I'm still not following your logic on removing the point on the Augsburg-Capella relationship. The summer courses of Augsburg College, and this is according to Augsburg, are now done in conjunction with Capella (which is headquartered only a mile away). How is this similar to any other program the for-profit school may claim (JC, military or otherwise), and what reasons are there for legitimate removal? --Bobak 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capella University has the same type of relationships with numerous other colleges and universities - this is revealed by simple Internet searches on similar alliances - the Augsburg-Capella relationship is not unique, by any means, and is therefore irrelevant to an article related specifically to Capella. I don't understand why the physical distance between the two has any meaning. I also don't understand your logic as to why the Augsburg-Capella relationship is different than any of the others that Capella has formed and which would justify both its importance and inclusion for the entry. The links I posted on the article to some of the hundreds of alliances between Capella and various entities (on Capella's web site, no less) should have been more than sufficient to help those interested in Capella's "alliances" to find more information. Why is Augsberg so special? --Shac1 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't have to keep repeating each reply, I'm going to make my main reply on the Capella discussion page. --Bobak 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Capella University. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other user continues to vandalise Capella University article. Unless it is stopped, arbitration will be requested. Shac1 04:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. arbitration should always be a last resort. I have posted about what is going on at the article at the incident board for review.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had also posted information about the ongoing vandalism by other users (including those made using a Capella University IP address on the talk page). Furthermore, the ongoing personal attacks by other users are unacceptable. Shac1 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Capella University. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. RJASE1 02:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My warning was not vandalism - please stop the reverting while I figure out what's going on. If my warning was unjust, I will remove it. RJASE1 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe your warning is vandalism. I appropriately posted a request to move things to the Capella talk page [[1]] and requested assistance from Wikipedia administrators on the incident board. Furthermore, I'm getting really tired of the personal attacks by individuals who appear to be employeed by Capella University. Shac1 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly a neutral party - give me a couple of minutes to look over the dispute so I can recommend a path forward - right now you guys are going in circles. RJASE1 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the expertise to solve your problem - please take your dispute to WP:RFC. RJASE1 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for your assistance in setting up the Request for Comment (RfC) pertaining to Capella University as the Capella user(s) who continue to delete valid criticisms engage in personal attacks.Shac1 03:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out the best section for this dispute - probably . In the WP:RFC#instructions, it tells you how to set up the discussion. RJASE1 03:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does the RfC get placed at the bottom of the article's current page? Furthermore, the article has now been locked and placing the RfC there is not possible. Shac1 03:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be on the article's talk page. RJASE1 03:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It also appears as if the new anon. user is merely one of those who was previously vandalizing articles. That information may be found at: [User 68:117:38:94] It is reasonable to assume that this same individual has merely found another computer to continue the edit war. As I have not done a RfC before, I'll try to set it up in a short while. Hopefully, it will go smoothly. Shac1 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the dispute is resolved, you can request that the page be un-protected at WP:RPP. RJASE1 03:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC has been created on the [talk page]Shac1 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate what I said on Capella's Talk page: don't label my edits vandalism or accuse me of shilling for anyone. Assume good faith of other editors.

I understand where you're coming from and there probably have been editors trying to remove that embarrassing information from the article. I have no desire to remove it as it's clearly notable. However, the section is way too long and gives the incident undue weight and thus needs to be shortened. If you believe that my edits removed vital information, however, please work with me to keep the section accurate, NPOV, and short. --ElKevbo 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you continue to blank the article and remove considerable content from it, you are indeed vandalizing it. The section that you are removing is not "way too long" and provides considerable information that is entirely relevant to the article. The controversy section, as it exist before your blanking, does contain a NPOV.Shac1 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you can't separate a content dispute from vandalism. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are pretty important principles in this community and you need to try harder to embrace them.

And please note that I've reported your violation of the 3RR. I'm sure you're now even angrier at me but you have to learn to let go and work with others rather than attempting to own the article, falsely accuse others of vandalism, and in other ways violate Wikipedia policies and cultural norms. --ElKevbo 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Capella University. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

DES ^(talk) 18:45, 12 April 2007 (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).

Shac1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is completely unjustified. Another user ElKevbo, along with Pizzaman0000, Pizzaman6233, and others from Capella Univerity have consistently engaged in edit wars and name calling - for which they've been warned. Furthermore, I had appropriately brought the current matter up on the 3.

Finally, as noted on my talk page, ElKevbo, the user who was blanking the article - not me - and who was the one in violation of the Three Revert Rule - is the one who should be blocked.Shac1 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

   Edit warring and improper deletion of content by other editors is not a justification for violating 3RR. Thsi was a content dispute, not vandalism. You clearly made 4 reverts within 24 hours on that articel, that is a violation. My check do not show as many as that by Useer:ElKevbo, but I will recheck, and block that user if a 3RR violation appears. i have posted to WP:AN/I inviting other admins to reveiw this block. DES (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

       As I've noted elsewhere, User:ElKevbo and Pizzaman (who, as clearly noted uses multiple user names) have engaged in blanking. Furthermore, take a look at the personal attacks made by User:ElKevbo against me on the [Capella Talk Page]. The fact is, User:ElKevbo has been vandalizing the article as he tirade documents. It's also important to note that instead of discussing his vandalism, he refuses to discuss his blanking and resorts to calling names and other such conduct. User:ElKevbo is the one who should be blocked.

Note User:ElKevbo attack above that states:

           I'm sorry that you can't separate a content dispute from vandalism. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are pretty important principles in this community and you need to try harder to embrace them.

           And please note that I've reported your violation of the 3RR. I'm sure you're now even angrier at me but you have to learn to let go and work with others rather than attempting to own the article, falsely accuse others of vandalism, and in other ways violate Wikipedia policies and cultural norms. --ElKevbo 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)'

       It also needs to be noted ElKevbo has previously warned for removing warnings he has received. That information may be found at [ElKevbo warning]

       Finally, I never "deleted content by other editors - I put the content back - Content that was vandalized by User:ElKevbo.

Shac1 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This seems to be a valid block, you did violate 3RR, those other issues don't relate to that. — ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:49, 13 April 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.

</nowiki>

If removing paragraphs of content supported by cited sources is "blanking" thank you have done so also on this article, specifically the paragraph beginning "According to a Form 8-K Regulation FD Disclosure..." in this edit with the summary "rv vandalism. I find it hard to see the insertion of cited content, and the deletion of other content, in an admittedly controversial section as "vandalism". and i would tend to reserve "blanking" for more wholesale deletions, particularly blanking an entire article, than I see on Capella University. As for name calling and civility issues, I see far too much of it on that talk page from everyone involved. calling editors opposed to you "shills" and their edits "vandalism" is not exactly civil. DES ^(talk) 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So beyond accusing me of vandalism, you're now accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Nice. You've accused me of violating 3RR on an article I've only edited twice (and only one was a revert). And you've also linked to an discussion on my Talk page where I was discussing another one editor's warning to another editor not to remove warnings from his or her Talk page - not even close to the situation you have described.

If you really believe I'm a sockpuppet, please file an RFCU request once you're unblocked. Otherwise, cease your baseless accusations.

I really do want to work with you as we do need to prevent editors from whitewashing the article in question but you're making it very difficult. --ElKevbo 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one whitewashing articles is ElKevbo - I was putting information back that he was whitewashing. A prime example is the [warning he just received on his talk page] that states

Please be careful, ElKevbo. Removing well sourced content from vcontroversial pages or sections before a consensus is formed on the talk page is not generally a good idea, even if it deosn't amout to a 3RR violation. Indeed it could be considered disrubtive editing, which is also grounds for a block. DES (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC) ::::

ElKevbo needs to be blocked. Here are examples of his vandalism

The following are some examples of the whitewashing and blanking he did to the article

Blanking [example 1 by ElKevbo ]

Blanking [example 2 by ElKevbo ]

Shac1 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been restarted given your use of a block-evading sockpuppet, ShacOne (talk · contribs). The sockpuppet account has been indefinitely blocked and your block will be restarted if this happens again. Natalie 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|This is an outrage! I am not, nor have I ever been ShacOne (talk · contribs) - my user name is Shac1. The IP address that you also accuse me of using: 63.95.176.254 traces back to Minnesota - home of Capella University.

Based upon ShacOne's edits, it would appear as if the person using that name is either Pizzaman0000 and or Pizzaman6233

Conveniently Natalie Erinis also from Minneapolis, home of Capella University

Furthermore, I have been consistently subjected to personal attacks as noted by the following users talk pages

75.134.132.66

Pizzaman6233

notice on the Capella University history pages (you'll need to look at the second set of fifty) were Pizzaman say "F you" along with all the other personal attacks directed at me.

