Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd)

Intention to move irrelevant material from the SSP project page to here.
There is some level of response to this report that is an attempt to defend Seddon69 by giving him a positive recommendation as an editor. That's pretty much a waste of time, and that Seddon69 is either simply a good editor or is a good-hand account -- which would normally be a good editor -- is accepted and not in controversy. I highly recommend that Seddon69 and his friends not waste time defending him on the basis of his apparent good character. Quite simply, it's irrelevant.

The issue here is not the quality of his edits, and this report is not proposing that he be sanctioned. It is merely investigating a connection between Seddon69 that I find apparent from edit timing, primarily, and secondarily from certain other coincidences. The latter alone would probably have not been a basis for this report, but the former, all by itself, if my opinion is confirmed, shows a correlation between the activity of the accounts that is not explained by being in the same time zone, nor by any other hypothesis or condition that I've been able to imagine.

So I intend to move to this page material about the good character of Seddon69, at the least. It is not in question. If it turns out that Seddon69 is actually the same user as Fredrick day, it's entirely possible that the good record of Seddon69 could allow a lifting of the block on Fredrick day, though, I'm sure, he'd have to promise not to sock any more. (The Fd account would probably remain blocked, but not the user.) He has managed to escape, so far, a community ban, and though I did not agree with that lack (it's out of process and unusual, since no admin has been willing to unblock), I would not necessarily oppose allowing Seddon69 to continue. Being watched closely, of course. And, of course, it is entirely possible that Seddon69 is not a sock, and that some condition that I don't understand yet explains the pattern. I will turn, below, to a discussion of what it is about the data that shows the strong correlation, for that, too, has been misunderstood. So far, none of the comments that have been made address the issue, but rather focus on irrelevancies and red herrings. (For example, the IP data is almost useless, given that Fd is a user who has easy access, probably from his home, to more than one IP; it was only useful to initially draw attention to Seddon69, through what was either a huge coincidence or a major slip on the part of Fd, who was (and he bragged about it) very careful to keep the accounts isolated. Yes, there are patterns in the data, if you approach it incautiously, that could make it seem "improbable" that this is one user. I'll address this below, later.--Abd (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that i am in college then i have editing periods dictated by that and if frederick day is also in education that would easily explain the editing pattern. Seddon69 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So that you know there are anomalies in his edits which i know i could never have made. I will post these later. Seddon69 (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
The following material was moved from the Project page as it is off the point. Seddon69, if he is a sock of Fredrick day, would be a good hand account and would be expected to be, indeed, a good editor, not getting into trouble. This is only a Suspected sock puppet report and is not a tribunal on the editor quality of Seddon69. If it turns out that Seddon69 is not Fredrick day, well and good. If it turns out that he is Fredrick day, no sanction automatically follows, though an admin might decide on one (and that would be appealable, and the good edit history would certainly be a factor in Seddon69's favor. But it has no bearing on this case. Notice that the "defendant" here is not Seddon69, but Fredrick day. Certainly Seddon69 may participate in examining the evidence, but from what I've seen, he is either Fredrick day pretending ignorance, or he is unconnected with Fredrick day and simply doesn't understand the problem. I'll deal with the problems below. First what was from the Talk page, I'll bring in. I may add section headers to make it easier to deal with one issue at a time. All of this action, of course, is merely my suggestion; whatever I do can be undone if other editors find it improper.

There is one way in which Fredrick day could shorten this whole process. He bragged that he had good hand accounts, that he was only letting us see, with blatant sock edits, what he wanted us to see. Fine. What are the good hand accounts, if not Seddon69? While this would not totally clear Seddon69 (that will take discovery of a flaw in my analysis of the data), it would certainly make matters easier. There is, by the way, room in what I've seen for at least one more account to have major activity. On the other hand, perhaps Fredrick day does have other activities besides editing Wikipedia!--Abd (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved comment from project page
I just received the notice on my talk page regarding this Suspected sock puppets case and so i wanted to respond to this as swiftly as possible. I fully admit editing from the Orange IP but as i have said this is from a mobile phone and is most likely a dynamic IP. I stated it was me who edited so that the edited not be considered vandalism. However i have only used this once and i was not aware of this user until the comment posted from User:Abd. After this comment i will edit this page from my IP address so that you can find out that i edit from BT broadband. Also i will request that someone from IRC makes a copy of the whois from that again to show i edit from BT. I welcome any checkuser that wishes to check my IP address and to compare the IP's. I hope that this can be resolved quickly. Seddon69 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(the following was left on the project page and copied here for continuity --Abd (talk))


 * This is User:Seddon69 editting from my Home IP. 86.143.124.153 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * hum.. I've hum'd and err'd about responding to this in case it makes things worse for Seddon69, but then it's not really right for me to drop him in the shit by omission.

Let's do this a bit at a time.

1) Yes I am Fredrick day - blocked user.

2) I am not and have never been Seddon69, he has never been me.

let's look at the evidence presented by Abd, line by line, hopefully I can convince people we are not one and the same.

