User talk:Pestcamel44

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Pestcamel44, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Danger ^{High voltage!} 18:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in military topics, you might want to check out WikiProject Military History. Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pestcamel44, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Pestcamel44! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary execution[edit]

Hi - I'm afraid I had to remove the image you added. As the file says, "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. However, it is believed that the use of this work: To illustrate the subject in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information

There is no fair use rationale for using it in Summary execution and I doubt that there could be one. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay Dougweller. Thank you for pointing this out. 28 February 2013

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pestcamel44. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:21, 24 March 2013 (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).

Pestcamel44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First, I can't see in what instance I was accused of sockpuppetry. I therefore can't comment on the specific case(s) but as far as I know I have never been validly accused of sockpuppetry. That said, if I ever did use two accounts on one page during the hundreds of edits that I have made it was not intentional and I now have a much clearer understanding of sockpupptry than before and will be very mindful of this in the future. According to Wikipedia I am able to have multiple accounts provided that I have a reason for doing so. My reason is that I do not want to mix all content I have created under the same account, as different accounts engage with different themes and topics. Therefore I believe the block is no longer necessary because if I ever did use multiple accounts to edit the same page, as I assume someone has alleged and then was confirmed by WilliamH (and Basalisk???) this was not intentional and I am now fully aware of the sockpuppetry guidelines and will no do this again. Sorry I could not respond to this block message sooner.Pestcamel44 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is a very clear link to the specific abuse in the block message. Several accounts, amongst your dozens, were created specifically to participate in an edit war, I don't see how this was an accident. Kuru (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2013 (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.

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).

Pestcamel44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I mentioned above I don't know exactly what I am accused of (Sockpuppety on what page, at what time) therefore I cannot give a defense of the action other than to say that, as I said above, "f I ever did use two accounts on one page during the hundreds of edits that I have made it was not intentional and I now have a much clearer understanding of sockpupptry than before and will be very mindful of this in the future." As I said above, that is possible that some (two accounts) were used on the same page. I have said that I understand now that this is not permitted and will be mindful of this and not repeat it. Your reference to the fact that I created more than dozen accounts is irrelevant because it is completely ok to have as many accounts as you would like provided you have a reason for doing so. I have stated my reason ("My reason is that I do not want to mix all content I have created under the same account, as different accounts engage with different themes and topics.") and it is not the subject of this block. I again request that the block be discarded because it is no longer necessary as I now understand the specifics of sockpeppetry.Pestcamel44 (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Does War in Afghanistan (2001–present) jog your memory at all? I see edit-warring on that and the use of at least 5 separate accounts. I also see 3 separate accounts used on Free Syrian Army, 3 accounts used on articles about Qatar, and at least 7 accounts used to edit articles about railways (including multiple accounts used on individual articles). That looks to me like a lot more than "...is possible that some (two accounts) were used on the same page". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2013 (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.

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).

Pestcamel44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Boing! said Zebedee, despite the sarcasm in your reply I appreciate the fact that you are the first person to tell me what exactly I am being accused of. That said, I have already mentioned that I now understand the rules that it is not ok to use multiple accounts on the same page. Let me be more clear now in my admonition of guilt. My use of multiple accounts on the same page was a mistake which I will not repeat, now having learned of the severity of my actions and the having read and learned about the details of sockpuppety, the details of which I was previously unaware of, I will be a better contributor and member of the wikipedia community.

I am not interested in disrupting the discourse on wikipedia. On the contrary I am actively working to contribute balanced perspective to the biased articles which exist here, one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia. I am passionate about volunteering my time to do this and preventing others from distorting the content on these pages. I don't spend a lot of time accusing other users of bias or abuse on wikipedia largely because I am new to the community and don't know all the legal wrongs with which to orientate other users (through accusation or otherwise). Personally I'm not one of throw around accusations as I feel more strongly that allowing the discussions to unfold in the edits and talk pages is more productive but clearly this is naive and not the norm for behavior on wikipedia. That said I can't have been expected to have known all the rules of wikipedia and that is why I am admitting guilt but requesting a that the block be discarded because it is no longer necessary as I now understand what has led to the block.

