User talk:Fragglestomp

Welcome!

Hi Fragglestomp! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

I noticed your post on Stanley Kubrick. No discussion until September, did you see? It's kafkaesque, but that's how Wikipedia sometimes is. If you can suffer that, please stay and contribute, but check out my talk: arguing about infoboxes is a certain waste of time. (Having said so: if you have patience for some years, there may be change. I tried adding infoboxes for operas in 2013, and although there was strong opposition, all major operas have them now.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the above after reading the first line of your post. I read it all now, and two more things emphasized from the top of that page: Assume good faith (always!), Be polite (always!). Repeating: please sign your posts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hard to assume good faith of these few editors I was referring to. If you've ever dug through the Kubrick talk (and it sounds like you have) you know exactly what I'm talking about. These are not rational people interested in having an actual discussion about it. They're lording over the page because they feel like they own it, vomiting up the same dumb arguments that have been discredited a million times. They just don't care. They want it one way and that's how it's going to be. Great job getting infoboxes added for operas though! On behalf of probably 99.9% of the visitors to those pages, I'm very glad you succeeded in improving them. - Fragglestomp (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I'm sure it was a waste of time, but it at least brought me some catharsis. I set an alert to come back in September, so I'll see you then. Fragglestomp (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. 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.

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SK six months later

Fragglestomp, I am sorry to see you blocked. Late reply to your March post: no, I know nothing about the Kubrick discussion. I have no time for such things, taking care of articles of people who recently died. How about finding something else to do here? You could add infoboxes to the articles that LouisAlain translates, - how is that? Willi Brokmeier. (He sends me thank-you-clicks for adding them.) - I managed not to post in Mozart discussions (although I care), and you could manage to ignore Kubrick, I am sure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. Perhaps I'll add to other articles. I do appreciate those of you who devote serious time to create pages and other content on here from scratch. But my typical behavior is to edit only when I stumble upon something existing that's in need of correction, which is thankfully rare. For example, about a month ago I noticed that the page for George Floyd (American football) contained an inaccurate description of the other George Floyd's manner of death. I went to edit it, but it was corrected before I even finished my edit. I'm a bit confused though. Is there some rule preventing me from caring especially about the Kubrick page? Certain very powerful editors decided to close discussion on his infobox for 2 years. Good for them, they got what they wanted. Those 2 years are OVER. Shouldn't we be allowed to discuss it now without being blocked? Or was the 2 years a lie, and they're actually just banning discussion on it forever? If that's the case, they should at least be clear about it. Given the plainly civil tenor of my comment asking to reopen discussion, shouldn't I at least have been given an explanation or warning for any misconduct I was committing (I still don't believe I was committing any misconduct) before being blocked? Not only should my block be reversed, but I feel like whoever blocked me should face consequences for frivolously abusing their blocking power, if only given a warning. Fragglestomp (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one who blocked you is a friend of mine, - please treat him nicely assuming in good faith that he did what he thought was the best for the project. - You and I don't have to do anything about Kubrick, others will do it, or not, I don't care. I wasted more than enough time in that circus. Readers who arrive at the Kubrick page usually will have a rough idea who that is. As I said, you could add to articles newly translated (several each day by LouisAlain alone, too many for me to do it, - I stay with those I improve further, such as Leo Kestenberg). There's also this backlog.

Please read 2 more things before typing anything else:

User:RexxS/Infobox factors, especially the passage about Stewardship (while my arguments are in Foreign visitors at the bottom)
Talk:Peter Sellers#Biographical data where you have the conflict in a nutshell. (HAL333 is also a friend of mine. "His" article will appear in a few days as Today's featured article.)

If you have more time, also read 10 rules (User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris#Ray's Rules) which to follow may help the most. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I read all of those (as well as LOTS of talk page arguments in the past about infoboxes). I'm already a big fan of HAL333, and I think RexxS's article offers a good summary of the debate. I fall close to the "not at all" side of the stewardship question. It's kinda hard assuming good faith of somebody who immediately blocked me for asking in the most civil way possible whether we could reopen discussion on a topic which is supposedly allowable in September 2021. And I'm still blocked despite there being no evidence that this is a sockpuppet account. I would be more convinced of his good faith if I were unblocked and allowed to participate in discussion on Kubrick's infobox. I shouldn't even be blocked from Kubrick's page specifically. It clearly says infobox discussions are only banned before September 2021 at the top of the talk page. I obeyed that restriction and would obey any other restrictions, but it seems like they'd need to formally decide to renew the ban on infobox discussions for me to be violating any rules. I would not have raised the subject if it were still restricted, and I have every intention to participate in a civil manner. What am I missing? Fragglestomp (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I make one more post, although - see my talk - I advise to let things be after 2 posts in a thread. I believe that reading past discussions about infoboxes is a waste of time. They typically contain more emotion than reason, and more talking to and about editors than about the facts. Your very first post was an example. I suggest the following: you word here your one and only post to the Stanley Kubrick discussion in favour of an infobox, and all watching can help you wording it, and then you unwatch the article, voluntarily. Bring more clarity than emotion, - that's the objective. Perhaps even better: promise to unwatch the article right away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question that is still not being answered is whether infobox discussions on Kubrick's page are allowed or not. And if not, on what basis? Shouldn't there be some notice or warning at least to prevent people from taking an action which appears acceptable but ends up getting you immediately blocked?? You all seem to be avoiding the question. I understand you don't want me weighing in on Stanley Kubrick's infobox discussion, but I don't understand why. I repeat for the millionth time: it is September 2021. It is September 2021. It is September 2021. What am I missing??? Why is it so hard to get any of you to answer this? Fragglestomp (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you understand how frustrating this is to me? This is honestly my only Wikipedia account, and now it's blocked, despite me earnestly trying to follow the rules. Blocked without any warning or discussion or explanation or anything. Just a false allegation that it's a sock account, which I'm completely powerless to disprove. What am I supposed to do? You suggested editing other pages, but I can't even do that now! I have no recourse, yet I've done nothing wrong. Fragglestomp (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained, yes an infobox for the Kubrick article can now be discussed again, as it is, indeed, September 2021. However, you can't participate, because you're blocked. And you're blocked because I am convinced you are a disruptive sock. Not based on your 9/1 post, but on your post from March, combined with your editing pattern since then. If another admin disagrees and unblocks you, then you could participate in the discussion, unless the blocking admin makes the unblock conditional on not editing that talk page (which, if they are considering unblocking, I think would be a good idea.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(more) Unblock reviews are backlogged. It might take a few more days. Since you waited 5 months without editing any other page using this account, I imagine you can wait until the block is reviewed. I could ask another admin to review, but if they agree with me, you'll claim I just got a friend to back me up. Maybe User:CaptainEek wants to review, since they've already commented here and I won't be accused of canvassing them to intervene. CaptainEek, if you don't review, do you think it is worth a request at AN for a review, or do you agree this is pretty clear cut? If clear cut, I don't know why we'd prioritize this unblock request over others' by raising it there and skipping ahead of those at CAT:UNBLOCK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never requested to be prioritized over other unblock requests; that sounds like your problem. Maybe you should stop hastily blocking whoever you want to be shut up? Please, just imagine for a minute that you're wrong about this being a sock account. How the hell am I supposed to prove otherwise? Again, why would a person who's willing to make sock accounts fight so hard to keep one when just creating another account would be far easier? You're wrong, and you must know it. But I suspect you don't care simply because you don't want the infobox discussion raised again because you personally find it annoying. Thank you, though, for finally confirming to me that Kubrick infobox discussions ARE allowed now. Fragglestomp (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've satisfied WP:ADMINACCT, and am taking this page off my watchlist, and disabling pings from this person. Any reviewing admin can ping me if they have questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, my thought is downgrade to just a partial block from the the Kubrick page and talk page. While they certainly could be a sock, CU turned up nothing, and I could buy their just coming across it argument. I think that the article doesn't have an infobox is probably pretty confusing to the average reader. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on this page has become a bit disorganized, but somewhere above or below, I said this would be OK with me if that's what the reviewing admin wants to do. I disagree about the "just coming across it" argument being in any way realistic, but your solution would, at least, prevent disruption on that page. Thanks for looking into it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unrealistic that somebody would end up on a Wikipedia page??? What are you even talking about? It isn't an "argument", it's the plain fucking truth. How else would anyone first find out about this? Just admit you're wrong. Also, I should be allowed to participate in the Kubrick infobox discussion too, but whatever. What a convenient way to prevent the page from ever getting an infobox - just block everybody who wants to discuss it on the automatic and undisprovable assumption that they're a sock. Very cool! Fragglestomp (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being an obvious sock, here only to disrupt the Kubrick article (esp. see first edit).

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was supposedly blocked for being an "obvious sock" and bringing up the lack of an infobox on Stanley Kubrick's page. Well this is truly my only Wikipedia account, and I have never been sanctioned before now. As soon as rules regarding infoboxes were conveyed to me in March, I obeyed them completely. As such, I don't agree that I or my account can be accurately described as a sockpuppet. I don't tend to make other edits, but that doesn't preclude me from participating in discussions on this particular topic. Furthermore, the warning against discussions on infoboxes at the top of the Stanley Kubrick talk page very clearly states that the ban is in effect until September 2021. Thus, in addition to being perfectly civil, my comment asking whether a new discussion could be opened is allowed under the rules as of September 1, 2021. I even included an apology in case I was raising the topic in the wrong way. I made clear that I was intending to follow the rules, and no attempt was made to communicate any possible misunderstandings on my part before banning me. This banning was completely frivolous and done hastily. Fragglestomp (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think it matters all that much whether you're a sock puppet or not. You've made two substantial edits to Wikipedia, and one of them was obvious trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd ask the reviewing admin to read this editor's previous posts from March (there are only a few). A "new" user that vehement about how critical an infobox is at this particular article (which has been subject to a long history of socking), and that nasty about what horrible human beings people who don't want an infobox are? It is inconceivable they are not a sock of someone who is either (a) using good hand/bad hand accounts, or (b) a returning blocked/banned user. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inconceivable? Really? Well this is genuinely my only account. Why would I even bother trying to have it unblocked if I was in fact somebody who just makes sockpuppets? Wouldn't such a person just make a new sockpuppet account?...I concede that my first edit on the talk page was inappropriate. I regret making it, but I'll note that that comment was not cited as a reason for my block, and it would seem inappropriate to me to apply a block for conduct 6 months prior with no subsequent infractions. I was contacted by another editor at the time who communicated to me the restrictions on discussion, and I clearly obeyed those restrictions (as well as all other Wikipedia rules I'm aware of) by leaving the topic untouched since March. Fragglestomp (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What then made you aware of the rather arcane subject of Kubrick's infobox, or lack thereof? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in March I watched Paths of Glory for the first time and, as I often do, I visited its Wiki page afterwards. I linked to Kubrick from there. The very first thing anyone notices upon visiting that page is its lack of an infobox. It's positively striking to a daily Wikipedia user. I did not read or hear about the conflict elsewhere beforehand, though I did read a lot about it afterwards. Fragglestomp (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note Gerda's suggestion of a page ban instead of an indef block. As always, I'm willing to defer to a reviewing admin if they think they have a better approach than me. But I won't make that offer myself, because I remain convinced (even more so when they refer to their other editing, above) that this is an alternate account of someone, either being used to attack/harass other editors (which they did in March, see contribs) without consequence to their main account, or being used by one of multiple blocked/banned editors who have swarmed around that page for so long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I genuinely don't understand what reason a person running a sockpuppet account would have to endure this headache to be unblocked if they were willing to just make more accounts. That seems a lot easier, but I don't do that. Hence this. Also, why would someone even bother creating a sockpuppet to make a comment like my first edit to the talk page in March? Any person who was already aware of the situation would understand how futile and unwise it would be. I made it because I was genuinely new to this whole debacle and felt appalled by it. I am sorry and regret it. If you want to block me for that, I can't dispute that it was uncivil, but it does seem kinda underhanded to block me for something addressed 6 months ago with a warning when every other indication is that I've abided by the rules since then. Fragglestomp (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of things would you edit about if unblocked? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would correct any errors I came across. I probably would not create new pages. I might add a bit to short pages for bands and various other interests of mine, though I have no specific pages in mind. And I would civilly participate in the infobox discussion for Stanley Kubrick, which is allowed. I do not intend for this account to exist solely to edit Kubrick's page, but it is indeed one motivating issue for me. Fragglestomp (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been notified that I've been reviewed. Does this mean another administrator already settled the matter? I'm still blocked from editing every page. Fragglestomp (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, your block hasn't been reviewed yet. The notice you got about a review was an indication that a new pages patroller had reviewed your user page (which you created a few days ago). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

