Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * Michael Friedrich's sock, indefinitely blocked
 * au one net Dion.ad.jp
 * same as above
 * current IP used by Je suis tres fatigue. (The JCN Funabashinarashino Ltd ISP is a subsidiary of KDDI just like Dion, ad.jp.
 * mobile phone
 * same as above
 * current IP used by Je suis tres fatigue. (The JCN Funabashinarashino Ltd ISP is a subsidiary of KDDI just like Dion, ad.jp.
 * mobile phone


 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Michael Friedrich
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pabopa
 * User talk:Je suis tres fatigue vs Michael Friedrich's visit to my talk page vs D10 Spada[]
 * At User talk:Objectiveye, Michael Friedrich's comment vs Je suis tres fatigue's
 * Talk:Kumdo (permanent link)
 * Articles for deletion/Uriginal (User:Michael Friedrich, and his sock Robert Houdini's vote stacking)
 * Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims (2nd nomination) (Japanese sock farm)
 * ko:WP:Deletions for article/Japanese origin theory (translation)
 * ko:User talk:Je suis tres fatigue various warnings and block for one month for his persistent disruption and vandalism at Korean Wikipedia

Evidence submitted by Caspian blue

 * Unfortunately, seemingly the block evasions of too familiar sockpuppeters and banned users are too conspicuous and aggressive these days again, so I'm filing this report. I've been housekeeping Kumdo regardless of my indifference in the subject because the article has been marked as Japanese 2channel's long-term mission, so attracting many sockpuppeters. Among such people, who claimed to be a Japanese-Australian from Nagoya and later a Korean-Japanese had operated socks for years also appeared the article. He disputed mainly with, and filed a SSI case against his opponent even though he is a sockpuppeter himself. This time, 's main interests focus on Objectiveye's edit by tracing and accusing his opponent's edit. In the meantime, he has shown almost identical pattern of writing style, argument and interests such as Kendo/Kumdo, Korean language/Japanese language, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea and Anti-Korean sentiment.


 * Michael Friedrich's obsession with "Korean origin theory" or Japanese origin theory" is also shown in Je suis tres fatigue's edits. For example, Michael Friedrich created the article of Uriginal, a bogus neologism cooked up by Japanese netizens which was deleted for its failure of notability, sourcing and WP:RS. He also tried to keep South Korean cultural claims by canvassing the news to 2channel, and Japanese Wikipedia as he habitually had done so. On Korean Wikipedia, a copycat article of the deleted article, named "Japanese origin claim" was created by somebody, and Je suis tres fatigue appeared to delete the article and tag-bomb it. His way of pouring his outburst is too familiar. During the AFD discussion, he tag-bombed the article and blanked/disupted in his coarse Korean writing with a translation machine. Therefore, he was blocked for one month there. This pattern of the two editors is identical.


 * Interestingly, as Objectiveye are active and edits Michael Friedrich's interested articles, the new user, Je suis tres fatigue appears to chase down Objectiveye's edit. Je suis tres fatigue's edit and edit summaries are all toward Objectiveye.
 * Anti-Japanese sentiment
 * Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea
 * Language isolate

I don't think the banned user has been quite for over one year. Michael revealed himself as a student of University of Tokyo and used sock IPs of Dion.jp ISP. He also claimed his younger brother (proven as his sock) studying in the US after graduation, so I guess if a checkuser looks into the underlying IPs, and the IPs are Dion ISP, the universities, or US ISP, the new user is Michael Friedrich. However, the past Checkuser case is too old to check, so WP:DUCK and behavioral evidences are presented here.--Caspian blue 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Michael and Je suis tres fatigue are fond of using ">>" Michael and his sockwhen relying to questions. vs Je suis tres fatigue Even though Je suis tres fatigue's Korean ability is terrible, he can write in Korean to intimidate people who warned his vandal activities just like Michae Friedrich did. just like Michael Friedirech did. at Korean origin theory--Caspian blue 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Canvassing to other forums or language Wikipedia for AFD on "X-country's origin articles". Moreover, isn't it weird that Michael Friedrich and Je suis tres fatigue were the only non-regular foreign editor appearing at the AFD discussions.WP:AFD/Korean origin theory WP:AFD/Japanese origin theory.
 * Michael Friedrich to Japanese Wikipedia vs Je suis tres fatigue


