User talk:Purplebackpack89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User:Purplebackpack89)
Jump to: navigation, search


Unblock[change | change source]

SemiTransBlack x.svg

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) 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.

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)"

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)
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 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
SemiTransBlack x.svg

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) 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.

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)"

Block review[change | change source]

SemiTransBlack x.svg

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) 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.

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. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)"

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)"

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

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) 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.

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)"

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. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry[change | change source]

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

Unblock after nine months[change | change source]

SemiTransBlack x.svg

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) 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.

Request reason: "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 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Per discussion at WP:ST, see diff. Ban continues. -- Barras talk 07:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)"

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, Jonatalk to me 16:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
How did I say that? 'Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 11:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 11:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You've been blocked at least 10 separate times, that means you have been given 9 different chances. So what you are asking for is a 10th chance, not a second chance. -DJSasso (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not questioning you getting a second chance. If you look at ST I actually initially said to unblock you. But you're denying there was ever a problem in the first place. There were mitigating circumstances with my issue, I was a trusted user, admin and crat before, and I've (hopefully) rebuilt a lot of faith back in me. Anyway, thats irrelevant, I'm not being hypocritical at suggesting that you maybe look to see why you were blocked and at least offer to try to change... I am changing my 'vote' to that your ban is continued. I will continue with that thought until I see a change in your attitude. Kennedy (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)

Statement of reasons for unban (for Auntof6)[change | change source]

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 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to Gotanda[change | change source]

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. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to Macdonaldross[change | change source]

It would not be foolish, it would benefit articlespace 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 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A few things I find ridiculous (in rsp to Chenw, DJSasso)[change | change source]

There are three things I find odd about the above "keep him blocked" votes:

  1. Most of them are based on opinion rather than cold, hard facts...the only way to definitely know if I've changed or not is to unblock me
  2. People are completely ignoring what I've been doing outside of SIMPLE for the last nine months; choosing instead to focus on a few lines I say here that aren't necessarily relevant to how I am going to edit. Again; 11K+ edits on EN, zero blocks. 100% relevant
  3. This is being treated like a vote...there's already several people who think, and frankly their reasoning is better than the "keep him blocked" people. It seems kinda unfair if 50% of editors don't like a person, no matter how poor their reasoning (and I don't consider DJ's reasoning to be very good; it's not backed up with a single diff; let alone a recent one) he can be comm banned for whatever reason. The reasoning of the people voting "ban" is horrendously weak;
  4. Virtually everybody who's been comm banned for reasons other than vandalism or sockpuppetry that's been clean on EN has been unblocked within six months. Why am I the lone exception? Particularly when I've created scores of articles, gotten several to DYK, expanded or improved existing articles, etc.

I'm afraid I feel that this is motivated by certain grudges rather than any actual proof that the Wikipedia will, or has been, better without me Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked[change | change source]

Imma sorry you are still blocked. 166.147.120.173 (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Biographies of famous Americans[change | change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Biographies of famous Americans, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Biographies of famous Americans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Osiris (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The community has made a grave mistake in deleting this article. It is precisely the kind of article we need: a research aid. And so what if it was deleted on Big Brother? Big Brother can assume that many of its readers know who most of those guys are and we can't Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request, August 2013[change | change source]

SemiTransBlack x.svg

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) 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.

Request reason: "It's been 21 months"

Decline reason: "There's nothing here to suggest that you understand the initial rationale for this block and that you have a good reason to be unblocked. -- Chenzw  Talk  03:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

RfD nomination of Template:Famous Americans in Other Languages[change | change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Famous Americans in Other Languages, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Template:Famous Americans in Other Languages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Osiris (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of community ban[change | change source]

SemiTransBlack x.svg

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) 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.

Request reason: "It's been over two years, and there never were concerns about mainspace edits. I find this block to be utterly excessive, and am requesting a review of my community ban Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "See below. -- Barras talk 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)"

I've posted this to ST for review. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello PBP89. I've just closed the discussion regarding your block on WP:ST. In short, the result is that the community is against an unblock at this point in time. You may appeal the ban again in one year from now. For all comments etc please see the discussion. Regards, -Barras talk 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Djsasso and Osiris[change | change source]

I believe that people should only be indeffed for vandalism and sockpuppetry. I've done neither. Just because I don't think the same way as some of the other people here doesn't mean I should be indeffed. The only reason I was indeffed is because other editors don't like me, not because I made bad contributions. Quite the contrary: you'd see that I have created hundreds of badly-needed articles. Any claim by Djsasso or Osiris that I am a net negative is patently false, and so inaccurate as to border on a personal attack. If Djsasso or Osiris think the Wikipedia is better without me, they apparently value community space ahead of article space, which is clearly worse off by me not being here. And the reason I consider this Wikipedia a joke is because this completely bullshit block was instituted in the first place. I reiterate: two and a half years is too long a block unless vandalism or sock-puppetry is involved. Furthermore, if a block is determined to be of sufficient length, groveling need not be a prerequisite for it to be overturned. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Copied to discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)