Talk:The Art Institute of California – Orange County

Student Restaurant
The same exact address of the school dose not need to be repeated. Cited information linking to a Lifestyle page in a local paper which is an opinion is not credible information, link removed. Please stop using this site as a way to advertise the student restaurant.--HoytMan (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant, the restaurant is a business operated on the campus by it's students that is accessible to the public; most culinary school articles have mention of such a restaurant. It was there before it was deleted - the verbiage used in it's description seems to be a statement of facts, not an advertisement. I however, agree, the previously deleted line about reservations was extraneous, as was the last edits regarding it's physical location details. The article I cited was basically to give proof of it's existence, the article was from The Orange County Register newspaper, and wasn't an ad. regardless, I agree it's probably not necessary.Aeonjoey (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Default Rate
The opinion of the schools default rate was not listed in the cited information. The link you provided points to a database which list other Ai campuses but no data on the Santa Ana campus is listed to back up your opinion. Please provide specific information if you intend to cite opinion as fact.--HoytMan (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the Dept of Education's site does not have permalinks to school specific results, which was why I had to change it to the only linkable page right before the results. At this time the only way to search for the school is by it's dept of education OPEID, which according to their website is 00723603, which pulls up the AICA-LA campus, as AICA-OC is a satelite campus of it. There doesn't seem to be another way to reference this info outside of the search.Aeonjoey (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed advert for Restaurant
The student restaurant is listed twice in the very first paragraph and in a second one below. It is as the same location as cited for the school. There is no need for third listing under it's own category. Neither is the last part cited in the footnotes pointing to an article that was written for the school to advertise the restaurant. Advert removed.--HoytMan (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What?
I guess I'm flattered that you think fact checking and deleting non-neutral verbiage is evidence that I do this for a living. LOL. no, just a shlub. I've been you, editing with a goal to skew my POV to all who read. It's pointless and ultimately futile. someone will come along the day after either of us forget about this or any other page and just rewrite it all over again with either actual propaganda or lots of lies. Your contribs (and I do apologize for categorizing them all as vandalism, but many were, c'mon) when cited, belong in this article, as a statement of factual record. I only have a problem with the petty, and strange ways you seem to like to inject opinion and offbeat article hyperlinks into the text, THAT'S all I'm doing. So, I'll give up soon, got better things to do. Just trying to do what's right. Aeonjoey (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not interjecting opinion, only facts, there are a lot of things I could put in here if I wanted to express my opinion that I purposely leave out. You have been me? Really? In psychology I be leave that is called projection. So you admit to trying to skew articles and not project that anger or contempt to anyone that makes a change. The only problem with that is they are not you, not everyone starts out with an agenda such as you admitted to.--HoytMan (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Now for the facts. This is not a small private school like Cal Arts, RISD or Art Center, its a big for-profit chain owned by a investment bank, they are even on the stock exchange as EDMC. The private designation is inaccurate because it is misleading. I don't know why you keep trying to hide facts. In the jobs section, I organized it like the site it came from in the order they put it in. I was originally going to alphabetize, but realize the source cited must have a reason they put it in that given order. Yet you seem to be obsessed with hiding some of the main employers because in your opinion they are not good ones. If Home Depot is top of the list it's obvious they are proud of their affiliation and paid a professional to update their official site in that direction. Finally, you need to let go of the lawsuit stuff. It is, what it is. 11 Billion dollars is not something you can shove under the rug. Sure companies get sued all the time but not by the US Department of Justice and not for 11 Billion dollars! That is important news, it's not just some disgruntled student. Smaller for-profit schools have gone out of business from lawsuits like that. If I were researching a school, I would certainly want to know that there is a chance that the school might be out of business before I graduate. I should not have to search through the fine print to get that information. Can you name any other school chain that has such high charges leveraged against it? --HoytMan (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored Deleted Data by Aeonjoey
Sorry, it is what it is. Renaming a lawsuit as controversy is a nice try at making your employer/client look good but its not an accurate description. A controversy is something people don't agree on like a debate. A lawsuit is a formal legal action against one party. There is nothing controversial about it. Links have been updated. Most info you claim is not there is about half way down the page if you read the whole NYT and Bloomberg article. I will let the Financial Trouble section slide unless other information comes to light. There is nothing wrong with working at Target, that's your own issue. I left your other employers except for the dead link.--HoytMan (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifty Forks Ad Removed
The location of the school restaurant is already listed in the campus section above. The rest of the content is a blatant attempt to advertise the culinary department and the school. Notes about how to make reservations...really? Paragraph had to go.--HoytMan (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Financial Trouble
The issue of the letter of credit and "edmc financial trouble" leads to easily accessible factual data, (not from blogs) but from the Securities Exchange Commission. EDMC must post a letter of credit in Form 10Q http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/880059/000144530512001626/edmc0331201210-q.htm SEC filings page http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/880059/000144530512001626/0001445305-12-001626-index.htm Section removed.

