User talk:Ursul pacalit de vulpe

Abusive user
This is the renamed user:Tones benefit who continues disruptive behavior. I ssume he requested the rename to hide the traces of former abusive behaviour. `'Míkka 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 22:17, July 6, 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tones benefit (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (engagement in revert warring as an assistance in the article he does not any say) (Unblock)
 * 20:37, July 3, 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tones benefit (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (revert warring) (Unblock)
 * 20:24, June 30, 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tones benefit (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three-revert rule violation) (Unblock)

The user is also a suspected sockpuppet ot banned user Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte.`'Míkka
 * Taking this from you, a harasser, despite the fact that Checkuser deny it it's a blatant personal attack.-- Ursul | Chat  16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See also User talk:Ursul pacalit de vulpe/archive1 for user talk:Tones benefit. `'Míkka 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request
and look how productive edits has an admin..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikkalai all his edits are personal attacks-- Ursul | Chat  16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will look into this matter. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have sent a message to User:Mikkalai to determine what this month long block is based off of. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is a suspected sock of banned user:Bonaparte. It impossible to establish this with checkuser because the user IP data are stored for 1 week only. However the whole very long history of his long sockpuppetry shows one and the same pattern of abusive behavior, and it is not only my opinion. I gave user:Tones benefit a reasonable amount of warnings, then started blocking. Tones benefit pretended he was retiring. Now it is clear the goal was to deceive and pretend ursul is a new user. Ursul's block is continued escalation. Please keep in mind that 3RR rule does not mean only 3 or more. For a problem user 2 reverts is enough. It was not even content dispute. He was removing tags. It is not a new user who does not know rules of wikipedia and may be given some slack. It is a persistent, aggressive abuser. He also has a habit of removing incriminating warnings from all his user talk pages. I am absolutely against unblocking him unless he gives a promise to discontinue controversial edits. `'Míkka 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this is not as simple as it looks, so I am going to let somebody else review this unblock request. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, actually it is as simple as it looks. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this out:, ,. When I saw this, I couldn't stop myself from giving him some advice. All of the above were on my talk page. He coppied my advice to User:Ursul pacalit de vulpe/Sandbox. :Dc76\talk 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can give you exact same examples from half of confirmed socks who pretend to be innocent babies. `'Míkka 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)