Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 07:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Ericsaindon2's entire two-month editing career has revolved around one topic, a district of Anaheim, California called Anaheim Hills. The district has no official existence, hasn't been recognized by any government agency, and at most is simply a neighborhood. Despite this fact, Ericsaindon2 (ES) has been using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote Anaheim Hills as a separate place. Not to promote an independence movement, which might be at least considered a POV, but simply to declare Anaheim Hills as a place and even a city by editorial fiat. By doing so he was perpetrating a known untruth, a hoax. He went so far as to create a "seal of the city of Anaheim Hills", and edit-warred over its inclusion. More recently he has drawn maps of the area, and cobbled together demographic information, without providing underlying references, and then placed all of the original research into various city infobox formats. During these disputes he has repeatedly ignored the consensus of other editors (including misusing straw polls), has used sock puppets, has violated the 3RR, has expressed ownership of the article, and has disrupted the project to illustrate a point.

This is not a content RfC about the legal status of a neighborhood, naming conventions, or infoboxes, about which reasonable people may differ. This is a request for comments on Ericsaindon2's activities at Wikipedia, a request for a dialog with the editor and the community so that we can all work together within the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)


 * Adding Anaheim Hills to lists of cities, or otherwise listing it as a city.
 * ,, ,, (calls Anaheim Hills a "major city" that surrounds a large national forest), , , , , , ,


 * Original research
 * Adding self-created city seal and maps., , ,


 * Adding unsourced information and personal opinions, removes tags
 * April7, 2006, April 9, 2006, April 12, 2006, May 14, 2006
 * Adds original theory about "How Geography Defines the Wealth of a Community", and revert wars over its inclusion in several articles, , , (removes "Unreferenced" tag),  (ditto),  (ditto),  (removes specific "Fact" tags)), ,  (removes "Unreferenced" tag),  (removes counterpoints to his theory added by another editor.)


 * Disrupting Wikipedia to illutrate a point, and other vandalism
 * Adds "cleaunup" tags to a user page in reaction to that user having applied the tags to an article., ,.
 * Moves many articles to new titles after "Anaheim Hills" was moved. Some of the page moves were appropriate, but others were not. Especially "Manhattan, New York (state)]]", which was made with no discussion, and in ignorance of previous discussions. Some of the moves caused the edit histories to become confused and require repair.
 * Repeatedly removing and  when it is it under protection.


 * Edit warring
 * Ericsaindon2 has been blocked four times for violating WP:3RR.. After the third block he promised via email that he would not edit war in exchange for an early unblock.
 * Combative tone; ,


 * Suspected sock puppets and IP accounts
 * Local AOL IPs
 * Local AOL IPs
 * Local AOL IPs
 * Local AOL IPs
 * Local AOL IPs
 * Local AOL IPs
 * Local AOL IPs
 * Local AOL IPs


 * Ownership
 * Adds large amount of text to article, wiping out existing end material. (Later rewrites the rest.) April 5, 2006
 * "You have no justification for blocking the movement of this page (expecially since I wrote 99.999999999% of this article). "


 * Soapbox
 * Adds article to list of Featured Articles
 * Posts a variation of on the talk page that says, "Anaheim Hills, California is a Wikipedia:Outstanding Achievement and Progress, which means that it (or a previous version) has been greatly modified and drastically improved over the past 90 days, and is now one of Wikipedias premier articles. In its current state it is one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:NOR
 * WP:SOCK
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:SOAPBOX

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * By User:Will Beback
 * 6 April 2006
 * 13 April 2006
 * 26 May 2006
 * 28 May 2006
 * 29 May 2006
 * 3 June 2006


 * By User:Adambiswanger1
 * 28 May 2006
 * 28 May 2006
 * 1 June 2006
 * 3 June 2006
 * By User:Zzyzx11
 * 15 May 2006
 * 15 May 2006

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Will Beback 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Adambiswanger1 11:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mike Dillon 14:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Soltras 14:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zzyzx11 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * AmiDaniel (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Blank Verse 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Trödel 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Peirigill 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * --Coolcaesar 03:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Response
Yes, I did do all of those things, but I thought it was out of the greatness of the article. See, when I came to Wikipedia nearly three months ago, I had no clue what the site was about. I came in as an expert on the Anaheim Hills area. I have worked with the Anaheim Hills area for about 20 years now, through my job which includes this part of North Orange County. The first edits I made were trying to figure out what this whole site was about. I applied all my knowledge about Anaheim HIlls to the editing of this page (which was pretty sad when I got to it). Now, my job more specifically is enhancing features of communities and citites to bring in revenue, so when I came in here for the first time, I came in with all of this swayed information about Anaheim Hills putting it in a positive light. Now, had only being there 5 minutes, I didnt know that all sources had to be cited, and that it couldnt sound like you were promoting something. The next day, I was totally bashed by users:Alex, and Will Beback for writing that article. So the very next day, I went through the rules of Wikipedia, created Ericsaindon2 as a username, and edited the Anaheim Hills page again. I took the comments made about me about how "funny" and "embarassing" my writing was because I did read back on them, and yes they were pretty self promoting. But, then I completely went back, and started over on the article after all of my edits were completely erased by Mike Dillon, another involved user. He also went into other peoples talk pages and made fun of the way I wrote the page for the first time unfamiliarly for my first edit. I always kept that thought in the back of my head, and didnt take it too strongly against me, but knew that I wasnt going to take any crap from these three users that had slandered me for writing one bad article. So two weeks later after I had completed research, and went online to the Database I have access to at my job about not only cities, but communities that were privately researched, I felt like I had enough information to add an infobox to the page. So, I completely modified the existing city infobox to create the community infobox (which is in the process of becoming the Official community infobox). It idnt include all of the other stuff that incorporated cities have, but it had avalible facts that were compiled by my dadabase. I learned that I needed to use Census for these statistics as for a rule that I still have found no basis for, so I did. I physically went in, and calculated all of Anaheim Hills neighborhood by neighborhood with Census (22 neighborhoods and subdivisions in all), and reposted it. Then, I was protecting my Monday nights entire work, and reverted it three times back onto the page because I really thought it was appropriate for the page. Now, to avoid a 3rr, 2 othert editors must have gone in, and reverted it together so that they couldnt violate the 3rr before I did, and I got suspended. Then, the next thing I knew, a straw poll for my infobox was created. It said things like "no basis for facts" and "doesnt have real borders", which were things that were not true. So the introduction given to the straw poll of the infobox was totally misleading not at a neutral point of view, but to make it look like I totally decieved Wikipedia by adding it, and I created a total hoax. As expected with slander like this, I lost my case. Byut I protested again for there being such an unfair straw poll that I ended up getting myself suspended again for the 3rr. At this point, I was getting suspended for everything I did, left and right, and so I created Ericsaindon154 to try and gain a new identity on Wikipedia apart from what my assumed fate was on Ericsaindon2. But three minutes after I created it I had sock puppet tags all over the page. Then, my half brother, Etton Smith got involved, and tried to edit these pages too. But, he was accused of being my sockpuppet for still undefined sources and evidence. So both he and I were put on 3rr after he made alot of edits to back me up, and I was also suspended for it. Then for a week, I was on the 3rr, but whoever submitted for me to be suspended had it on 1 week instead of 1 day, so Etton let me edit from his account. So I did, trying to stay like him while I was on there. Then, the next thing I knew, the Anaheim Hills page had been moved to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. THis rule was not stated anywhere in the rulebook that this was standard for communities, and so a slandered strawpoll was created for this naming issue by the same editor that created the infobox one. But this one also said things like "every community uses community, city, state" format, and "it is stated in the Wikipedia rules that this is how to name a community", when in reality neither of those facts were true. And because of this misinformation, Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California won, and the page was moved there. Then I told myself, wait a minute, that is violating Wikipedia's own rules

Evidence of statement: According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Since NOBODY outside of Wikipedia uses the term Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to refer to the community of Anaheim Hills, naming an article about it with this term is in direct violation of the primary Wikipedia naming convention. An alleged standard naming "convention" dreamed up by mildly autistic and/or O-C Wikipedia administrators for their own irrational need for perceived order is null and void because using that reason violates the naming convention too, which also is also stated as follows:

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. The much simpler and more recognizable term of Anaheim Hills alone is what should be the article name here, regardless of what a handful of editors happen to vote for in a strawpoll.

''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Proof of most commonly uised as:
 * Google Search:


 * Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 23,098);
 * Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 16)

Yahoo Search:
 * Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 25,641);
 * Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 13)

Alta Vista Search:
 * Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 14,512);
 * Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 7)

Actual Reference from the City of Anaheim's Police Department Page---
 * East Anaheim Police Center Located in Anaheim Hills;
 * Oak Canyon Nature Center-Located in Anaheim Hills;
 * Anaheim Hills Festival-Located in Anaheim Hills;

www.realtor.com-
 * Homes for Sale in Anaheim Hills, California

Postal Service Notice-
 * ("please do not use Anaheim Hills, California in mailing letters, use Anaheim, California)

Google.com/maps-
 * Type in Anaheim Hills, California; take you right to location of Anaheim Hills,
 * Type in Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California you get this this message "could not find this location, check spelling and/or name usage"

I have yet to find any place, besides Wikipedia that uses Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. There are a few references that are currently larger and more powerful than Wikipedia that dont use Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California when referencing Anaheim Hills, but rather use Anaheim Hills, California.

So, then I learned and had proof that Anaheim Hills, California was the only proper way to name the article. So I moved it, and again got punished for the 3rr. Then, Will Beback came up with a compromise saying that the best name was Anaheim Hills, California. I wanted to see if his compromise would withstand the test of the complaining editors, so I created a straw poll seeing how his name would iwthstand the test, and see if his way was unanimously approved so that another edit war wouldnt come up in the future. And all I got was crap from these people for creating it. SO then I was suspended again for the 3rr when I moved the page back and forth by Amidaniel. Then, a full protection block was put on the page. I put my comments on the compromise which I have included below

Comments on Compromise Yes, I agree with the move, but get all of that protection stuff off the page. It looks like your entering some top secret CIA site, and all it is is an Anaheim Hills information page. I cannot promise that the infobox remain off the page (but we will solve that issue after we solve the naming dispute). I dont seem to understand why, if all the facts were verified, that the box cannot remain on the page? Everything was verified, and has sources, and so what if it is not typical for a page to have an infobox! There is no designated community infobox, so that doesnt mean there cant be, it just means that there isnt at this time. Now, since there isnt, the infobox needs to be determined on a page-by-page basis, and it shouldnt come through a straw poll whether it is there or not, but through practicality and verified information. And the straw polls are ianccurate of original opinions because everyone on this page, besides maybe myself, Serge, Adambswanger1 are all working together and all agree about everything because that is standard for admins to do. They dont want to get into a confrontation or they may loose their adminship, so they dont argue, and since they dont argue, they all just agree with eachother, making the polls worthless of original opinion. Now, I am not the one loosing here, neither are any of you, but its those people who rely on Wikipedia for a good source of information that there should be an infobox on the page. It compresses all the demographic facts, and does not include any of that governmental stuff that real infoboxes for cities do. It has facts that are avalible, but take alot of time for people to calculate neighborhood by neighborhood facts like these are. Now how can you deny these people of these facts just because all you admins are backing eachother up, and not truely letting your real feelings out? I have not heard one good reason why the infobox should not be on the page. There is no confusion of if Anaheim Hills is a city, because the infobox is totally modified to just include facts avalible for the area. Now, on this page especially, an infobox is essential because its the only site on the world wide web where someone actually to took the time to go deep into Cenusus records to determine the Anaheim Hills demographics that are verifiable, but are timely to compress. I think that depriving the page of this beneficial infobox would be depriving the people that rely on this site for information on the things they like to look up. Now the only arguement I have heard was that it was big and clunky! Now, just because it is big and clunky doesnt mean that all people that read this article should not be supplied with the information. They are not going to enter the page, and say that box is clunky, I am leaving. No, they will say wow, someone actually took the time to comprise a bunch of Census data just for this page. Like I said, if the deletion of the infobox is a personal attack against me, I am not the one that is loosing, its the readers. And about this page move, I fully support the name, and have wanted it changed to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim Hills, California, or Anaheim Hills (California) from the getgo. I just dont like the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California name. So I do support the naming portion of your compromise.

Endorse This Summary

 * 1. --71.128.23.163 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. --Ericsaindon2 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. --User:Es92808 Requests I vote for him since he is blocked for 3rr

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

User page
Ericsaindon2’s user page also claims that the staff of Wikipedia have awarded him “Editor of the Day/Month” on several occasions. As far as I know, those awards do not exist, and on most of the dates in question, the user had not even registered yet. Since it’s on a user page, I don’t know if this violates any policies( though it may), but it is most certainly in very poor taste. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to use this against him, because it looks like sheer playfulness. Adambiswanger1 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked him about it here . He responded here,
 * Laough out loud about the editor of the month thingy. Its more of a joke because I am not seen as a "good editor" in Wikipedia, so I decided to appreciate myself since nobody else seems to. I want to see who Mike Dillon turns to so that he can laugh and make fun of me some more. --Ericsaindon2 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, seems like trying to prove a point. -Will Beback 11:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to make a point, or the users that posted this summary? --71.128.23.163 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.