User talk:Bitter grapes of wrath

This user is a member of
the Guild of Copy Editors.

Links to helpful things like templates and articles needing copy edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_Needing_Copy_Edit

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bitter grapes of wrath for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Dan D. Ric (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}}

It appears that I have been blocked for requesting being unblocked.

What I want to do is request being unblocked, unfortunately this request will give the appearance of including a request for unblocking my former room mate, who used the name Hamilton's wrath, since at one time we shared the same IP address?

You need to use the {{unblock}} template. It seems like there is an investigation going on as to allegations of sock-puppetry. Your request has been made their, and an experienced user will review everything within the next 24 hours I would think. If nothing is resolved within 24 hours, make an unblock request. Hiding T 10:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to request a unblock from the account you wish to be unblocked. Tiptoety ^talk 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I now understand that my early request for unblocking was foolish and incorrect. When I first requested to be unblocked, I did not understand that it was not my IP address, or me, that was blocked, but only my former room mate, and an unblock request was not needed. My request was wrong, and now that I understand this, I will not make a foolish request like this again. I had some vague notion that I needed to communicate that I had some association with this blocked user to avoid accusations of being a sock puppet. That is why my first edit was of that users page. I now understand that the correct way would have been to make a link from my page to that blocked user page.Bitter grapes of wrath (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really confusing for me

{{help me}}

I have been reading the rules on blocking and unblocking. The more I read the more confused I get.

First of all when I read the rules, it said that if you click to edit the sand box and it lets you edit, then your block has expired and it is OK for you to edit.

I did that, and it said I was not blocked. But just to be sure I even ask to be unblocked.

I don't really understand what was wrong with that, but if it was an offense, I am sorry.

I don't really understand sock puppet investigations? I thought that meant that some user account was blocked?

Now there seems to be a list of accounts attributed to me, including an account created on april fools day, and even a doppelganger account?

I am not a any body's sock puppet.

The thing that really bugs me, is that next I will probably get accused of abusing the unblock process, since I am not really that smart and the policies of wikipedia are so convoluted that they seem to me impossible for anybody to follow.

I guess my question is, is it now permissible for me to request unblocking, if I even wanted to which incidentally I don't?Bitter grapes of wrath (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry is when one person uses a number of accounts to disrupt Wikipedia. I am unclear as to whether this account is a sock puppet account, but you did request an established sock puppet account be unblocked. That has led some to deduce that you may be a sock puppet account. We try and keep Wikipedia policies as simple as possible, but it doesn;t always work, especially when people try and disrupt and vandalise Wikipedia. I take your last statement to mean that you do not wish to be unblocked. It would therefore be useful if you clarify exactly what you need help with. Regards, Hiding T 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to whether this account is a sock puppet account

{{help me}}

Me to!

Unblocking multiple accounts, and defending against accusations of sock puppetry seems to be a fairly complex procedure.

Apparently this account has already been tried and convicted.

Focusing on this account, if we were to assume good faith, the only crime ever committed by this account, as to ask to be unblocked, apparently from an address that was not blocked?

For now, just because this case is so complicated, maybe just to simplify things a little bit, and take things one step at a time, what if for now I made it my goal to focus on getting this account unblocked.

And then maybe some day, in the future, after establishing myself as a well behaved editor, then figure out the correct way to use multiple accounts.

Would it be OK to skip any more discussion on the subject of multiple accounts until this account is unblocked?

note since even asking to be unblocked can be considered a wiki-crime, I am just interested in understanding the rules on this, and am not asking to be unblocked, or stating that I want to be unblocked.

For now just want to understand the rules on this?

Let's make this as simple as possible then, and cut through all that wiki procedure. Would you like to be unblocked or not? Hiding T 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bitter grapes of wrath (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because I want to be unblocked? Apparently this account was blocked for asking to be unblocked, when I wasn't blocked. I understand now that this was wrong, and will not do it again.