Latest edits
latest edits were housekeeping, standardizing the section title "controversy" as is in many other college articles on Wikipedia. Also there was some independent research with a link to a NYT article and a huffpo article that didn't contain the quoted text, so the whole paragraph had to go. not touching any of the other factual content, don't worry. School names were added to the paragraphs with citations to articles about them, and the section labeled "complaints" was renamed to reflect it's subject matter (none of the complaints in that section were about this school, two of the three were about circumstances which do not apply to this school) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonjoey (talk • contribs) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here?
HoytMan, you seem to be on a personal quest to make Wikipedia your personal blog. Spam site? you are the one who put bold headlines of information that was uncited, included opinions such as "they are broke" and keep adding information about their parent company and other campuses unrelated to this school. Did you attend this school? you seem to hate it with a passion. You then added a list of "top employers" and selectively chose retailers from the list. This is very strange obsessive behavior. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for this. Your contributions of factual data are relevant and I'm sure anyone looking up info on this school appreciates it. But dang, you really have a problem. You seem to think I'm spamming wikipedia and putting up an "add" (for the record, the abbreviation for advertisement is "ad") I'm just trying to keep someone from hijacking the page needlessly. You keep re-editing the article to make the school look bad. You deleted it's accreditation several times because it didn't support your news stories about other schools' students having issues getting credits transferred. I'm guessing you went to this school, flunked out, and now have a vendetta. Please tell me I'm dead wrong, and that you're just after the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonjoey (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Far from it my friend. This school did not exist when I was of that age, I finished college a long time ago. I just stumbled on this page and it seem wildly inaccurate and slanted in a direction that looked more like a marketing piece then a wiki article. I don't appreciate gorilla marketing masked as legitimate information.

I would however guess based on your arguments to whitewash or delete any unfaltering information a good indication you work for this specific school in some sort of capacity. The inflection in your arguments give you away. You always seem to be angling to separate the school from the corporation. If EDMC did not exist, Ai would not exist, they are more related then a franchise. This is odd behavior unless you see it as a personal attack because you work for the school and maybe even being paid to "monitor" their page. I checked some of the other Art Institutes on Wiki and they don't have nearly as much creative writing as going on in this page. You have a problem it seems. For instance, listing information off the schools website about employers is actually what the school wants to boast about and market. Your comment about me only picking retailers as a negative is your opinion based on your own self loathing of working for that company. You are the one that actually cherry picked, which by the way, added a nonexistent link...(ARAMARK Corporation). --HoytMan (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Aeonjoey - Spam Site, redundant information removed
There is no need to duplicate the accolades of accreditation by the school when it already in a separate category below. This is not a add for the school, please to do not repeat information for marketing purposes this is against Wikipedia guidelines.--HoytMan (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