As I have tried to make clear in several other conversations on this page, I have no intention of violating rules further. I never vandalized a page. I did, however, make one childish comment on a talk page out of frustration. I regret doing so. That was 6 months ago. I have done nothing even remotely wrong since then. I've have spent a substantial amount of time in the past week trying to convince administrators that I intend to be a civil and obedient Wikipedian going forth. It was clearly a one-time incident. Thank you for your consideration. Fragglestomp (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your first edit with this account was the comment that you say was based in frustration; this does not convince me that you will not become frustrated again in the future; please tell how you will handle future frustration, which happens to all of us. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please see this section of my talk page to read my response to a question posed by the prior administrator who declined my unblock request. My reasons to be unblocked are found therein, as well as in multiple other threads on my talk page. To summarize briefly, I made one vitriolic comment on a talk page back in March. I regret it, apologize for it, and affirm that I will not repeat that behavior. I was then blocked for that comment only after I made a (perfectly civil) comment on the first of this month. I have since repeatedly tried to demonstrate my good intentions going forward. I am being completely sincere, but I'm not sure what else I need to say to convince you of that. Ultimately, it is your judgement call. You can't read my mind. But consider this: even if I actually were just spending all this time trying to deceive you, the worst I could inflict would be another childish comment that gets me permanently blocked. It just doesn't make sense that someone would do that when they could simply create another throwaway to accomplish the same. Please, somebody, give me a second chance. Hear my earnestness. Fragglestomp (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Post-Denial of Unblock Request

Not sure if anyone will even see this, but what do I do now? Is this block permanent? That would seem to be rather uncharitable given the guidelines on duration of blocks. The reviewing administrator claims that I made two "substantial" edits, but that's a mischaracterization. I made one comment on a talk page and replied to someone's reply to that comment with a "Thank you." Both were more than 5 months before I was blocked, with no other infractions in the meantime. On the contrary, my first edit (to a talk page) following those initial edits was quite plainly trying to earnestly abide by the rules. I have never vandalized an actual article, and I never would. I have expressed in the clearest possible terms my intention to obey Wikipedia policy going forward. Fragglestomp (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can make more than one unblock request. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried that doing so might be interpreted as pestering. I think I stated my case pretty clearly the first time but I'll try again I guess. Thanks. Fragglestomp (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Unblock Request Questions

I submitted a second unblock request last week. How long is this supposed to take? Can I get any sort of updates about it? Is there anything I could do to speed along the process? As a demonstration of my desire to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, I'll share a (small) edit I would make if I weren't blocked: add Terry Albury to the alumni section of the Berea College page. Fragglestomp (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Question Posed by 331dot in Second Block Request Declination

