Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivalet/Archive

Evidence submitted by Secret
Look at the first edit, clearly an experienced (likely banned) user. Secret account 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clearly an experienced reader of Wikipedia, but I see nothing to support the "likely banned" part. Is this a fishing expedition? --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not someone banned then they're trying to avoid scrutiny. That's almost as bad. Half  Shadow  01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Secret, Is that link for admins only because I'm not getting anything when I click on it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Undisclosed socks are supposed to be quietly editing article space, not stirring up drama. T. Canens (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if CU doesn't turn up anything, the account should still be blocked, as it is a disruptive SPA. Could someone do that now please? NW ( Talk ) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From my standpoint,, as there are open proxies involved (which I blocked earlier). Moreover, I am not able to verify any link between Vivalet and any other suspected user. –MuZemike 06:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disruptive SPA + open proxy scream "sock" to me. Blocked indef. T. Canens (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)