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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Ursul pacalit de vulpe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by user Mikkalai, although I did not break any 3RR rule, I did not edit war. Anyway, this person harrasts me since the beginning of my wiki-life. I asked admins to look into the details and unblock me. Have I done something so bad to be blocked for a month??

Decline reason:

These allegations of sockpuppetry do appear to be correct. — Krimpet 00:27, 26 July 2007 (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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Check this out: [1], [2], [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]