WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet

{{rfcu box|case=Fipplet|filed=19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)}}

• {{checkuser|Fipplet}}
• {{checkip|85.230.108.108}}
• {{checkip|85.230.108.247}}

• Code letter: F

• Supporting evidence:

User:Fipplet, who on his/her user-page identifies as a Swede, was blocked on Jan. 8 for 48 hours for edit-warring: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AFipplet]

About the same time the two above IP´s (which geolocate to Sweden) start edit-warring with User:Spool 26 and myself on a number of churches: Church of All Nations, Church of the Pater Noster, Church of Maria Magdalene Dominus Flevit Church,

Also; IP:85.230.108.108 edits User:Fipplet´-s user-page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AFipplet&diff=262952388&oldid=262742970]

Also, with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChurch_of_the_Pater_Noster&diff=263238781&oldid=263236750 this] edit it seem that s/he admit to being ip number 85.230.108.247 ("Read what I (ip number 85.230.108.247) have written").

Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:Comment. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet, from September 2008, in which this editor was believed to have used {{userlinks|85.230.109.191}} as a sock in a 3RR case. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

::I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out? Anyway, I admit it and I am very sorry for this, but it is very hard for me to stay away from Wikipedia. I love wikipedia and live in an environment with a high density of computers. Very sorry, won't do it again. I think it is unnecessary to block me again since it happened such a long time ago and I didn't broke any rules while being blocked and the disgrace is punishment enough, also; doesn't admitting reduce your time being blocked? But do what you think is just. Again sorry. --Fipplet (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

:::But it didn't happen "a long time ago"; it happened this weekend, when Fipplet was blocked for edit-warring. And, as shown above, it is the second toime s/he has done the same thing. The argument above is specious and barely credible; the whol;e point of being blocked is that you are not permitted to make edits. This is as clear a case as I have ever seen of sockpuppetry to beat a block, and should be dealt with accordingly.RolandR (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

::::This weekend is about 4 days ago. That is a very long. And it isn't the second time I did this. Last time I created a new account and got blocked consequently for creating it. This time I didn't, I just continued to edit from my school cause I thaught you just blocked the account and not the person. Now I have learned this.

::::What is the point of not being permitted to make edits? (This is a quote from Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses:

Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires.

In this case blocking obviously surves no purpose). The point is to prevent further vioalations of Wikipedias' rules by that specific person. Since I didn't vioalate any rules while being blocked and since I didn't vioalate any rules during this four day period since being blocked and since I now have learned alot more about what is allowed and not, there is no point of blocking me. I won't do this again and i've certanly felt the disgrace of being punished. I am sorry for this but I urge you to do what is just and do it quick so that I then can return to wikipedia.--Fipplet (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

{{declined}}. He admitted it. No check needed. Also, Fipplet, you can't just say "Oh this block served no purpose so I evaded it". You do not get to decide that. --Deskana (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)