seem to think that it does. I have no interest in getting involved with the various content disputes. Good luck with your unblock request. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no request for content disputes. This requires confidentiality RE: proper application of the site policies. The Dispute Resolution recommends this course: "In some cases it may be possible to seek advice from an uninvolved trusted administrator by IRC, email or other private means." @Cullen328: --Frobozz1 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not object to you sending the emails but I see nothing in those emails that requires confidentiality. They are matters that should be discussed in the open, in my opinion, as they are being discussed right here on your user talk page right now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The advise suggested harassmment may be sensitive, I respect your judgement. The facts/content aside, the very simple matter is the inconsistant application and policy RE: blocking and what defines a "personal attack." It has been used on my twise without consequence. I used it less aggressively without targeting an individual one time and was blocked. I simplyt seek impartial analysis - was my first offense so egregious to merit a block, and was the perpetrator's same personal attack not warranting any action at all? Thank you, --Frobozz1 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You are not being harassed. You are getting feedback from experienced administrators that your editing has been problematic. Please take to heart the good advice you were offered below and in other places. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your emails B

Hi Frobozz. I also received an email from you. Here are my thoughts:

• I would recommend against sending emails and WP:ADMINSHOPPING. This could lead to your email sending getting revoked. I've seen it happen before.
• Your block is only 48 hours. Think carefully about how hard you want to fight such a short block.
• As a newer user, I think it would be wise to follow the lead of more experienced users. There are some things around here that take many thousands of edits to get a good feel for.
• Your edits are concerning. You seem to be biased too far in a pro-Trump direction. You also seem to have an issue where you pick sources to promote an unorthodox viewpoint, and then add those to articles. One could argue this violates various guidelines and essays: WP:NPOV, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH.
• I do think that you are being disruptive. You are slowly re-writing articles to go in weird directions.

My advice would be to be more receptive to feedback from other editors. If people are objecting to your edits, consider being a team player and letting the issue go. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that feedback, I'm fine handling content dispute resolutions. There is a noticeboard if I need one. I'm sorry if you thought I was asking for an unblock, I did not ask for that either. WP:ADMINSHOPPING I believe is a concept regarding consensus issues? I apologize if it sounded like I needed help in that area, I certainly don't need an admin for consensus.

This is a Dispute resolution#Sensitive issues and functionary actions​ request which has a policy regarding my situation, and I tried to follow those directions as closely as possible. I tried to plainly spell out the issue in the email introduction as well as the conclusion, and added the timeline content for information only. I hope this answers any questions and explains why I chose to email, and I thank either of you for any assistance. @Novem Linguae:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, I saw you cleaning up the references at Plymouth Colony. Thanks for doing that. When I wrote the bulk of that article, the referencing templates and the like were not so robust. Thanks for updating them. It's a lot of thankless work, but it does make for a cleaner-looking article. I appreciate you doing so! --Jayron32 19:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 B

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Parental Alienation, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Frobozz1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Parental Alienation, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. From your comment "I have spoken to, and supported, and comforted far too many victims - both target parent and alienated child - to entertain the WP:FRINGE "climate-change deniers" of this trauma" with an integrated link to a website that provides services to 'rejected parents' in parental alienation cases [1], it seems that you have a financial and other conflict of interests related to this article.[2] Please follow the recommendations described in the various guidelines and policies noted above. Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you but victims of crime "x" are called Subject-matter experts (SMEs). They are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise as they know where to get credible resources concerning crime "x". They are not in conflict with editing articles about crime "x". I have no training in the legal or psychological fields for the article in question, and I have never done more than support grieving victims of PA, as already mentioned.--Frobozz1 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a business "supporting grieving victims of PA". That is a clear conflict of interest on the article, most especially as you are editing non-neutrally. I suggest you stop editing the article immediately, and confine yourself to making suggestions on the talkpage. Slp1 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What business would that be? I am in the Coast Guard. Am I not allowed to edit pages about drug interdictions? This is silly, end this WP:HA now. There will be no further acknowledgment of your intimidation tactics. --Frobozz1 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

On the talk page you embedded a link to a commercial service within a passage that suggests that it is your service. You responded to that discussion after you were asked to clarify your apparent conflict of interest, but provided no clarification. Arllaw (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The statement is self-clarifying, he is a victim and it suggest exactly that.--Frobozz1 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The commercial page to which you linked doesn't say "I am a victim". It is a commercial service, and not one that somebody is likely to find by accident. Whatever your motivation, when you chose to ignore requests that you clarify your relationship with that service, you left open the question of whether it was your service. Arllaw (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Ryan Thomas survived PA, disowned his father for 18 years until he learned he had been brainwashed and reconnected. He turned it into a business helping other victims. It's on the about page. I and millions of people have seen his Youtube videos. The ones who survive often engage in activism.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 C

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Parental Alienation. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Frobozz1/PA-design

User:Frobozz1/PA-design, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Frobozz1/PA-design and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Frobozz1/PA-design during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi please follow WP:Copying within Wikipedia when copying content within Wikipedia in the future. This includes when copying content to your sandbox. You should do so even if you plan to request deletion of your sandbox after you're done since a temporary copyright violation is still a copyright violation. Our editors are entitled to have their copyright respected, just like everyone else, and the terms of either licence requires attribution in some form. Note also that simply removing the content from your sandbox doesn't actually negate the copyright violation since it's still there in the edit history. If you've neglected to properly attribute when copying, the page outlines how you may do so afterwards. Also the administrative noticeboards are intended for stuff which requires administrative attention. If you're confused how to use Wikipedia, for example, you're confused whether you can copy content or under what conditions, you should ask somewhere like WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Advice

The administrative noticeboards are not the best place for calm advice so I'll post it here. Other than specific incidents, my impression is that the community's patience is also wearing down, perceiving that your use of editing privileges (editing not being a right) are for advocacy (recommended reading: WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW). There's been some friction in relation American politics then in relation to this apparent campaign for Wikipedia to be used to denounce government interventions like child protection services, or at least to denounce divorce/separation. My advice is to leave those topics behind and try to edit in less contentious areas. If I understand the ANI thread might result in a temporary block but possible future outcomes are topic bans or a longer WP:NOTHERE block, that I believe can be avoided, by demonstrating a general interest in the encyclopedia. It's up to you, there are many topics that can be improved and work that can be done. My user page also has lists of links to tasks, if it can help. —PaleoNeonate – 14:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If it were just me you would have a point. Polandersondonegal is being bulk reverted right now. User Skythrops was driven away, unsuccessfully attempting to stop Beyond My Ken's tactics. Three others recently have been driven away.

I thank you for the point, did you notice a slight partisan tone in your own advice? It's apparent from a fly-on-the-wall persecutive that language like "this apparent campaign for Wikipedia to be used to denounce government interventions like child protection services" places you in particular on one side of a fence I did not even know existed. "Apparent campaigns" are creations of partisan thinking and only perceived by a party to the conflict. The discussion happening is a long-term trend spanning years of content ownership via COI editors (Arllaw is the chief reverter, who claims to be a health care provider in Canada).

Likewise there are no edits borne of my editing privileges wearing on "community patience," my use of collaboration tools is what is wearing on the patience of a select group of partisan and aggressive advocates. Beyond my Ken has changed his username twice as his aggressive habits have made him a target; and he has admirably entered a voluntary restriction on his own editing. A noble decision I would also not be disinclined to. It would come only upon a showing that I have willingly engaged in behavior contrary to the agreement I have with this site. I have misstepped in my learning curve, been corrected, and been improved for it. I won't be hushed when I see policies subverted to the detriment of a quality product.--Frobozz1 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate gave you good advice, I understand that this is a topic area you are deeply passionate about but there must be other areas which interest you. Personally I’d advise you to drop the Messiah act, you aren’t special and you aren’t being oppressed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that user Skythrops last edited on Parental alienation or its talk page in 2019. I first edited there this week. So the claim that "User Skythrops was driven away, unsuccessfully attempting to stop Beyond My Ken's tactics" is either hyperbole or a deliberate mistatement of fact.

And I have no idea who Polandersondonegal is, but they appear to be an account that's 5 days old with 11 edits, so most probably either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet canvassed to the article.

As for my previous user names, I don't understand what that has to do with the price of tea in China. I explain all about that here, which is linked from my user page so anyone can read it. I've been editing on Wikipedia for almost 16 years, with my original ID for 4 years, and under this username for 11 years and 3 months, so it's not like I'm dodging and weaving and shedding my skin at will in order to confuse people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Polandersondonegal is a new editor who posted some material about events in Ireland, with some original research and referencing issues, and has been invited to talk about his contributions on the article talk page, with Slp1 having written an extensive explanation as to why changes were made to his contributions. He hasn't been driven away, and nobody has attempted to do so. Frobozz1 has not posted anything in the discussion of Polandersondonegal's contributions, let alone something that would suggest bias, unfair treatment, or any other inappropriate conduct by another editor, so there is no basis for his present innuendo. Arllaw (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Any editor who is very passionate about some cause and allow that passion to bleed through to their editing tends to be a problem here. But since Wikipedia strives to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", if an editor's views are in the minority, especially in the extreme minority, they tend to be a greater problem as they are trying to force into an article views we should be giving little or no coverage of. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand whose views Wikipedia strives to represent. The views of editors (WP:OR) are manifestly prohibited within the content of Wikipedia. How many editors hold any view is not relevant, as all editors are expected to keep their views to themselves. One single editor including WP:MAINSTREAM edits will always prevail over a hoard of editors in the WP:FRINGE. In your quote above I have highlighted the part you were supposed to understand.

Also understand the difference between WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FACTIONS; the latter uses WP:VOTING to multiply their numbers. This is deeply prohibited.--Frobozz1 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne has been here for 15 years 5 months old and has 65,613 edits. PaleoNeonate has been here for 4 years 1 month and has 25,581 edits. You've been here for 1 month with 584 edits, and you're lecturing them about what Wikipedia is about, and what our core policies mean? In the ANI discussion, you've been doing the same thing to a number of admins, people that the community has entrusted with additional tools to help protect the project from disruption. Don't you think that's a bit presumptuous on your part? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Wikipedia should strive to represent the views of editors. Rather what I said is that since Wikipedia strives to represent views in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable secondary sources, editors who let their views bleedthrough into their editing are a bigger problem when their views are outside of the mainstream then when their views are within the mainstream. For example if an editor is a Nazi who believes whites are the superior race, when they try to force this view into our articles, this is a significant problem. By comparison, if an editor believes that there is no such thing as a superior race, it's far less of a problem when their editing to articles is biased by this particular view. It's not because there are few Nazis on Wikipedia, and most editors are not Nazis. It's because sources overwhelming reject Nazi idealogy. The fact that our editors also overwhelming do so is great, but was never part of my point. The rest of your commment supports this, so I'm not even sure why you're challenging me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, you claim 'long-term trend spanning years of content ownership via COI editors (Arllaw is the chief reverter, who claims to be a health care provider in Canada)'. Except that Arllaw's first edit to that article was 19:22, 21 February 2018 so at most we're talking about 3 years of this alleged problem. Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

First, apologies to @Beyond My Ken: for conflating his recent behavior with another WP:FACTION editor who had been doing such in the past - the victim was Skythrops - they had nothing to do with that.

Next: Is "at most 3 years" not spanning years?

I made a mistake in my above comment. The first edit was on 22:47, 2 February 2018. Anyway, in answer to your question, not really. Especially since the amount of editing Arlaw did to that article in the first year was very small. I counted 8 edits until 24 February 2019 and at least 2 of those were simply reversions of spam, a third was reversion of copyrighted material which was also spam. While the amount of other edits from other editors was also small, you're implying that there has been some ferocious gatekeeping for long periods of time by this editor which is clearly not the case. Further parental alienation is not COVID-19 or something few people had heard of until recently. The version before they edited is here [3]. I don't know why these great sources etc that you claim are being kept out weren't added before 2018, but it can't possibly because they didn't exist then but do now because this isn't something new, and clearly Arlaw can't be faulted for it either. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1 and Skythrops follow a very similar style of contribution to article talk pages. Even a casual review of the talk page history should reveal the reality that Skythrops was no "victim", whether of an individual or of an imaginary faction. This exchange is not improved by the spinning up of fictions about the past editing of the article or about other editors. Arllaw (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Erratic and aggressive behaviour

Frobozz1, what is going on? You are repeatedly casting bizarre WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors, be it due to inaction (frivolous Arlaw allegation) —which is not a thing— or outright impossible action (frivolous Skythrops allegation). I'm letting you know that this is not on, and that if these WP:BATTLEGROUND problems persist, sanctions will become imminent. In general, you need to observe WP:ONUS (read, please), discuss contested changes on the article talk page. If for whatever reason you reach an impasse there, there are dispute resolution requests you may avail yourself of, like a Request for comment. Look, Frobozz1, I'll be blunt with you: I am going to take a dim view of a WP:NOTTHEM (read, please) response to this warning. If you are unwilling or unable to turn a new leaf by moving forward with these adjustments in mind, then this downward spiral will end up hitting bottom. Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 13:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The behavior continued after the above warning.[4][5][6]

The battleground mentality and persecution complex is striking:

• "I'm the one who outed them, now they design to make me the fall-guy. No, we can't allow it. A reason for the offense [which was repeatedly apologized for] is still owed."
• "Invitation to all the "peanut gallery" in here to look at [diff] and decide what we can do about this hidden zealot."
• "No, this editor will not be the fall guy for doing the right thing."

Related^{[Citation Needed]} example of oppression: [7] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, Simply my consensus-seeking efforts (BRD, RS Noticeboard, 3O, RfC, etc.) are documented and no content is at issue. I had conflated BMK’s username with another and apologized in his Talk page and his ANI topic. Does that answer what is going on? --Frobozz1 (talk)

Kinda, not really. "Documented" as in I'll have to wade through walls of text to find said documentation...? Guy Macon, whatever you do, don't mention..., erm, Romania! El_C 17:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, you're certain you are not an involved admin with BMK, given your history? It's odd that they removed a discussion topic less than 24 hours after it began, and also removed one that had an active RfC open, and then in an odd coordinated move Guy Macon "hid" the RfC which was gaining book reviews and comments. There's a haste and coordination that appears unsavory - closing RfC's, archiving discussions with different opinions, "cleaning up" as it were - in an environment purposed toward gaining consensus.--Frobozz1 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. And I don't think you violating your topic ban by discussing other facets of the dispute (of which I am largely unaware) is in your best interest, either, but I'll leave you to it, regardless. El_C 00:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I object to Frobozz1's thinly-veiled "and then in an odd coordinated move Guy Macon" accusation. The only "coordinating" going on here is multiple editors cleaning up the mess that Frobozz1 created. Frobozz1 has been warned about WP:ASPERSIONS.

There is nothing unusual about me closing a discussion at RSNB. I regularly contribute to the RSNB, and as I explained at [8] the RfC was not about the reliability of any source but about a content dispute. Nobody disagreed with my closing, and my closing comment was "Content issues are being dealt with on the article talk page, conduct issues are being dealt with at ANI; nothing to do here." I stand by that evaluation.

The question asked was answered by another editor on the noticveboard:

"The first question is thus one of whether incorrect claims, not supported by any references, should be placed within an article, the answer being "no". The second is whether the material inserted within the article is in fact supported by the referenced book. As documented on the talk page the answer is "no". The matter can thus be resolved without even reaching the question of the book's quality as a reference."

In other words, not a question about the reliability of any source but instead a content dispute already being dealt with on the article talk page.

We traditionally allow a newly blocked or newly topic banned user some leeway to vent on their own talk page but only for a short time. Frobozz1, you need to drop the WP:STICK now or risk being blocked for topic ban violations. I am not going to report you to ANI at this time -- as I said we traditionally allow some leeway for a short time on your own talk page -- but I will if you continue this behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's leave everyone alone and allow things to settle down. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Partial block and topic ban

As a result of the discussion at ANI (permalink), you have been indefinitely partially blocked from editing Parental alienation, and topic banned from discussing it anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:TBAN to understand that that means: in brief, you must not comment at the article talk page nor make any comments regarding the topic on any other page including user pages. This result has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Frobozz1 (diff). You may appeal this decision per WP:UNBAN. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)