  :::Maybe I'm being too generous here, but I think it's worth offering an olive branch. And yes, I was influenced by seeing Cora Weaver & Bruce Osborne involved, but as we cite them in the article, I think it's relevant. An unregistered user added something to the article. It was reverted. They then registered, and re-added the same content. I'm not suggesting the offending paragraph should be added in its present form, it shouldn't. But this doesn't look like a vandal to me, it looks like someone who is new to Wikipedia. There was a (happier?) time when I had no idea what MOS, COI or even NPOV meant. These are necessary guidelines, but new users do not know about them. I think ignorance of the rules is some defence. Someone who knowingly breaks the rules deserves shouting at, while someone who breaks the rules by accident should have the rules explained to them. Tagging as vandal is not an explanation. I may be proved wrong here, but I think it is worth assuming good faith until shown otherwise. Remember folks, the encyclopaedia everyone can edit.   