Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 7 April 2012

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Bittergrey reported by User:WLU (Result: )

Page: Paraphilic infantilism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bittergrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 15:31, March 31, 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 17:50, April 1, 2012
• 3rd revert: 21:57, April 1, 2012‎
• 4th revert: 10:00, April 2, 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:01, April 2, 2012

(Note the absence of edits between 11:01, April 2 "warning" and AN/3RR filing. BitterGrey (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Perhaps your timestamp is different, mine shows the warning as appearing at 07:01 on April 2nd. WLU (t) (c)Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 10:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I re-checked, and the timestamp quite clearly gives 11:01, 2 April 2012BitterGrey (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You can set your time and date offset in your preferences. My offest appears to be four hours earlier than yours. If you check the reverts above, I'm guessing they show the following:

• 1st revert: 11:31, March 31, 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 13:50, April 1, 2012
• 3rd revert: 17:57, April 1, 2012‎
• 4th revert: 06:00, April 2, 2012

And for you, the 3RR warning lists 11:01, April 2, 2012] while mine is 07:01. If you check my contributions, you clearly see the warning on your talk page appearing exactly one minute after my third revert. So there is no timestamp debate, we simply have different offsets. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So WLU was at 3 reverts in 14 hours when placing the warning... Talk about WP:Kettle! Then he filed this complaint knowing that I hadn't violated 3RR, hoping only to ruin my clean record of never having even been reported here, to make my record more like his. Can I get this complaint stricken from the record? BitterGrey (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff of most recent attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

(Link to whole discussion, which I started, including WLU's week of silence. BitterGrey (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Previous attempts are found in the following archive sections:

• FTN 1
• RSN
• FTN 2
• FTN 3

Comments:
It's not a clear three reverts in 24 hours, but I think it's pretty obvious there is a problem. For anyone interested in the content issue, a brief summary follows. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey has claimed that the source Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) states that pharaphilic infantilism is pedophilia. The actual statement is from page 531 and says:

A literal reading of the statement is that paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia but within the theory of erotic target location errors, the intent of the actual statements are to clearly distinguish between the two. The theory of "erotic target location error" when discussing paraphilic infantilists is that paraphilic infantilists are aroused by the idea of themselves being children and does not to say paraphilic infantilists wish to rape children. Quite the opposite.

The statement on the old version of the page summarized this as follows:

An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child.

(Unsigned comment by WLU)

Sorry for the awkward response: I've never been written up here before, unlike WLU... WLU also seems to have received not just any interaction ban from arbcom, but the archetype of interactions bans.

My Attempt at Discussion

My attempt at discussion started last week. WLU made edits to the article and to the rest of Misplaced Pages, but ignored the discussion until I edited. He has edit warred, because the material doesn't support his position. He has yet to counter or even address the points I raised. His post here includes only a summary, since three locations of the article are affected. To highlight previous discussions:

• Aerobicfox of RSN wrote "Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia' "

• Fifelfoo of RSN wrote "Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."

• Even WLU's past-supporter FiachraByrne didn't agree with WLU's reading of F&B: "They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children." That is, F&B wrote about pedophiles, not infantilists. This is why much of the text now being fought over was hidden from August to December.

Please note that WLU's comments above focus solely on one source (CB&B) when the issue is with another source (F&B). F&B discuss pedophilia. It doesn't mention infantilism, and so should not be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article. CB&B is cited in the article either SEVEN or NINE times in the article, depending on which version is active. (Given that CB&B has only one page that mentions infantilism, this seems undue, but isn't the current issue. Outside of this article, CB&B is only cited ONCE in entire English Misplaced Pages: One of the authors self-cited at courtship_disorder.)BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My reply to the substance of these is here, the summary above isn't really a good summary of the actual discussions. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU's Year-Long Wikihounding of Me

The real problem is that WLU has been wikihounding me since a debate in Feb 2011. Here is a list of the other articles he and I have had conflicts at, with the dates: (For clarity, I've omitted noticeboards, etc.) As you can see, with only one exception, he came to articles that I was already involved with.

