User talk:OFF232

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

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).

OFF232 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of another user. I had edited other community pages with success, and stumbled upon the troubled Anaheim Hills page last week, and tried to work on it, clean it out, etc. I added citations, and reviewed and removed, and/or validated controversial issues on the page to make it more correct and valid. But I was mistaken to be a scokpuppet for the page by Wknight94. Please review this mistake, for I intended only to "spruce" up the troubled article with new facts and references that were missing before.

Decline reason:

Enough of this, Eric. Please.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:28, 27 March 2007 (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.

"When a block is appealed, other editors -all of whom probably have no involvement in the matter - will review your editing history, which has been logged, as well as the reason for the block and the history leading up to it."-Taken Directly from the Blocking Policy Page. Please, I know many of you do not like Erics, but let someone unaffiliated vote-who doesnt seem to have this hatred for him for lack of involvement.

Of your 26 edits to the article space, 19 have been to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, which is Ericsaindon2's favorite page. It is the reason he (ie you) was banned by the Arbitration Committee and then the community. Also, your statement "user has a bias towards the situation-especially a hatred for the banned user whom he claims I am. Request another parties opinion." is false. In my few contacts with you, I was sympathetic and told you to wait out the ban when it was not indefinite. Now, you come back with sockpuppets to perform the same edits. If you want to appeal your ban, you can do so to the ArbCom by e-mail. Also, you do not replace declined unblock requests. You simply add another one.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TWENTY SIX EDITS!!! Three pages I created were deleted. I had over 100 including those pages.

Stop saying I am this user. You speak to me as an idiot instead of a human being. And, I Do see that you had contact in the past with this user whom you accuse me of being. You clearly are ready to vote against anyone who edits this page, and I prefer to have someone who is unaffiliated be the judge. Just as in court you do not have a jury with loads of biases, I am asking that you refrain from this because you have a bias. OFF232 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the edits themselves are eerily similar in numerous ways. Obvious sock. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate further. Obvious sock-coming from the one who blocked me. Anaheim Hills is a big place. We are not talking about some dinky midwest town with 200 people having editorial issues, we are talking about a significant community in Orange County with tens of thousands of people. Outsiders are sure to try and help a semi-significant article like this find its middle ground-just as I did. I look, and even before Eric came there were hundreds of edits to the page, which included similar content to what I included this past week. Are those all Eric too? Is everyone who ever edits this page again going to be banned for trying to improve a somewhat significant article? These are questions I have, because if you would notice, I put citations in the text, and in fact took out a lot of the junk that Eric tried so hard to put in. Based on the talk pages and his history (which I spent 4 useless hours of my night looking through) he would have been against edits that included areas that the sources I stated as borders for the community. He would have been against the drastic modification of the Mountain Park area, he would have been against the edits done to the government section. You need to look closer, and see how he would oppose these things.

However, I do see your point as to edits made to similar topics that Eric had done. I can see after looking through some of the history of the article could reach a conclusion that this was me, and I am sure I could have introduced myself better, and my intentions before editing. But you must know that I came to the article where I read through it and found it to be kind of-how do I say this-ridiculously undersourced. I looked through the talk pages and the history, and found the main points of controversy, and began editing those first with research-which would make it appear as if I was Eric after editing the key controversies on the article. OFF232 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to stop undoing the unblock request. I am an uninvolved administrator. Whoever you are, you are now abusing our processes and violating policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]