Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day

The report, Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day confirmed Allemandtando was Fredrick day ("Likely") but described the IPs as "unrelated." This provides us ordinary mortals with a clue as to what standard of proof is being used. Fredrick day uses multiple IPs, including unsecured (probably) wireless routers, has claimed he can use a number of them from his home, drives around to access other routers, and uses proxies. Plus he probably uses multiple computers, even simultaneously. See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of probable IP from behavioral evidence (often including admission). The IPs in the report, certainly, might be other than Fredrick day, the only link there was vandalism to my Talk or User page, and, as I am increasing more known, that could be coming from others. But:
 * edit from 88.105.40.220 was Fredrick day So I would call this "possible," or maybe "likely," certainly not "unrelated."
 * May be other than Fredrick day, this is a German provider; he's used various open proxies and the like, from around the world, but I haven't investigated to see if this was possible here. This was included because it was a recent edit and might have been connected, but it's very easy to let this one go, with warm fuzzy feelings that I've got another friend, someone who cares.--Abd (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * May be other than Fredrick day, this is a German provider; he's used various open proxies and the like, from around the world, but I haven't investigated to see if this was possible here. This was included because it was a recent edit and might have been connected, but it's very easy to let this one go, with warm fuzzy feelings that I've got another friend, someone who cares.--Abd (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * May be other than Fredrick day, this is a German provider; he's used various open proxies and the like, from around the world, but I haven't investigated to see if this was possible here. This was included because it was a recent edit and might have been connected, but it's very easy to let this one go, with warm fuzzy feelings that I've got another friend, someone who cares.--Abd (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank Sam Korn for going ahead with checkuser, in spite of a great deal of the suspicion being based on my personal judgment. I tried to give as much objective evidence as I could without taking days to research it, and writing a tome to describe it, but, without that personal judgment and what might be called intuition, there was only a middle level of suspicion. I thought there was about one chance in ten that checkuser would come back unrelated, given the measures this user has employed in the past to avoid detection (and the possibility of my own error). And that it was more likely than not that it would come back "possible." So it felt like I won the lottery when it came back "likely." And I've never won the lottery, I don't make really bad bets. And I want to thank Lars for doing the work to confirm. It's appreciated. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's only one of me (do I hear a chorus of "thank goodness!" :) ) so it's just "Lar" rather than "Lars"... :) And you're welcome. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn! Sorry. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)