 * Fatigue interestingly blanked out info from Baekje and Kofun period which are referenced by a book, and said "read the discussion". However, I don't see any new discussion opened by him, but a past discussion opened by Michael Friedrich instead over the same POV. Talk:Baekje. --Caspian blue 09:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Michal showed a great interest in wiping out info from Korean sword and Korean swordsmanship, and a similar blanking was done by Fatigue.--Caspian blue 09:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I originally considered to add to the list for the same suspicious appearance with the same SPI purpose to Kumdo. The new user, Arstriker appeared before fatique to the article. His appearance to defend Fatigue out of nowhere in his about one month break gives me enough suspicion to investigate his contribution. He may be a sockpuppet or at least meatpuppet of Fatigue. There would be a strong possibility that 2channel or other Japanese venue is usually engaging in or monitoring the page just like Michael or other similar banned users did canvass to 2channel or stalking blogs for their agenda and getting out of their sockpuppetry charge and Checkuer investigations.--Caspian blue 14:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 's disruptive edit warring/POV campaign is still ongoing.--Caspian blue 14:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ja:Korean origin theory - ja:User:Michael Friedrich and his presumably sockpuppet ja:User:Roberto Hongo (user:Robert Houdini, blocked sock of Michael and claimed to have lived in Australia just like Michael) are the highest contributor (ranked "no.1" and "no.3") of "Korean origin theory article" on Japanese Wikipedia. After Michael and Roberto Hongo got inactive, Arstriker who also ranks the highest contributor to the article appeared to Japanese Wikipedia, and appears here to defend Michael in his one month break out of nowwhere. There is no invitation to the page, no interaction between Fatigue and Arstriker on both Japanese and English Wikipedia. Arstriker argued that he saw my sockpuppet accusation against Fagiue at the discussion on Talk:Kumdo which is a outright lie.--Caspian blue 15:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. Though I don't want to talk to Capian Blue, I've come here because he accused me of not coming. I just didn't know I have to say something here.

I have to admit I chased down Objectiveye's edits because his edit on Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea was one of the oddest edit I had ever seen. You can accuse me of it if it is against the rules (I don't know whether it is against the rules or not). But I was so surprised that I came to know what his previous edits were like. Soon I found almost all his edits strongly biased (or at least they seemed so to me), and tried to get the pages back to the previous versions. Caspian blue called my edit vandalism and his reverting "restoration". If his reverting of my edit was "restoration", so was my reverting of Objectiveye's edit because I just restored the pages back to the previous versions.

As for the Korean wikipedia, what's wrong about it? I suggested deleting the page "Japan-origin theory" and all users concerned agreed with me. My blanking of the page may have been against the rules, but what's wrong about mentioning the page on the Japanese wikipedia? I never asked anyone to vote or to do anything. I just mentioned the page because of it was a copy of the Japanese page. Was it against the rules?

Caspian blue accuses me of leaving the comment "read the discussion" without making a new discussion. However, I was editing the discussion and left message soon after that. I finished this edit and left the message "read the discussion" before finishing creating a new discussion because I never even dreamed someone would chase down my edits and edit the page so quickly.

As for my edit on Korean sword, if you let me use your word, I just "restored" the page back to the version before Objectiveye's edit. He always uses the same source on any page and he does not mention which page of the book he got the information. I cannot say his way of citation is proper.

