Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djflem/Archive

Evidence submitted by Nightscream
On January 30, User:Djflem removed content supported by a story in The Hudson Reporter and a story in The New York Times, both of which were provided in the form of links (though the Times story sometimes leads to a signup page), with the edit summary whose only rationale was personal incredulity. After I reverted it, citing policy, an anonymous IP editor, 86.80.116.183, removed it again on January 31, asserting in his/her edit summary that info was false, and that the two sources were "unreliable" (first time I ever heard someone refer to The New York Times as such). I did not detect that reversion until February 16, when I again reverted it, again citing policy and leaving a notice on that editor's Talk Page. That same day, it was again removed by another IP editor, 87.210.7.209, citing a rationale that clearly constitutes original research. I restored the info again, again citing policy and leaving an admonishment on that IP's talk page. Djflem then started a Talk Page discussion, during which I asked him if those two anonymous IP edits were by him, and but he did not answer the question. (I have since asked the question a second time.)

It should be noted that two IP locator sites (this one and this one) indicate that both of those IP addresses are traced to Amsterdam, Holland. Is that Djflem's location too? Are all three the same person?

Here are the three edits:
 * January 30 edit by Djflem
 * January 31 edit by 86.80.116.183
 * February 16 edit by 87.210.7.209


 * Regarding Djflem's statements here, my bringing this matter here stemmed from the information above, and his refusal to respond to me when I initially asked him about it, and not "sour grapes" or "revenge seeking", as I have never had a problem accepting valid edits by him or anyone else into the article, including the most recent ones, so long as they followed policy, and have even assisted in investigating the assertion by him that formed the basis of our most recent edit dispute.


 * The matter with the newspaper is not mentioned because it's irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with, nor does it justify, sockpuppetry. While Djflem was editing from multiple accounts and refusing to answer me when I asked him about (while simultaneously accusing me of evading his questions--which I wasn't), I was actually following policy by trying to talk to him in a direct manner on the article's Talk Page, making inquiries on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Jimmy Wales' Talk Page, and contacting the New York Times and The Thread in order to address his concerns, which are hardly the actions of someone suffering from "sour grapes" or "revenge seeking". By contrast, his stonewalling when I twice asked him if he was responsible for the edits under those other accounts is not "straightforward". Had he simply answered the question then, it might have been. Nightscream (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. Notification received from third party: A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts (see Sock puppetry policy). Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Djflem for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. –MuZemike 15:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave him one last chance for him to explain himself. –MuZemike 15:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

per. No need for CU here. Djflem will be advised to stick with using the one registered account whenever possible. –MuZemike 17:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)