Furthermore I have taken this experience seriously and in the future I will use a backup system to keep my passwords for different accounts available and use them separately for different content. This might even be a positive learning experience since doing this might enable me to join more wikipedia groups related to the content topics of the accounts and my collaboration with other users. (Note from Boing! Pestcamel44 has agreed to use only one account, and will not use different accounts for different content - see below)-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

So in summary, I apologize for this. I now understand what has happened, why it was wrong, what I need to do to avoid this in the future and provided a plan for how I plan to do this. A one strike and you're out system is clearly not the intention of sockpuppet banning and that is why there is a procedure for unbanning which includes providing an explanation of why the ban is no longer necessary. This is what I have tried to do here and I hope longtime editors can understand that using wikipedia and becoming accustomed to its rules is a learning process and that good intentioned people (of which I consider myself one) make mistakes too. I hope that my comments can be taken at face value as genuine and sincere.

Pestcamel44 (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Considering the developments below, I have no option but to decline this "on hold" unblock request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2013 (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.

I would suggest a minimum condition for unblock here would be a restriction to only one account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually a minimum condition for anyone, regardless of whether they were blocked for socking or not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally not unblock without seeing a definite commitment to restrict to only one account. There is absolutely no reason to use multiple accounts for the reason stated by this editor.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, restriction to one account is a minimum, but I'm concerned about the lack of honesty or competency shown above. I don't feel it's possible to have had that much overlap in such a short period with accounts that were single purpose in nature, and then to act deliberately obtuse about it. This just feels like vanilla sockpuppetry to me. Kuru (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with Kuru here especially over what she/he claims is my lack of "honesty" and/or "competency." I feel I have been nothing but honest here. Until two days ago I had not used my Wikipedia accounts in two weeks. If users had asked me to remember specific times when I had used the accounts (which users had not done, Kuru included, even after I had specifically asked for this) then I could have been more detailed in my responses to them, which eventually (after having received these specific accusations) I was. In terms of "competency" I have add that it's unfair on Kuru's part to assume that everyone using wikipedia is an expert on its rules and structures after a few months. I can see that most people discussing this here have several years experience using wikipedia but it took time to build their understandings of how it worked too. The vast majority of people learn by doing things and making mistakes not by reading manuals or books on law and then going out to conduct their lives. Wikipedia is not meant to be a legalistic jungle, it's about enhancing humanity's store of knowledge and part of that is about ensuring their is balance. This is what I've tried to do and why I'm interesting in Wikipedia. Please look at my edits, you will see that the vast majority of them are well cited, and contribute important elements and topics to the pages they deal with (see Vietnam War page's War Crimes section, creation of English version of Archimedes Patti, discussions on the talk page of United States). Finally your last comment that this is "vanilla sockpuppety" is not relevant here because I've already admitted that the action was wrong and my intention to change this and provided a plan on how to correct this, (not by removing all of the other accounts but by keeping them separate based on topic content, keeping the passwords easily available so as to avoid mixing them and joining groups respective to the content that each user account deals with. This does not have to be immediate, and I can see that the majority of users above, Kuru included, agree that a one account restriction should be imposed. Nevertheless, it is for these reasons that I am appealing that the ban as it fits the criteria for removal as being no longer necessary.Pestcamel44 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have at least thirty-nine accounts, which even if your explanation for them were acceptable is wholly unreasonable. On your userpage you have declared none of them. If you wish this account to be unblocked as being the only one which you will use, you will need to agree here to a limitation of one account only. A subsequent application for an alternate account for use from insecure sites would probably be looked on with favour. You need no others. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bradbury, I appreciate your reply and agreement to restore my account but please do not tie the multiple account issue into this. They are separate issues. I do have a right to possess multiple accounts. The issue here is sockpuppetry not whether or not a user can have multiple accounts which per wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses states that one reason for creating alternate accounts can be privacy. The reason is as follows: "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." Clearly topics like ongoing wars would qualify as "highly controversial" and my identity is hardly well hidden considering each admin can access my IP address. I have admitted fault for the sockpuppetry issue and agreed to address it but possessing multiple accounts is still clearly within my rights.Pestcamel44 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have blatantly abused the "privacy" allowance by using at least thirty-nine accounts, some of which were clearly used dishonestly, and many of which were used for editing articles that were in no way controversial. And your assertion that admins can see your IP address is false - we cannot see it. The consensus seems to be that you have a simple choice here of one account or none, so stop abusing what good faith you are being shown and make your choice between those two options. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept to have one account. I'm sorry if you feel that I am "abusing your good faith." I was not trying to and please assume that I too am acting in good faith and deserve to be addressed respectfully and not repeatedly called abusive, dishonest or be addressed with sarcasm (e.g. "jog your memory?"). My inquiring above about multiple accounts was done to understand and avoid potential problems later on. If I am misreading the wikipedia policy on having multiple accounts for dealing with controversial issues (e.g. ongoing wars) then please let me know. If you don't have time to answer this then please unblock me and I can raise it at another forum. I'm simply asking so I can avoid a followup accusation against me which would probably lead to a permanent ban. Thank you for your time and the discussion of these issues.Pestcamel44 (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things in this conversation which, I must admit, fail to fill me with confidence. My main reservation is that you have not acknowledged at any point that your editing was in any way problematic. Your repeated assertion that anyone can have multiple accounts "as long as they have a good reason" is vague - policy does allow more than one account but there are specific circumstances stipulated under which multiple accounts are acceptable. Even if this were not the case, the sheer number of accounts you have run shows a tendency to abusively toe the line, and a fundamental deficit of understanding of the spirit of the rules surrounding multiple accounts. I find your insistence that you had no idea that edit warring with separate accounts on the same article was in any way deceptive or underhanded particularly unconvincing. Despite everything I just said, I am more than happy to unblock your account and give you a second chance, as long as you clearly understand that you are strictly restricted to one account only (a restriction which has ample precedence) and that this is your final warning not to create sockpuppets. Do you accept this? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:58, 10 April 2013 (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).

Pestcamel44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to have my account unblocked as I have agreed to stated conditions listed above.

Decline reason:

Technical decline - multiple concurrent requests -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (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.

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).

Pestcamel44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to have my account unblocked. I agreed to stated conditions listed above last week.

Decline reason:

Technical decline - multiple concurrent requests. Will respond to the more substantial one above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (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.

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).

Pestcamel44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Yes I completely accept this. Since I had not heard anything from anyone since I made my last post I started a new account named user:Officialguide and I have only used this account since then for personal reasons. Any other posts I have made I have made my ip address public when making them. Thank you Basalisk for your reply and offer.Pestcamel44 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. I do not believe you are telling the truth. I left my comment here offering you a last chance on the 10th of April, and yet you created the latest sock account on the 12th. That's not really consistent with your claim that you created a new sock because no one had responded to you. You created that new sock purely to avoid scrutiny, and you're only posting here now because that old account was blocked and you are likely unable to create a new one because of autoblocks in place. You were given a last chance, and you carried on creating socks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:08, 27 April 2013 (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.

Starting a new account while blocked is block evasion, and accordingly I have blocked Officialguide. Creating yet another account while discussion here is ongoing does not help you.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry. I've tried to follow all of the rules. I asked for a reply and no one responded for 10 days to me. I was able to create a new account and you can see that I've made sure to keep my editing, which has been relatively limited, to the one account Officialguide unless otherwise using an open IP address. In other words, I've been showing that I am now following the rules of having one account.Pestcamel44 (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On April 10th you agreed, without reservation, not to create any more sockpuppets. So why did you? A delay in responding to your request is not a valid excuse. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:08, 27 April 2013 (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).

Pestcamel44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Basalisk and User:Anthony.bradbury I said I was sorry but honestly you have to look at what I have done. I did exactly what was asked of me. I only had ONE account. I even did more than that because I followed my own promise to join groups that were of interest to me in order to become a better editor. You claim that I am only posting now because a new block is in place is of course correct. I was quite happy working with only ONE account until I was blocked from even editing under an ip address yesterday. That's why I came back to Pestcamel44 and sure enough after 10 days someone had responded and I had never seen that until yesterday. My point is simply that I have followed the ONE account rule and have not created any socks unless you categorize the user:Officialguide as a sock but since I did it with the intent of it being my sole account it's hopefully understandable. Thank you again for reviewing this and I'm sorry for all of this, I'm not a bad person and I appreciate that you all take these issues so seriously. But I am honestly trying to contribute here and I think you can see that if you look at how I have used my account over the past 14 days. I have a completely different understanding of sockpuppetry now than I did before, frankly I didn't even know what the term was but if you check my usage you will see that I am not practicing that today.

