User talk:Huritisho

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Tetra quark (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

@BatteryIncluded:@Primefac:@Geogene:@JorisvS:@John:@Huntster:@Isambard Kingdom:@Praemonitus:@Drbogdan: So this day has finally come. I am not going to defend myself saying that you guys are all wrong, but I gotta admit I've never quite understood why you all seem so obsessed over this socking issue. I know it can be quite annoying to find out that an apparent new user is actually a sock, but my contributions were all constructive. I've made great improvements to several articles, many bold green byte change edits that I won't even bother to mention. I was banned in my first account for getting into a discussion with a few users, and later I made the mistake of creating my first sock. I do regret making those two mistakes (which grant and indefinite block), but I do not feel much guilty because I tend to always think about the readers of Wikipedia. Do the readers care about the content of the encyclopedia or do they care about who put the content there? I believe I've made good contributions, and I don't regret making them. I honestly am tired of having to hide. Later I'll just post an honest unblock request so perhaps I'll be able to get clean and just continue editing my articles as usual. For now, all I ask of you is to not go around reverting everything I've done (unless of course an edit I made was not an improvement). And as always, cheers, Huritisho 17:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To sum it all up, don't think that I have bad intentions or that I have no respect for this community. Huritisho 17:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example

For example, John has recently reverted two of my edits (one of them:[1]). All I ask is: Is it really necessary, since I had improved and expanded the article? That's what I honestly wonder. Basically, I just wanted one user to reply and clarify. Huritisho 17:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My honest unblock request

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Pretty much all that could be said is in my message above. This unblock request is more specifically target at @John:. John, you know my story. You said I had good potential. I do regret being blocked for the first time for getting into arguments with other users, and I do regret having created my first sock, but I have never disrupted wikipedia or anything. All I want is another chance to start off clean and just keep improving the articles I like to edit, as I have always done. You can look at my contributions and you can see they are all good or well-intentioned. Again, what's more imoprtant: The content the readers will read or who created that content? Cheers, Huritisho 17:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Pretty much all that could be said is in my message above. This unblock request is more specifically target at <span class="template-ping">@[[User:John|John]]:</span>. John, you know my story. You said I had good potential. I do regret being blocked for the first time for getting into arguments with other users, and I do regret having created my first sock, but I have never disrupted wikipedia or anything. All I want is another chance to start off clean and just keep improving the articles I like to edit, as I have always done. You can look at my contributions and you can see they are all good or well-intentioned. Again, what's more imoprtant: The content the readers will read or ''who'' created that content? Cheers, ''[[User talk:Huritisho|Huritisho]]'' 17:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Pretty much all that could be said is in my message above. This unblock request is more specifically target at <span class="template-ping">@[[User:John|John]]:</span>. John, you know my story. You said I had good potential. I do regret being blocked for the first time for getting into arguments with other users, and I do regret having created my first sock, but I have never disrupted wikipedia or anything. All I want is another chance to start off clean and just keep improving the articles I like to edit, as I have always done. You can look at my contributions and you can see they are all good or well-intentioned. Again, what's more imoprtant: The content the readers will read or ''who'' created that content? Cheers, ''[[User talk:Huritisho|Huritisho]]'' 17:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Pretty much all that could be said is in my message above. This unblock request is more specifically target at <span class="template-ping">@[[User:John|John]]:</span>. John, you know my story. You said I had good potential. I do regret being blocked for the first time for getting into arguments with other users, and I do regret having created my first sock, but I have never disrupted wikipedia or anything. All I want is another chance to start off clean and just keep improving the articles I like to edit, as I have always done. You can look at my contributions and you can see they are all good or well-intentioned. Again, what's more imoprtant: The content the readers will read or ''who'' created that content? Cheers, ''[[User talk:Huritisho|Huritisho]]'' 17:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Cirt: for example, Cirt knows I've improved an nominated an article for good article status. Cirt was even reviewing my article, and I said I was going to review his. I'm really bummed out. Huritisho 17:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd no idea the sock investigation was going on. But I'd asked Huritisho not to review an article I'd nominated, immediately after me reviewing one he'd nominated, and instead asked him to review a different article nominated by someone else, within the same topic queue. — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Sure, I forgot that. Yes, you asked me to review another article that has been a nominee for longer. That doesn't matter much, however. You seemed glad that I was going to help review physics articles Huritisho 18:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I was glad to have other editors help out with clearing the WP:BACKLOGS at GA Reviews. I was, however, unaware at the time that there was an ongoing sock investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark, of the GA Nominator. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Do you intend to keep reviewing the article I improved and nominated? Huritisho 18:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll probably leave some recommendations for any future editors that wish to further improve the page. — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra quark, I will not unblock. I do not think you have been honest in your claim that only one sock was created by you; apart from all the IP socking, I see five named socks. I do think you have disrupted Wikipedia, and I do not think your current unblock request comes close to addressing the degree of disruption you have caused. I was actually thinking of requesting a WP:BAN for you due to your recidivism. But in the spirit of the unblock process I will let another admin handle this. --John (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Wait, no. I claimed that I regret having created my first sock. I didn't mean to say I had created only one. Also, may I honestly ask you how exactly I am disrupting Wikipedia? I believe that what really matters are the articles. In all of my accounts, I have only contributed and expanded wikipedia. I could you link to some notable examples but I'm afraid you might revert my work. I've created several lists and significantly improved quite a few articles. The users who interact with me know that. Cheers, Huritisho 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin: Please check Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tetra quark before considering an unblock. --John (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see you had 5 accounts in the past and all were disrupting to Wikipedia and other editors. I don't see why/how you will change this time. There is something to be said about your WP:COMPETENCY. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think this unblock request should be granted, but you should know that editors with a much more problematic history than yours have had their sanctions lifted before. It can happen, but only when a long time has passed without more sockpuppet accounts appearing. See WP:OFFER. Geogene (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]