It is OK for Caspian blue to accuse me for chasing down Objectiveye's edit if it is against the rules (although Caspian blue is desperately chasing me, too). But I'm not interested in Caspian blue's other claims.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is odd that you're not defending for yourself over the likelihood of the banned user with you. You've removed the sock tag and called my tagging "vandalism" over and over and you've attacked me by calling stalker because I reverted your massive and unexplained and unconsensus blanking. Ever since your appearance to English Wikipedia, you have not made any single good contribution to here. Your disruption to Korean Wikipedia has something to do with the current situation since you've shown the same M.O. and tactics. Michael Friedrich are the only non-regular editor who appeared to vote for keeping the article of Korean origin theory cooked up by 2channel, while you are the only non-regular editor who appeared desperately to delete the article of Japanese origin theory, a copy cat of the mentioned article. You have failed to answer that how come my edits to the articles are chasing your edits since I've edited prior to  your appearance. Your edits are even right after my edits. The talk pages show my prior participation. Thus, you're the one deliberately disrupting English Wikipedia and resorting to the bogus accusation to get your way for your agenda. --Caspian blue 14:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. >>It is odd that you're not defending for yourself over the likelihood of the banned user with you
 * It is because I didn't know there was a section named "Comments by accused parties". I did not read much of this page because I did not want to waste my time with you, who refused to talk to me.  Why should I talk to you although you refused to talk to me?
 * 2. I still do not make heads or tales of what Korean wikipedia has to do with this page...
 * 3. "I've edited prior to  your appearance" does not make sense to me... Are you mentioning your edits from more than a year ago?  If so, how should I know about your edits from years ago?  For example, your last edit on Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea was 31 October, 2008.  Although you had been absent for a long time before my edit, how can you accuse me for chasing you down?
 * "Your edits are even right after my edits." does not make sense at all. Which page are you referring to?  If you are mentioning this kind of edit, isn't it natural because my previous edit was reverted.  I said I had chased down Objectiveye.  But I've never chased you down.  Nobody is concerned about you as much as you are.
 * "The talk pages show my prior participation." How should I know about your participation years ago?  Do I have to read the whole talk page before editing?  That's nonsense.
 * You clearly appeared soon after my edit.  I admit I chased Objectiveye, but I am not chasing you, and you've been chasing me.  This is the truth.
 * You say I've made any good contribution to the English wikipedia. However, I do believe this line should be toward Objectiveye.  It is his edit that is disrupting English wikipedia.  I do believe my reverting of those edits  and adding tags are not something I am to blame for.  Though my edits seem disrupting from your view point, to me, I am just removing biased or unproperly cited information from Wikipedia.  In your logic, it should be called "restoration".
 * 4. I've said what I want to say. I know this page is not for quarreling.  Whether I am chacing you or you are chacing me does not have anything to do with this page, either.  Neither does whether my edits were good or bad.  Keep talking to yourself if you want.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your above comment is a classic showcase of WP:TLDR and nonsense. As I said, I've been patrolling all updated articles on my watchlist, and all suspicious and disruptive edits are my first priority for such patrolling. You admit that I edited before you. In my view, your edits are all single purpose edit as well as disruptive and blanking of cited info out of grudge against Objectiveye which is just a perfect match to Michael Friedrich's behaviors. Moreover, your likelihood of the banned user is a very good reason for the patrolling. I've always talked with you even though I know I'm wasting a great deal of my time dealing with a likely block-evading banned user, so your blatant lying is not a good tactic for your defense. You also fail to refute the same M.O with the banned user, and your activities to Korean Wikipedia with the same agenda.--Caspian blue 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is good that you soon redacted your nonsensical outburst. Search the term since here is an online encyclopedia. Knowledge can be offered by just one click. You know many things even able to find the now deleted article on Korean Wikipedia out of nowhere, and track down Objectiveye's contribution. It is really amusing.--Caspian blue 16:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sick and tired of your nonsensical outburst. I removed my message not because I think it is nonsensical but because I didn't want to deal with your nonsense anymore.  (You talk as if everyone was concerned about you.  How should I know about your patrolling?  That's nonsense.)  I'll leave this page because this page is not for our quarreling.  You just stay if you want to.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Je suis tres fatigue, MO stands for Method of Operation. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But I still don't understand "refute the same M.O with the banned user"...  What do this page and this page have to do with each other?  I cannot find out the meaning of "the same MO".  Well, it doesn't matter anyway.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It means you have failed to explain your uncanny appearance to Korean Wikipedia for the same brotherhood topic to which Michael appeared. Moreover, your responses to the piled warning for your vandalism on Korean Wikipedia is just the same as Michael's harassment to users who gave him a warning for his vandalism. Since ja:User:Michael Friedrich and his presumably sockpuppet ja:User:Roberto Hongo (user:Robert Houdini, blocked sock of Michael and claimed to have lived in Australia just like Michael) are the highest contributor (ranked "no.1" and "no.3") of "Korean origin theory article" on Japanese Wikipedia for fulfilling his anti-Korean sentiment, and you're acting like his M.O., I've convinced that you're the block evading banned user.--Caspian blue 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain my "uncanny" appearance to Korean wikipedia...? What's uncanny about my edit?  What am I to explain?  I happened to find the stupid page in Korean Wikipedia and suggested deleting it.  Does deleting the page mean I was trying to fulfill my "anti-Korean sentiment"?  What else do I have to explain?  I have never edited ja:韓国起源説.  I have never said Koreans were copying Japanese culture or something like that.  All I have done so far is try to remove meaningless information that tries to fullfill anti-Japanese sentiments in vain.  You can see I have never made any anti-Korean edits in neither of English, Japanese, Korean wikipedia.  Please take a careful look on my edits.  I've been only removing false information based on anti-Japanese sentiment.