It's hard to know specifically what I will do next time I'm frustrated as that isn't really how human emotion works; I don't know what the next cause of my frustration will be or what the broader context will be. One thing I can affirm is that I will not handle any frustration by making an unproductive comment on Wikipedia. I created this account as a throwaway, more or less, just so I could vent my frustration about a particular issue in a moment of sheer shock. But my intentions have changed, as has my ability to be shocked by what I see here. As I've made clear repeatedly, I wish to actually participate meaningfully on Wikipedia. That's why I keep spending my time fighting this ban, not so that I can make a similar comment again. If that's all I wanted to do (repeating myself again here), I would just make another throwaway account from another IP. But I'm not going to do that. And just look at all the hoops I'm having to jump through to get you to reinstate my editing privileges. This is not the behavior you'd expect of somebody who intends to use their account for vitriolic purposes, knowing full well that it would simply result in an immediate (and next time probably irreversible) block. If there's nothing I can say that would get me unblocked, please just tell me that and stop wasting my time. There's nothing more to say. There's nothing I can do if you simply won't accept my affirmations and apology. Fragglestomp (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to make a new header for every comment that you make; you can avoid doing this by clicking "edit" instead of "new section" at the top of this page; this is easier to do in the full desktop version of Wikipedia. Someone else will review your request; admins are volunteers just like most other editors, doing what they can when they can, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the desktop version, and I'm not making a new section for every comment. They are all separate discussion threads, though probably the best place to have started this one would have been below your declination notice. Apologies, I'm still learning Wiki editor conventions. And seeing as this is my third unblock request, I'd say I'm being more than patient. As I said in a conversation above, I do not ask or expect to be prioritized for review. But perhaps if admins exercised just a modicum of trust, they wouldn't have the same editor's unblock request appear again and again and again in their docket. Fragglestomp (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review Questionable Behavior by Blocking Admin

I know how poorly positioned I am to be read charitably here, so I want to word this diplomatically. I think it's important to express, and I'm blocked now anyway after having 2 unblock requests denied, so I don't see how it can hurt to try. The admin who blocked me, Floquenbeam, appears to have a habit of blocking or threatening blocks for frivolous, punitive, and/or strategic reasons. On the Kubrick talk page today, he issued a year long partial block on another user, without warning or prior discussion, for starting an RfC in a manner he considered selective. Subsequent commenters agreed this was unnecessary and that Floquenbeam was misusing his admin tools. In his defense, Floquenbeam claimed he "just doesn't see" how the supposed infraction wasn't "intentional", demonstrating the same unwillingness to admit the possibility of being wrong as he demonstrated when initially blocking me under the (now clearly false) claim that I was a sockpuppet account. He then proceeds to admit that, though he is aware that blocks aren't punitive, he wants there to be consequences - this carries with it a strong implication that the reason he initially blocked the user was to impose consequences, a.k.a. to be punitive. It's also worth noting that both my September block and today's block were in relation to the same topic (Stanley Kubrick's infobox) that Floquenbeam professes neutrality on. When he blocked me, he similarly failed to communicate or come to an understanding with me first, which is a part of the guidelines for blocking users. This gives the impression that Floquenbeam is misusing his admin tools in a strategic manner, namely to prevent consensus from being reached on adding the infobox and closing the discussion once and for all. He also made the preposterous proposal that he himself flip a coin to permanently close that debate, despite admitting himself just minutes before that a consensus was appearing to be reached on the matter. He calls himself an "uninvolved observer" but he's clearly been involved enough to impose multiple unnecessary discretionary sanctions that disrupt the conversation. It's incredibly ironic that he accuses others of making the infobox debate "as complicated and stressful as possible" when everything was indeed going just fine until he showed up with his heavy hand. How is this not considered a gross abuse of his administrator powers? This is a consistent pattern of behavior by Floquenbeam, and I hope some other administrator will look into the matter. Fragglestomp (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on Stanley Kubrick's Infobox

