User talk:Je suis tres fatigue

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).

Je suis tres fatigue (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked as a sock puppet, but I am no sock puppet. Please read my talk page for details. I have explained the details why blocking me is unjustfied.

Decline reason:

The blocking admin stated here: [1] that you were blocked for "an incident involving a retaliatory bad-faith AIV that led me to block two users I have subsequently unblocked". You have not addressed that. Jayron32 03:43, 17 February 2010 (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 was accused of being a sock puppet of User:Michael Friedrich but it is only because he and I edited the same articles related to Korea. Only evidence reported so far is that he and I are "similar"Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich. No IP address check or anything of the kind has been done. You can use IP address checker or something like that and you will find out I have nothing to do with him.

I read some of his comments and I must say that my English is far better than his. User:Caspian blue, who started calling me a sock puppet, says the fact that both of Michael and I use ">>" in replying to questions is evidence that we are the same person. However, it is natural that both of use use ">>" because it is very commonly used in Japan. I don't know how people in other countries do when replying to questions, but most Japanese people use ">" or ">>" in replying in emails and BBSes. Please read w:ja:不等号#コンピュータ. It mentions the fact that ">" and ">>" are very commonly used for response in emails and BBSes in Japan.

電子メールや電子掲示板で、> が引用符として、引用各行の行頭につけられる。 チャットや電子掲示板で、> や >> のあとにハンドル、人名、レス番等を書き、その人物やレスへの発言であることを表す。

User:Caspian blue repeatedly mention an article called Uriginal, or w:ja:韓国起源説(Korea Origin Theory). He claims that my suggesting deleting of Japan Origin Theory of the Korean wikipedia is also evidence that Michael and I are the same user. But but I have never edited Uriginal or w:ja:韓国起源説. I only came across the article in the Korean wikipedia and I found it being a copy of the Japanese article w:ja:韓国起源説. That's why I suggested deleting it. I have no interest in Uriginal or Korea Origin Theory unlike Michael. I was only trying to remove meaningless article and everybody agreed with me that the article was meaningless([[w:ko:위키백과:삭제 토론/일본기원설).

Please use IP address checker or anything that can show whether there is a connection between him and me. I really have no connection to him.

I was also accused of being disruptive. I admit having some edit wars. But it was because I didn't know how to solve the problem. I opened discussions[2][3][4] and tried to talk with the other editors involved[5][6][7]. I didn't know any other ways to solve problems. The other editors never tried to discuss the matter and kept reverting. The contents of my edits were not disruptive as you can see that another editor named User:EdJohnston admits that my version of the article "was more neutral and balanced than the one which Kuebie (and the other editors involved) have been fighting to restore."(Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kuebie reported by User:Je suis tres fatigue (Result: Warned)) I really was trying hard to make the article more natural and balanced.

I don't think the contents were disruptive. But I have to admit my method was against the rules. I just didn't know any other way to avoid edit warring than to open discussion and to talk to other editors involved. Now I read WP:DISPUTE and learned how to act. I went to a WikiProject page and asked for other editors' comments[8]. I asked an editor who knows well about Wikipedia how to act[9]. I didn't go to the disputed page after I was unblocked because I learned that it would cause more edit wars.

I am no sock puppet of User:Michael Friedrich. Please use IP address checker or other possible methods. Then you will see I really have no connection to him. Using ">>" doesn't mean anything because many Japanese people are fond of using it in replying (see w:ja:不等号#コンピュータ). This shows that Michael edited a lot of articles that I have never edited. Michael was also active in the Japanese wikipedia but I have edited the Japanese version only a few times. I have never edited w:ja:韓国起源説, which Michael seems to have most interested in, or tried to start new article like Uriginal or Korea Origin Theory. His edit history and mine overlap only in a few articles. He and I are two different men.

2. I believe the contents of my edits were not disruptive. But I admit my method was not good. I have learnt how to avoid edit wars. I understand what is regarded as disruptive in Wikipedia. I will never have the same war again. Before having edit wars, I will ask for other editors' opinions.

Blocking me as a sock puppet is unjustified because I am not a sock puppet. I understand what is disruptive and learned how to avoid edit wars.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note Michael Friedrich was blocked in 2008, so IP check would be meaningless since over the time, your ISP and location could be changed. One thing interesting is that Michael Friedrich used Dion, a subsidiary of KDDI a big communication company having a lot of subsidiaries, and Fatigue's ISP accidentally revealed his ISP (or intentionally given cunning sockpuppeters revealing their IPs or emphasizing where they live which turned out to be likely open proxy) is also a subsidiary of KDDI. A suspected IP of Fatigue is designated to a mobile phone, so well, it is possible for Fatigue to use several IP from home/school/workplace/mobile phone/internet cafe. That's why I did not intentionally ask for Checkuser your account. Checkusers have said that behavioral evidences are more strong than technical evidences. Michale "successfully" managed his sock account(s) for years until I paid attention to his suspicious behavior.

Michael Friedrich and his sockpuppeters also had frequently mentioned or claimed about them being Japanese-Australia even though their English is not of native English speakers as he claimed or studying in the United States after graduation from University of Tokyo. However, on the other hand, Michael claimed to be a regular to some spot since he had lived over 20 years for Tokyo even though his user page claims he was born and raised in Nagoya as well as some extensive living in Australia. Thus, that means his self-identification do not match each other and appeared to be habitually lying about his identity. They also feigned to be Korean descendants even though their edits are clearly anti-Korean agenda by uploading copyviolated football images, creating Korean bashing articles like Uriginal and being the highest contributor to South Korean cultural claims a.k.a "Korean origin theory" cooked up by Japanese internet forums like 2channel and Chinese forums. It is funny that even in this defense, Fatigue used the same argument as Michael did like "his English is better than the banned sockpuppeter". After Checkuser confirmed that Michael is a sockpuppeter of Roberto Houdini who who claimed to be Korean-Japanese, Michael's argument is that "his Koran is better than Houdini." :-)

Michael Friedrich tried to reduce any suspicion upon his activities by showing how earnest he was about resolving issues that he raised. However whenever his insistence was not accepted, he tended to pour his outburst which is pretty characteristic like excessive bold text and capital letters with specific symbols. Fatigue showed the identical pattern as well. I will add more later. --Caspian blue 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, the removal of previous unblock requests, and the apparent refactoring of a lot of this talkpage does not give me the warm fuzzies about unblocking. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone my procedural decline of the above unblock request because it was pointed out to me that the previous unblock requests that had been removed belonged to an expired block. I'll leave the unblock request to someone else to review it on the merits. Sandstein 06:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]