Decline reason:

This request, and indeed all of your actions are either horribly disingenuous or outright lies. A BLOCK applies to YOU the person. When blocked, YOU the person may not edit Wikipedia either through an account, or an IP address. You most certainly may not create new accounts while dozens of admins are investigating your unblock requests. I am currently goign to go out on a limb and propose the standard offer: for the next 3 months, stay away from Wikipedia. Do not edit as an IP. Do not login to this account. Of course, you now already know that creating or using any other account is improper, so I should not have to mention it. No earlier than July 28, you may return to this page and request a compliant unblock request - unblock will not be automatic. The admin will most likely request a checkuser to verify that you have not edited this project at any time during the block. If the admin determines you have violated these terms, the counter will be reset for an additional 3 months. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 28 April 2013 (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.

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).

Pestcamel44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here What you are saying BWilkins is just WRONG, the offer I was made on the 10th was that I was allowed to use only one account. You jumped into this conversation without reading it through and that's not right. What I said I did was not a lie it was exactly what I did. CHECK IT if you don't think so. I started 1 new account and ONLY edited with that ONE. Please let Basalisk respond. Basalisk has placed the block and is more familiar with the situation. It's impossible to have a conversation when admins are just jumping into this on the fly and not reading the entire posts and evaluating the my usage. I can wait a few days for an admin to do the research and then make a fair judgement.Pestcamel44 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is just possible that you really do not understand some of what has been said to you, but in view of the fact that you have clearly been thoroughly dishonest in connection with some aspects of the case, it is not obvious that you deserve the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, whatever the proportions of dishonesty and incompetence in the mixture that leads you to be so disruptive, I suggest that you accept the offer that BWilkins has made to you. Any further attempt to evade the block before the suggested 3 months are up is likely to lead to your being banned from Wikipedia. Any more unblock requests that fail to address the issues that have been raised is likely to lead to loss of talk page access to stop you wasting administrators' time. Considering that by your own testimony, while you were blocked for sockpuppetry you made yet another sockpuppet account to evade the block on this one, you are amazingly lucky to have an offer made to let you back in three months: as BWilkins said, he has gone out on a limb to make such an offer. I strongly suggest that you accept that offer: it is virtually inconceivable you will be offered any more, and very likely that you will be offered less. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2013 (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.

JamesBWatson please list exactly what "the issues that have been raised" in the above are. If I can't address (or haven't already addressed) them it's unlikely I'll be able to in 3 months, which is a requirement for the unblock them.Pestcamel44 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misunderstanding this completely, so please stop arguing and try to listen. You were *not* told you could start a *new* account. What you were told was that you could maybe have *this* account unblocked, but that would be conditional on your sticking to only *this one* account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, I do understand that but what you are confusing is the fact that I had not received that message. All that I knew was that I hadn't been responded to and that I was able to start an account. Please check my logins onto this account if you don't believe me. I never got Basalisk message which agreed to allow me to use only Pestcamel44 until 2/3(?) days ago when I was again blocked. At that time I read Basalisk's mesage and sure enough he was asking if I would accept to only use one account. I replied that that was exactly what I had been doing ever since. I offered the name of the account user:officialguide and asked for him/her to take a look at it and see that I had done exactly what was asked of me and what I had promised to do under the previous discussion (only edit under one account and joining groups to help find a community of similarly interested editors). What I'm asking for is to be allowed to continue to edit using user:officialguide as my sole account as I have been for the past 3 weeks. I will never use any of the other accounts for editing again and I haven't since the sock puppet investigation began. Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for responding and not simply rejecting my request. Please let me know if I can further clarify this and please feel free to investigate my usage as thoroughly as possible and you I'm sure you will see that I am being truthful and acting in good faith. Thank you.Pestcamel44 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]