Support - Because of my frivolous block, I am disallowed from contributing this to the actual talk page, but I'm pretty sure I'm still allowed to express my views here. I will be more blunt here than I would otherwise be on the actual talk page. The reasons for an infobox are apparent and have been stated countless times: it would make the page more accessible and navigable for users; the lede is too long and difficult to parse for info that users would typically find in the infobox; there is enough noncontroversial information to include in one (e.g., full name, birth and death date and location, spouses, children, burial site); it would clearly would be more in fitting with typical Wikipedia standards for prominent biographical pages; it would be more visually appealing (this is debatable, I suppose, but the page certainly looks odd to regular Wiki users); it would improve accessibility and navigability; it improves search engine optimization for the page; on and on and on, where do I stop? But the administrators there have imposed all sorts of Catch-22s that prevent the status quo from changing, despite it being fairly clear to me that most users want the infobox. For example, it's been stated that the discussion should resume again only if there are new reasons to add an infobox, but all the sufficient reasons are too obvious to have not been stated previously. It's been stated that all arguments in favor should be specifically about why Kubrick should have an infobox, despite the strongest argument probably being that there's a near-universal consensus on infoboxes for comparable figures, and all of those figures don't have a reason specific to them for their having an infobox that Kubrick lacks. It's been stated that a new consensus must be reached to change the page; that basically happened (12 supports, 0 opposed by the time an RfC was called for) and then the RfC was shut down for some unrelated subsequent technicality. It was said that discussion could resume in September 2021, and when I commented in a polite manner to do so at said time, I was instantly blocked upon a false assumption that I must be a sockpuppet. It's absurd. Admins need to quit acting like the headache is coming from anyone but themselves. They're handicapping the support side at every turn for frivolous reasons. They could allow the infobox to be added once and for all and this stupid debate would end. I guarantee you won't have the same fight to remove an infobox once it's there. The administrators responsible for this debacle should all feel ashamed. They are embarrassments to this great site, and they should be relieved of their duties by the many other, more competent administrators here. Fragglestomp (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While blocked, you can only use this page to request to be unblocked, which you have pending. You can increase the chances of a review by making your request more persuasive. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

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).

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

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked because I understand what I was blocked for - making a vitriolic comment in March 2021; because I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, or otherwise violate Wikipedia policy - as evidenced by the singular nature of my offending comment and 8 month period of good behavior since then; and because I will make useful contributions instead. In demonstration of this final point, here is a list of the various small planned edits I would have made had my account not been blocked: * Add Terry J. Albury to Berea College alumni list * Fix a typo on Killing of Muammar Gaddafi page ("while trying to flee to Nigera" --> "while trying to flee to Niger") * On Greta Morgan's page, correct discography order to old-->new, in keeping with style on other similar pages * On Tyler Cowen's page, change the link to "Marginal Revolution University" to plain text, as the link just leads back to the Cowen Wiki page itself * On An Odd Entrances page, change the Pitchfork rating to a #/# format, rather than using stars, in keeping with style on other similar pages * On Nordkapp page, translate French image caption ("Falaise du cap nord touristique") to English ("Cliff of the touristic North Cape") I want to be a contributing member of this community, and one comment on a talk page from 8 months ago should not continue to prevent me from doing that indefinitely. Fragglestomp (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

All of your issues seem to centre around Stanley Kubrick's article, and its infobox (or lack thereof). It's good to see that you have identified some areas you would like to edit in if you were unblocked. I'd be willing to consider an unblock, if you were to accept an indefinite WP:TBAN from the topics of Stanley Kubrick, and from infoboxes, both broadly construed. Please indicate if you would be willing to agree to this condition. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree to that. The Kubrick problem looks like it will be fixed very soon anyway. I would still like to ask what you mean by "indefinite". Is there a process for eventually having that topic ban lifted? Fragglestomp (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Random IP passing through) Fragglestomp, to get someone's attention when replying to them you can use {{reply to|<username>}} where you replace <username> with the user's username, without the User: prefix. As long as you sign your comment this will send a notification to the person. Topic bans can be appealed at the Administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN). If this is done under arbitration enforcement related to the infoboxes case WP:ARBINFOBOX/WP:ARBINFOBOX2 you can also appeal at either the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) or to the imposing administrator. There will normally be a minimum time period before an appeal will be considered, usually 6 months. Hope this helps, 192.76.8.95 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post Kubrick Infobox Discussion