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You WP:CANVASSed your nomination for deletion on the article on the Korean Wikipedia to ja:韓国起源説's talk page on the Japanese Wiki, didn't you? This is just a typical M.O. of Michael Friedirch who did that more than two times for AFDs on the origin theory articles on English Wikipedia to other language Wikipedias. It is very odd that the new user knows Korean Wikipedia rules very well as if you were active there before.--Caspian blue 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I left the message on the talk page of ja:韓国起源説 before starting discussing deleting the page. I never asked anyone to vote or to do anything.  I just mentioned "I found something like this" because the Korean page was a copy of the Japanese page.  I read WP:CANVASS but I don't think what I did was against the rules.  If it is, what you did is also against the rules.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you clearly violated the WP:CANVASS policy because it was not "open" but "secret" to the voters on the Korean Wikipedia at all. The AFD was opened by you "two hours" after the secret canvassing to Japanese Wikipedia. So you wanted Japanese editors to visit the Korean Wikipedia and followed your steps there. On the other hand, my notification to the user is fully legitimate, because he was a victim of 's harassment of him and abusive sockpuppeting, so it is not "secret" at all unlike you. So please do not try to excuse your poor behavior for your agenda with the bogus argument. Moreover, you have failed to explain your uncanny appearance to the AFD place on Korean Wikipedia. All M.O. of yours are just perfectly matching to what Michael Friedrich did. :-) --Caspian blue 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "it was not open but secret to the voters on the Korean Wikipedia at all"....????? Sorry but I cannot understand your logic at all.  Anybody could participate the discussion.  Why do you call it "secret"...?
 * Your notification to the user is fully legitimate...??? You are asking other editors to help you.  If it is OK, why is mentioning the Korean page on the Japanese discussion page illegitimate?  The Korean page was a copy of the Japanese page.  Isn't it natural to mention it on the Japanese page?  I never asked anyone to do anything.
 * You are talking as if I suggested removing the page in order to fullfill what you call "anti-Korean sentiment" of mine, but all I did was to remove the copy page which was filled with meaningless anti-Japanese sentiment. You say I have "failed to explain my uncanny appearance" but what is uncanny about it?  I happened to find the Korean page, which was incredibly meaningless, and I suggested deleting it.  I explained everything.  What's more do you want?--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. When I have discussed Caspian blue at the Talk:Japan–Korea relations, I noticed that he have blocked his opponent as a sockpuppet. So, this time, when I have found a discussion of Caspian and Je suis tres fatigue at the Talk:Kumdo, I checked Fatigue's page, since I'm interested in a state of Fatigue. And as expected, I found sock-tag put by Caspian. I think that the reason why Caspian assumed that Fatigue is a sockpuppet is not over a level of the imagination. And that's why I appeared here and objected to Caspian.--Arstriker (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You said that you came here after seeing the sockpuppetry accusation against Fatigue at Talk:Kumdo which turns out to be untrue. After it was pointed out, you switched your rationale how you got here by seeing the sock tag even though you have no interaction with Fatigue before on any place Wikipedia, and then you also changed your rationale again to get out of the illogicality of your excuse. The banned user at Korea-Japan dispute has been block-evading for years, and legitimately blocked "again". I actually have seen many sockpuppeters, but only file a SPI case until my patience with them are unbearable for their blatant harassment, disruptive edits which Fatigue and you also have shown. You have failed to answer to the raised evidences one by one, and blindly defend for him by attacking me. If you continee your disparagement campaign without providing logical answers to the quetion regarding the implausibility of your appearance here out of nowhere since you were taking one month break, your own assertion will be ignored. --Caspian blue 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue, I admit that I omitted some details, however I don't have changed my rationale. At the first I saw a discussion of you at the Talk:Kumdo, and I checked your opponent's page after that, since I know you have once blocked your opponent forcibly. And I found the sock-tag put by you in that page, and then I appeared here. It is not the unnatural situation that you insist on. You seems to be too emotional. Please grasp the situation calmly.--Arstriker (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstriker, "please grasp the situation calmly and don't get so emotional" over your name listed on the page due to your suspicious appearance and behaviors. You indeed changed your rationale to excuse the lie that you saw the sockpuppet accusation against Fatigue on the Kumdo talk page. Please do not throw out false accusation like the presented evidences are from "my imagination" (still that phrase is very offensive and inappropriate). The another banned user's contribution was reviewed by admins whose specialty in sockpuppetry investigation. Just filing to here does not automatically make accused people blocked. That needs "strong evidences" and time consuming investigation to show that accused editors are the same with suspected socks. The job does not need emotion nor false accusation as well as mere assertions" as you have been doing so. If you're defending him, you're supporting his highly disruptive edits habitually inserting original research, falsification of sources. The presented evidences and comparison would be reviewed by also admins, not you based on your baseless accusation. So please do not disrupt the page nor insist on "your unnatural appearance" if you can not refute logically. You have failed to do so.--Caspian blue 04:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained politely and logically, but You only assert "lie", "suspicious", "implausible", "unnatural". It's impossible to make the person, who never tries to understand, understand. Maybe wikipedia's access-log would show how did I appear here and prove I am right.--Arstriker (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You explained uncivilly, and illogically, but you only appear to attack me with no convincing argument. A WP:SPADE is a spade. You indeed lied and you even attacked me my evidences come from my "delusion". That is not called civil nor logical. The phrase "unnatural" is what you first used, so you again falsely accuse me. It is impossible for me to understand what you're saying with "It's impossible to make the person, who never tries to understand, understand.". The oddness of your defending for fatigue whom you never met before will prove I'm right.--Caspian blue 06:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for my bad English, I will wait for the result.--Arstriker (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note; Fatigue's unhelpful comment from the "evidence section" to where his comments belong --Caspian blue 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * {|class="wikitable"