• List of paraphilias(my first edit 2009-05-05 / WLU's first edit 2009-07-13) - WLU edited before conflict, but still not first
• Misplaced Pages talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (my first edit 2011-02-19 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-21) - WLU rushed to support a friend's user space ownership rights when the article was not in user space. He ended up "nuking" the talk page. He has been hounding me ever since.
• Paraphilic infantilism(my first edit 2006-01-20 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-28)
• Adult diaper(2010-09-25 / 2011-03-01)
• Diaper fetishism(2006-07-10 / 2011-03-03)
• Infantilism(2007-12-13 / 2011-03-02)
• Talk:Homosexuality(2010-09-27 / 2012-02-05) - WLU reacted to my comment by doing the opposite ... at the less-defended paraphilia article
• Paraphilia(2009-06-25 / 2012-02-05)
• Talk:Andrea James (2012-03-02 / 2012-02-10) - another editor moved the entire discussion from ANI while I was typing
• Sexology(2009-07-06 / 2012-03-04)

WLU has been following me to articles and going out of his way to pick fights.

WLU's most recent attack, at sexology, is a good example because it is easy to follow. I made a comment to the talk page, and WLU reacted by doing the opposite. A link that I thought should be kept, Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology, was removed, making the link I thought should be removed, Sexualmedicine.org, the only non-DMOZ EL. I opened a discussion at EL/N that WLU hijacked, closed, and hid. After asserting that Sexualmedicine.org was "the international page" and "a world-wide agency", WLU checked the EL, and concluded that my original comment was correct. The other external link, the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology was previously re-added by another editor and used as a reliable source by WLU. As usual, WLU wasted the time of good Wikipedians fighting for a bad position, that now not even he holds.

A more complicated attack started at homosexuality. As usual, I made a comment on a talk page, and WLU reacted by stating his determination to do the opposite. An author had proposed a paper to two articles, with the primary discussion at homosexuality. WLU wrote "I'll read and integrate it". Please note that again, this was not about the paper, which WLU had not yet read. Homosexuality is a well-watched article, so there wouldn't be an opportunity to single me out there. WLU fought to add a new paragraph dedicated to that author at paraphilia and cite his article in multiple locations in the article. After the edit war, WLU claims to have re-read the article and accepted one of the reservations I raised in my initial comment. Again WLU only succeeded in wasting the time of good Wikipedians.

I and two other editors got involved. KimvdLinde considered the source primary but kept one citation to it to try to make peace. She quickly announced her retirement from Misplaced Pages. The other was Jokestress, also known as Andrea James. WLU reacted by deleting her from one article and adding negative material to her BLP. WLU hadn't edited Andrea James or Blanchard's transsexualism typology before.

Most of his efforts are still harder to follow. An absurd example of WLU's argument-for-arguments-sake is his fighting to cite 47 pages of the DSM, then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours), (and hijacking a 3O), then zero (0) pages,, and then finally one (1) page at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict.

We can set aside the entire debate about whether or how the DSM discusses infantilism. Even if one of the positions WLU fought for is right, the other contradictory positions he fought for were wrong. Had WLU read the source before edit warring, we could have skipped months of fruitless arguing. Fighting for unchecked sources is common for WLU. In a better example, after two thousands words of pointless debate WLU read the text and admitted "Oops". A more humorous example is this edit, where WLU cited a Misplaced Pages printout as an RS without knowing it.

After removing the DSM for lack of specific demographic information on infantilism, WLU argued for replacing it with FB&B, even though it too lacked specific demographic information on infantilism. Initially he argued "they do make a statement explicitly about all paraphilias". Then I pointed out that CB&B list three exceptions on the very next page. WLU waffled to there being three and only three exceptions. Again, arguing seems to be his main goal.

There are not one, but two lengthy discussions indicating the DSM is largely irrelevant to paraphilic infantilism, here and here. But you are correct, when I make a mistake I do admit it, correct it, and do my best to avoid repeating it. I even apologize . WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. That time, after arguing for9,000 words, you tried to shun me . You never admitted to having been wrong there. You just kept arguing and reverting.BitterGrey (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

For someone who is apparently shunning you, I've spent an awful lot of time interacting with you. I never admitted I was wrong because I don't believe I was wrong - you were arguing to remove two sources for reasons I consider illegitimate, and still do. In fact, they are the exact same sources responsible for this very discussion, the same sources currently taking up 12,000 characters on the RSN and the same sources that spawned four sprawling noticeboard sections in December, 2011 (FTN, FTN2, FTN 3 and RSN, all linked above). I did make a point of ignoring your comments when you were repeating your illegitimate claim the sources should be removed, it's only when you started edit warring to remove them that I bothered to address them again. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

His frequent waffling has even complicated this issue. Those reading WLU's version of the article before Dec 6th would see pretty much the opposite text cited to F&B than they would in WLU's current version. Before Dec 6th, WLU fought to have the article include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section) (The F&B-related text in the pedophilia section was commented out until Dec 6th.) After Dec 6th, he waffled to "infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." (that is, NOT a form of pedophilia). . He also now blames the non-politically correct version on me. Here too, we can set aside the discussion of what FB&B actually say. WLU has fought for contradictory positions, so he is wrong either way.

