User talk:Nursing2014

Not only nursing?

November 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for self-admitted ban evasion per this. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

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).

Nursing2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Spaceman you are mistaken, Can you read the arbitrators conclusion? People with direct COI have a right to contribute only if they do it reasonably [1] You blocked me without reading the notice of arbitrators. In my edit I clearly disclosed COI. Please unblock. Nursing2014 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Quoting your own link: "The proposal by Nomoskedasticity to site ban representatives of OMICS Publishing Group has been carried by clear consensus of the community." I don't know how any different interpretation is possible here. Max Semenik (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Um, no. Representatives of OMICS are site banned per the link you have graciously posted. That you chose to avoid one problem from the past because you got caught isn't a reason to unblock. Another admin will evaluate your unblock request. —SpacemanSpiff 05:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, you are advised to read the arbitrators conclusion, People with direct COI have a right to contribute only if they do it reasonably accordingly i disclosed COI before staring the editing. Nursing2014 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Nursing2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock, I came to notice that both of the above admins blocked my account without going through the complete arbitration conclusion. I am copying arbitrators conclusion for your knowledge from

[2], accordingly i disclosed my COI. Pleease unblock. Nursing2014 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:SITEBAN. SmartSE (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Smacks of "Yok kanun, yap kanun, var kanun". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to mention that I posted as an ordinary administrator in this, not as an arbitrator. Nothing an arb does on Wikipedia is done as an arb unless they say so. But my meaning was completely opposite to what Nursing2014 seems to think. Even with properly declaring a COI, the editing still must be reasonable. The way the OMICs-related editors was not reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]