Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/67.160.229.161

User:67.160.229.161

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Mark dittmer 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

User 67.160 ... and myself had repeated discussions regarding the Gary Radnich page. Most recently, he repeatedly reverted edits I made--I removed a citation from the Radnich article and he kept re-inserting it, even though I felt it was so inappropriate that it amounted to vandalism, and I argued as much in the Radnich discussion page. I reported him, and he was temporarily blocked. Not long after that, the Radnich article was marked with a {db-spam} tag by user 69.181 ..., who then proceeded to ask on the Radnich discussion page if I was an employee of Radnich. User 69.181 wrote: "Hey Ditmer -- why do you feel the need to censor content on this topic? Are you an employee or contractor to KNBR, KRON, Gary Radnich, and any entity or person related to these corporations or their affiliates? Who are you to say what is neutral and what is non-neutral. Cards on the table, please. 69.181.183.206 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)" This same argument was made by user 67.160 ... on his own user-talk page: "Are Tenor and Dim Wit professional Wiki entry writers? [1] Look at their contrib history and their watchdog stance on anything *they* interpret to be non-neutral. Apparently, as Orwell predicted, our language has lost meaning. Non-neutural doesn't mean "must be flattering". There has been plenty of discussion that they can stick up for their employers by *adding* content rather than deleting it. Since they continue to insist on calling all non-flattering but verifiable information about their employer vandalism, perhaps you should just delete the article. Would you find an entry on Gary Radnich in britanica?" The 69.181 comments appeared shortly after 67.160 was blocked. I think they're the same user.
 * Evidence


 * Comments


 * Conclusions