Where will this stop? WLU believes it necessary to drive me off Misplaced Pages. Were any of my editing practices the issue, I would have the option of changing that practice. He doesn't see this as an option.

• "he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned."20 August 2011
• "I think wikipedia would be flat-out best served if he were site-banned."2 March 2012

Towards this goal, he's been maintaining not one but two attack pages against me, started in 23 March 2011 and 15 December 2011‎ .

Of course, given what he thinks of me, he ignores my comments and edits:

• "...I can just delete this without reading it" 25 February 2011
• "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading."22 August 2011
• "Oops...I assumed a simple revert" 19 November 2011 -yes, WLU violated AGF even in a posting to wikiquette assistance.

The second example was written to another editor, whom WLU was encouraging to ignore me. A more humorous example of this was written to yet another editor, on 14:37, 4 March 2011. "he lacks experience and in my mind tends to start disputes rather than resolve them.". This was actually between two skirmishes between myself and WLU. The "dispute" WLU was engaged in then was with a Bot. (Had he WP:AGF'd and at least evaluated my edits, he at least would have seen that they weren't my edits, but Yobot's.)

WLU, with his long history of blocks and edit warring, has been chasing me around Misplaced Pages for a year. He reacts to oppose my comments and reverts my edits, while ignoring my points. He also encourages others to do so. He disruptively argues and edit wars at great length without checking sources. If shown wrong, he changes to yet another position and continues the argument or edit war, ensuring that no consensus can be reached. It seems that he and his friends have created or joined every conflict I've had on Misplaced Pages since Feb 2011. BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is this the right forum?

Given that not even WLU claims that a 3RR violation occurred, making this accusation yet another frivolous attack, should this be relocated to AN/I? His funny timestamps and his linking to the second week of a discussion I started (to hide the fact that he was silent for the first week) are in particularly poor form. At other times in his hounding of me, he's made four reverts in 28 hours (), making this filing WP:kettle at best. This morning, he even made comments about my sexuality, which, given the sources he is fighting to cite, imply a criminal activity. These personal attacks must stop. BitterGrey (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the edit war noticeboard, it's review is not restricted to 3RR violations. See the definitions of edit warring and 3RR at the top of the page. Please, by all means - bring up my conduct at AN or ANI if you think it's worth the time. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more explicit: I'd like input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins. Since WLU has repeatedly stated an interest in driving me off Misplaced Pages, I can't accept his advice.BitterGrey (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, how many times must I say it. Paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. I don't think Bittergrey is a pedophile. I've edited the paraphilic infantilism page to clarify that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles , , . I've made this statement several times in a variety of venues , , , . WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Top of this posting, WLU quoting a source he's been arguing and warring to use since August 2011: "...infantilism an autoerotic form of pedophilia.". Prior to waffling on Dec 6th, he also fought to include that text in the live version of the article. BitterGrey (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm at 3RR trying to keep WLU's comments about me off of RSN. Can I get some help? BitterGrey (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's one of the many times I've explicitly said that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles, and that the sources you wish to remove, the reason this noticeboard posting exists, also say that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you really not understand that a form of something is still that something? All forms of cancer are cancers. Playdough is still playdough no matter what form it takes.BitterGrey (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you think they are the same thing, I also think the sources are very clear that they are not. In this analogy, cancer is the opposite end of a continuum with apoptosis. Not to mention the two sources that are under dispute are used to verify that paraphilic infantilism is different from pedophilia, it doesn't say paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I doubt that the admins here will be able to do much with this report. This seems to be a long-running struggle that is mainly between two parties (though Bittergrey has disputed with others in the past about Paraphilic infantilism, as shown by his talk archives). Reports at the edit-warring noticeboard don't receive thousands of words of evidence and we are not set up to have long threaded discussions. WP:Dispute resolution may offer some options you can consider. I do not see any RfCs at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. For a dispute of this complexity, one editor might open an WP:RFC/U on the other. I am puzzled that WLU restored at RSN a personal characterization of Bittergrey that he seems to object to, since the latter marked it as 'RPA.' Still, we are aware that Bittergrey operates an external website on paraphilic infantilism since he announces that on his user page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another doomed attempt was started today, here. Once again the discussion is clogged with selective quotations, inappropriate summaries of past discussions and misrepresentation of the sources. I expect it to go nowhere for these very reasons.