However, it did establish that Seddon69 are operating in the same relatively small region. - I have no idea how he has come to this conclusion. Yes we both live in the UK (which explains the fact that we both post at similar times) but the 'relatively small region' is the whole UK. The 193.XX address is the range for the mobile (or cellar) gateway provided by Orange, the largest mobile telecoms provider in the UK - this is used by @12 million users (off the top of my head)! The other problem, as mentioned by Martin is that UK isp generally don't geolocate, so the location given by WHOIS will generally bear no relationship to the location of the edit (and if you don't mind me saying - only a yank would think that Sheffield and bristol are relative!)

As for the "edit patterns", besides the fact that we operate in the same time zone, I cannot find, from looking at edit histories over the last year, of any occasion where our paths have crossed (didn't we used to have a tool that would check the contributions of two accounts for crossover? if so, can someone run it). --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot offer much more than to say other than this. From the very first edit i made on wikipedia a year and a half ago until now i have only looked to contribute well to this project. I have never been banned, i have never 3RR'd except when fighting vandalism, i have never been accused of incivility towards users, I have never been posted as a problem on the administrators noticeboard. I have nominated an FA which passed and also a featured picture, have worked on problems on peoples GAN's, I mediate at WP:MEDCAB and i am in the middle of helping what was a backlog at WP:MEDCOM, I have taken steps to be open about my true identity, when receiving incivility from users i have never retaliated and have always looked to find a way around problems. I freely make email and irc options to allow people to contact me, despite not having a great talent at article writing i have always strived to improve my abilities steadily over time. If that isn't enough to show that i have nothing but good intentions for this project. I dont know what else i can do. Seddon69 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * information from the ip i edit from at home. Seddon69 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There really isn't anything for you to do, Seddon69, if you are not Fredrick day. I'm human, I make mistakes. If I've made one, the community here has some pretty bright people who will be able to find what I've done wrong. I'm not on any crusade against you as an editor, and you could recite hosts of awards or achievements, it's basically irrelevant here. If you are not Fredrick day, I'd suggest not worrying about it. There are other people experienced with this kind of evidence, and I trust that truth will out. On the other hand, if you are Fredrick day, and you want to continue contributing here, the sooner you acknowledge what you have done, the easier it will be for you to resume your editing. My general advice is to trust in the truth. Any other alternative can make us pretty crazy.


 * One more thing. There are lots of avenues left for studying the data. In particular, I intend to test the method with some controls, and to look for ways to refine how the data is presented, to avoid certain biases that the present method seems to exhibit (it could make, under some conditions, unconnected accounts of certain kinds look connected. I don't think that's the case, but if I have erred, that would probably be connected with it). Believe me, if I find that I can exonerate you, I will rush here to do it. I have no investment in being right, only an obligation to disclose what I see.--Abd (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

* [Seddon] (n=chatzill@host86-132-128-87.range86-132.btcentralplus.com): Sun, Sex, Sin, Death and Destruction * [Seddon] #wikipedia-en-roads #wikipedia-en * [Seddon] irc.freenode.net :http://freenode.net/ * [Seddon] End of WHOIS list

Result of a whois on Seddon69 through IRC. Seddon has been a user in good standing for quite a while; I find it highly unlikely that he's a sock of a blocked user. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to request that no extreme comments be directed at any user in this SSP case especially from what i assume was from Fred Deyton. Abd is doing one role that is necessary on wikipedia. I know that he is mistaken but like everything on wikipedia we must let this process run its course. I request that if user want to contribute to this SSP that they concentrate on the location of my internet provider which i know to be BT broadband, and also the edits that i have made and to realise that i think my contributions should be part of people assuming good faith.


 * I would like to bring people attention in the evidence list to 13:27 24-Mar-08 where supposedly i would have had to sign out of seddon69 where i was editting an article in my userpsace, then sign in to the Phil McCavity account that is i believe a confirmed sock of Fred, then in 60 seconds make an edit, sign out, sign back in to seddon69 and then make another edit. It seems a little far fetched. As has been said previously that the fact i edit at the same time as someone in the UK simply isn't good enough evidence. I don't know what i would have to do to go about and edit from an open proxy IP even if i wanted to. Seddon69 (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Later review of edit timing evidence, clearing Seddon69
The method I was using to compare edit timing for Seddon69 and Fredrick day was vulnerable to a false appearance of account association under some conditions, and I later concluded that it was not reliable. I much later refined the method to avoid the subjectivity involved, and have concluded that, as definitively is possible at this stage of the method's development, Seddon69 and Fredrick day are not related, they show the characteristic timing correlations, within the limited data set, of independent editors. There never was any behavioral evidence connecting the two, that was plain from the beginning; the suspicion would have been that they were good-hand, bad-hand accounts, not two abusive accounts. To me, it is questionable that a good-hand account of Fredrick day should even be blocked if discovered; by definition, it isn't going to be acting disruptively. But that's not a decision I'd make. --Abd (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the things complicating all this is that Fredrick day is almost certainly using multiple simultaneous access, with separate ISPs, so normal checkuser might clear a real sock; likewise simultaneous edits aren't conclusive. I did a test where, with two windows open, I had two separate accounts (Abd and Abd sock) edit within about five seconds (same IP, but for this purpose, the effect is the same). I know it was frustrating to Seddon69 to not be able to prove he wasn't Fredrick day, but this is part of the damage that puppet masters do: scatter suspicion that harms the innocent. I very much regret the stress this may have caused Seddon69, and future suspicion regarding non-abusive accounts will probably be confined to private communication with checkuser or ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)