Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtsao/Archive

Evidence submitted by SamJohnston
Suspected WP:3RR violation by WP:SPA associated with a disruptive and tendentious editing rampage by User:Wtsao (details at WP:ANI).

WP:PP applied by User:Moonriddengirl who agrees that this "look[s] like somebody may be logging out to avoid 3RR" and suggested that I raise the issue at WP:SPI. -- samj in out 23:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -- samj in out 23:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We might as well confirm their suspicions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

per CheckUser policy, checkusers will generally not draw links to specific IPs, this will need to be decided on the behavioural evidence, although I'm going to say right now that even if the account and the IP are attached they wouldn't have violated 3rr (although they would have violated WP:SCRUTINY per this edit summary). SpitfireTally-ho! 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the checkuser should have remained endorse, and have started a discussion with Spitfire on that issue. Between Wtsao and the IP, 3RR was violated (4 reverts: 10:05AM, 10:20AM, 19:44PM, 19:53PM). Wtsao showed conscious knowledge of the 3RR policy when he attempted to claim an exemption by describing the target of his reversion as "vandalism" and exempt from 3RR. His claim doesn't pass the sniff test. If I'm reduced to using WP:DUCK, I'm inclined to block. This is the reason that checkuser is a good thing. If Wtsao simply has an anonymous ally, then a DUCK block would be a false block that can easily be avoided.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC) . Account and IP both blocked 72h. Tim Song (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CUs do not link IPs except in cases of egregious abuse, which this is not. Tim Song (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)