User talk:Shabushabu

Evidence of previous disruptive editing[edit]

This user has frequently and flagrantly abused the block appeal process, using it to attack other users.

First Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Arbiteroftruth kept reverting the article to his article. Discussion on "Similiarities to Golden Path" was totally redundant on The Little Nyonya page and he refused to let me delete it. No one has even linked these together so I don't see why I should get blocked for removing what he posted that was totally redundant.

Decline reason:

Your actions constitute edit warring, something which is regarded as very disruptive. You were asked to stop and talk things over more than once; your only responses appear to have been very incivil and not conducive to a calm discussion. Articles are intended to be collaborative efforts, and assuming ownership of an article is not allowed. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

He has been abusing his powers more than once. Am i not offended? The messages he left for me were not out of good faith. They were rude to me. The article is edited to his opinion. It's funny how you let unrelated things be left on the page and he's in the right. I'm new to wiki and all i see is he's deleting everything i wrote. Is this what i get for trying to help?

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You were blocked for what you did, not what they did or didn't do. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (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.

.

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).

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

Request reason:

So he's allowed to post his analysis up there and i'm not? You called this out of good faith... )

Decline reason:

Your analysis was original research, which we don't allow in articles without sourcing. And I cannot believe this ... you are the first user I've ever seen use up his three unblock requests in the first hour of a three-hour block. So you're done (as in, I'm protecting the page) until it expires. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (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.

.

Second Block[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of 28 hours for the same disruptive editing you were previously blocked for. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

For what reasons are you blocking me again? He disrupted my ending. Do you know how much a pain in the neck it is that I'm typing halfway and you just block again and again?

Decline reason:

This discussion would appear to answer that; immediately after being unblocked, you went straight back to your disruptive behavior. Try reading through WP:TE and see if any of the behaviors described sound familiar to you. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 8 January 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

he reverted all my articles. Why don't you block him? Very biased of you.

Decline reason:

You haven't actually put forward a reason why you should be unblocked._Gb^T/c 20:13, 8 January 2009 (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.

Any further edits to this page which are not valid requests for an unblock will result in it being protected for the duration of your block. _Gb^T/c 20:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't say I didn't warn you. The page is protected for the duration of your block. _Gb^T/c 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also gone to the trouble of extending your current block to a full week for not only your shenanigans here after the block but your sockpuppetry as well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has now been extended to one month for your latest sockpuppetry at 218.186.12.204 (talk · contribs). Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to The Little Nyonya. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. You failed to provide any sources for your negative comments, and have previously been blocked for, along with other matters, editing this article inappropriately. Please ensure you have consensus for these edits in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shabushabu for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 06:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]