Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 22:04, 29 June 2008 (→User:Bobanni reported by User:Miyokan (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:04, 29 June 2008 by Irpen (talk | contribs) (→User:Bobanni reported by User:Miyokan (Result: ))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    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
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    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.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Rezistenta reported by User:Desiphral (Result: 24h (Re); 36h (De))

    Time reported: 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    I warned this user yesterday for 3rr, but instead the admin PeterSymonds blocked me only with 3 alleged reverts (one of them as explained in my motivation, was requested by Rezistenta, to add the sources that I already put in the talk page). I want also to bring to your attention that the Rezistenta has a history of vandalism and verbal violence (just to remind the last revert where he named me mad), that PeterSymonds supports him in an unjustified manner and that the initial move from Romani people to Roma people, as controversial as it may be, was done by another admin, Bogdangiusca, only with a fallacious reason, without discussing it first. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Rezistenta (talk · contribs) and Desiphral (talk · contribs) have both been blocked, for twenty-four and thirty-six hours, respectively, for edit-warring on this article. -- tariqabjotu 12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't contest the nominator's right to list this here, because it was a legitimate block, reviewed externally by at least two well-respected editors and one admin and declared thus. However, I want to make one thing clear before it goes any further. I am not supporting one side over the other. I know nothing of this dispute; I know nothing of the article; I've never edited any related articles. It is a coincidence that I warned you before, but I came here twice because I happened to be around, and not because I have a vested bias for, or interest in, either view. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:DCGeist reported by Septentrionalis (Result: 48 hours)

    Time reported: 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 16:55, 23 June 2008 (This is itself a revert, as the edit summary admits)


    It is the third through sixth reverts which consistute the violation; but I include the others which demonstrate a pattern. These are exact reversions of two different editors, including at least some reversions of different variants inserted as an effort at compromise; if it were not continuing, I would not have brought it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    While DCGeist is an experienced editor, and should know about 3RR, he was reminded in this edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Three reverts in 24 hours is not a 'strict' violation of 3RR, but pattern of editing clearly shows disregard for the rule. Editor has been blocked four times in the past for 3RR violations, so blocked for 48 hours. TalkIslander 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Reversions 3, 4, 5, and 6 are 4 in fourteen hours; but another recasting of the sentence is in place, and we'll see what happens when the block ends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Incidentally, I too was involved in the edit war on RKO Pictures, and am willing to take whatever block is prudent. I don't know if I necessarily violated 3RR, but if two people were engaging in equal edit warring, it would be wrong for only one to be blocked. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Plyjacks reported by User:Jerem43 (Result: no violation)

    Time reported: 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


    Comment-

    There is a content dispute over who created the character. I thought we had reach a consensus to leave both versions in and mention that the two stories and include a note in the infobox that the creators were disputed. Twice with in the previous 24 hours Plyjacks has blanked the information on Willard Scott. This also includes previous removals and editorial changes to weigh the article to the side he supports, which involves two other individuals purported to have created the clown - Terry Teene and George Vorhees. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    No violation Consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of the three-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:86.146.108.159 reported by User:MRSC (Result: Already blocked)

    Time reported: 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Alastair Haines reported by User:Ilkali (Result: 31 hours)