 * WOW! What sophistries!--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this have anything to do with this page?--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * }

Comments by other users
This user had beef with Objectiveye's edits from the get-go. Obvious single purpose account. Same objectives and identical writing style (such as the overuse of needless commas). Another reincarnation of Michael Friedrich. Akkies (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see my first edit was in September, 2009. It was not toward Objectiveye.  My account is not a single purpose

account.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your first edit was the same edit with your other edit to Kumdo.--Caspian blue 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously that this account is not single purpose account. And the evidence submitted by Caspian blue is likely to his wrong impression. That cannot be the evidence. This is a false charge.--Arstriker (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is weird that you appear out of nowhere from about "your one month break" to defend the suspected user who did not even meet you before on any page, but you are so sure about his contribution without no valid rationale., see the contribution of the "new user" here and his talk page. He also has shown same agenda with Michael Friedrich and disruptive pattern.--Caspian blue 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue, are you gonna make every your opponent a sock puppet? You can do anything.  You will only end up finding you were completely wrong.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC).
 * No, in the article of Kumdo, there are likely more socks given their SPI agenda and geographical information, but to me, their behaviors do not match your behavior, so I did not add them to the investigation list except Arstriker. You and he did not meet on Japanese Wikipedia, and no notification given to him. However, he appears here for you in one month break? That is quite implausible. ---Caspian blue 14:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue, I have read the discussion of you at the Talk:Kumdo and have known that this account is suspected as sockpuppet by you. Do you want to banish all argument partners?--Arstriker (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know your above comment is a outright lie. I never said or hinted about the possibility of Fatigue's socking at the page. Moreover, the timing is still highly implausible. Your latest appearance to your home Wiki was "three days ago". So your appearance just reinforces my view about his socking.--Caspian blue 15:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Outright lie? I saw argument and took an interest, so refer to his page, and have found you put the sock tag in his page. Do you under stand? You tend to suspect others without certain evidence.--Arstriker (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no single drop of the sockpuppetry accusation there, so my assessment on your excuse with Talk:Kumdo for your appearance here is indeed correct. So you switch your rationale for your knowledge of him being suspected as the banned user. You even did not meet him, but his talk page is on your Watchlist? Still very unconvincing and implausible.--Caspian blue 15:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unreasonable that you are doing.--Arstriker (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Kuebie appears with an "evidence" after a notification, but you have not brought any plausible reason for your sudden appearance and defense for him. Unfortunately, your unreasonable behavior convinces my view.--Caspian blue 16:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue, I have only stated my own opinion about this matter. I think you don't have right to disturb it.--Arstriker (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your participation may be your choice, but without any evidence or plausible argument, merely "I don't think so" is inappropriate. Moreover, the false accusation of disrupting you is unwarranted given your lying about my edits to Talk:Kumdo.--Caspian blue 16:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At least, about this matter, that's you who should show certain evidence.--Arstriker (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've presented very strong and clear evidences unlike you.--Caspian blue 16:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It's only your impression. In fact, you added me to the suspected sockpuppets list according to your "clear evidence", but I'm not a sockpuppet of any account.--Arstriker (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the circumstantial evidences, and same article with same agenda, and the implausible appearance, you're added to the list. SPI cases are based on evidences, not impression nor just mere assertion as you have done so here.--Caspian blue 17:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just your assertion. Far from "clear evidence".--Arstriker (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just your assertion with no plausible argument, and just accusations since another editor confirm with his evidence". Please do not waste my time if you do not have any valid reason to refute the presented evidences.--Caspian blue19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Not directly from this, but I've blocked indef after an incident involving a retaliatory bad-faith AIV that led me to block two users I have subsequently unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After having talked privately with Caspian blue about this, I think we can agree that Arstriker is not a sock (possibly a meatpuppet, but that's not blockable in this context). –MuZemike 03:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, I the levels of English understanding are noticeably different. –MuZemike 03:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)