I am a real person in the USA. My IP is 72.73.17.138 in Leesburg, Virginia, United States. This unfounded ban from editing a page in Wikipedia that purposefully shows a bias towards differing views in science is suppression of free speech. Nobleeu101 ( talk) 21:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

This does not address the stated reason for the block, sockpuppetry. I'll add that Wikipedia is not a free speech platform; just as you can determine what happens within the four walls of your residence, Wikipedia can determine what happens on its computers. 331dot ( talk) 22:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

What do you need from me to show you that I made an edit in good faith? If you are going to compare Wikipedia to your house, then ok, I am not here to fight you in your own house. I only edited a page to help Wikipedia build a virtual encyclopedia that shows unbiased knowledge. I was not recruited by anyone to edit a particular site. The accusation that I am abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet is inaccurate and lacks veracity. My expertise is in science policy. I did a google search on the CO2 coalition because I am conducting research. The Wikipedia page appeared at the top of the search results. Upon clicking the page, I noticed that the current text on the Wikipedia page describes inaccurate information about the group. I am just a regular casual user who noticed something wrong, so I made an edit in good faith from my personal account that I created. I edited a climate change site that is currently not neutral and tried to make it more neutral. To my shock, the author got angry that I tried correcting his writing, and accused me of sockpuppetry. On the page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/No More Bias/Archive, it states that I was blocked and then still attempted to edit after being blocked the first time. Why was I blocked the first time? Because Snooganssnoogans disagrees with me? It's a very unfair policy to be accused of sockpuppetry and then immediately get banned indefinitely without having a chance to defend myself or prove that I was doing it in good faith. Please remove this ban.

I understand that it seems unfair, you're certainly not the first to say so and I doubt you'll be the last. But this is the only way we can handle sockpuppetry allegations (I notice that you left out the part where your IPs were compared, information which we don't make public for privacy reasons, and found to be a match). If we were more open about it, serial sockpuppeteers would be able to figure out how to better make it look like it wasn't them using exactly the same sentences and exactly the same arguments in the same article and associated discussions two days after their first account got blocked.

Aside from that, firstly I find your continuing refusal to assume good faith on Snooganssnoogans' part a good reason for continuing the block, and second I find the language of your request somewhat overdetermined in its effort to convince a reader that you have no connection to someone else who just started making similar edits from out of nowhere a week or so earlier. — Daniel Case ( talk) 22:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC) reply

you are blocking me for no reason. Your last reason for not unblocking me is dumb. You say that I have "no connection to someone else who just started making similar edits from out of nowhere a week or so earlier." I only edited the page after I created my account, so that I could be transparent. When I edited the page, there was not a history of it being edited prior. I found the page. I edited it because it was biased writing. Snooganssnoogans' changed it back. A week later I read the changes that Snooganssnoogans' made and saw that the writing was still biased, and I made the same changes. He accused me of sockpuppetry. I got blocked. How is that good faith on Snooganssnoogans' part? It is more like being overly sensitive. How can someone make a change to a wikipedia page and have it stay, even if there is disagreement? By the way, the page in question still shows inaccurate information.

Accusing our moderators(administrators) of supporting prejudice [1] is not a good way to convince us that you are here to be productive. I find the original evidence compelling and your continued attitude does nothing to make me think that we were in error. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply