User talk:Purplebackpack89

This user has been banned indefinitely from changing Wikipedia by the community.

Please review the banning policy before commenting or unblocking.

(see: block log · changes · current autoblocks)

Unblock

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall

Decline reason:

If I recall it was to be reviewed in no less than 6 months. Come back then. And if you do you will need to present an actual rational for why you should be. -- DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to write a more substantive request. The above is ambiguous and unlikely to gain much support. Best, Goodvac (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the block hasn't served its purpose of making the WP better. Since I've been gone for the last three months, edits that I would have made weren't made by anyone else. Ergo, you need "a few good men" like me to make those edits.

Also, DJ, can you point to where the consensus was six months. I remember two or three Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

DJ's claim of six months is inaccurate. Also, this WP needs me to make edits that frankly nobody's been making. Ergo, the block isn't serving its intended purpose of bettering this Wikipedia

Decline reason:

Right in the closing statement. Community banned, with an appeal possible after no less than 6 months from today. Which is generous since we usually do a year. -- DJSasso (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

Six months seems consistent or excessive in comparison with others when no vandalism or sockpuppetry is involved. The point of a block is supposedly to prevent harm to the Wiki, and I think it could easily be proven that the opposite has happened. Articles I frequented have become out of date; articles I would have created remain redlinks. I would also point to the work I've done at Simple Wiktionary, and the fact that I still have never been blocked on English Wikipedia. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were banned through a decision made by the community. While it is in my power to unblock you, no single editor can over-ride a decision made by the general community. It would also be improper for me to bring forward the date of appeal. You may appeal to the community to review its decision six months from the date the ban was enacted. This is in one month's time. I look forward to seeing what you have to say. Best wishes, Osiris (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the block was in November. May is six months from November, not seven, therefore I am requesting again

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

Six months seems consistent or excessive in comparison with others when no vandalism or sockpuppetry is involved. The point of a block is supposedly to prevent harm to the Wiki, and I think it could easily be proven that the opposite has happened. Articles I frequented have become out of date; articles I would have created remain redlinks. I would also point to the work I've done at Simple Wiktionary, and the fact that I still have never been blocked on English Wikipedia

Decline reason:

Well, I can't count (nothing new there)... Okay then, I will post your appeal to Simple talk. You will remain blocked for the duration of the discussion, and any comments or replies you would like pasted to the noticeboard you will submit here and I or another administrator will add it for you. You may use {{help}} to get attention. Osiris (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to DJSasso, please paste the follow:

Um, Goblin (multiple times) and Kennedy/Ydennek/NotGiven... Also, the point of any block is to make the Wikipedia mainspace better. The block has failed in that regard. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry that your still blocked dude.184.44.131.154 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock after nine months

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Purplebackpack89 (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock • check user)
Reason for unblocking:

Nine months seems about right, even excessive, for that doesn't involve a lick of vandalism or sockpuppetry. It's inconsistent with similar actions, which have led to blocks of much shorter duration, or no blocks at all. During the last nine months, I have made thousands of edits on en-wikipedia, and still have a clean block record while holding rollback, reviewer and autopatroller. Same with simple-wiktionary, only on a smaller scale. Meanwhile, here, the edits I would have made/articles I would have created haven't been created or made, leading to gaps in up-to-date coverage. Also, in this discussion, I request a vote on the duration of the block, which was supposed to happen back in May

Administrators: If you decline this request, replace this template with:

{{unblock reviewed|1=Nine months seems about right, even excessive, for that doesn't involve a lick of vandalism or sockpuppetry.  It's inconsistent with similar actions, which have led to blocks of much shorter duration, or no blocks at all.  During the last nine months,  I have made thousands of edits on en-wikipedia, and still have a clean block record while holding rollback, reviewer and autopatroller.  Same with simple-wiktionary, only on a smaller scale.  Meanwhile, here, the edits I would have made/articles I would have created haven't been created or made, leading to gaps in up-to-date coverage.  Also, in this discussion, I request a vote on the duration of the block, which was supposed to happen back in May|decline=reason -- ~~~~}}

