Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Russ.lienart/Archive

Evidence submitted by Cirt

 * -- At article, Knight and Day, repeated pattern of disruption, including removal of sourced info in violation of WP:LEADCITE, and again at , and addition of unsourced and poorly sourced info, , combined with complete refusal to participate in talk page discussions.
 * -- At same article as above, Knight and Day, same exact pattern shared with master sock account, of adding poorly sourced info, combined with zero participation in talk page discussion.
 * -- At same article as above, Knight and Day, disruption, adding back same poorly sourced info ( and previously ).
 * Note: Use of IP, combined with above-listed account (possibly other IPs/accounts have been used as well) in order to continue disruption at the page, obfuscate, and continue addition of poorly sourced info, removal of sourced info, and refusal to participate in talk page discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Again, CUs are not likely to reveal the IP. Not saying this won't be considered for Administrator review. I would like to note that the technical evidence witthout CU (aka WHOIS and Geolocation) is making this show more like meatpuppetry to me. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod, understood, no worries. Thank you for the attention to this matter, regardless. Would still request admin investigation with regard to above-presented evidence. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Added another user to check, above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * seems to be unrelated on behavioral evidence. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod, no worries, would still like admin action with regards to the others. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what admin action there is to be taken. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Use of the above-listed IPs, combined with the account, to cause disruption at article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IPs are activity stale (not CU stale) and user doesn't need blocking. --  DQ  (t)  (e)  02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)