User talk:FirstInAFieldOfOne

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peaches for Monsieur le Curé.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peaches for Monsieur le Curé concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peaches for Monsieur le Curé, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Draft:Lansquenet-sous-Tannes concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Lansquenet-sous-Tannes, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lansquenet-sous-Tannes

Hello, Keyserzozie. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Lansquenet-sous-Tannes".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Lansquenet-sous-Tannes}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Keyserzozie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Keyserzozie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

Hello! I should point out that if you are Joanne Harris, we appreciate you volunteering corrections to your biography, but Wikipedia has strict policies on conflict of interest that apply to any edits you make. The most relevant part of that can be read at WP:COISELF.

For general corrections and omissions, you should make edit requests on the talk page of the article, mentioning your conflict of interest. Content you regard as "defamation or a serious error" can be deleted outright, but as it says at the COISELF link you should follow that up with a notification to a relevant response team or noticeboard. In all cases it's important that you disclose your conflict of interest.

(Wikipedia:Libel also has an email address you can contact if you believe that a Wikipedia article contains defamatory statements.)

I'm not sure what the current situation is on the biography, but I'll take a look at it now and see if anything should be removed. Belbury (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I see you have already posted to BLPN after removing the content, as would be required above - but didn't mention that you are the subject of the article (if you are the subject of the article!).

On the working assumption that you are, I'll remove the disputed content and flag this more clearly at BLPN. Belbury (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not Joanne Harris, but I did set up the original page, and I do add to it from time to time on her behalf. Thank you for removing the disputed content. Keyserzozie (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keyserzozie If you are editing "on her behalf", either as a friend or family member or for pay, then you have a Conflict of interest. Please read that guideline. If you are JH's agent, or anyone who is editing for pay or as part of paid employment, then please also particularly read WP:PAID. Thanks.

You say you set up the page: I see it was begun by an unregistered IP editor in 2002, which was apparently you, and that since you started to edit with your current username you have not edited any articles other than in connection with JH.

It looks as if any declaration of Conflict of Interest from you as required by WP:COIEDIT, will be coming 22 years late, but better late than never. PamD 13:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Keyerzozie is the name of Joanne Harris's Myspace page https://myspace.com/keyserzozie also, of course from many years ago. Also Keyerzozie has taken three photos of Joanne Harris on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joanne_Harris.jpg NoorStores (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @PamD. I take your point. I'm not an employee, or anything like that. This is the username I use to keep Joanne's Wiki page up to date. I used the same name to help Joanne set up some of her internet stuff many moons ago, including a long dead MySpace. The photo is a selfie from Joanne in lockdown. She wanted me to try and replace that really old pic that's on her Wiki page right now. (If you can persuade the Gibraltar guy that took it to let someone remove his pic, then you're a better man than I am!) You're right that I don't edit much, sorry. I should look into doing more. I'm not really in touch with Joanne now, although I did drop her a line when I noticed some big changes to her Wiki page. @NoorStores, you've been saying all over the place that I'm Joanne, and been told I'm not. Stop that now. You've obviously got a conflict of interest, and you've been strongly advised to avoid editing pages connected to Kate Clanchy, Joanne Harris, Philip Pullman, Monisha Suleyman and Sunny Singh. It's good advice. From what I've seen, all you seem to do is post stuff about Kate Clanchy's opinions, and then argue about them in the Talk. It's not useful. Keyserzozie (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That is untrue Keyserzozie, please withdraw your remark. NoorStores (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Keyerzozie, you started and wrote the Joanne Harris page. You started and wrote the pages on Lollipop Shoes, Peaches for Monseiur le Cure, and Runelight too, and you wrote most of the Gentleman and Players page and the Runemarks pages too, all pages about Joanne Harris linked to the Joanne Harris page, and you maintained them all these years. And all the time you were working on behalf of Joanne Harris and you did not acknowledge it.

This is very serious in my opinion because it makes Wikipedia like Joanne Harris's website, written by someone working for her, paid or not. And you say I have a conflict of interest!!??

Then you told Joanne Harris to make an objection to the Libel page? Because I made her pages a tiny bit more neutral??

Your selfie photographs of Joanne say they are all your work and by you. Presumably that is not quite true?

IMPORTANT It is absolutely false that I have said anywhere that you are Joanne Harris. It is absolutely false that I have argued anywhere about Kate Clanchy's opinions. Please withdraw those remarks.

Also I respectfully suggest you withdraw the information given above about Joanne Harris's email. Someone might make a bad use of it. NoorStores (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop messaging me, @NoorStores. These demands and accusations feel like harassment. I'm not going to interact with you again. Keyserzozie (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have made a report about to the Conflict of Interest Notice Board @Keyserzozie

It's here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard NoorStores (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to see the level of aggression that you've had from NoorStores here and on other talk pages! I'm glad that you seem to have gotten the measure of them and understand that they aren't a Wikipedia administrator or anything like that.

Are you happy with where Wikipedia stands on your own declared conflict of interest, as somebody who has a collaborative connection to Harris but isn't being paid by her? That you're welcome to make "unambiguously uncontroversial edits" to articles about her per WP:COIADVICE, but that anything beyond that should be raised on the talk pages? Harris's biography is hopefully being watched by more editors now, myself included, so any edit requests you make will be looked at. Belbury (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. I'm aware that Noorstores isn't an administrator: everyone else I've come across at Wiki has always been really helpful. I'm totally fine to float any future content on the Talk page: honestly until recently I only checked it every few months for new books and awards. One thing I was hoping to raise was the Recurrent Themes section, removed wholesale by Noorstores a few days ago. I get that it was probably too long (I copy-pasted most of it from a cache of Joanne's website). But other authors have similar content on their Wiki pages, and I didn't think it was irrelevant. There were also references to Joanne's synesthesia, which is well documented, and for which I'd added a link. Do you think it would be okay if I (or someone else) reinserted a pared-down version of this? Keyserzozie (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

So long as it's sourceable it sounds okay to me. I don't think you should add that kind of content yourself, but I'll take a look at doing so myself at some point soon. Belbury (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much(I'm guessing you'd do it better that I would anyway). Your help is appreciated. Keyserzozie (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I would ask you to read and follow the policy at WP:COI more literally at this point, particularly WP:COIEDIT. COI policy isn't just there to prevent flashy promotional edits and the airing of academic grievances, it's also about the unintentional bias when someone with a close connection to a subject expands a biography working in part from what they know to be true, rather than what can be and has been sourced.

Your recent edit about Harris performing with "the band she has played with since school" is presumably entirely true, but it's not mentioned in the source for that sentence, so I can't check to see that you got it right. It may be something she's only ever spoken about privately, it may be that you or a source you've read has misinterpreted something about a university band, or a band from when she was a teacher. This isn't earth-shattering stuff, but it's adding potential unsourceable content to a Wikipedia biography, and one of the foundations of Wikipedia is that the reader should always be able to verify for themselves that something an article says is true.

You're obviously welcome to edit any other articles, but for this one you should really stick to geninely uncontroversial edits and making suggestions on the talk page. --Belbury (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks: I really appreciate your help. I'm still learning what Wiki means by "uncontroversial." I've read about this in several places (including the author's website): would this be a valid reference? [1]https://stradamusic.com/artist/joanne-harris-storytime/ Keyserzozie (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits link has a list of appropriate edits, although I appreciate that the list itself is using some Wikipedia jargon.

An author or music agency's own website is a WP:PRIMARY source - a reference like that can be used for straightforward facts, but should be done with care. An author's own website or social media posts can also be cited under WP:ABOUTSELF, so long as the claims being made by it aren't too astonishing, or involve third parties. Belbury (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's really helpful, thanks. Keyserzozie (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone's pointed out at Talk:Joanne Harris that under COI guidelines you have to declare your conflict of interest whenever you make a COI-related edit. You can either do that by laboriously mentioning it in every edit summary, with a template on your user page, or adding templates to the talk pages of articles: instructions are at WP:DISCLOSE.

This is already covered for the Joanne Harris article because there's a template at the top of its talk page now, and I'll add the same to the articles you've worked on about Harris's books, but if you intend to edit other related articles, please bear this guideline in mind. Thanks. --Belbury (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll bear it in mind. But I'm not planning to do any more editing on here. I'm aware that I'm out of touch, and it's getting a bit too much for me. Keyserzozie (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia hard to learn and everyone makes mistakes. I've made lots, and I've learned a lot too. I can understand that in 2002 Wikipedia was different and it was probably okay and normal for Joanne Harris to ask you to set up the pages for her. But things have changed a lot since then and you were told about it. It's very very clear when Tokyo Girl wrote on the Joanne Harris page about Neutrality that there was a big problem, but you basically just ignored her and reverted her edits. And you ignored JosefKrasner too. And there are other notices on the Book pages which are super clear.

Also Joanne Harris should have told you the regulations changed. She is Chair of the Society of Authors, and they specialise in 'the small print' !! (website). They are all about contracts and details and also promotion and what's right and what isn't. So if anyone in the UK should have known what Wiki book pages should be like it was Joanne Harris.

Also it's just wrong, isn't it? You go to wiki thinking you are going to get facts. If you are promoting someone on there instead, that isn't facts, it's promotion, and it's wrong and you must know that really. Because it's not true. It's a sort of lying. And it wasn't truthful to come on here pretending to be a neutral editor and accused me of COI. I think that was really wrong. NoorStores (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Keyserzozie: Something just occurred to me: you say that you are "not an employee, or anything like that" of JH; you've also mentioned somewhere that you are retired; could you confirm whether when you did your major set of edits in 2012 you were at that time doing so as an employee or otherwise paid for your editing? (That would be quite compatible with your statement above, as "employee 11 years ago" is a very different thing from "employee": I'm not accusing you of misrepresentation, just asking for clarification.) Thanks. PamD 08:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Pam. I'd like to know if @Keyserzozie was doing the writing herself or just posting Harris' material for her? But she has left it seems. NoorStores (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @NoorStores Noor, I wonder why you think KS is female? I've imagined them as male, but as far as I know we don't know either way. PamD 13:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well I suppose because they first appeared I had them confused with the IP address who says they were Joanne Harris. It was a genuine mistake on my part, I thought the IP addres was a link and they were one person with Keyserzozie. It just carries on from that, they are a woman in my mind. I’m sorry I made the mistake but it was the shock of my life JH appearing like that!!!! NoorStores (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm reluctant to return to this discussion, but there's been a lot of talk on here about my COI, which I haven't been in a position to reply to until now. Let me try to make things clear. First, this account has not existed for 22 years, nor have I ever been working for Joanne Harris. I'm not a friend of hers, either. I'm old fashioned enough to use that word sparingly. I am a big fan, though, I follow her online, and as an IP, I added to the stub of the Joanne Harris page 22 years ago. I also set up pages on some of my favourite books of hers when I opened this account in (I think) 2012. She didn't ask me to do it, nor did she ever send me any content (except for the photo that is now on the page, which I asked for, and which replaces an old one that she said she hated). I did ask her once if she'd mind my adapting some of the stuff on her website to improve some of the pages here, and she said yes, but any editing I've done has been off my own bat. I'm concerned that Noorstores has repeated on the COIN page and elsewhere that she "outed Harris" for "using a SPA", and has made other disparaging remarks about her. I'd like to restate once and for all that no one ever asked me to set up any pages No one has "used" me for anything. I once sold Joanne Harris a laptop, and set it up for her. Conversations between us have been limited to small talk: "Have you got any new books out?" and so on. I've added details on wiki as and when they've come my way, but that's all. Lots of fans do. If that means I should declare COI, then so be it, but I just wanted to correct some misconceptions.I really hope this helps clear things up. Keyserzozie (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Keyserzozie Welcome back to editing. I think the statement which led to some confusion was your "I am not Joanne Harris, but I did set up the original page, and I do add to it from time to time on her behalf.", which suggested that you were the IP who created the page on 31 Dec 2002 and that you had been editing under her instructions since then, rather than just acting as a fan keeping an eye on the page as fans naturally do. Also "I used the same name to help Joanne set up some of her internet stuff many moons ago, including a long dead MySpace." which sounded as if you might have been her (paid) IT assistant, rather than just a technically-minded acquaintance. The "22 years" comes from your statement that you set up the page (OK, 21 years from Dec 2002), rather than from your registered editorship.

  I hope that you can now enjoy editing. I notice that NS has emerged from her retirement yesterday to make an edit to Clanchy's page, but as she's adding a citation to fill a {{Citation needed}} it probably comes within bullet 6 of WP:COIADVICE (though I wish she would format her references properly!).

  All the best. PamD 23:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I realize that the words "on her behalf" caused misunderstanding, and for that I'm sorry. Also to my mind, setting up the page was different from creating it outright. I'm not even that technically minded, I just worked in a little computer shop. I'm long retired from that though, so I'm having to relearn a lot of stuff (like wiki) pretty much from scratch. Thanks for the heads up on NS. I was wondering where she got that about Clanchy's resignation last year. I did some searches last month to try to verify the source, but it doesn't seem to have been public info until now. Keyserzozie (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not returning. I just wanted to fill in a citation, and you can see why on the page. The level of bullying on here is ridiculous and it has spilled in to the real world for me too. I've had an account hacked and been rejected out of hand from two jobs where I think I should have been shortlisted. I've also heard from another dark haired girl on here who had bad experiences with a similar group of people and I can see I'm in over my head. I am taking her advice because I can see for sure there is nothing to be done except log out again now, clean my browser, update all my passwords and hope for the best. You don't have rules or fairness on here if you have Keyserzozie back and you must know that in your heart. They pretended to be someone else to take advantage. They lied to us when we were in good faith. NoorStores (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  @NoorStores Please calm down. "They pretended to be someone else to take advantage." is a serious but unfounded allegation. PamD 09:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  As is the suggestion that anything here at Wikipedia has spilled in to the real world and hacked your account and cost you potential work. The talk page of a user who has asked you to stop posting to their talk page is also definitely not the place to have this conversation, please take this somewhere else - see WP:DWH for some suggestions. Belbury (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  @NoorStores, I'm sorry you didn't get shortlisted for the jobs you wanted, but this feels like harassment. No one mentioned ethnicity but you. No one mentioned outing but you. I've seen no bullying of you on here, or any of the other pages you've been on. I think people have mostly been very patient with you. If you need to make a complaint about me, then make it in the appropriate place, but stop making accusations here, and please don't contact me again. Keyserzozie (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Joanne Harris

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Joanne Harris, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Account blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FirstInAFieldOfOne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've been editing Wiki for years on and off, but I'd never engaged with the community until recently. I got into an uncomfortable conflict with another user, and I was starting to feel a bit harassed. I completely misunderstood the "Clean Start" guidelines, and I thought it would be easier all round to just start again under another name. I didn't realize that doing this was against the rules. I'm really sorry. I'd very much like to have the chance to start editing again.I'm a reasonably good stylist and an experienced and observant copy-editor. I'd like the opportunity to contribute again. If given the chance to do this I promise to use only one account. Keyserzozie (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You clearly aren't done writing this unblock request, making modification after modification after you initially posted it. Please do not post an unblock request until it is ready for review, as you clearly do not believe this is. Yamla (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. The guide to appealing blocks said that I could modify my statement whenever I wanted. I didn't mean it to seem disruptive, I just wanted it to be as clear as possible.Can someone else please review this, according to the principle of AGF, or do I need to make the request again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyserzozie (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Looks like you were called upon to address your long standing WP:conflict of interest regarding Joanne Harris and created new accounts to continue editing with a conflict of interest regarding Joanne Harris. Probably, to be unblocked you would need to read and heed WP:COI and agree to use but one account. Other admin's mileage may vary. Best,-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur and in addition, would say not only do they need to disclose the nature of the conflict of interest, they probably need to agree to a WP:TOPICBAN around Joanne Harris. --Yamla (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to do that. I would like to keep adding things to the Joanne Harris page, it's been a little hobby of mine. But I'm ok to declare a COI if that's appropriate. I'm a fan. I am not, and have never been paid for doing this. I live near Joanne, I helped her set up some things on her computer years ago, and I follow her on social media, but that's it really. I'm happy to stick to small factual edits to her page, or float any important stuff on the Talk page. I'm still a bit fuzzy on all the wiki rules I'm afraid. I was told that I could still add stuff as long as it wasn't controversial. But when someone started making hundreds of edits about Joanne on lots of different pages, including some that I thought were just vandalism, then talking to me as if I was her, I got worried that they were trying to get at Joanne through me. That's why I made another account with a name that didn't link me to her. I see now that it was against the rules, and I won't do it again. Keyserzozie (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not remotely what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting a WP:TOPICBAN on Joanne Harris. You are suggesting the complete opposite. --Yamla (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla I don't think the encyclopedia would benefit from a Topicban preventing KZ from making any edits anywhere around Harris. Their conflict of interest, as explained above, is minimal: basically "a friend". They have now answered my question above, where I asked whether they had ever in the past been editing as her agent/employee/etc: no, it has all been voluntary. WP:TOPICBAN is to stop editors editing in an area where their contributions have been disruptive: I don't believe that KZ's edits have been disruptive. Their edits have been informative and factual, and they have recently come into conflict with another editor with a very definite agenda, which has caused all the recent controversy, in the course of which it transpired that KZ had been editing in ignorance of the COI policy for 22 years. WP:AGF applies.

I suggest that KZ should be unblocked. If you feel restrictions are needed, I suggest that they agree:

1. Only to edit Joanne Harris or other pages relating to her directly in the very limited ways allowed by WP:COIADVICE (typos, removing vandalism, etc)
2. To suggest any other changes to those pages by making edit requests on the talk pages as described in Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request
3. Not to use the two new accounts they appear to have created, or any other alternative accounts except as allowed.

I have no axe to grind in the area of JH: I became sucked in to the recent row because Monisha Rajesh was on my watchlist as I created her article in 2019 after enjoying her book on railway journeys, and I started to see edits to her page about the Harris/Clanchy row. PamD 13:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem if the blocking admin and another admin decide to lift the block on that basis, but I don't personally think it's a good idea. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked due to the sockpuppetry, and if that's understood to have been a mistake and to not be repeated then I personally have no issues. If a reviewing admin or two do have concerns about the COI, they are welcome to raise them. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla @Primefac A complication here is that KZ does not seem to have been notified of the reason for their block. They were blocked for sockpuppeting, not for COI.

They have not been the subject of a report at WP:COIN directly, although a section about them was created as a subsection of the lengthy COIN discussion about NoorStores. PamD 13:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Their unblock appeal specifically mentions the sockpuppetry, meaning that despite the oversight of not having a specific block notification they still have understood why they were blocked. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If after 22 years of editing here they are still "a bit fuzzy on all the wiki rules I'm afraid" it might be less disruptive for everyone to restrict their editing to edit requests on the talk page and NOT allow direct editing of JH. Theroadislong (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong 22 years, initially as an IP, but only 331 edits since registering as an editor in 2012: a little fuzziness is understandable. PamD 14:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why Theroadislong seems to have put my name onto a COI message on the Society of Authors page, as I have only ever made one (small, factual) edit to that page 4 years ago. Have I missed something? Keyserzozie (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. Keyserzozie (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, I do understand, and I won't use the sockpuppet accounts I created, or try to create any more. Keyserzozie (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you advise me, PamD and Belbury, please? You've both been very patient with me so far, and I appreciate that. I don't want to be seen as disruptive, but I didn't realize that modifying my block appeal would be seen as such. I tend to be a bit of an obsessive when it comes to phrasing, and I obviously tinkered with the text in a way that must have come across as annoying. I feel I've misunderstood so many things after starting to engage on here that I've got off on the wrong foot with almost everyone. Looking at what has happened above, do you think I should put in another unblock request, or just leave this one there? Keyserzozie (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keyserzozie I'm not an admin so I don't really know how admins approach unblock requests. @Primefac will be better able to advise: should KZ put in a completely fresh unblock request, with the final wording they arrived at above (or an improved version, polished up in sandbox first), and try again now? It's sad that your improvements to their unblock request seem to have led to its rejection: it's not as if you were contradicting yourself, just refining the text. PamD 21:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood the guidelines. I understood that I was free to refine the text at will. For that I apologise. However, I'm concerned that the responding admin's comments focussed from the start on a perceived COI,rather than the actual reason for the block. @Primefac, I would appreciate some guidance on this. I understand that making a sockpuppet was wrong, and promise not to do so again, but I do feel that @Yamla's response to my appeal was hasty and not entirely fair. Keyserzozie (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was a little confusing that you'd been making edits to the request but the signature date on it was still saying 28 January, prior to all the discussion of it in this section.