I restored that text because for one thing it removed a substantive point I was making (the sources state the two are different, the same way they say acrotomophilia and are apotemnophilia different) and for another thing, I can't see how "I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles" can be construed as a personal attack. And for a third reason, normally I dislike stating an argument can be discounted because of the source, but in this case the point may need to be made that there is an obvious reason to consider Bittergrey's objections to be based on personal rather than reasons of policy or guideline. I considered the matter resolved in December when Ludwigs2 said "@ BitterGrey: Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds". I as far as I'm concerned, that's the most accurate summary of the situation I've ever seen, and coming from someone with whom I have disagreed vigorously. The full archive is here, and that comment basically ended the discussion.

The most surreal thing about this entire, pointless discussion is that Bittergrey is arguing against wording that isn't even part of the page. We both agree that paraphilic infantilists aren't pedophiles, I just want that explicit point to be kept in the text and verified with reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You said at RSN that Bittergrey was a p.i. himself. That seems to be what he is resenting. Unless he has agreed on Misplaced Pages to be described in this way, you should remove it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's the objection, then he should probably remove the link on his user page to the website he maintains where he discusses being a paraphilic infantilist. But sure, if that is the personal attack, then I'm happy to remove it if it'll reduce the acrimony on the page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thanks for replying. Do you think an RFC/U would be effective in ending WLU's ongoing harassment? Also, please be aware that a source WLU has fought to cite (in NINE places) includes the claim that "infantilism an autoerotic form of paedophilia" (CB&B, pg 531). Given this, WLU's personal attack has the effect of accusing me of being a pedophile. I am not a pedophile, am deeply offended by his accusation, and think it clear that if there were any real support for WLU's position, he wouldn't need to resort to ad-hominem attacks. BitterGrey (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite a clear statement that Bittergrey's points are without merit at the reliable sources noticeboard (full discussion, specific diff), Bittergrey has ignored this input and reverted again, with the same list of spurious claims that have been addressed repeatedly , and is still claiming that the DSM defines infantilism despite two clear examples of unanimous consensus that it does not here and here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 04:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus of RSN was better summarized as "you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere...you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine)" If WLU believed that anyone else would support his version, he could have simply let them revert instead of doing it himself.

To avoid conflict, I've initiated a discussion, presented evidence, and waited through six days of silence. (To conceal this, WLU didn't link to the start of the discussion when filing this report.)

WLU reacted with personal attacks on my sexuality and honesty. After having nothing more to offer than the same invitation for WP:OR over and over and over, he wrote "...I guess I'm done..." and "..."I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in."

My most recent edit was accompanied by a detailed list of the justification for all changes.

WLU has now added new threats of an RFC or ANI posting, but he's been bluffing at an RFC/U posting since 23 March 2011 and an AN/I posting since 15 December 2011‎. Why would he go through all of this work and yet not file? Because he knows that any objective review of our conflict will conclude that he has been stalking me for a year. Before stalking me, he showed no particular interest in this article or any of the others that he's fought me at.BitterGrey (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This time last year, I asked an admin for advice on an attack page that WLU was building against me. WLU added that request to his list of accusations and ignored the admins suggestion to use the proper format. WLU later started developing a second attack page, so this wouldn't look like a year-long wikihounding. BitterGrey (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I won't be contributing to this discussion further, I will complete the list of diffs started at User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page and bring it to the administrator's noticeboard in pursuit of a site ban. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So that other list of diffs at User_talk:WLU/RFC was just a bluff? BitterGrey (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is now an ANI posting, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Correct place to issue a dare? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the ANI posting focuses on WLU's year-long pattern of Wikihounding, while the discussion here focused initially on the recent edit conflict. You should know this, WLU. Have you posted this misinformation anywhere else? BitterGrey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:NeoRetro reported by User:Shrike (Result: No violation)