    Time reported: 09:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    • In most cases, the user is not reverting to the same specific version, due to the article being developed throughout the incident. In the 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts, he is reverting the removal of some sections (discussed here - note that the editor did not contribute). In the 1st and 2nd, he is restoring to earlier versions of the article, as discussed here. User was recently blocked for 24h for violating 3RR over the same article (). He is editing alone against the consensus of myself, User:Alynna Kasmira and User:Abtract.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning given - user is assumed to know the rules, since he was recently blocked for violating 3RR on the same page.
    Warning! User Ilkali is gaming the system.
    The links and times Ilkali has given do not match. They also include revisions that were part of text building sequences that included text that was accepted by both Alynna and Ilkali himself. They do not constitute a 3RR violation as claimed. In fact, quite the opposite, they evidence User:Alastair Haines progressing the article on the basis of sources, despite sections of this being repeatedly removed by two editors, without them citing sources or attempting consensus.
    Ilkali's last edit summary says, "removed irrelevant text again - see talk page. you're already arguably in violation of 3RR, Alastair. don't push yourself completely over the edge". This is a claim that Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge and Emile Durkheim are "irrelevant" to an article on cross-cultural views of the gender of gods. Together with a threat. There is no consensus that the views of these scholars are irrelevant, and I find it hard to believe that such a consensus would ever eventuate. These are "canonical" scholars.
    I notified Ilkali that I was going to report his violations, but that I would be absent for a while. He appears to have taken the "forewarned is forearmed" approach, and is countering by accusing me. I strongly suggest the edit history and talk page of this article be investigated closely.
    It will be observed that none of the editors mentioned above have supplied a single source to the article or talk page.
    I further note that I have already allowed one administrator error in this matter to pass. I recommend at least two administrators confer in assessing this case.
    Ilkali's example above is not a 3RR violation from me because it involves a series of sourced edits building the article.
    On the other hand, here are two examples of Ilkali breaking 3RR, and me letting it pass:
    User Ilkali removing a talk page post I made in reply to another long standing editor of the page
    User Ilkali repeatedly removing sourced text in the article namespace
    Over the course of about a month, Ilkali has consistently used reversion edits on the article, and never once provided any sourced text. Additionally, he has frequently done this with no talk page comment before or after. When he has used talk to support his reversions, his arguments have been ad hominem, personal attacks, appeals to majority or his own authority, not to sources, nor to consensus.
    My WQA failed. My appeal for mediation has not been answered. Please do something. I do not seek Ilkali's banning.
    This is not just a matter of progress being disrupted on one article. I am concerned about time lost having to defend attacks on my character as an editor, while I have several higher priority projects within the Wiki community, including List of New Testament Latin manuscripts and WikiSource:Bible (Free)/1 Corinthians. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    "I notified him that I was going to report his own violations, but that I would be absent for a while. He took the "Forewarned is forearmed" approach and is counter-accusing me". That's a somewhat uncivil accusation. I am reporting you because the results of the first report didn't seem to have an effect on you - your behaviour hasn't changed in the slightest. Both of your claims that I've violated the 3RR rule are baseless: In the original instance, you count two edits that aren't actually reversions (perhaps this is why you give links to versions rather than to diffs?) and in the second case, I only reverted three times. Why would I need special tactics to draw attention from these vacuous accusations?
    "It will be observed that none of the editors mentioned above have supplied a single source to the article or talk page". This isn't the place to discuss these things. Bring it up at mediation.
    "My WQA failed". Because those involved agreed you were wrong.
    "My appeal for mediation has not been answered". Because we are all waiting for you to approve Rushyo as mediator. Ilkali (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    No one has informed me of Rushyo's arrival. I will have a look directly. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    This conversation would flow better if you didn't continually edit a comment I've already replied to, Alastair. Your latest edit introduces the claim that "The links and times Ilkali has given do not match". The times I cite are the times of the last edit in each diff, as can be seen by clicking the link and looking at the "Revision as of ..." text for the 'after' version. You also claim that "They also include revisions that were part of text building sequences that included text that was accepted by both Alynna and Ilkali himself". Again, this is untrue. I hand-selected only those edits with which you reverted the removal of text, or restored the article to an earlier version. Ilkali (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    That'd be my point, then, you admit you "hand-selected" the edits you're claiming are a 3RR.
    In context, the edit history merely reflects a long standing pattern. Constructive edits and sources from me. Endless reversions from you. I rest my case. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Second 3RR this month on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Generalmesse reported by User:noclador (Result: Already Blocked)

