User talk:Purplebackpack89

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)

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)

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)

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. 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

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)

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

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

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}}

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