User talk:DC Independence

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Price0125 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 04:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DC Independence (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account is not a sock puppet account of price0125; I am a separate individual. Just because more than one user commented on maintaining World Energy Forum's page to prevent it from being deleted does not mean that all the users are sock puppets. I'm very offended by wikipedia's handling of this situation. The few individuals who did defend World Energy Forum's page presented a completely logical argument that rebuffed the original claim for the page to be deleted. The original user mentioned that this organization wasn't backed by credible sources. However, the last time I viewed this organization's page, there were over 70 references from legitimate news sources that backed the few paragraphs that made up this organization's wikipedia page. This is more references than are listed on World Economic Forum's page. I'm shocked that a few simple, incorrect claims can cause wikipedia to remove an entire organization's page and cause any defenders of the page to be listed as sock puppets in the face of prevailing evidence. I find this insulting to small businesses and organizations. Please reconsider your practices. Some of us users don't have time to build our credibility by adding to, or taking away from, wikipedia pages. We rely more on the external sources and facts rather than how many times we as users edit pages. Please also consider restoring World Energy Forum's page since its removal wasn't based on facts, but rather the opinions of wikipedia users. Thank you in advance.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
In addition, I agree with the CheckUser findings in the sockpuppetry investigation. —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.