April 2013

edit

  Hello, I'm Eeekster. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Neumont University, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2013 (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).

Nimbipisa (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I was blocked by an admin who abused his power. He deleted sourced facts, censored talkpage--all because he has a COI. He/she was also very much involved. As such, I would ask for this to be taken to ARB com and his admin status immediately revoked Nimbipisa (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You in no way addressed the reasons for your block, instead choosing to falsely accuse the blocking admin who absolutely did the right thing. I'd recommend reading Guide to appealing blocks. Dreadstar 22:20, 28 April 2013 (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.

Considering the abuse here, I'm going to revoke your talk page access. Dreadstar 22:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply