Talk:Anaheim Hills/Archive 3

message: I've move-protected this article yet again as it seems quite clear that the move-warring is showing no signs of stopping. I find it quite unfortunate to have to leave this article protected for over a month, but it seems to be the only way to prevent this from continuing. Note, as always, that my protecting the article at its current location is not an endorsement of the page title (in fact, I refuse to take any side in this dispute, so please stop asking me too). I hope you will all be able to resolve your dispute through mature discussion. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing a halt to the latest round of move-warring.  --Coolcaesar 03:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for stopping the warring. It seems like some users are so retarded and so dependent on the admins that they are still staying loyal to the abusive admins on this page. --Ericsaindon2 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protected 

message: has been blocked for 3RR on this page yet again. Some talk has ben circulating on the IRC channels about pursuing a WP:RfAR as this has truly gotten out of hand. A month of edit-warring and move-warring is simply too much. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the block.  I agree that Ericsaindon2 is definitely out of control and this issue needs to go to arbitration.  --Coolcaesar 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ericsaindon2]] blocked 

message: Well, I have had to fully protect this article again, obviously I am not endorsing this version (or any version for that matter), I just happened to come across the continued edit war and locked it down.  I don't really think there is much more to say beyond the typical edit warring is bad, using sock puppets are bad, let's just be friends, etc.  I sincerely hope that both sides can come to an agreement, but at this rate, things are only deteriorating.  Obviously the previously discussion hasn't really solved the issue, so I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that a mediator of some sort is necessary.  Is it time to bring in the ArbCom? I don't know, that is up to everyone here to decide, but let's just be mature.  No more personal attacks on each other on talk pages.  Everyone has been around here long enough and knows Wikipedia policies, so ignorance isn't an excuse. In a few days and if an agreement is reached, feel free to ask an admin or post on WP:RPP to unlock the page, but I am afraid I am not overly optimistic that this will happen in the very near future.  Full protection for a few days until this issue can be investigated further won't hurt anything. I haven't been following the situation all that closely, but I think a check user is really necessary to determine how widespread the sockpuppetry is and then we can move forward from there. I hate to protect and then ditch, but I probably won't be around WP all that much over the coming weeks, but there are plenty of other capable admins who can help if necessary. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected, again 

message: I'm not going to read all of this, but I would just say that this is a very American problem. Apart from the 32 London boroughs and the City of London hardly any of the hundreds of districts in :Category:Districts of London have any official existence. In England and much of the rest of the world that simply isn't seen as a problem or a reason not to have an article. As for disambiguating comma formats, we simply don't bother with them unless there is something to disambiguate, and it's really rather bizarre to me that in another country this is a formatting issue that can cause rows. Honbicot 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is - so what? Over there in England you've had hundreds of years to work out what communities should be called and how they should be governed, whilst the area known as Anaheim Hills did not exist just 35 years ago. The British do seem to have a much looser concept of naming things geographically - a typical address can contain a village name, town name, city name, and/or county name and who can tell what is what? Even if we post a letter to you we are faced with a myriad of choices for the country name - "England", "Great Britain", "United Kingdom", etc. Anyway, the debate is not whether or not there should be an article about Anaheim Hills - only about whether it should be titled suggestive of an incorporated municipality (which it is not) or titled as a subentity of such (which it is). Particularly when there is an/are editor(s) who wish to - contrary to fact - present Anaheim Hills as an independent city, making this distinction is important. There has been much discussion about this elsewhere, and although the commas are not elegant, they are the de facto convention for articles on the components/subentities of American cities. Anaheimat 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: People, relax. This issue has gone on long enough on the Anaheim Hills page, as exemplified by the nearly 50 pages of printed Talk pages. Let the arbitration committe deal with it. If you support, or dont support the naming convention, go to the above link referring to the arbitration case, because I was sent to arbitration for defending the Anaheim Hills name. I could really use support there, so please leave a comment there stating your point of view. :) --Ericsaindon2 22:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A very American problem