Page: Party for Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NeoRetro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
The edits in question talks about Christian Zionism] in one dif and about Arab-Israeli conflict/pro-Israel in other so the edits clearly falls under 1RR because of WP:ARBPIA as was politely explained to user.Instead of reverting himself he left personal attack on my talk page , Even if I was not correct in my assesment of the edits its still didn't warrant his personal attack on my page.--Shrike (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. I don't believe that the article falls under WP:ARBPIA and I don't think that NeoRetro's edits to your talk page are egregious enough to warrant a block. I have, however, left a warning per WP:BLPSE, as those edits contained WP:BLP violations. Salvio 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If the editor were under a ARBPIA topic ban, those edits, or at least the second diff, would be probably be regarded as a topic ban violation. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that it would be covered by ARBPIA 1RR. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, no, because the ARBPIA 1-rr applies to all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, whereas a topic ban usually applies to all edits'. In this case, while the edits were related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the article was not and, so, the revert restriction was not applicable. Salvio 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the support, Salvio. This is truely ridiculous, since the article doesn't have anything to do with Israel/Palestine. NeoRetro (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
        • See here. This isn't about you. It's about the rules that govern ARBPIA. The topic area is not in a good shape. If there are ways for people to exploit loopholes in the rules governing editing, they will find them and exploit them. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
          • If my edit confuses you on the topic of ARBPIA rules, I think it should be made very clear that pages that don't have anything to do with ARBPIA, are NOT ruled by it. Expanding ARBPIA to include non-related subjects would be very destructive to Misplaced Pages. NeoRetro (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the scale you look at things, whether the word "subject" applies at the article level or the edit level. This case for example highlights a mismatch between the scale used for a 1RR violation and a topic ban violation even though the actual edit could be identical. If you decide that "subject" is at the article level, then you need a criteria that allows you to decide, in every case, whether or not an article contains sufficient material for that article's "subject" to qualify as being related to ARBPIA. It is not always obvious. There are many articles that are not directly related to ARBPIA but they contain material that is related to ARBPIA, sometimes substantial amounts of it. Edit warring is destructive to Misplaced Pages. Editors who make Arab-Israeli conflict related edits (which are covered by discretionary sanctions), no matter where those edits are, article space, talk pages etc, not knowing what rules they are obliged to follow because the rules are unclear is not good, hence my interest here. People who come here to fight for their side in the Arab-Israeli conflict don't just do it at the article level, they do it at every scale, anywhere they think it matters, often in very surprising places.

Here's an example. Imagine someone believes that there are no Palestinians. It's a big lie. They are just Arabs. There are many, many people who come here who believe this. One of these editors systematically works their way through articles about Palestinian artists, footballers, writers etc deleting the word Palestinian and replacing it with Arab. They edit war over it but don't break 3RR. Should these kinds of edits be covered by ARBPIA or not ? The articles aren't related to ARBPIA but the edits clearly are. Anyone familiar with the topic area can easily think of many more examples because the conflict never stops, it's highly distributed, and it's conducted at every available scale from entire categories of articles right down to individual word level no matter where that word is. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear it applies to the article level. If the user has not been found in violation of ARBPIA (on article level) before, why on earth would he need to get a topic ban? What if some makes an edit that might be distantly related to ARBPIA, like the one I made, on a completely non ARBPIA-related page? Does that qualify him for a topic ban immediately, even if he has never been found guilty of a single obstructive edit on a ARBPIA related page? Of course not.NeoRetro (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, of course someone wouldn't be topic banned for that but we aren't talking about the rules used to decide whether someone receives a topic ban. People have to break the rules over and over to be topic banned. But what you have said kind of illustrates my point. A person (not you) could edit war without breaking 3RR, replacing words they don't like, such as Palestinian with Arab, Israel with Palestine, for partisan reasons related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in 100 articles about people and places, none of which are "articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". If things apply at the article level only, that editor's actions are out of scope of ARBPIA. They haven't broken any ARBPIA rules. Of course, do that to 100 articles and the editor will just get blocked, but it illustrates that there is a loophole in the protection that ARBPIA is meant to provide to content at the edit level (when the editor isn't already under a topic ban). Anyway, I'll post a clarification question at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification some point soon and you are welcome to comment there. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MiamiManny reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: 24 hour block)

Page: Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Template:MiamiManny

Previous version reverted to:

• dif1
• dif2
• dif3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Page is under 1RR, user was per-emptively warned prior to violation, violated anyway.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours MBisanz 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

MiamiManny is back to edit warring again at the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article. Please see the article's talk page where I explained what he replaced was removed by consensus. His blatant disregard of that knowledge is evidenced by him reverting again. There is a 1RR restriction at this article. He has already been blocked once in the last day for edit warring knowingly at the same article. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rollo V. Tomasi, you are a confirmed sockpuppet, and we both know you're a sock of a banned editor. Time to find a new name. Doc talk 23:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:98.234.235.21 reported by User:Warriorboy85 (Result: already blocked)

Page: Allied Artists International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.234.235.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=450177055&oldid=430997476

Previous version reverted to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=423125015&oldid=423118689

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=485637787&oldid=485636890
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=485628446&oldid=485628243
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=485513814&oldid=485513209
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=485460241&oldid=450177055

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriorboy85 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 5 April 2012‎ (UTC)

• Already blocked Kuru (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

75.10.101.32 reported by User:Cntras (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.10.101.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff

Comments:
3RR violation on the hip hop page with regards to the disputed lead. IP in question has made no attempt to discuss despite messages left on article talk page and the user talk page. -Cntras (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:173.116.161.246 reported by User:PPdd (Result: reporter already blocked )

Page: Allied Artists International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.116.161.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, and here, and here

Comments:

This anonymous IP is a meatpuppet of Warriorboy55, aka Kimball Dean Richards, the president of Allied Artists International who is menioned in all of the newspaper stories they keep reverting out of the article, as in the reference section here. Every one of these LA TImes articles was deleted and replaced with self promiting wesbites and unsourced material.

Warriorboy55 has a history of edit warring on this particular article, and has made threats and other inappropriate behavior, such as here, and here. PPdd (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PPdd has already been been blocked for edit warring, then for socking. Kuru (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:173.22.215.234 reported by User:Blackmetalbaz (Result: page protected)

Page: Impiety (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.22.215.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Page protected No reverts after the warning you gave him. Protected the page to encourage discussion from both of you. Kuru (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Chicagoexchanger reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chicagoexchanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: done.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert: and blocked for 3RR violation:
• 7th revert: After block resumed the edit-warring 5th April
• 8th revert: 5th April and this after I gave him a warning that a report has been filed at 3RRN
• 9th revert: 5th April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

SPA, only contribution made is erasing a single cited fact without engaging in talkpage discussion. Δρ.Κ.  17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
Please note: This is not a usual case of 3RR in 24 hours but of consistent edit-warring over a net period of 2 days without discussion. User was blocked for 3RR but resumed the edit-warring soon after their block expired. Δρ.Κ.  17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Three more clear reverts of the same material he was edit warring over from his last block. Kuru (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Rwenonah reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Hunting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rwenonah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , Talk:Hunting#Conservation

Comments:

Rwenonah (talk · contribs) has been inserting a personal POV sourced to dubious references, concerning the role of conservation organizations in wildlife protection. By Rwenonah's lights, any hunting is just killing animals, and any conservation organization made up of hunters or fishermen isn't practicing conservation. Slow-moving edit war with no explicit breach of 3RR, at least not in 24 hours, slight re-ordering between reverts 3 and 4. As Ronald Wenonah (talk · contribs) they were blocked for the same reason and subject. The previous account has three blocks for edit-warring in all. Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Simple continuation of his edit warring from the previous account. Kuru (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User: 115.133.220.33 reported by User:BatteryIncluded (Result: Semi)

Page: Fobos-Grunt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115.133.220.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.133.209.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.133.220.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.133.217.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.135.147.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.132.186.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.133.209.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.135.144.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.133.208.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.133.218.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.133.216.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 115.135.144.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

In addition of the example reverts above, he inserts -ahead of existing references- that science teams have been "disbanded", and IF he cites a reference, it never supports his claim: , ,, .