If you accept this request, replace this template with:

{{subst:unblocked|1=Nine months seems about right, even excessive, for that doesn't involve a lick of vandalism or sockpuppetry.  It's inconsistent with similar actions, which have led to blocks of much shorter duration, or no blocks at all.  During the last nine months,  I have made thousands of edits on en-wikipedia, and still have a clean block record while holding rollback, reviewer and autopatroller.  Same with simple-wiktionary, only on a smaller scale.  Meanwhile, here, the edits I would have made/articles I would have created haven't been created or made, leading to gaps in up-to-date coverage.  Also, in this discussion, I request a vote on the duration of the block, which was supposed to happen back in May|2=reason}}

Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comments I believe Purplebackpack89 deserves to edit here again. Blocks/bans are only used to stop destructive vandalism not to take someone's privileges away forever. I believe we can trust him again after watching his edits on other sister projects and wikipedias, which shows growth overall in cooperation with other users. Purplebackpack89, how would it be different if the community allows you to edit freely again? Have you really thought about your actions that ultimately led to you being banned? Best, Jona ^{talk to me} 16:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally don't believe they warranted a ban. If I edit in the same manner I edit on EN, where people generally don't have problems with either my edits or candor, I doubt I'll have problems here. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

eek! Thats not what I wanted to hear. Basically you're saying you've learned nothing? Taken nothing on board? Thats a dissapointing response to a perfectly good question. That doesn't really warrant an ublock PBP... Note that I actually supported your unblock on ST, but I find this worrying... Kennedy ^(talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did I say that? 'Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 11:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took that from the part that you say that the ban wasn't warranted, you'll edit the same as you do on EN where they don't have problems. Basically from that I think you're saying that you are going to continue to edit the same as you did before? Kennedy ^(talk) 11:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before on EN. Since I've never been blocked there and have over 11,000 contributions, I must be doing something right. The people who want to keep me banned center around an argument that I can't go more than a few edits without disrupting the project and my block record on EN contradicts that assumption. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 11:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats with deleting your first response? Anyway, that still doesn't actually address the issue. As far as I can still see, you are denying there is, or ever was, a problem. How can we possibly unblock you then? Kennedy ^(talk) 11:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a typo. Fixed that. Kennedy, you yourself got a second chance (and one that was not without controversy) after you engaged in sockpuppetry. I was blocked for something that was fairly subjective in nature. I must admit I do see it as a tad hypocritical that you are questioning me getting a second chance after you yourself got one Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are community banned, I opened a thread on WP:ST (see here) for everyone to comment. -Barras talk 16:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of reasons for unban (for Auntof6)

You can expect good behavior owing to thousands of EN-Wiki and SIMPLE-wiktionary edits without a block while continuing to hold rollback, reviewer and autopatroller. Also, I'd point out that most similar bans (i.e. ones not stemming from) have been lifted after nine months or less Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Gotanda

Diffs please that point to anything of a disruptive nature. Gotanda, Calling starting an RfC about whether unsourced articles should be merged or deletion "arguing" is inaccurate: it's perfectly acceptable to question the notability of unsourced articles in an RfC, and certainly not a reason to keep me banned. If people thought I incessentally argued about the LDS Church, I'd have been blocked on EN or restricted from LDS-related articles over there, neither of which has come close to happening. Therefore, I think your criticism is a bit invalid, and that you should reconsider calls to keep me banned. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Macdonaldross

Mac, other editors have done the same thing (Goblin, for instance) and been offered infinite second chances. This is about the longest anyone has ever been blocked on this Wikipedia without vandalism or sockpuppetry; the length of this block is patently ridiculous. most people are back in less than six months; less than two weeks if you're Goblin. It's frankly ridiculous you think it should go on even longer, and also ridiculous you expect some sort of groveling for me to be let back in. You haven't offered a counter argument to the point I made about article space not being the better while I was gone; nor have you taken into account my good behavior at EN. If there was the kind of problem you seem to make it out to be, wouldn't I have been blocked on EN? The fact that I haven't been blocked on EN, despite making thousands of edits there, is proof that I shouldn't be blocked here either Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]