    Time reported: 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Generalmesse has decided that the original German Panzer Army Africa battle reports 1 2 3 about the First Battle of El Alamein and the historical truth are nothing compared to his source: WWII fascist Radio Rome and therefore is continuing (for days now) to vandalize with a plethora of socks the article First Battle of El Alamein with fascist propaganda about the heroic exploits of Italian troops. Discussion attempts have been tried and ignored by him. The enitre talk page of the article in question Talk:First Battle of El Alamein is only about trying to reason with him: 2 Military history Wikiproject coordinators, me and a historian from New Zealand have tried in vain to explain to him, that nothing supports his version of events. He simply ignores it and has reverted himself today 4 times and together with his various socks he has reverted the correct version 12 times in the last 60 hours.) User:Generalmesse and his various socks are incarnations of already banned user:Giovanni Giove, Radio Rome broadcasting to English personnel during WWII is not an acceptable source, furthermore he refuses to discuss and prefers to insult other editors (an example) and as he and his socks behave in the same way in all WWII articles with Italian participation my patience is finished. --noclador (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    UNINDENT

    I realise this is slightly unorthodox but it seems clear that this user is using a sock puppet to edit disruptively at First Battle of El Alamein‎. Can I ask that an admin be WP:BOLD, look at the evidence on the talk page and intervene to stop this disruption of the article. Justin talk 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:John celona reported by User:jkp212 (Result: Protected)

    Time reported:

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

    also see:

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    also see:

    Celona, a perennial edit-warrer, is at it again. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected This editor has not (quite) violated 3RR, but there appears to be a large-scale edit war going on. TalkIslander 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    No violation. One of 4 reverts was on June 24, another on June 27! Unless the Laws Of Nature have changed, that is more than 24 hours. Jkp212 has a long, long history of edit warring, having just been blocked ] upon my complaint for violating the 3RR Rule. In any event, the article has been protected to the status quo version (the one that has been on the article since another user created it and the one Jpk wants to change) until July 4. John celona (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Wiendietry (Result: No violation)

    Time reported: 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. TalkIslander 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Strictly speaking, yes it has to be in 24 hours. But user kendrick will just revert the article back tomorrow after more than 24 hours anyway, to avoid 3RR violation on ground of technicality. He's done this before. --Wiendietry (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    What you've cited is four reverts in twelve days - though the last two are today, it's still miles from violating 3RR. When four reverts are made in 48 hours, alarm bells should start ringing, and when four reverts are made in 36 hours, feel free to report again. Right now, you're on the same peg as him - two reverts in 24 hours. TalkIslander 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Again, user kendrick is someone who has personally attacked an admin (User:WilyD). So his actions should not be tolerated. --Wiendietry (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:Ferrylodge

    Resolved – Page protected for seven days

    First series of reverts

    Second series of reverts

    Third series of reverts

    3RR WARNING

    Fourth series of reverts

    Most of the reverts are to versions of the article that this editor attempted to insert months ago (e.g. see here). The editor is declining to seek consensus at talk page.

    Ferrylodge (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ferrylodge likes to bully me. When will it end?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    When you seek consensus, and stop demanding that the article reflect your POV.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Was there a 3RR violation? If there wasn't, it would help me (and perhaps others) to understand why there wasn't. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    de Broglie hypothesis

    Resolved – Page semi-protected

    Massive editwar linked to other language versions of Misplaced Pages as well. Can't begin to list the diffs, the page history speaks for itself. Neither side bothers to discuss whether the reference they're fighing over is relevant. Dutch group of stalkers v Dutch anon, I'm sorry to say. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Ronpillao reported by User:Justin_A_Kuntz (Result: Already blocked)

    Time reported: 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


    Additional information. Seems clear that this editor is a sockpuppet of edit User:Generalmesse, which is itself a sockpuppet of banned editor user:Giovanni Giove. The editor User:Generalmesse is already blocked. Justin talk 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked Indef as a sock, by User:MaxSem. See also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd‎. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Planhand reported by User:FJcave (Result: Already blocked)

    Time reported: 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


    Already blocked 31 hours by User:Orderinchaos. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kober reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: 31 hours)

