User talk:QLitBabel

Welcome!

Hello, QLitBabel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Peter Draffin. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Kuru. If you could specify which ones need alternate sources it would help me to that end. I have been the sole contributor to the Peter Draffin page, as far as I know. QLitBabel (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've already removed the links you previously added to qwe.wiki and alchetron. This is just a note to please review your sources carefully and watch for ones that are clear mirrors. Kuru (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

OK then, thanks for clarifying. QLitBabel (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of C S Burrough for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C S Burrough is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C S Burrough until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

TheChronium 14:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

COI

Hello, QLitBabel. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hello duffbeerforme, thanks for your message. I am aware of the COI guidelines and assure you there is none involved in any of my Wikipedia articles, including this one. I have no close connection with my articles' subjects, nor have I been paid or otherwise compensated for any, including this one. Re your notability maintenance tag, I believe this article meets notability guidelines, concerning a well known author with bestselling works listed and a history on public record. Please note also that many sources used here are not primary, e.g. Sydney Morning Herald, AustLit, Wayback Machine Internet Archive, World Cat, ISBNs etc. (even citing from a memoir published by a third party does not necessarily constitute primary sourcing). I therefore respectfully ask that you reconsider your position and remove said maintenance tags, which I believe I have demonstrated are not relevant or applicable. Kind regards, QLitBabel (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a nice picture there that you took of the subject. Did you just stumble upon Burrough walking down the street? Primary sources include this Silky Oak Press page. Oh, look at that nice photo there. I wonder who took that official portrait. I wonder where else we can find it? So do you really have no conflict of interest?

On Notability. Whilst you believe Burrough is notable no-one agreed with you. At the recent afd everyone that commented on the article that wasn't you called for deletion. That afd closed as no consensus so the question of notability was not answered. "well known author"? well known by who? I'd never heard of Burrough. Where's the evidence of well known (not that well known = notable)? Vague claim of "bestselling works", what bestselling works? bestselling according to who? Where's the evidence?

On primary. If Burrough wrote it then of course it's primary. Are you really saying that just because Wayback is hosting it is not primary? (not that that page even has a by-line). Please don't consider removing that tag until you get a better idea of what primary means here because you have clearly demonstrated a misunderstanding. Also it's not just about the count of primary sources but also the large proportion of the page verified only by them. Such as the entire self-serving Early life section.

So no, I will not be removing any of them. As the creator of this article and someone who has a conflict of interest you are not the right person to be removing tags. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hello duffbeerforme,

To clarify on the tag removal: the Help:Maintenance template removal page's "When To Remove" paragraph clearly states:

• “You may remove a template when according to your best judgement the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus").”

Further, the Edit warring page clearly states:

• “Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it.”

... I did so on those valid grounds, but in the process lost the article’s info box, which I rectified, hence my edit summary ‘corrected info box’ (08:46, 29 September), which was the last part of that time-consuming edit – it was not, as you asserted above it, ‘a blatant lie’ but a condensed note. Attacking my integrity by calling me a liar, and your unfounded ‘COI accusation’ is personal, presumptuous and out of line. No, I really have no COI. Conversely, you do seem to have some ‘reverse’ COI from the consistently negative bias and combative tone of your edit summaries. You don’t display a particularly neutral POV and sound to be in some close conflict with the article’s subject.

On notability, just because you personally “haven’t heard of” a well-known Australian author does not make them un-notable – most Australians have undoubtedly never heard of a high number of American and other nationalized subjects of Wikipedia articles – that does not render them un-notable – is this some petty parochial issue you're having? The proof of this subject’s bestselling status is reflected in the referencing (e.g. no. 7). Further, the article’s talk page clearly confirms that:

• This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography
• C. S. Burrough is within the scope of WikiProject Australia
• This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group

Do you really see yourself as above these entities?

As for your claim “at the recent the recent afd everyone that commented on the article that wasn't you called for deletion” – only 1 other person answered and that was you:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C S Burrough

So again, who has the COI here?

Re Burrough’s book being primary – the referencing shows that its author didn’t publish, catalogue or review it – but whichever way you choose to see that, I had merely pointed out there is non-primary referencing in the article too. The idea of the photo being some “official portrait” would appear to exist only in your own fertile imagination. Finally, your issues with the article seem largely stylistic, which is subjective and bound to differ from person to person.

Your behavior has been:

• uncivil
• offensive
• inappropriate

... and reflects seriously on your administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross and persistent misjudgment and conduct issues). This is reportable under numerous Wikipedia guidelines, e.g.:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Protection policy

… and I shall not hesitate to do so if it continues and you persist in refusing to remove the COI tag, which is a malicious and defamatory fabrication (your talk page shows your abysmal track record of interpersonal contention, so I am by no means your first target in this respect on record).