Decline reason:

Okay. I've investigated, and basically it's been confirmed that this account is either a sock puppet or a meat puppet of User:Hobojaks. This has been established at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hobojaks/Archive towards the bottom of the page. So my understanding now is that you need to email someone on the arbitration committee to request an unblock. I hope that helps. Certainly asking to be unblocked is not a crime. Using multiple accounts, however, is frowned upon when it is done in a disruptive manner. Hiding T 22:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hopefully asking to be unblocked now, is not a crime?

If it is sorry I am trying my best to follow the rules.

My stupid ex room mate got be blocked.

Just a refresher course here. This is a link to my first request for being unblocked.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Bitter_grapes_of_wrath&oldid=284148243

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bitter grapes of wrath (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Just to review here, the only wiki crime that this account has ever committed or at least been accused of committing has been requesting to be unblocked when I supposedly wasn't even blocked. My original request to be unblocked, the one that actually got me blocked was based on the statement that my stupid ex room mate got me blocked. Have a look at my original request.User_talk:Bitter_grapes_of_wrath#My_stupid_ex_room_mate_got_be_blocked

Decline reason:

As was explained to you previously, you were blocked for sock- or meat-puppetry, also known as the abusive use of multiple accounts. You are either using multiple accounts to edit, or editing on behalf of another blocked user. Checkuser evidence confirms this assertion. Further requests to be unblocked that do not address the reason for your block will result in the protection of this page. Please review this guide for further information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Confusion on meat puppet rules.

I am reading this section. Wikipedia:MEAT#Meatpuppets

I have pasted this section, about shared computers, for very careful study because I think that it might apply.

If two or more users dwell or work together, thereby sharing a computer or an internet connection, or else use a public computer or shared network, such as those found in offices, schools, libraries, hotels, or hot spots, their accounts may appear via a CheckUser inquiry to be sock puppets. Additionally, such people, who often closely know one another and have face-to-face contact may share common interests and writing styles, and may even teach each other about Wikipedia and its techniques and inform each other about its ongoings (though WP:COI and WP:CANVASS policies do apply in these situations). Checkusers cannot look through the wire to see who uses the computer at the other end. To avoid accusations of sock puppetry, such users may want to make an advance declaration on their user pages. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

Your best bet is to to email someone on the arbitration committee to request an unblock. They'll review the history and the situation and decide a course of action with you. Hiding T 13:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, it would seem to me that this would be against wiki-rules, because first I would be required to exhaust all other options. I have a pretty long list that I have made up, and even if I fail, I will still have learned a great deal about the rules on using multiple accounts, and the rules on blocking and unblocking.

But first lets assume for the sake of argument, that I am a meat puppet. Can a meat puppet have meat puppets?

Or if a meat puppet had its own meat puppets, would that meat puppet have become a puppet master. Also can a meat puppet have sock puppets, or would that again by some strange alchemy then transform the meat puppet into a puppet master?^{[citation needed]}

What if a dispute arises between two room mates, on who is the puppet master, and who is the meat puppet, would they then both be meat puppets? Or would they both be puppet masters, or would they both be both puppet master and puppet?

Can a meat puppet be its own puppet master? Can a puppet master be its own meat puppet?Bitter grapes of wrath (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One IP address one vote proposal

I am User:Bitter grapes of wrath; I dwell in the same abode as User:Homebum and we share an Internet connection. We know one another extremely well and have face-to-face contact, sharing a common interest in quaternions. I have much better skills in spelling and punctuation, but our writing styles may at times appear to be exactly the same. Sometimes, I may even edit text that was written by Homebum. Together, we are learning about Wikipedia and its techniques and we inform each other about what is going on. For example, when I made my first link ever, Homebum was standing over my shoulder, telling me how to do it. At that time, I did not yet know about blocking. My room mate, who has the same IP address as me, was blocked and I assumed that this meant that I was blocked as well. That is why my first statement was that my ex-room mate had cause me to be blocked.

I was not aware of the concept of acting as a proxy for a blocked user when I did my first edit. user:homebum and I are currently embroiled in a major disagreement, because he wants to remain blocked, and even to begin blocking others. He is concerned that if I make an unblock request, this will affect his right to request that someone else be blocked.

I would like to request a soft block, assuming that I understand this term correctly. In other words, I want to be able to log in from this IP address, using my password, at the same time that user:homebum is prevented from logging in, since his account is blocked. Anyone other than myself, who does not have a password, will also be blocked from logging in anonymously from this IP address. As for our ex-room user:hobojaks and his loutish behavior, he did ask recently if he could log into his account from my computer, and place an official retirement message on his account. He is an acquaintance of mine, but I don't speak for him, or represent him in any way; I understand that to do so would be against the rules because it would mean that I was acting as a proxy for a blocked user.

I what to use my account, and no other, for editing articles on quaterions, such as classical hamiltonian quaternions. I only want to sprinkle in a few commas to make things more clear, and to correct bad grammar. I have no intention of participating in debates on articles for deletion, and I don't plan to get involved in discussions at all. I will make it clear on my homepage that I have a close relationship with user:homebum and that he and I represent a single vote.

I am an English major and I regard myself as a very good copy editor. I believe that I could greatly improve one or more articles. I have many other interest besides quaternions, so I do not want my user account to be blocked from Wikipedia. Bitter grapes of wrath (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draft user space vandalism report

I saw your request for clean up Homebum, I am on it!

This is a draft, not to be acted upon until completed.

I don't represent hobojaks; I am not acting as a proxy for a blocked user. However, I have met him in real life, and he is actually a pretty nice guy. I know for a fact, however, that he views the disruption of his user page as a personal attack.

Nom de guerre of user:Hobojaks, refers to a living person. He is very well known in a wide circle by the hobojaks moniker. It was the stage name he went by when he played in punk bands. Jaks was the moniker he went by in his hobo days. Hobojaks is a moniker he has used in many usenet discussions. In quaternionist culture it is customary to take on a new name when being accepted into the community.

Jak's skate team, is a an old skate team name, and being one of two persons associated with that group which first introduced the group to freight train riding, he rightfully claims the name Hobo Jak's. His vilification is also offensive to the older generation of an entire skate board community.

Hobojaks at yahoo dot com is his email address.

http://www.myspace.com/hobojaks

is his myspace page.

Hobojaks is the name he uses to discuss police scanners, and the name he uses on railroad groups. He has used it in business in the past in connection with his scanner e-commerce business.

I would like to offer a polite and coherent observation that the present contents of that user page appear to contradict wikipepedia's defamation policy and should be reverted.

A misconception that some administrators, including Dan D. Ric labor under is that since User:Hobojaks is also a Wikipedia USER NAME, that somehow, its Defamation is acceptable. A few examples should show that nothing could be farther from the truth.

If Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known by the pen name Mark Twain were alive and he adopted Mark Twain as his user name, then was unfairly blocked, and cruel templates were placed on his user page, it would clearly be defamation.

For an example a little closer to this case, if the pope were editing Wikipedia under the user name the pope, blocking his account, writing cruel things about him on his user page, and then every time a Catholic objected and reverted the page, they got listed as either a sock puppet or a meat puppet of the pope and blocked, followed by blocking the IP addresses of every computer at every Catholic school library, it might seem to outside observers that your organization was being a little unreasonable.

If Stalin, again a comrade name, not his given name, were editing Wikipedia under the user name Stalin, and you blocked him and put unkind things about him on his user page, you would get a trip straight to a gulag. Using the defense that it wasn't his real name would be no defense.

Please conform with wiki-policy and revert the most recent edit of User:Hobojaks to this one:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Hobojaks&oldid=284898446

Also since that user does not communicate on-wiki, providing his contact information is a valuable way to promote communication.

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 00:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]