User talk:The Archer

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Kilo-Lima for the following reason (see our blocking policy): sockpuppet

Your IP address is 61.17.68.48.

"I have been unblocked unfairly. I am a legitimate editor who has been contributing to the AC/DC article for a while now. I have been unfairly blocked after voting on the AC/DC discussion page, the reason being given that I am a sockpuppet. I am NOT anyone's sockpuppet and have been registered as an editor for more than a few months. My Static IP 61.17.68.48. had been allotted to me by my Broadband service provider, only recently however and should now be consistently appearing as mine.I used to earlier possess a dyamic IP on my connection from my service provider under a different subscription plan. I am not sure if I have been viewed as a sockpuppet because of any mistakes made while signing my name when voting - I tried signing in with four tildes, but somehow that didn't work, so I just pasted my ID and IP address as well as Time Zone, against my entry. If there are reasons beyond the above two, that raise doubts as to whether I am someone else's sockpuppet, please clarify them to me. However, I believe that there should be none.Please unblock me immediately."

My IP address can be traced to Bangalore, India. This should be enough proof that I am not a sockpuppet of NCC17. I think that an apology is owed from the administrator who blocked me.


 * Ok, unblocked -- Tawker 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second there. I was just getting suspicious that you, as well as several others were sockpuppets of NCC17. I put that forward on Suspected sock puppets/NCC17. I could have immediately blocked him, but didn't. I believed that this case was lacking a lot of evidence, so I decided to take it up with fellow editors who have had more experience when it comes to proving who are and who aren't sockpuppets. Almost immediately, Kimo-Lima - who appeared to intervene in more sockpuppet related cases - closed the page and established my suspicion. Note that I had a previous conversation with Anger22 who was also considering to report you guys to WP:SSP, so apparently it wasn't that weird to think you guys were one and the same. Furthermore, I have had quite lengthy discussions with NCC17. Extending his block with 48 hours has never been an excuse to silence him and never will be. I've read his, Circeus' and Fair Deal's talkpage and I don't really have a reason to assume that Fair Deal is using sockpuppets to try and hold AC/DC in a tight grip.


 * Any fool could see that he has a laptop and probably does his editing from the parking lots of various businesses with wireless internet. Assumptions like that, don't they seem downright farfetched? To me, they do and they most certainly do in this case. Though, I'm gonna take a new look at the poll at Talk:AC/DC. This may change the outcome. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a person going around using a wireless hookup to make edits, is impossible. It certainly is feasible for all I know. People do seem to spend enough time editing Wikipedia and getting to know all that they can about how to edit Wiki pages, don't they? There are people who do things that seek to exploit loopholes all the time.Also, people obsessed about something and with a point to proove often do anything and everthing they can to make sure that they come out on top. Different people from the same geographically small area consistently making the same persistent changes, to the same article, would seem to be in league with each other, or simply the same person.Does this proove the Wireless hookup allegation conclusively? No. However, do I think it is probable? Considering how resolute people choose to be when sticking to a point, the answer would be, yes. Is it possible? Very much so.The Archer 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing archived page
Perhaps you never saw the red background and the text sying that all further edits should be taken to the Wikipedia talk page, but please don't edit a page that has been archived. That's what the red background and large text is supposed to deter people from doing. Iola k ana |T 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that.The Archer 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologise for blocking you. I hope you understand that the edits you made were quite odd. Sincere apologies, Iola k ana |T  11:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I still tend to disagree that it is likely that he edits from several locations...but there's no use in further arguing. Open a case about it if you want, but the discussion about the likelihood of Fair Deal using sockpuppets isn't something which we should discuss here your or on my talkpages. Neither of us can back this up, so this is not going to help Wikipedia at all. I hereby propose that this discussion stops. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend to take forward the discussion on whether fair deal was using sockpuppets anyway, as it is evident that this is a matter which is speculative and which can be viewed only subjectively. My answer was to your question as to whether it was farfetched or not and I believe that I have answered that.I didn't really think that you would propose to discuss it further, either.I do hope however, that you or any other admin.involved, will consider all options and possibilities, the next time allegations like this fly around.RegardsThe Archer 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)