Sincerely, QLitBabel (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What an epic, have a read of WP:TLDR.

I'll start at the end. Feel free to report me at any time. I still refuse to remove the COI tag.

Next, coi/honesty. Let's look at that edit [1]. Edit summary "Amendment/shortening of paragraph". OK, so what paragraph was shortened? Absolutely none. So where's that integrity?

"some petty parochial issue you're having". No, you are. I'm not American. Funny how you are lecturing me on civility while failing to civil yourself.

Best selling, sorry I see now. Still not the stuff of notability.

What are you trying to say about those talk page tags? They say absolutely nothing about notability. Absolutely nothing.

On the afd, one person answered, me, yes that's right. But someone else nominated it for deletion on notability grounds. That was not me. Regardless of the numbers the question of notability was Not resolved.

"blatant misuse of administrative tools"? So enlighten me. When have I ever misused an administrative tool, or even used one?

Since you continue to maintain your claim of no connection I will ask for another opinion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hello duffbeerforme,

Re “What are you trying to say about those talk page tags? They say absolutely nothing about notability”. Yes they do, your maintenance tag reads: "the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.”

And yes, the person who flagged the article for deletion months ago, prior to its later development, apologized on the afd page, i.e. “Apologies didn't see your names up here. New to process” ...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C S Burrough

... which you conveniently whitewash in your attempt to cover up a blatant lie (above) about “at the recent afd everyone that commented on the article that wasn't you called for deletion” when the only other commentator was yourself.

You have indeed “misused administrative tools” by issuing maintenance tags falsely accusing the article’s subject of “not meet[ing] Wikipedia's general notability guideline” and its major contributor appearing “to have a close connection with its subject” – both blatantly untrue, out of line and therefore reportable.

On notability: how many Australian authors have you “heard of”? Several hundred here: Category:Australian_writers.

... by your rationale of having “never heard of” them / "not the stuff of notability" (see your comments above) they’re presumably all un-notable, so you’ll be rushing to delete each one. Unlike many of those, the subject of this article has works held at the National Library of Australia:

National Library of Australia C S Burrough

No idea what you mean about the "amendment/shortening of paragraph" point (nor, apparently, do you) as previously explained after my already clarifying the time-consuming loss then rectification of the article’s info box, which took several attempts.

None of my other articles have received such negativity, so why your conspiratorial “COI” paranoia compels you to zoom in on this one is perplexing – I am further convinced it is you, not I, with the COI, in your rabidly unnecessary targeting of this. To make such persistent accusations without supporting evidence (because there is none) is as absurd as your other obstructive input – why people exist merely to seek out and provoke online discord is unfathomable (I believe 'trolling" rather then "editing" is the word). You don't sound at all like a happy Wikipedian, clearly in need of time out and/or have a personal agenda to discredit this article's subject and/or creator (i.e. "not notable", a "COI" etc.) and are arguably swallowing too many Duff Beers.

I first attempted the utmost civility, with “respectfully ask” and “kind regards”, only to meet with your usual stream of hostility and sarcastic diatribe. Resorting to your own language then proved futile. I have wasted sufficient time and energy trying, in earnest, to reason with you – not even my most flippant, insolent and unhinged 13-year-old school pupils have resorted to “feel free to report me at any time”.

I am disinclined to engage further, and any more such abuse from you on my otherwise polite and harmonious User Page will be ignored and/or removed with the contempt it deserves. I am meanwhile in consultation over your being reported, and not just by myself. I sincerely hope whoever you ask for "another opinion" thoroughly reads and digests this discussion, as are my own advisors. QLitBabel (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting a lot of things here. I'll break down a few things for you.

Re “What are you trying to say about those talk page tags? They say absolutely nothing about notability”. Yes they do, your maintenance tag reads: "the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.”

I wrote “What are you trying to say about those talk page tags?" (emphasis added) Note: talk page

This was in reference to your conmment

Further, the article’s talk page clearly confirms that:

• This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography
• C. S. Burrough is within the scope of WikiProject Australia
• This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group

Those talk page tags. They have nothing to do with notability. The one you refer to as saying "the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.” is not on the talk page.

And yes, the person who flagged the article for deletion months ago, prior to its later development, apologized on the afd page, i.e. “Apologies didn't see your names up here. New to process” ...

