Disruptive editingIn my view the collaborative editing team working to make this a FA has shown extreme tolerance in accommodating the concerns of UserSkipsievert This latest tagging follows a full consideration and resolution of COI issues on the appropriate noticeboard Repeated editing of resolved or previously discussed issues is part of the pattern of disruptive editing Below is part of the content of the WP entry on disruptive editingHow disruptive editors evade detection Disruptive editing already violates site policy yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for one of several possible reasons their edits occur over a long period of time in this case no single edit may be clearly disruptive but the overall pattern is disruptive their edits are largely confined to talkpages such disruption may not directly harm an article but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility especially by refraining from personal attacks even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article their edits remain limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch conversely their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles that few people watch Signs of disruptive editing This guideline concerns gross obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagreeA disruptive editor is an editor who Is tendentious continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well Cannot satisfy WikipediaVerifiability fails to cite sources cites unencyclopedic sources misrepresents reliable sources or manufactures original research Engages in disruptive citetagging adds unjustified  tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable Does not engage in consensus building repeatedly disregards other editors questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits repeatedly disregards other editors explanations for their edits Rejects community input resists moderation andor requests for comment continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editorsIn addition such editors may Campaign to drive away productive contributors act in spite of policies and guidelines such as WikipediaCivility WikipediaNo personal attacks WikipediaOwnership of articles engage in sockpuppetrymeatpuppetry etc on a low level that might not exhaust the general communitys patience but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rulesabiding editors on certain articlesRefusal to get the pointIn some cases editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it repeating it almost without end and refusing to acknowledge others input or their own error Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is notThe editing team has expressed the view that reasonable verified and substantiated requests will be given full consideration However IMO the recent spate of refusing to get to the point repeated tagging total disengagement with consensus building ignoring of requests for explanations ignoring moderator suggestions rapid negative engagement with new contributors all spell out the pattern of disruptive editing that has longdelayed completion of this collective effort and it deserves disciplinary action   

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Disruptive editingIn my view the collaborative editing team working to make this a FA has shown extreme tolerance in accommodating the concerns of UserSkipsievert This latest tagging follows a full consideration and resolution of COI issues on the appropriate noticeboard Repeated editing of resolved or previously discussed issues is part of the pattern of disruptive editing Below is part of the content of the WP entry on disruptive editingHow disruptive editors evade detection Disruptive editing already violates site policy yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for one of several possible reasons their edits occur over a long period of time in this case no single edit may be clearly disruptive but the overall pattern is disruptive their edits are largely confined to talkpages such disruption may not directly harm an article but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility especially by refraining from personal attacks even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article their edits remain limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch conversely their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles that few people watch Signs of disruptive editing This guideline concerns gross obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagreeA disruptive editor is an editor who Is tendentious continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well Cannot satisfy WikipediaVerifiability fails to cite sources cites unencyclopedic sources misrepresents reliable sources or manufactures original research Engages in disruptive citetagging adds unjustified  tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable Does not engage in consensus building repeatedly disregards other editors questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits repeatedly disregards other editors explanations for their edits Rejects community input resists moderation andor requests for comment continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editorsIn addition such editors may Campaign to drive away productive contributors act in spite of policies and guidelines such as WikipediaCivility WikipediaNo personal attacks WikipediaOwnership of articles engage in sockpuppetrymeatpuppetry etc on a low level that might not exhaust the general communitys patience but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rulesabiding editors on certain articlesRefusal to get the pointIn some cases editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it repeating it almost without end and refusing to acknowledge others input or their own error Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is notThe editing team has expressed the view that reasonable verified and substantiated requests will be given full consideration However IMO the recent spate of refusing to get to the point repeated tagging total disengagement with consensus building ignoring of requests for explanations ignoring moderator suggestions rapid negative engagement with new contributors all spell out the pattern of disruptive editing that has longdelayed completion of this collective effort and it deserves disciplinary action   