@Girth Summit: The infobox discussion at Stanley Kubrick has ended. I indicated above that I would be willing to accept a partial block on Stanley Kubrick and/or infoboxes, though even such a continued restriction should seem unnecessary at this point. I hope that my unblock has been given more consideration by now. The blocking administrator is now discussing me on his talk page and making plainly false accusations which I cannot respond to. I feel like I have gone above and beyond in terms of demonstrating my commitment to being a good, contributing Wikipedian, all in response to a single infraction limited to a talk page 8 months ago.

January 2022

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).

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

Request reason:

This is my 4th or 5th unblock request, and none of the previous reviewing administrators have explained how my prior reasons were inadequate. I feel like I'm just restating the same obvious points again and again and being met with Kafkaesque obstinacy every time. Please please please please please actually take the time to read my talk page and previous unblock requests, and if you're going the simply reject it again, please explain to me what I could do differently in my next unblock request to better make my case. And if there's just no way any of you will ever unblock me, please just tell me that so that you stop wasting both of our time. I have explained in exhaustive detail how I understand what I did wrong, that I will not violate Wikipedia policy again, and how I will be a contributing member of Wikipedia in the future. I went so far as to cite about 10 edits I'd make. The policies on blocking and unblocking accounts seem pretty clear to me, and I feel like I've gone above and beyond in doing what is expected of a blocked account to be unblocked, and yet...nothing. Just "file another unblock request" again and again and again and again and again. It's infuriating. I think it's worth pointing out here that my initial block *falsely* claimed that I was a sockpuppet account. I should be painfully obvious by now that the initial blocking admin was WRONG. A sockpuppet doesn't spend so much time and effort just to follow the rules. Fragglestomp (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your best bet at this point is to wait a full six months since your last non-talk page edit, then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll want to refamiliarise yourself with WP:GAB. No unblock reviewer is going to read the entire content of this page; if you should be unblocked, you should be able to express that concisely. Yamla (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request for Standard Offer Review

@Yamla: I am well past the 6-month mark of not editing non-talk pages already. In fact, I have *never* edited a non-talk page (though I do want to, and I have a number of edits I plan to make once unblocked), and I'm pretty sure my last edit to a talk page besides my own (this very page) was February 2021, when I made the comment on Stanley Kubrick's talk page that resulted in my being blocked. Can I request that you conduct this Standard Offer review then? To summarize my case briefly, I was blocked in February 2021 after making an inflammatory comment on the Stanley Kubrick talk page regarding his then-lack of an infobox. I have never vandalized a Wikipedia article, and I would never even consider doing so. The stated reason for my block was being a sockpuppet account. This was, and remains, untrue, and so I cannot apologize or confess to that specific allegation. My best evidence of that claim's falsity is the fact that I am continuing to pour so much effort into restoring this account, which I don't believe would be consistent with sockpuppet behavior. Regardless, I do agree that that comment was unproductive and inappropriate, and I recognize it was wrong to make. I am sorry. I will not repeat that behavior on Wikipedia, ever. I have tried to keep this brief because you suggested that length was an issue with my previous unblock requests, but I would be happy to engage with you in further detail. Please let me know how to proceed from here, whether that means contacting a different administrator to request a Standard Offer review, or providing you with more details of my case or demonstrations of my intent to be a rule-abiding, contributing Wikipedian. Please, I am doing my best and have been very patient throughout this whole process. Fragglestomp (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]