No, I see editors (those on the COI side) who appear to, or pretend to - take your pick - not understand the meanings/definitions of policies relating to BLPs, sourcing, peacocking, etc, clearly enough. As a result, the same form of inappropriate content keeps creeping back in with new excuses. I think it's more the case that some people are too keen to "babysit" this article and try to make it grow, rather than let it breathe for a few weeks/months. I can understand editors being protective of articles they've just created for a while - but there comes a point when they have to stop "updating" with bloat and trivial sources, for the sake of it. An author can't visit a bookshop everyday with a new edition of their book to sell, nor can authors here expect to introduce new content daily unless the article is a genuine "current event". As far as I can tell, the notability of this article is low, perhaps questionable. However, I think it better that people leave the article as is for a while - better to have low notability than introduce elements that destroy it altogether and give grounds to AFD. If they can do that, then no, there should be no further disputes, and COI is no longer a matter to highlight via the tag.  [Chat • RFF]