School's Formal Name and Accreditation
The formal name of this school and it's accreditation are factual cited datum, following the cited links reveals this factual data. Removing the factual data which is standard on articles for Colleges, requires a substantive reason. The only reason given is to match the other art institutes articles. The ommision of factual data is against the aim of Wikipedia. Aeonjoey (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but you replace the wrong information. You have combined two different schools. I tried to correct that but you changed it back. The Art Institute and Argosy are both owned by EDMC but one is not a subset of the other. Check their link or any other Art Institute link or Argosy link they are all on Wiki. Only related by EDMC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoytMan (talk • contribs) 11:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I stand correct, this is a very recent change and two schools merged now somehow so The Art Institute is under Argosy, which is under EDMC which is part of Goldman Sacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoytMan (talk • contribs) 09:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Information about Three-Revert Rule
I am not in a war with you, please stop removing my contributions until others have had time to review it. I have not deleted any information if this page, only additions were provided. This is not your page to control, please quite vandalizing my work. This is a group effort and as such you should not be activating delighting my content minutes after its posted.--HoytMan (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have left your additions in place that were not redundant.Aeonjoey (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Information about Three-Revert Rule
All editors should avoid an edit war. Please allow for a 3rd opinion resolution before further reverting edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR Aeonjoey (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Relocated one line from the Fraud Investigation near the top because this is more important to a reader looking into the school than the rest of the article which looks like it was written as a fluff add for The Art Institute. A fraud investigation by the State of California and the US Department of Justice is certainly more important then a list of the schools social clubs or a one time Skyp conversation with a graphic designer. I left the rest at the bottom, so it's not a personal vendetta, just some fair balance from what the school seems to be actively hiding--HoytMan (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by HoytMan
This article text has been re-added numerous times, with the description: "Relocated one section of "Fraud By US Gov" and link to Gov press release site to the Top becasue this is more important then rest of this info is basicly an add for the school and social clubs." The opinion of the editor is not grounds for changing the organization structure of the article. The information removed (below) is redundant, and already placed elsewhere, in addition it contains independent research, that does not appear in the cited link. "The lawsuit alleges The Art Institute illegally targeted low-income and foreign students who qualify for government loans which generates almost 90 percent percent of the schools profits. Recruiters were paid to enrolled as many students as possible during a regular marketing event to students for what was called Open House. The US Department of Justice alleges the company instructed recruiters to use high-pressure sales techniques like playing on an applicant's psychological vulnerabilities and inflating claims of career placement opportunities to enroll students regardless of their qualifications.  This info is provided from Department of Justice Press Release." Please review the Wikipedia posting guidelines. Aeonjoey (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Further Information
Another reason why I suspect that this is some personal vendetta by HoytMan, is that the Art Institute of California - Sacramento article was also vandalized by HoytMan, with improper formatting and the same section entries added, calling emphasis. The wording of which in both this and the sacrmento article, do not have a neutral tone. I have placed that article in dispute as well. Aeonjoey (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Clarification
I should have been more specific. The analogy was not being used to discuss the lawsuits, those are not in dispute. The analogy was used to describe section 7 Complaints. All descriptions (two are uncited) describe events that pertain to Art Institute Schools in other states, mostly describing instances involving non-transferable credits, which do not apply to this regionally accredited school. The instance of the stripper involves a one person instance, which while entertaining, wouldn't appear in an encyclopedic article, even one including complaints and/or criticisms. It all seems very suspect as a personal vendetta. Aeonjoey (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not true, that complaint by one person sparked lawsuits and investigations through national media coverage. By your logic, Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the buss was just one person who had nothing to do with the civil rights movement in the 60s. Would you leave here out of Wiki too?--HoytMan (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Response
The Art Institute is not part of a loosely related university system as you suggest. The Art Institute is first and foremost a corporation. It is a chain of schools located nation wide under one corporate name just like Mc Donald's. If a food chain was investigated in multiple locations across the country and they were found serving contaminated food, then all location in the chain bear the reputation good or bad. Unlike your example, all the Art Institutes are closely related because they are centrally controlled by a single corporation where marking, finance, taxes, guidelines, and corporate representation all come from a top down power structure with a CEO at the top. State of California not only joined in on the federal lawsuit, it filed separately against the Art Institutes in CA where this school resides, in order to recover state Pell Grant money that is not part of the federal case. This is why its listed separately. So it's a stretch to say the lawsuit is unrelated to this specific school especially when the case is about multiple schools in one chain across the nation. --HoytMan (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reason for placing article In Dispute status
Does the article for one school need news reports regarding other schools in the same system? For example, if the University of California, Irvine had an event take place of national importance, would it be justified to post this information to the page of every school in the University of California system? For reference, the Art Institute of California - Orange County, along with 7 other Art Institute of California schools, curriculum fall under Argosy University, their regional accreditation granted to the AiOC system only. The other Art Institute Schools do not fall under the same accreditation, and most are only nationally accredited. Argosy University is under Education Management Company. This article contains information regarding Art Institutes from other states. This is why I am placing the facts in dispute. Aeonjoey (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The factual information added by HoytMan stands for now, and I have requested a 3rd Opinion for resolution as the originating information introduced by HoytMan was done so in the form of a -big- format, indicative of vandalism, also the fraud investigation section was added twice with slightly different wording. As stated, the information will not be re-deleted by me, that gets us no where. The 3rd Option template has been applied. Aeonjoey (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For the main summary, I re-added back in the information regarding accreditation, it seems strange that HoytMan would delete only one part that supported his previous argument, which again, is why I suspected vandalism because it seems more of a vendetta against the school than posting of factual data. In addition, I removed the citation leading readers to a new york times article about for profit schools. Wikipedia is not a soap box. The information re-added is factual data. The school's new title is The Art institute of California, A College of Argosy University - Orange County. The proper citations for the name change were provided, and apparently were not researched prior to the deletion. I have left the EDMC wording as HoytMan had it last. Aeonjoey (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with other For- Profit Colleges owned by EDMC: Argosy University, Brown Mackie and South University wording has been converted to match the authors of these other schools wikipedia articles.--HoytMan (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Art Institute corporate name is EDMC. The lawsuit cited by the US Government has named The Art Institutes in the civil case under its corporate name EDMC. The allegations brought by the US Department of Justice is specifically addressed the The Art Institute and it's alleged fraudulent practices. It is therefore relevant and related to post and cite the lawsuit information for total transparency. Furthermore, removing relevant and cited such data in an attempt to white wash the facts and use Wikipedia as advertisement for the for the promotion of a business constitute violates wiki guidelines and vandalism by user User:Aeonjoey.--HoytMan (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The regional and nation accreditation cited do not address the lack accreditation by National Association of Schools of Art and Design NASAD - the main accreditation body for art schools and colleges. This still leaves holes in transferability of credits readers should be aware of. Big Tag for call out has been revised per standard guidelines.--HoytMan (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * NASAD Accreditation is held by some Art Institute schools, for example, the Art Institute of Atlanta. Again, the added complaints refer to other specific Art Institute schools, not the Art Institute of California - Orange County. Aeonjoey (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that this school has Regional as well as National accreditation (December 2011) statements describing problems with transferring credits to other colleges are no longer valid. The previous comments were not cited and appeared to also be independent research by User:HoytMan. Aeonjoey (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The allegations of fraud brought upon EDMC do not name The Art Institutes as part of their investigation or target of inquiry. Articles posted to this entry are therefore unrelated, and (if relevant and cited) posted to the parent company EDMC or schools that were named in the investigation. Furthermore, using the -big- tag to call out the article in the contents, is against standard formatting guidelines, all of the above constitute vandalism by User:HoytMan. Aeonjoey (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this college has received regional accreditation and the article has been updated to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.96.126 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with other for-profit art colleges, Pratt, Parsons, and SVA shows no mention of the school being for-profit, only that they are private. converting wording to the standard set by the authors of these other school wikipedia articles. 98.164.208.219 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User 76.94.127.196 has repeated vandalized this article, a first level warning was left at his user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:76.94.127.196

User HoytMan has repeated vandalized this article, a first level warning was left at his user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HoytMan

User Aeonjoey has repeated vandalized this article by removing content with cited information added by other users. A first level warning was left at his user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aeonjoey  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoytMan (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(Untitled section)
creating cross-linking categories among colleges and articles in general can only enhance Wikipedia's overall ease of use. Removing them serves no purpose. Aeonjoey (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

3O
Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I just want to give a quick response here, as there doesn't seem to be all that much actual discussion of the content dispute. Short answer: neither of you are vandalizing. Vandalism has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia; it only applies to edits where the editor is knowingly trying to insert worthless, disruptive material in an attempt to deface the article or Wikipedia as a whole. You both seem to be adding or removing based on what you think is the best thing for the article; even if one of you is wrong, the fact that you believe your own actions are good is enough to make them not vandalism. This is a content dispute; you guys need to stop talking past each other and making spurious accusations of vandalism. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, after looking at the sections in question (which I'm presuming to be "the government sues about fraud", "complaints", and "Financial trouble"), they appear to be meritless and shouldn't be included in the article, as none of it is relevant to the Art Institute of California OC in particular. The stuff about EDMC should go in the article about EDMC, not this one, and the lawsuits against other institutes should go into their respective articles; they don't belong here.  Not to mention that the language being used in these articles is wholly inappropriate and sensationalist. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Writ_Keeper, I agree with your assessment of vandalize. Unfortunately it looks the the main poster of this article has been using it as spam and ad copy for the promotion for this specif campus.  He accuses any additions from other posters as vandalism because it messes with his marketing message.  One way of doing this it to negate the importance of these large lawsuits about the school by trying to detach the school from the corporate name EDMC. Let me explain, that lawsuits are against The Art Institutes and their practices not the corporate parent.  This specific school campus and the cooperation name are listed and cited in the latest posts so I feel it relative to knowing about whats going on at this school.  If the corporation were to be found guilty or innocent in a court of law so would the school.  There was no intention for wording to be sensationalist, just accurate according to cited info.  I feel a billion dollar lawsuit by the government that accuses a school of wrong doing is retentive to an article about the school if all you read is sudo ad copy. There is subtle spam work here, for instance attempting to remove the words For-Profit from their names even though other schools in this chin listed on Wiki use that nomenclature.  At one point, the article went so far as to mention making reservation for the schools restaurant.  Unfortunately, I see someone possibly the same person has tried to delete this information by deleting information from unsigned IPs which may be available to a school that has multiple IP addresses.  My goal is only to give people a true picture of the school.  The school chain dose have a huge lobby group in Washington so it's not out of the realm of possibility they pay someone to write Wiki articles in their favor.--HoytMan (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)