I'm not sure of best practice either, but wouldn't see any harm in following the advice that the orange unblock template is now giving you - that you're free to make a new unblock request, but shouldn't remove the existing one. Given that the previous request was declined because the admin wasn't sure if you were intending to modify it further, it seems fine to me to just repeat the same text and add a sentence to say that you've finished modifying it.

Having said that, I think you do need to be clearer about your understanding of COI, and I'd suggest mentioning that in your next unblock request, in case the unblocking admin is concerned by it. (From this talk page it's still not obvious to what extent you intend to edit the Joanne Harris article in future - you say that you're happy to stick to small factual edits, but as PamD notes above, WP:COIADVICE is much stricter than that.) Belbury (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, both: I appreciate your advice on this. Keyserzozie (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I see you've got some extraneous markup on your unblock request there. I'm not sure if that's intentional while you continue to work on it, or in error, so won't step in and fix it up - if it was in error, you'll just need to click edit and take out the <code> and <nowiki> tags at the start and the end of it. Belbury (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. I was struggling to figure out why the template wasn't working. Keyserzozie (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

FirstInAFieldOfOne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've been editing Wiki for years on and off, but I'd never engaged with the community until recently. I got into an uncomfortable conflict with another user, and didn't know how to escape it. I completely misunderstood the "Clean Start" guidelines, and I thought it would be easier all round to just start again under another name. I didn't realize that doing this was against the rules. I also didn't realize that I shouldn't make multiple edits to my appeal text, which is why my first appeal was declined. I'm really sorry. I'd very much like to have the chance to start editing again. I'm a reasonably good stylist and an observant copy-editor. I'd like the opportunity to contribute again. If given the chance to do this I promise to use only one account, and to be mindful of the COI rules. Keyserzozie (talk) 5:44 am, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Per Primefac below -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to unblock, the issue with socking has been addressed and that was my primary reason for applying the block. I will leave it to an uninvolved admin to make the final decision, however. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclined to unblock, but measure twice, cut once. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Skimming through the complex issues on this talk page, with a lack of consensus on unblock requirements, I will defer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

An unblock would be fine as long as they use the request edits system with the template {{edit COI}}. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Keyserzozie has requested for a global username change. According to the global rename policy, we can't rename a user if they're seeking the change to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. Keyserzozie was recently blocked for using multiple accounts, but they have since been unblocked. If you have any concerns about this rename, please let me know. At the moment, I'm leaning towards declining this request. Pinging @Deepfriedokra, @Primefac, @Theroadislong, @Yamla DreamRimmer (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the rename has anything to do with the recent issues surrounding the block. I personally have no issue with this request. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There is an SPI case associated with this username, so I thought a username change may mislead. Therefore, I asked for opinions. DreamRimmer (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: I don't see a problem with renaming this user if Primefac does not. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't see the request. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Keyserzozie → EnterK — DreamRimmer (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Found it. Commented. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem with name change but I do wish they would you use the edit request process for the articles with which they have a very clear conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I really appreciate all your responses. Just wanted to let you know that I've renamed Keyserzozie to FirstInAFieldOfOne. Thanks again for your input! DreamRimmer (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. FirstInAFieldOfOne (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

A couple of things

If you want an edit request for new content to be applied, it's best made to the standard for good Wikipedia content, with sources for everything: many editors will outright reject an {{edit coi}} request that can't be pasted straight into the article, and ask you to try again. I cut some aspects of your recent suggestion (that two novels were "stand-alone" and "explored different aspects of food as a metaphor") because it wasn't obviously true and I couldn't, in a few minutes of searching, find sources to support either statement.

Secondly, you must avoid making any edits that change the meaning of an article where you have a COI, even if they seem trivial to you. Although it's obviously very likely that somebody's sixth form and Cambridge studies wouldn't overlap in any way, the source currently cited in the article doesn't say this. It's not a simple "grammatical" fix to change a paragraph about two things having happened to say that one happened before the other, when the current source doesn't explicitly say that. Belbury (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll bear it in mind. FirstInAFieldOfOne (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If editing while logged-out (?)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Joanne Harris while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. . If I'm wrong, please accept my apologies. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)