No they did not. The person who flagged the article for deletion was TheChronium. Their only edit to the afd was to create the afd like this. They made no apologies. The misplaced apology came from posted over two edits, first and second. Note how it refers to Mr Vore, not to Burrough. He was addressing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Vore in the wrong places.

So no, I was not whitewashing anything, there was two commentators calling for deletion, myself and TheChronium.

You have indeed “misused administrative tools” by issuing maintenance tags

I did not use administrative tools to issue maintenance tags. I did it through normal editing.

No idea what you mean about the "amendment/shortening of paragraph" point

Let's look at the actual edit. here is where you removed the maintenance tags. Under your userename which is below "Revision as of 07:51, 29 September 2021 (edit) (undo)" there is your edit summary which states "m (Amendment/shortening of paragraph)". Then below Line 1: we can see what you changed. Nowhere in that change is any shortening of paragraph. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• duffbeerforme,

It was not my intention to “misrepresent” anything, possibly a simple case of misperception on both our parts, though I feel you have been deliberately obtuse in refusing to concede my every point.

Your “administrative tools” argument is grasping at semantics – the tags were administered by you (requiring two bots to complete your administration) and were overzealously and spuriously used, there being no COI on my part, an acceptable degree of notability and existing non-primary sources.

Who posted the expired afd tag and who apologized is more picking at straws, the point stands that the article developed substantially after it and only you commented against keeping it, at the non-consensus stage.

Which talk page "the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline” is on does not negate the support and recognition the article received from the outset by unbiased entities, i.e.:

• This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography
• C. S. Burrough is within the scope of WikiProject Australia
• This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group

… which would not have been forthcoming had the subject not been a known literary figure not lacking in notability.

I have repeatedly explained to the best of my ability the “amendment/shortening of paragraph" point – the edit shows that the info box template was reinserted after being accidentally lost in a sperate edit and a paragraph was amended at that time. Your continual reiteration of this moot point is telling.

The extremes you have reached struggling to discredit the article and its subject show a disproportionately negative bias and COI against the subject. No other editor has even fractionally shown your level of objection. Your fervid persistence crossed a line some time ago, becoming tantamount to harassment and may only be redressed at a higher level, with your recalcitrance cited as a reference point. It would appear to be in your best interest to desist forthwith. I see no purpose in this convoluted discussion covering old ground and going in circles.

Sincerely, QLitBabel (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

(requiring two bots to complete your administration

No, no bots were required. I typed them. And not administration.

Who posted the expired afd tag and who apologized is more picking at straws,

So when you incorrectly thought I was wrong it's conveniently whitewash in your attempt to cover up a blatant lie but when it's shown beyond doubt that you were wrong it's just picking at straws. Regardless, that afd closed as no consensus so the question of notability was not answered.

Which talk page "the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline” is on

No, it is not on a talk page. Talk pages start with Talk:

the support and recognition the article received from the outset by unbiased entities and … which would not have been forthcoming had the subject not been a known literary figure not lacking in notability.

That is not support, they would be forthcoming for an unknown literary figure totaly lacking in notability. Someone looks at the article which at the time looked like this. They saw "Australian author". From that they can see person, therefore WikiProject Biography, Australian, therefore WikiProject Australia and author therfore arts and entertainment work group. No claiming of known or notable involved.

I have repeatedly explained to the best of my ability the “amendment/shortening of paragraph" point – the edit shows that the info box template was reinserted after being accidentally lost

No the edit shows the removal of the maintenance tags along woth the accidental removal of the info box. Everyone can see that from looking at the dif. They can also see the edit summary of m (Amendment/shortening of paragraph). They can also see there is no shortening of paragraph. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• duffbeerforme Your latest notations are ALL nonsensical rubbish. Now fully convinced of your own negative COI with article's subject - you must learn to recognize where you are wrong. Being the subject of a formal report, you ought not persist in dumping lies here QLitBabel (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. This has now been addressed by email QLitBabel (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Draffin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Draffin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Draffin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of C. S. Burrough for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C. S. Burrough is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. S. Burrough until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with C. S. Burrough. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• comment the articles for deletion period has already expired once due to non-consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C S Burrough. QLitBabel (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

that's correct but this is a second, new WP:afd it will have to run it's course. Theroadislong (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. S. Burrough. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I have the same rights as any other editor to defend myself when under attack, and will persist as long as defamatory defense is needed.