Again, I am not, nor have I ever been ShacOne (talk · contribs).

As Natalie is from Capella's home, I can't help but wonder if this is a ploy by Capella University to prevent valid NPOV criticisms from being presented.

To whomever reviews this, please note that this person had an unblock review just yesterday. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DESiegel has suggested that ShacOne and Pizzaman are the same person, and that the ShacOne account was created to have your block extended. I think DESiegel is correct and will be unblocking now, as your original 24 hour block is now over.

As for the assertion that I am somehow in league with Capella University, that is ridiculous. Three million people live in the Twin Cities and I can assure that very few of them even know Capella University exists. Furthermore, as it says on my userpage (which you obviously read), I attend Antioch College, a small liberal arts college in Ohio. Why I would do that while somehow part of a ploy to silence criticism about a degree mill is beyond me. Natalie 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): see above Request handled by: Natalie 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't my account been unblocked?Shac1 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 68.4.209.3 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Kuru talk 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try it now... Kuru ^talk 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Check User (RFCU) in which your account was included was recently filed and completed. I'll leave it to administrators to decide what, if anything, to do about the results of the RFCU. However, I do wish to note my personal displeasure that you used a sockpuppet to falsely accuse me of violating the 3RR and attack my character and actions after you were blocked.

Despite that, I again extend a sincere offer to work with you in a collegial manner. I'd like to put the past behind us and get back to working on an encyclopedia. --ElKevbo 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to file a formal complaint against you for your unprofessional conduct as an editor. I resent your accusation that I violated the 3RR - I most certainly did not. I had attempted to pursue the proper channels and you took it upon yourself to not only attack my character but failed to retaliate because I pointed out your blanking and refusal to communicate on the talk page - you were the one blanking the article, not I. Furthermore, I resent the actions of others - particularly Natalie for falsely accusing me of others actions. For someone who claims that you wish to extend a "sincere offer to work with others" your actions certainly don't demonstrate that. Shac1 08:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you're upset that you were falsely accused of sockpuppeteering, but I apologized for the misunderstanding above. Furthermore, your account was not blocked for any longer than it would have been if the 3RR block stayed in place, so I'm not sure what your accusation against me is based on. Natalie 16:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...not to mention the fact that you were employing an abusive sockpuppet to evade your 3RR block. --ElKevbo 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR violation was clear, and the resultign block was endoresed on WP:AN. I requested public reveiw on both AN and WP:AN/I. No one thought the block improper. I note that you do not deny having edited under another username while blocked. Note the WP:BLOCK, an official policy page, says in part:

A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked.

Please do not use sockpuppets to evade blocks in future. Please do not again violate the three-revert-rule. If you really think you did not violate it before, i urge you to re-read the policy, and to note that edits with which you disagree, even ill-advised edits and PoV pushing, are not vandalism and reverts of such edits are not exempt from the 3RR. As to a "formal complaint" about User:ElKevbo, see WP:RFC, or you can post on WP:AN/I. I urge you to pay attention to the response to any such post. DES ^(talk) 16:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To DES - The alledged 3RR violation was NOT clear - I reverted ElKevbo twice, just TWO times. Furthermore, by that time I had already filed a report on the incident board AND had also noted a request for ElKevbo to bring comments about about his blanking to the[Capella talk page]. While ElKevbo engaged in personal attacks on that page, Bobac and I WERE attempting to discuss the matter and, as can easily be noted, were in agreement.

As far a reading the policy - I had - and was confident that I had NOT violated it - I did, however, reverse ElKevbo vandalism twice - NOT three times. Regarding your statement that I had "noted that edits with which you disagree, even ill-advised edits and PoV pushing" - instead, ElKevbo lashed out and blocked me even though he was the one who was blanking, He then retaliated against by blocking me while, at the same time, refused to commnet on his own blanking. It would be wise for ElKevbo to heed your advice too - ESPECIALLY since he is an Wikipedia editor who was doing the blanking.

Finally, I already filed a complaint against ElKevbo and ElKevboon the WP:AN/I. I was attempting to appropriately discuss the matter on both the [Capella talk page], and the WP:AN/I - he did not.Shac1 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the four reverts:

• 1st revert: 20:53, April 11, 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:12, April 11, 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:24, April 12, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:15, April 12, 2007

Note that two are reversions of ElKevbo and two of Pizzaman00. For purposes of the 3RR a revert is any edit that restores the article to a previous state, or undoes another editors edit, or a sigmificant part of it. It need not be done by editing a previous version and saving. it is the effect thqat matters, not the method.

