Hi RetroS1mone. Thanks for coming here to reply to Guido - it's no problem at all, especially when I'm not around. I replied to Guido above about the 3RR block. If Guido does take my advice to work on that table in his userspace, would you give him the time to marshall his arguments and listen to what he has to say? I know he does have COI with the activist organisation, but while strongly discouraged it is not forbidden to edit if you have a COI. See WP:COI and also Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance. Me personally, I would prefer Guido edited chess articles and only participated on the talk pages of CFS/ME pages (or worked on the article about CFS activism that has been suggested). Oh, and you are quite right about the forum-shopping. Guido, if you have a complaint about conduct on those articles, you will need to find another admin and not come to my talk page. I've commented on the talk pages of some of these articles with suggestions about the content, and (for me) that makes me too involved as an editor to use my admin tools in relation to those articles. RetroS1mone, speaking as an editor and not an admin, I would advise you not to say things in edit summaries like "tendentious editor with strong COI POV". The reason being that edit summaries are permanent records, and if you say something incorrect, you can't retract it. It is best to keep edit summaries focused on describing the content (not the editors) and then to say "see talk" if you want to go into more detail. That way, if you are wrong, you can retract and apologise later. For the record, I think you are mostly right here (though I would have phrased it more diplomatically), but I hope you see my point about the difference between saying something in an edit summary and saying something on a talk page.