His latest campaign is to asert that the Fobos-Grunt space mission is cleared for a repeat attempt, (in opposition to the official press releases from Roscosmos which are thoroughly documented in that WP article) while his quoted reference clearly states that such plans (eg: Fobos-Grunt 2) have been suspended. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: – Fobos-Grunt semiprotected two months. Long term warring by IPs from 115.133.* to insert unsourced claims and speculation since January. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Panickroom reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Indef)

Page: Cinema of Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Panickroom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #2:

Comments:
Panickroom is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked editor Padmalakshmisx - editor has harassed other editors who disagree with him (and was temporarily blocked for this), and insinuated anyone who disagrees with him is a vandal. Editor appears determined to WP:OWN the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I unblocked him in good faith after he agreed to maintain calm, and tried to navigate through the ESL problems he is obviously having, but sadly, he really doesn't seem to get the point. Other issues with civility also exist, but he seems to have calmed down now (I really have a lot of patience don't I) and will take action on resumption of bad behavior. Lynch7 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is enough, I've blocked the user for 1 week. He obviously hasn't learned anything from his last block and is only interested in attacking users and continuing the battleground mentality (see ). Lynch7 20:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Now blocked indef as a confirmed sock by User:MuZemike, per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Syamsu reported by User:Vsmith (Result: Indef)

Page: Free will (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Syamsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: same content ip edit
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert
• 7th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User just got off a previous edit warring block for same content, see User talk:Syamsu

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article talk for extensive discussion Talk:Free_will#Revising_the_entire_mess_for_it_to_be_more_of_a_critical_understanding_of_free_will and following sections.

I request that the people who keep deleting the entry, Garamond, Vsmith, Pfhorrest et al are banned from wiki, for surpression of an opinion they don't agree with, eventhough it is notable among libertarian philosophers--Syamsu (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked — Indef. This is the user's third block for warring on this article in the past ten days. He seems to have no intention of following our policies. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced the user has had a change of heart. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result: )

Page: Talk:Demographics of Greater China (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jeffrey Fitzpatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

• 07:22, 20 March 2012: Original edit
• 14:37, 20 March 2012: Revert 1
• 15:03, 22 March 2012: Revert 2
• 14:49, 23 March 2012: Revert 3
• 15:20, 23 March 2012: Warned by SchmuckyTheCat
• 22:58, 23 March 2012: Revert 4
• 23:40, 23 March 2012: Warned by NULL
• 06:59, 24 March 2012: Revert 5
• 15:22, 25 March 2012: Warned by EdJohnston
• 10:42, 29 March 2012: Revert 6
• 11:44, 29 March 2012: Revert 7
• 20:25, 29 March 2012: Warned by EdJohnston
• 14:48, 2 April 2012: Revert 8
• 16:22, 2 April 2012: Blocked by EdJohnston for 48 hours
• 18:47, 6 April 2012: Revert 9

Comments:
This has been an ongoing issue with this editor. The problem edit is the repeated addition of {{unsigned}} tags to sockpuppet/blocked editor tags placed by SchmuckyTheCat against the edits of a blocked sockpuppet in the discussion. Jeffrey was told repeatedly that the unsigned tags weren't necessary but persisted in restoring them. He then attempted to WP:GAME the system by adding small token edits such as adding or removing a space elsewhere in the page so that if he was reverted he could complain that it was vandalism due to removing his 'good edits'. In the edit history of the page, however, it can be seen that on my first revert of his material, I took care to separate the bad content from the good content, but he added it straight back in. Reverts 3, 4 and 5 above violate 3RR.

The user was directly warned four times not to do this, once by SchmuckyTheCat, once by myself and then twice by admin EdJohnston after a previous AN3 report was filed. After persisting, Jeffrey was blocked for 48 hours. After his block expired, he returned only two days later to make yet another revert of the material. Jeffrey refuses to acknowledge that his edits have been disruptive and doesn't seem inclined to change his behaviour even after a block. I alerted User:EdJohnston on his talk page but wasn't sure if I should file another report here, so here it is anyway.

– NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: User:NULL's summary above appears correct. Since I issued the last block (for 48 hours) it is best if a different admin looks into the case this time around. Jeffrey Fitzpatrick continues with his disruptive refactoring of the talk page even though nobody agrees that it's appropriate, and his changes are always undone by other editors. The previous 3RR case (where he was warned for the same thing) is now archived here. Still further back, Fitzpatrick was blocked for doing the same thing as the IP 202.189.98.131 (talk · contribs). The IP address is still under a range block per this action from April 2011, which I haven't researched any further. Conceivably this editor is a sock of Instantnood, per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. Others may look into that if they wish. Even without the sock connection, my proposal would be for a one-month block since this editor is far beyond the reach of persuasion and seems unwilling to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have explained many times that my edits were to restore my own comments that Schmucky and NULL had insisted to delete or to refactor for no reason. I agreed not to restore the Unsigned tags already (with one single exception, since I posted a question to Schmucky there). Null simply doesn't listen at all, and keeps lying around as part of his political agenda. I wouldn't restore those deleted/refactored comments on this talk page in two months' time provided that an uninvolved admin will look into its edit history and restore my comments. (Meanwhile, it is important to note that it's Schmucky and Null who disrupted the page by adding back the mislocated bot-generated notification again and again, removing the {{Anchor}} tag that an IP editor had added, and it's Schmucky who on 31st March 2012 refactored Jiang's comment back in 2004.) Jeffrey (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page: Balochistan conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

• Clearer diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user has been put under a 1RR restriction when editing against other editors who are under a 1RR restriction as can be seen here by admin Salvio giuliano. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

utter nonsense. i did not revert you a 2. time. i added new content that gives the full background. all of your material is still there. how the did i revert you then? i am not under any restriction either. i was asked not to revert you more than once since you are under 1-rr restriction. i did not revert you either.-- altetendekrabbe  12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry but you did, it is obvious from the diff's that you changed the content I had written, that is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

i did not change your content. suggest you read the two versions.-- altetendekrabbe  12:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You changed at least two words that I had written that I can see. That is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

er, right. however -> thus, balochistan -> kalat...these are precisions. say no more. this is becoming embarrassing. no wonder you have a long long history of blocks against you. you might now get another one.-- altetendekrabbe  13:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are of the opinion that skirting around a 1R restriction is OK more power to you, I however do not this it is OK to do so. You changed content to get the article to your preferred view. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

i did not change content. period.-- altetendekrabbe  14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am here to report Darkness Shines, I will report here so that admin can see more detail for editwar . I have this in my watchlist because I edited there with other ID before, please tell him to stop blaming me. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no violation by me on that article, file a correct report if you think I am edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute at Uncharted reported by User:72.136.49.248 (Result: )

• Original title: Uncharted Not sure if I'd call it vandalism, but it's a definite edit war

Sorry if I'm not reporting this correctly; first time and I'm still trying to learn how to be a better editor! 72.136.49.248 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncharted is an article about a video game series. I am fixing up this report. Here are the page links for Uncharted, and here are two of the participants:

• Uncharted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MonkeyKingBar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.224.54.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've notified MonkeyKingBar of this discussion, as well as User talk:99.224.54.167. In edit summaries, one editor has stated that MonkeyKingBar is a sock of User:GoldDragon. To check whether this claim might be correct, admins might look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:77.70.15.245 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: )

Page: BTV (Bulgaria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.70.15.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see warning left at user's talk page.

CityOfSilver 18:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Friginator reported by User:Wisdomtenacityfocus (Result: )

Page: Greasy Love Songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Friginator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User is repeatedly changing Greasy Love Songs from a redirect to a stub despite the fact that it is a reissue of the album Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, and not a new album. User repeatedly ignores warnings about his behavior and threatened me for correcting his mistake. This does not fall under good faith at all. The ONLY reason this user is arguing against Greasy Love Songs being a reissue is because he disagrees with my opinions of how Frank Zappa's discography should be handled on Misplaced Pages (it is being handled POORLY when compared to, for example Dream Theater discography and Miles Davis discography). User has made similar edits at Frank Zappa discography and Template:Frank Zappa. Also, when user reverts, he changes the album's format from "compilation" to "studio", despite the fact that it is a reissue of a previously released material. "Compilation" is the only classification this release would come under if it were not, in fact, a reissue, much like Black Sabbath's Children of the Grave, which was simply Masters of Reality with live material added. Anyone notice that no Children of the Grave article is available? Should we have THAT added as an article? Or Cheap Thrills (CD version), since the Big Brother/Janis Joplin album has live tracks added to make it a compilation? Or the tenth anniversary edition of Slipknot's first album? Should THAT have its own article? Anyone see my point?

Also, user was informed about his behavior, and told me to "shut your hole" on his talk page. --WTF (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring