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 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:

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

Decline reason:

Per discussion at WP:ST, see diff. Ban continues. -- Barras talk 07:43, 13 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]

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)[reply]

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)[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

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 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few things I find ridiculous (in rsp to Chenw, DJSasso)

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

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
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
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;
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 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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

RfD nomination of Biographies of famous Americans

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)[reply]

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 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request, August 2013

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:

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)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Famous Americans in Other Languages

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)[reply]

Request reconsideration of community ban

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:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Response to Djsasso and Osiris

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. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Block appeal

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:

It's been three and a half years. I think I should be given a chance just to see what happens if I come back. Especially since none of the issues harmed any articles.

Decline reason:

Please review result Here -- Enfcer (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are community banned, there needs to be community consensus to unban you, I've started a discussion at WP:ST, see diff. -Barras talk 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment

The oppose votes seem to be basing their judgment on comments from 2011 and earlier. It's 2015 now. Why not assume that it's been so long that something could have changed since then, and the only way to find out if it has or not is to unblock for awhile? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal comment

(to be posted Re:DJsasso's vote and additional comment)

DJ, the reason I don't show remorse is because I don't really believe the block was necessary. It grew out of a few discussions I had with other editors in talkspace and projectspace. Maybe I gave other editors some grief. I got lots of grief too, and I didn't take it out on mainspace the way some editors did. One example would be User:Kennedy, who engaged in a spate of vandalism and sockpuppetry yet was reinstated after far shorter a time than I have now been block. If Kennedy could be reinstated, why not I? I don't consider the "extent of disruption" to be as egregious as you have made it out. There never was a necessity to indef me, as I wasn't harming article space. You seem to be saying, among other things, that my continuing to believe that indef blocks should be reserved for harm to article space is a reason to continue to indef me. The problem as I see it is you're basing the need for an indef block on the fact that I held different beliefs than other editors, and wasn't afraid to say so. Why should that justify blocking? It seems less blocking and more persecution. And as for "proof" that things are different, the most definitive way to "prove" if I have changed or not is not to keep me indeffed until I grovel, it's to unblock me and see what happens. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Barras: to repost this. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you could stop mentioning me in your unblock requests. I got pinged because you mentioned me. My circumstances and yours are not related therefore please cease to involve me in anything related to your account. Kennedy ^(talk) 18:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kennedy, I don't think I will. They are related in that you were afforded a second chance despite the fact that you did something unambiguously wrong (sockpuppetry). It is ambiguous as to whether what I did is wrong or not. I also find it somewhat disengenuous that you refuse to grant me the second chance that you yourself got. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your repeated bringing up of my block, in an effort to damage my reputation, as harassment. Any further instances of this and I will lock your talk page. Kennedy ^(talk) 00:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kennedy:, don't worry, I don't think this damages your reputation. @Purplebackpack89:, comparing your situation to another the way you're doing doesn't help your case. Each case is evaluated separately. I was planning to stay neutral in your unblock request, but you're making me consider opposing it. Please give some reason for unbanning you other than comparison with Kennedy and the length of your ban. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you realizing that at the beginning, she(or he) was for your unban? She was going to help you be unbanned to see what would happen, and what you said persuaded her otherwise. Also, she asked you politely(more polite than you declined) to stop mentioning her, so she could stop getting pinged about this article. An multiple of the points you have made all refer other situations to yours. Some people go to jail for robbery, some for assault. They do not (or at least I think they don't) get the same amount of time in jail. I am not saying that this is one way or another, but just because some people did not get blocked for more than 6 months, does not mean that applies to you as well. Also, most points you have made either say that you and your opinion are better than others. Furthermore, in almost every edit you have made, you have been rude or ornery to whoever you are speaking to. I agree that sometimes, someone is wrong. But that is no reason to be rude about it. I agree that you should stay banned. 52.144.56.254 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one last thing, but before anyone thinks that I just heard a little about@Purplebackpack89 then had an opinion about them, I have spent quite a while trying to figure out how to respond to this situation. 52.144.56.254 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for user page and doppelganger user

I request that the following pages by indef semi-protected owning to crosswiki sock vandalism.

It's worth noting none of these accounts have made edits in six years, and all but trail are doppelgangers meant to prevent impersonation. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only:: Any chance I could get you to do this? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Purplebackpack89: Protected all. The last two pages were the same, so let me know if you've made a typo there. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Caliburn: Thank you. Last should be User:Purplebackpack99 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks like Only already got to that one and fully protected it indefinitely. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal 2019

{{unblock|I'm not going to grovel, but I think this should be lifted. It's been eight years. That's insane. The block was ham-handed IDONTLIKE it from the beginning and there's no reason for it to continue. Also, if there really were serious problems, I'd have been banned from other projects, which I have not; not anywhere close. The fact that I haven't been blocked in over two years anywhere else, with thousands of edits since then, is all the evidence I need that this block is unnecessary.|||}}

I'm inclined to accept this request so long as User:Djsasso, who declined past unblock requests, has no objections. Regards, Vermont (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A community ban is in effect here, which requires consensus to overturn. I have posted this to ST. Chenzw Talk 15:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chenzw: could you include the unblock rationale in the ST post? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recognize how your comments in previous unban requests and the actions that resulted in your ban are inconsistent with our community standards for acceptable behavior? Regards, Vermont (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they warranted a block of 8 years. I could understand how some people were frustrated with me, and maybe a block of a few months was fair, but not a block of eight years. Also, I don't understand why it's somehow wrong to be displeased that I was indeffed, or wrong to feel that it was unfair. If you were indeffed, Vermont, wouldn't you be miffed about it? Finally, I'd like to note that some of the ANI discussions Chenw mentions in his oppose vote are years old. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if nothing has changed in those eight years, then why should it? Time passing may allow things to change, but it doesn't automatically mean that they have. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to hear

I will try to be better in my interactions with other users. I think there's evidence that I have been better in other projects. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although i have problems believing that on a personal level, I have copy pasted that statement into the simple talk discussion. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're seeking specific areas that I'm going to change, I seem to recall one of the things that caused some problems here was a contentious GA or VGA nomination. I've sworn off GA, VGA and FA nominations here, English or anywhere. (Note: that doesn't mean I don't improve articles, it means I don't engage in the GA, VGA or FA process). Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC) (Again, copy-and-paste-able)[reply]

How many statements are you gonna make? I can't copy and paste all day... Computer Fizz (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed at some of the reasons people are putting forth to continue the ban, though. I feel like I've done my time, probably more than that, and I should be given another chance. And the people who are voting to continue the ban aren't really saying what they wanted prevented. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with how long you've been banned, and everything to do with whether you understand why you were banned and how your actions were not appropriate. Simply put, many editors don't see that. Vermont (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont i'm not sure i understand don't you support him being unbanned? Computer Fizz (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My support has changed to be one of en:WP:ROPE, however I don't see a need to note that on the discussion as it's still a support. Vermont (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal 2021

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:

It is INSANE that this block has continued for A DECADE, during a time which I have made thousands of edits on other Wikipedia projects. Can somebody explain why something that happened a DECADE ago should disqualify me from getting an addditional chance on this project NOW? Indeffing in the first place was excessive and it should never have lasted a DECADE. I'd like someone to explain why I don't get a second chance, even though editors with more serious issues, such as sock- and meatpuppetry, have been reinstated. If anything, it shouldn't be my job to prove reinstatement, after this long, it should be others' job to provide evidence why this is still necessary, which, to be honest, they never did in the first place. I feel PERSECUTED. In many cases, the evidence demanded is evidence that can only be obtained by letting me be unblocked for awhile. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is no consensus to unblock you at this time, as you can see here. Please try appealing again in no less than a year. Best regards, --Ferien (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PBP, Simple English really isn't worth your time in fact it's not worth even a bored trolls time neither. Your time would be far better spent at Commons where your contributions would actually make a difference and where you're actually helping people. Editing here is simply wasting your life away lets be honest, –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this statement but I would not encourage Purplebackpack89 to start editing other projects. Naleksuh (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With that logic, editing any other project is a waste of time. Which makes new users believe that Wikipedia as a whole is a waste of time.(Not meant to sound rude, apologies.) SoyokoAnis - talk 03:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010 Forgot to ping. SoyokoAnis - talk 03:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eptalon has asked for the community's input on Simple Talk: Wikipedia:Simple talk#Unblock request of Purplebackpack89.. --Ferien (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gordonrox24: You cited something from two years ago and not even on this project. And you've got to concede that TheRamblingMan, both here and on EN-Wiki, is in his own right a highly controversial and confrontational editor. And drama and confrontation has basically ONLY been used to indef me, and rarely anyone else. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 09:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, Purple, we're talking about your unblock requested over at Simple Talk, and two things are coming up. 1) The tone of your request. Your post feels shouty and demanding, and people don't like that. 2) You haven't stated the thing you are being punished/blocked for and promised not to do it again. Can you address the concerns that people have raised? I will add that unblock requests are not only about facts; feelings count too. Simple is a much smaller community than en.wiki. Can you show us that you will put in the work to get along with other contributors (or at least do your best to stay out of trouble)? I agree that ten years is a long time, and you should not have to grovel and beg to get this punishment lifted, but I wasn't here in 2011 and I don't know what went down. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to #2, Fundamentally, @Darkfrog24:, I don't, and never will, believe that what I did in 2011 rose to the level of an indefinite block, I believe that the block should've sunseted YEARS ago, and I shouldn't have to abandon those beliefs to get unblocked. If people want proof that I won't do it again, look to the fact that I haven't been indeffed anywhere else; not even close, really, and look to the fact that only Gordonrox has provided any kind of evidence as to why there's still a problem, and his evidence is from TWO YEARS AGO. I'm also dismayed by Macdonald-Ross' word choice: he's referring to me the way someone would refer to a person who committed DUI manslaughter. Is that fair? No! It's also not fair that he's pestering you about your vote. If you want me to explain my side of what happened, I will. Finally, editing Wikipedia shouldn't have to be a popularity contest; my original block was a "losing" popularity contest and I shouldn't necessarily have to "win" another popularity contest to resume editing. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macdonald Ross is not pestering me about my vote, and I do not feel pestered. Macdonald Ross is disagreeing with me in a civil manner and explaining why he thinks what he thinks so that I can understand him.

I'm in a similar situation on en.wiki, so believe me when I say I can identify with most of the emotions you're expressing. I think the problem is that you're expressing your indignation here as part of an unblock request. People are reading that as "Accept that this block was 100% YOUR fault and 0% my fault," even if that's not what you mean.

Can you accept that other people here on Simple do believe your actions ten years ago merited an indef? You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to say "I was a bad little boy; thank you for teaching me that other people are better than I am." Can you say "I recognize that the Simple English Wikipedia community thinks it's bad to [do the thing] and even though my opinion differs, I recognize that that's what the rules here on Simple are. I won't [do the thing] in the future unless those rules change"? If you are calm, reasonable and dispassionate, you may inspire others to be the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: It's wishy-washy that I was blocked for "breaking rules" though. I wasn't blocked for something like sockpuppetry where there's a hard-and-fast line (One of my continual gripes is that somebody who DID cross the hard-and-fast sockpuppetry line was given a second chance, then proceeded to deny me the second chance he got). That's why you've had to put [do the thing] in brackets, because people haven't exactly been able to articulate to you what rules I've broken. I recognize that people DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY I INTERACTED WITH THEM. As for "I won't [do the thing] in the future unless those rules change", actions speak louder than words: if I had been [doing the thing], I'd have been indeffed on En-Wiki by now, and I haven't been, so there's some proof that I've been better. I somewhat believe that, after TEN YEARS, a second chance SHOULD be unconditional, not contigent on regurgitating a set phrase. I'm not one for regurgitating set phrases, here or in IRL, and that shouldn't be a condition of me returning. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's because people are more comfortable with bright-line offenses, like sockpuppetry, than with subjective feelings.

You say "people don't like the way I interacted with them." That's progress. So let's accept 1) All interactions are about more than one person, so bad outcomes are almost never 100% one party's fault alone. I am not asking you to say that anything was 100% your fault and 0% the other person's fault. That's out of the way now. Now 2) What are you going to do on your end to have better interactions with people going forward? We're going to take it as a given that you, Purplebackpack89, can't control other people. What can you tell us about how your actions will be different going forward? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, looking at, say, 2021 on all projects, it's clear that I interact with people differently, and more positively than I did back in 2011 on this project. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now can you write up a statement with links and examples? If you just say "Aw go look for yourselves" most people won't bother to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked, you have to acknowledge what you did. Knowing what you did is wrong, promising to not do it again, and not doing it again is the only reason someone would be willing to unblock you.

If you can tell me what you did that was wrong and tell me why you won't do it again, I'll discuss it further with administrators so they can make a decision faster. 209.232.149.23 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better luck next time Purplebackpack. From what I can tell, at least some of the editors here were reacting more to your tone than to anything else. That's a solvable problem for next year: For one, you may feel persecuted, but an unblock request is not the place to say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel bad for this person for being blocked for over a decade. Dingo^Talk 19:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]