message: In an effort to bring peace back to the Anaheim Hills page so users can go on to do other edits, I suggest that a peaceful agreement be made. 
:I am proposing that
*The users currently involved in this page (you all know who you are) will not engage in edit wars and getting 3rr's over and over again-including myself
*All of the users who were involved on this page express their apologies and wrong doings on this talk page, and to the people they may have offended in trying to prove a point-including myself
*The name can remain at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California until either a mediator is brought in to solve the naming issue, or we show some fresh faces on this page in another strawpoll that has a much larger number of voters, and maybe people that are not involved in the dispute, but do have a viewpoint on the issue of the name. I would like to see about 20-30 votes so we can get a broader scope of views, maybe by posting it on a message board on Wikipedia, or circulating it to other pages similar to Anaheim Hills, like La Jolla that have similar issues
Please feel free to comment below on this proposed compromise, and add anything you would like within comments below. Please do not add anything to my list above, because I dont want it to sound like I stated it if it is an issue I oppose. Let us try to, in a civil manner, come together to solve this issue once and foreall. I think a large scale straw poll is needed in this case, because all 10 of us on this page all know everyone elses opinions, but those are the only opinions we have, and a decision will not come out of this if we dont get some new opinions. We need a large community partake so that we can move on. :)--Ericsaindon2 07:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TWO straw polls on EACH of the naming and infobox issues - the reasons for the edit wars - have already been conducted, with unmistakably clear outcomes. Nothing of substance has changed about the arguments made for and against each issue since. Thus, additional straw polls are not needed (and neither are "new opinions"), and indeed these will only prolong the dispute. Peace will be "installed" (?) or, rather, achieved, when Ericsaindon2 and his numerous sock puppets simply decide to abide by the results of both of the previous polls. The only apology that is warranted is from Ericsaindon2, who has acted in bad faith by disregarding the results of these previous polls - some of which were set up by him in the first place! We have every reason to believe that, regardless of the outcome of any additional straw polls, Ericsaindon2 will continue to wage edit wars if the votes do not turn out to his satisfaction and he gets his way. Let us not start this cycle yet again by appeasing him and legitimizing further straw polls. We anxiously await Ericsaindon2's recognition and acceptance of the previous polls - if he is truly interested in "installing peace", he will do this. Denvoran 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Eric, thanks for seeking peace. No editor should engage in 3RR violations or edit warring. If you want folks to review their wrong-doing and apologize then you might get the ball rolling. If you think that 20 people will come vote on the name of this article then you don't know Wikipedia very well. Requests for comment on the topic have already been posted, as have notices of past strawpolls. As you say the views of most of the editors on this page are well known. WP:CON is an important policy, it'd be good if we cold follow it too. -Will Beback 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ericsaindon2, I am pleased that you seek an end to this page's turmoil. However, I disagree that this is a situation where many people are at fault. I have only seen you break 3RR on this page. I have also reviewed my comments from the past few months regarding this issue and I see nothing for which I can apologize. The article's name will remain at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California not because of a compromise but because that is clearly the consensus. I actually personally believe that a single name "Anaheim Hills" would be best of all but I defer to the practical standard. A mediator is not necessary because the majority of us are respectful editors, mindful of the Wikipedia processes, and those of the minority opinion concede matters to the majority peacefully. If you truly are interested in a resolution, then my best advice is to stop moving the page and stop forcing the infobox, but please by all means we encourage you to continue making constructive edits to Anaheim Hills as you have already. You will be amazed at how quickly you re-earn the respect of your previously adversarial wiki-editors just by dropping this whole matter cold turkey, editing constructively and conducting yourself professionally. Soltras 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok....then nevermind in this effort. --Ericsaindon2 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installing Peace 

message: There really has not been alot of agreement or discussion at all on this page. I am attempting to revisit a compromise addressed by Will Beback from over a month ago. The description about the compromise at the time is listed below. --Ericsaindon2 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree --Ericsaindon2 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: He is currently blocked for a month because of behavior on the ArbCom page. I suggest this page gets unprotected so we can make edits to finally conform with consensus. Soltras 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have also removed the move protection.  If the sock puppeting returns, naturally Eric will be blocked for avoiding his block, but if it gets bad enough again the page might need protecting once more.  If anyone notices that Eric is using sockpuppets again, please report it immedietely on one of the admin forums to prevent the situation from escalating once more.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise from June 3 

message: Now that Ericsaindon2 has been blocked for now, I wish to raise several aspects of the article which need to be dealt with in order to bring it into compliance with the NPOV and NOR policies:
* Clumsy grammar and poor style throughout the article ("bring an economy to Anaheim", "The economy of Anaheim Hills is small in comparison to that of the rest of the city of Anaheim, with such attractions as Disneyland and two professional sports teams drawing substantial income", "the entire hillside, nearly 60 acres in size completely collapsed costing a total estimated damage")
* The only official districts in Anaheim are West, East, Central, and South.  There is no official Anaheim Hills district or neighborhood.  The official liaison with the districts is the Neighborhood Services Team of the City of Anaheim.  
* The Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition and the Canyon Hills Community Association are not government advisory boards as conclusively established above.  They are private nonprofit associations.
* Eastwood Insurance is notable because it advertises heavily throughout California, but the other companies in the Economy section are not: Lasco Bathware, Fremont, and DR Horton Southern California.  These need to be removed.
* The entire boundaries section is original research.  The article should simply note that Anaheim Hills is a generic descriptor for the eastern hilly side of Anaheim and leave it at that.
* Although there appears to have been a Anaheim Hills Planned Community Association, it is not clear whether this association still exists as it does not have a Web site.  Furthermore, it is probably not a public entity since it is not in the Anaheim muni code; rather, what probably happened is that the developer established the PCA as a private association and then forced all downstream buyers in the new Anaheim Hills subdivisions to support the association through covenants in the deeds.  
Let me know what you think.  If anyone has the time or energy, feel free to remedy these issues with the article (I'm busy with the arbitration against Ericsaindon2).  --Coolcaesar 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I have contacted LAFCO for the annexation papers of Anaheim Hills California for the official boundaries. They stated that it will be in my email within two weeks, so please do not modify any content relating to borders or demographics for a few weeks, at least until I get the annexation papers that discusses the official borders from the 1973 annexation. I will work on the page upon recieving them, and correcting and verifying sources-for I believe everything in this page is correct, it is just not all properly source. So give me a little time. Thank You. --69.227.173.154 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bringing the article into compliance with NPOV and NOR

message: Can we agree on the infobox on the page as a compromise? This one has no city references and does not look like a cities, but rather the one on several community pages. If you revert, it will be reverted back unless you give explanantion. --69.232.50.77 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop editing while your account is blocked. -Will Beback 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of my inhibitions about the infobox as I expressed in May endure. Count the link as my explanation for reverting. Soltras 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: As I see User:Ericsaindon2 is now revert-warring on this page using multiple IP addresses in a rather wide range to evade his block, I've gone ahead and semiprotected the article for now. Let me know if there are any objections to this. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotected 

message: I am going to revert my edits on the page. Please do not just revert them back, but rather discuss it here. I have made the edits with all of Wikipedia's rules in mind, and have verified them all. They are legitamate, and should remain on the page. I will seek an admin to get involved if I see that people are reverting the edits just because of the user that initially made the edits. These high quality edits deserve a spot on this page. They do not break any Wikipedia rules, and have had no community discussion for why they should not be there, so it is just vandalism at this point by the users who feel attacking other users that they dont like is the way Wikipedia works. If the community decides they dont want the edits here (7+ members) than I will accept that, but it is way too soon to start reverting just because you reel like it. Dont be a vandal! --69.227.160.83 07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not fooled, Ericsaindon2.  Your distinctive style of bad grammar and spelling ("legitamate"/"legitimate" and "than"/"then") and your persistence in the exact same edits are sufficient to identify you.  You are supposed to refrain from editing the page until the arbitration against you is complete.  Your bad faith attempts to insert edits for which the consensus is strongly against you will be construed as evidence against you in your arbitration.  --Coolcaesar 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recent edits and vandalism 

message: I know this page is at a turmolious point, and I think it is time to introduce a compromise that would satisfy the masses involved. Perhaps these solutions could be introduced.
*A rule be added to the Wikipedia rules stating that (Community, City, State) be only used on communities that do not have a community council that is valid to represent them (whether recognized by the city itself or not). This would answer the community aspect of the problem.
*No community infoboxes or modified forms thereof are to be added to the page unless a Wikiproject is introduced specifically for communities modified the purpose.
*The name be changed to Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California
*Upon the terminus of user:Ericsaindon2 and his block, he will have two weeks to provide sources for all unverified information, or else it may be disregarded from the article.
These simple measures would bring peace back to the article that has seen turmoil for nearly 6 months. OC31113 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction to Page Peace