    Time reported: 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:Pocopocopocopoco has a long history of attempts at calumniating me and provocative actions in order to spur an edit war and then report me here. A highly illustrative example can be seen here when he tried to convince the admin Moreschi to block me even though I was reverting a vandal and Moreschi explained that my reverts were legitimate.
    In this case, I was reverting an anonymous ip/a recently created account who kept removing a well-documented info on Russia's role in the Abkhazian conflict, references to which are provided throughout the article. Pocopoco, true to his tradition, decided to maintain his antagonizing stance towards me, without caring to discuss his changes in the talk page (even though I brought the case to the talk for discussion). The problem had previously been discussed ad nauseum and the article had been relatively stable for several months.--Kober 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Second block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:Mormoncrunk reported by User:Numyht (Result: Page protected)

    Time reported: 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: DIFFTIME
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Notes I have been reverting User:Mormoncrunk attempts to remove the Speedy Delete and Unrefrenced tag on a Afd article which was already deleted twice (inculding today). --Numyht (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Other Notes I proboaly haven't done this right. This is my first time reporting a user here so please assume WP:AGF

    Comment: Apparently the article has been deleted; therefore no further action is required. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Page protected The article in question has been deleted and protected against recreation until 2 July by KnowledgeOfSelf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), so further action is unnecessary. CIreland (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:81.215.75.143 reported by User:Flamarande (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Hy, I'm hereby reporting the actions of this user who basicly is trying to push his POV and reverted the edits of the article in question at least three times (perhaps 4? I'm not sure) today. This user has already been duly warned by User:Brando130 at his personal talkpage and invited to resolve the issue at the articles talkpage. I'm sorry if this report is a bit crude (and I extend my apologies if I missed something; this is my second time I report something like this and I'm not interrested in becoming a Pro in these matters - reporting ppl). Time reported: 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    (The following was added by Coppertwig:)

    Each revert removes "476 /" from "year_end =". Some reverts also revert other material. The year_end issue has been discussed extensively on the talk page.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Selket 00:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Sindhian reported by User:Ism Schism (Result: )

    Time reported: 12:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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



    These are not reverts but as you can see there is slight variation in each edit to make it acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is a more complex than that. Sindhian keeps trying to add his own "Contraversies" section. S/he is the only editor who thinks this is a good idea. Other editors disagree and have reverted his attempts to push his/her POV into the article. The edit history of the article speaks for itself. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have already apologised for my misunderstanding and in any case I did not accuse but expressed my suspicion.
    I stand by this charge that some editors were working as a gang because a number of users were deleting section in tandom to avoid 3RR rule. They were also not expressing their reasons for delete. As well as many previous editors who tried to add references negative to CPI(M) were banned.Sindhian (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    User:Hkelkar was banned for sockpuppeting, not for introducing criticisms agaist CPI(M). --Soman (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Bobanni reported by User:Miyokan (Result: )

    Time reported: 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    User has been editing since September 2007 with over 2000 edits, well aware of the rule.--Miyokan (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    To be fair, note that Miyokan (talk · contribs) has been placed on 1RR and broken it: , . Colchicum (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. Bobanni, has been a hassle in a wide range of articles where he was persistently silently reverting without even edit summaries but making sure his reverts are slow enough to technically remain under 3RR. Most of his article edits in general are reverts. Bobanni's edits were undone by a multitude of users but he persisted with his reverts trying to achieve his changes through sterile revert warring. As for a link provide by Colchicum, I see a proposal to place Miyokan on an editing restriction but the thread above indicates no community concensus to do so. Unlike Bobanni, Miyokan writes much content and reduced the reverts significantly. Punishing the user for 2 reverts of an SPA who made 5 (and was reverted by a multitude of others) just makes no sense. --Irpen 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    Miyokan is just involved in suppressing all ukrainian references in many article, as an expression of his own extremist point of view, without any reference ...(See Ilia Repin articles, and others) This is his main contribution to Misplaced Pages, and I'm not sur he is doing a good job with all these suppressing ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.29.219 (talk • contribs)
    Please log in and sign with your real username. --Irpen 22:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:CubOfJudahsLion reported by User:Mhking (Result: Blocked for 12 hours)

    Time reported: 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Oren0 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    Example

    == ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. {{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 
Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: