tyle = background: #f8eaba;
| image = 
| text = This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Dunkmack9 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
}}
Grapestomper9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
because I am not a sockpuppet of Dunkmack9. I did know him, we met at a chronic pain class he hosted for CRPS patients. We were the two CRPS Type 2 in a room full of CRPS Type 1. We stayed in touch and I visited him at Hospice in January when he first mentioned to me about wikipedia. He enjoyed talking about how nazi's had taken over the Rudolf Hess article on wikipedia, and how they would not let the in certain seemingly benign facts because they had an agenda. He was coughing up a lot of blood around January, but he liked to talk to me so I let him go on about wikipedia even though at the time I did not own a computer and had only heard occasional references to wikipedia as being some online encyclopedia. Longer story less long, Dmack9 died 3 days after I was moved into the same hospice as him in April here in N.Cal. Between Jan and April I bought a computer and was lucky enough to have a neighbor spend a lot of time showing me how to work it for the internet. A few days after Dmack9 died I was given a box of books he wanted me to have. First I read the Battle of Britain books and a few on the luftwaffe, two books of Hess' trip to Scotland and Stinnetts Day of Deceit. Also several on Manhatten project including Herken's very complete and up to date Brotherhood of the Bomb. The Battle of Britain books all mentioned Archie McKellar and another Hospice patient told me Dmack9 was a cousin of his. Around May I had read most all of the other books and looked for things to do on Wikipedia, i.e began editing--or rather trying to edit. Oddly, the first people I ran into trouble with were three of the same people who blacklisted Dmack9 in January--Dianna/Diannaa, Binksternet and Drmies. The fact that I have had edits reverted by these three of late seems to be a violation of WP Blocking Policy, a Conflict of Interest, and Punitive Blocking as I am not a sockpupett of Dmack9, am not editing on his behalf, or anythink like that. He left not notes on the books he gave me, and I was not interested in looking at what he had done in the past on WP. I can understand how it could appear we are cohorts here, and I will try to elaborate how we are not. 1. Diannaa, after I got that the author of her hated book by W Hugh Thomas was a British Surgeon who treated Hess at Spandau, not just some conspiracy goof as the WP article indicated. BAMMM, same day I am banned. Her comment on the investigation states my Kensington, CA comment about J Robt. Oppenheimer holding communist party meetings at his home on Kenilworth Court are the same topic and aspect--Oppenheimers days in Berkeley. Well, having been born and educated in Berkeley and having grown up in Kensington, I think that has nothing to do with the fact that in Gregg Herkens book brotherhood of the Bomb, Herken had acsess to just declassified docs showing Oppenheimer lied to Ernest Lawrence (UC Berkeley) to get involved in Manhattan Project by promising to end his "leftwanderings." That's when OP was living in berkeley holding communist party meetings at his home in Kensington, just before he left for Los Alamos. Woud be a little hard for him to hold CP meetings at Los Alamos while building the bomb, eh dianna/diannaa? Mgabeltdrive, I did not want my other edits linked to oppenheimers communist past because people still are in denial. No vandalism no foul--Mgabeltdrive 2. Archie Mckellar- As main editor of this article Dapi states, there is such a pathetic lack of info on british aces... So why should it surprise anyone that I corrected the fact his ace in a day status was not achieved in one mission, rather two missions on the same day. Dapi agrees. Any other info about McKellar is few and far between, so of course I would use the sources I had at hand to fill in any blanks. Any why would there be any blanks if Dmack9 had previously filled them in? All the books he gave me on the subject are mainstream and uncontested. 3.CRPS type 2. I covered that already, why we both might add to that fairly unknown hideous disease that killed Dmack9. 4. Day of Deceit. What can I say about this? Binksternet claims it is a crap book made up completely of lies. tHEN WHY does Bink get all riled up when I try to add to the book about mainly navy operations during WW2 that the Author served 4 years in the Navy during WW2? Or why does he get worked up when I ask him what is wrong with mentioning the author was a longtime Oakland Tribune reporter? I understand Binksternet lives in Oakland, so what? 5. Rudolf Hess, WP claims I say Hess never went to Scotland. Maybe Dmack said that, I never did. I merely tried to correct the major misrepresentation about some aspects of what the author actually did say, not what the WP article says about him. In fact I succeeded today (I thought) in adding with a good reference that the author of The Murder of Rudolf Hess was actually a British Military surgeon how treated Hess while he was at Spandau. Although Diannaa gave me trouble for not doing the cite right. So is there an overlap, considering I read a box of books Dmack9 gave me and chose to put a 9 after my username also, Grapestomper9--for reasons that are personal between myself and deceased Dunkmack9. Quite frankly I am not surprised at the overlap, considering the Hess book, day of deceit, brotherhood of the bomb each pretty much carry one new message to think about, and are not some kind of anthology of kook conspiracy theories as my accusers would have you believe. And if so kooky then why by well respected authors, and what is the harm in stating what they really said accurately. And IP Comcast here at hospice up by the hospital, and has been as long as anyone can remember. Really thought I was making some progress here on the Hess page until its editor decides to block me, though I figured whoever was running that page did not want any info from that tHOMAS BOOK. As I say, not editing for Dmack9, not re-doing his edits, not editing in his memory. All this came out of my head after reading books from the box. period. Please take off the block and I will leave the Hess article alone as long as Diannaa leaves in the facts I added from the Independent article. And I'll leave day of deceit alone unless I get a reference Binksternet aggrees is ok. I will not shut up about Oppenheimer, though, as my references have all been good on those edits.thanksGrapestomper9 (talk) 1:43 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry; while your narrative is expansive it is also entirely unconvincing. — Coren (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
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.
Grapestomper9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Expansive narrative too explanatory for you, sorry about that, I will try and be more direct. This block violates WP blocking policy, as those who made the block happen were involved in edit war of their beloved biased and factually incorrect articles. It was Binksternet, Trekphiler (likely a sock puppet of Binksternet) Diannaa (sockpuppet of Dianna) and Drmies who should be getting banned for referring to those who add well cited info to their biased one side-laden POV articles as "whack jobs" "extreme conspiracy theory nut cases" "extreme biased kook" "POV moron" etc. As I am unable to convince you people who I am not, I will point out that Dunkmack was blocked 10 months ago. Long block, eh? According to Binksternet, I have used some abrasive language in response to being called a "conspiracy theory nutjob" etc, but have not crossed over the line. In response to his request for more civility I have bent over backwards (in the face of being still continuously caled a "moron nutjob" etc.) to be friendly and unabrasive. The info on Day of Deceit and Rudolph Hess book mentioned in that article give thoroughly misleading info as to what those authors actually said. The people (I will refrain from calling them POV kooks) running those articles need people like me to bring some civility to their articles that are monuments to their inability to allow others to question their entrenched beliefs. And, quite frankly, my interpretation of these events are not considered conspiracy theories. For instance, I believe Hess was relaced with a double sometime after he entered Britain and was in custody. A theory Thomas expanded on in his book Murder of Rudolph Hess, but Diannaa will not conceed. Or Stinnett never said The McCollum Memo was written by him to start a war. So just to sum up so you will not be confused, the block violates WP blocking policy, and I have done nothing (since Dmack's block 10 months ago) to earn a block. I cleaned up my act when requested to do so. Grapestomper9 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but you are clearly the same editor, editing the same articles, with the same disputed information, in the same disruptive manner. I really don't care about the alleged mass conspiracy against your edits, I do care about your behavior and apparent lack of integrity. Please don't post any more unblock requests here. Use your original account and discuss how your approach to editing will change. Kuru (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
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.