Nobody here is attacking you, please assume good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• That is a blatant lie. Your are involved in a malicious discreditation campaign and have been reported accordingly. Strongly suggest you do not post here again (in your own best interests), as this is all on record here, as per formal complaint report of yourself, so is undeniable. QLitBabel (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Theroadislong (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• comment and so may you be blocked. Defending myself from attacks from others is the reverse of an "attack on other people". Furthermore, should I become "blocked" from further editing, then that negates all rights to omit my expression of opinion (and deletion of article) - you will answer to this, regardless how long it takes, pointless trying to huffpuff out of everything. You are on record, too late to go into denial now, the more you try silencing, the more public this will become. And should I be unreasonably "blocked" others are on standby. So do your worst (and suffer the consequences). Final warning & think yourself lucky QLitBabel (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Just keep digging. Is this the level of maturity one should expect from a 62 year old man? So where is this investigation? I'd love to participate. Or at least be informed about it. The norm is when you open an investigation you inform those involved and let them know where it is happening. Hopefully your not talking about the request for page protection because that will soon be summarily dismissed. Not the right venue. Try WP:ANI. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello QLitBabel. I have blocked you from editing for a period of 1 week. Your repeated hostile behaviour towards other users is simply unacceptable. While I appreciate that having your articles nominated for deletion is a stressful experience, the way to deal with this is not to lash out at the other people involved. Should you return to editing after this block expires, then please take careful note of our policies on civility and also conflicts of interest. If you do not, you will likely be indefinitely blocked sooner rather than later. Regards, The Land (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Addendum as a result of this, you will no longer be able to edit the pages relating to the deletion requests nor to the COI investigation. If you have further evidence to add to either of those (e.g. links to establish the notability of C S Burrough) then kindly post it on this page. The Land (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The Land you have, simply, not done your homework - all of this will come out in the wash. Investigation is well under way and will show the level of misconduct here. QLitBabel (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've also revoked your ability to post on this page and to send emails via Wikipedia. Vague allegations about 'investigaton' and 'misconduct' are a transparent tactic to try to intimidate myself and others with valid concerns. The Land (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued failure to disclose a conflict of interest after repeated requests and in the face of overwhelming evidence – communication is required.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There is no evidence of a conflict of interest, as I have repeatedly shown in discussions QLitBabel (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What you meant to say is that you have denied it and others have not been convinced. That is not the same thing as "no evidence".

With the level of querulousness you have demonstrated, I think it is better not to unblock at this time. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2021 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What I mean is that accusing someone of COI is not the same as "evidence" of them being in COI. And I have always reciprocated civility when treated with it. QLitBabel (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is plenty of evidence here, such as the professional looking photo that you claim as your own work- either you are telling the truth, in which case you got Mr. Burrows to sit for you and thus have a COI, or you didn't tell the truth, in which case you don't understand copyright. Either way, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2021 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Burrough did not sit for me - this I have explained in detail on 5 Oct and 10 Oct on said COI page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#C._S._Burrough QLitBabel (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The explanation offered is not convincing. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:58, 23 October 2021 (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.

(uninvolved non-admin comment) After reviewing the COIN discussion all the afds and the articles in question, it is clear to me that the user does have a COI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Whether or not the explanation given is "convincing" to someone is subjective, does not equate to fact, and is therefore not "evidence" of anything. QLitBabel (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:52, 25 October 2021 (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.

                  QLitBabel (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)}

You keep claiming there is no evidence, 4 admins on this talk page and several uninvolved editors over at COIN have reviewed the articles, all talk pages etc and concluded that there is a COI, at this point your vehement denials are more IDHT I suggest the next admin revokes TPA as we are obviously wasting time here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You say convincing is subjective, which may or may not be true, but we are the ones you have to convince, and you haven't done so yet. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@QLitBabel: if you want to be unblocked, I would suggest first withdrawing your open appeal above. Read the guidelines to appealing blocks carefully, before leaving a more thoughtful appeal. Your appeal should indicate a sincere understanding of why you were blocked, and reasons that it will not be necessary in the future. (If you are unblocked and then blocked again, then it is likely to be permanent.) Not an admin here, just trying to give good advice on the chance that you are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia - i.e. COI accusations are mistaken, unproven and have been extensively explored, as per all of the above) QLitBabel (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The COI really is blatant, and this is not going anywhere. I am declining this request and revoking talk page access. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2021 (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.

Again with the COI being "unproven" when SEVERAL USERS AND 4 ADMINS HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS. WP:IDHT is even more obvious now, I suggest the next declining admin also revoke TPA as we are obviuosly not going to get anywhere with this user. 10:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 --Blablubbs (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 50192

UTRS appeal #50192 is closed. @QLitBabel: I don't know why you think repeating your denials at UTRS would be efficacious when they were rejected here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)