Note also that ElKevbo's edits, while perhaps ill-advised, do not qualify as vandalism, nor would I call them blanking, and that ElKevbo explained his reasons on the talk page, albiet brriefly. You may well disagree with his reasons, but that does not make the edits vandalism. Note further that having reported another user on ANI or anywhere else does not grant exemption from the 3RR.

You say that "ElKevbo lashed out and blocked me". Check the block log ElKevbo never blocked you -- i don't think that editor is an admin. I blocked you for the 3RR violation, having seen the report on WP:AN/3, and having verified the 3RR violation to my own satisfaction. Natalie then extended your block, then uindid that entension, based on the checkuser result (although an extnsion would have been technically proper for your actions in using a sock (User:arla364) to edit while you were blocked).

Note that the 3RR is per page, not per user reverted. Four reverts on the same page within any 24 hour period is a violation, even if four different editors are reverted.

I hope this clarifies soem things for you. DES ^(talk) 06:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remain disgusted with your block. Again - both Pizzaman and ElKevbo were vandalizing the article by blanking it.

Your blocking of my account, and not their's was both punative and vindictive. You consistently fail to note the personal attacks made against me by ElKevbo and Pizzaman, as well as their refusal to take the issues to the Capella Talk page. You also refuse to take actions against them for their refusal to discuss the situation on the Talk Board. Instead, you acted rashly and without merit. It's extremely hypocritical for you to have merely [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ElKevbo#Capella_University warned ElKevbo] as he was the one doing the blanking while at the same time, you blocked me.

• Blanking by others 1 [2]

• Blanking by others 2 [3]

• Blanking by others 3 [4]

• Blanking by others 4 [5]

• Blanking by others 5 [6]

Your actions against me were uncalled for - escpecially since you acted with such inconsistent and strong-armed tactics against me while not duing the same to others who were vandalising the article. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that not only had I attempted to take their vandalism to the Talk Page but had also rightfully reported it to the Wikipedia incident page.Shac1 21:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I would not call the removal of several paragraphs of content (but not the whole article) while leaving in significant mention of the topic (the recent scandals at Capella) blanking, and this is clearly edit warring, but not vandalism, as I understand the wikipedia meaning of "vandalism". My actions were in no way intended as either punative or vindictive. Had you not breached the 3RR I would not have blocked you, it is as simple and basic as that. I remind you that I asked for public review of my block on both WP:AN and WP:AN/I and not one editor other than your sockpuppet objected. While it is always better to discuss contentious edits on a talk page, it is no no sense required that an editor do so, and failure to do so is not blockable. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did NOT violate the 3RR - I only reverted ElKevbo twince. The fact that you merely slapped his hand by stating

Please be careful, ElKevbo. Removing well sourced content from controversial pages or sections before a consensus is formed on the talk page is not generally a good idea, even if it doesn't amout to a 3RR violation. Indeed it could be considered disruptive editing, which is also grounds for a block. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while, at the same time your took far more drastic measures against me, displays how arbitrary your actions were. Even you agreed that is was "disruptive editing, which is also grounds for a block." As I have been active editing this article for many months and ElKevbo had just shown up, his actions should have been considered disruptive editing and he should have been blocked by you too.

Furthermore, I did NOT violate the 3RR. To use your own words, "I remind you that I asked for public review" on both the talk page and in the incident board. Your actions were arbitrary and vindictive.

Finally, I again ask, in light of the continuous ongoing numerous personal attacks by Pizzaman and all of his various other user names, including his statment to me which said "F you" - why wasn't similar actions taken against him? Shac1 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you reverted ElKevbo twice. You also reverted Pizzaman twice. 2+2=4; 4 is greater than 3. The 3RR is a limit of 3 reverts per page in any 24 hour period, not per editor reverted, and all 4 reverts do not have to be of the same edit. Askign for review, unless you also self-revert to undo at least one of your own reversions, does not cure a 3RR; and you didn't ask for a reveiw of your own actions, you accused others of improper editing and asked for a review of their actions. Not quite the smae thing. And that is really all there is to the matter. Possibly I should have warned Pizzaman for violations of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. But such a warning would not have automatically entailed a block, as a 3RR violation does. DES ^(talk) 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]