Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waukeshawi/Archive

21 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

''User:Waukeshawi and User:MilkweedPods have admitted that they are alternate accounts. The user has provided no rationale as to why multiple accounts are needed. It seems as though the MilkweedPods account was created in order to avoid the scrutiny of other editors. (See also: ) This is a clear violation of the WP:SCRUTINY policy. The two accounts edit the same articles, giving the misimpression that multiple users are editing an article, when in fact, it's the same editor using multiple usernames. User:MilkweedPods has even edited User:Waukeshawi's talk page as if they were the same editor. This misleading and inappropriate use of alternative accounts is a violation of WP:ILLEGIT. Most concerning is that the editor just doesn't seem to understand what the problem is with using multiple accounts and insists on playing games about the issue. Further discussion of this issue can be found here.'' Note that I am filing this in proxy for IP user 32.218.39.106 John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * I couldn't say it better than the IP I posted for said it above. I will comment that the user has shown a great disregard for our "societal norms" here at Wikipedia (here and here).  The second indicates a level of understanding of how things work here that may indicate this is deeper than these two accounts.  He is unwilling to listen to advice and has refused and ignored an offer to adopt.  It is all too bad, because at least his research seems to be very well done.  There are areas where his writing lacks, but that can be fixed.  What I would like to see here is a permanent sock block of one account and an indef until he accepts adoption on the other.  This editor could be a very productive WP:SPA if he would be willing to accept the fact that editing here is a structured exercise. John from Idegon (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I created Waukeshawi as my first account here on the site and was really put off by the intial rude comments left by a user who would not leave me alone. Comments such as "who cares" and "get a blog".

Out of concerns for privacy, I created this second account, and never once attempted to pretend I was two different people. It was done so out of privacy and security concerns.

These IPs will not stop following me around and leaving rude remarks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.44.235 ...Even going into Adolphus Busch after I linked to it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordberg_Manufacturing_Company, and you felt compelled to edit out "Colonel". Which should not have been removed. He was a Colonel. Why would you feel compelled to do that? I don't understand...

July 7th - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.46.110

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_V._Nordberg&diff=615952447&oldid=615817089

Going into Bruno Nordburg and removing content for no reason other than to show me you are boss. Nordburg knew Pabst, and yet you felt compelled to butt in and remove relevant sourced information that referenced a reasonable connection between the two. He even received financial support from Pabst. Your edit was infuriating and unnecessary, and you once again followed me around and butted into the article I was working on for no reason other than to show me you were boss. So, now we've lost the connection between Nordberg and Pabst. I'm not going to work on it anymore. Wikipedia articles are indeed allowed to link and reference other articles if there is a connection. Don't worry, I'm not going to bother editing or adding to the article at this point in time because you've established a pattern here of being a bully and I anticipate that you will drop some template about an "edit war". Thank goodness nobody will ever be able to come to Wikipedia to learn Nordberg knew Captain Pabst. the horror! You "won!"

July 9th - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.44.235 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:32.218.44.235&action=history) Here is where I asked you to stop stalking me at 14:55, note the IP history's 9 hour time span of engagement only with content I was working on. I asked him to stop after it went on for 3 hours, and the user continued on harassing me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWaukeshawi&diff=616237744&oldid=616235029

You even go on to say " Everyone is free to add, subtract, or modify articles, as long as they aren't engaged in vandalism or other unencyclopedic behavior. "

Except YOUR behavior was intentionally disruptive, I was simply a brand new user. At this point I felt that you were going to continue bullying me, going on about small extremely trite things and quoting things that no new user would possibly know or fully grasp within a such a short period of time.

You were clearly stalking me and harassing me at this point. I considered deleting my account out of frustration, but later decided I would not be a victim of your bullying.

July 10th I created a different account due to the stalking and harassment of the IP user.

July 11th - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.40.8 Here you are stalking me again. You won't leave me alone. At this point I realize there are all sorts of ways to track users and topics and subjects and what nots. You wont leave me alone point, and I'm not sure what your goal is, but you seem to have made it your life mission to be intentionally disruptive.

July 12-13th - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.33.251 (almost 24 hours of nonstop hounding me)

July 13-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.41.114 (12 more hours of hounding me) One of my "crimes" was including information about the founders company on the founder's page.

Wikipedia encourages new users to "be bold"

There is no specific requirement that anywhere states a notable person who founded notable company may not have a small synopsis on what happened to their company and where it is now on their biography page. You simply felt like butting in with what I was doing and wanted to show me you were the boss. Husky is now owned by Home Depot. Good thing nobody can see that now! You "won."

July 14th - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.43.54

July 16th - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.39.179

July 20th - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.152.175

July 21st - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.39.106

July 21-22 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.39.106

July 22nd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.46.36

July 23rd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.46.144 going out of your way to interact with the first article I created on wikipedia that had just been approved and posted to the talk page of my first account

July 24th https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.38.171

This is also the IP that asked to report me for sockpuppeting

Examples of what this person does:

1. "Being the vice-president of a company for 6 years and building a big house are not notable accomplishments by Wikipedia standards"

"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisette_Schandein&diff=616841637&oldid=616666527

It's Pabst, and it was a 40,000 square foot castle not a "big house" You have to be pretty notable to run a company that big and to have enough money to build a "house" that big. They were the Waltons of their generation.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_C._Pritzlaff&action=history

8 minutes after I have started working on an article, he is editing it. It has only been 8 minutes.

Saying things like, "atrocious grammar and punctuation throughout article"

I was only 8 minutes into the article.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Sensenbrenner&action=history Here I added sourced content. One hour later, it's gone and he says "This isn't even English" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Sensenbrenner&oldid=617890226 some kind user undid it, ...but he undoes theirs.

I was simply quoting the financial statement, and didn't think it was appropriate to interpret it, even though it was clearly stating the value of the house vs what 56% of the interest is, and what his total real estate holdings are. But, again, I didn't think it was my place to interpret.

This person is a sour grape and has manipulated other people into some believing some kind of grand conspiracy of sock-puppetry

I created a second account out of concerns for privacy because the IP is stalking me.

While I made no attempt to hide who I was, and have edited my pages to make it obvious, this IP user is obviously a long term user who refuses to identify themselves by signing in to their main account, and instead is trying to bully me through using different IPs making it impossible to establish a relationship of trust with.

MilkweedPods (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is exactly the behavior I was speaking of above. In all the cases he cites, the IP (and he fails to understand that IP editors have a right to exist, but that is a common misconception) is spot on.  I do not know why the IP is not a registered user, but that is a moot point per the 5 pillars.  Simply put, he refuses to accept anything that resembles rules here on Wikipedia.  According to the initial filer of this report, he has edited on the same article with both names. He switches back and forth between them with reasons that are only apparent to him. And up until this report was filed, he had no notification of having two accounts on his pages as required. He does now. One has to wonder how he knew he had to do this.  I am going to ask for checkuser on this report.  That is my action, not the IP's so if there are questions about it, please direct them at me. To behave in a manor which seemingly indicates so much ignorance of policy but to know things like needing to declare multiple accounts when it becomes obvious that someone is going to make an issue of it quacks like a duck to me. John from Idegon (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm done. You win. I'm not sure what your goal was, but you made my time here completely un-enjoyable. I was really excited about working on content regarding notable people from the late 1800s that were involved in manufacturing and how they grew into muli-generational families that intermarried, some of whom are still active with business and job creation, and some who are very philanthropic and civic minded ...but the process here is just too confusing and utterly unenjoyable and when wikipedia users like this and the IP that constantly undo the content you create and litter your page with loud templates that make no sense to me minutes after I hit 'Save Page'. So I'm done. Enjoy your reign over whatever it is you are trying to do! Keep quoting your user created wiki speak rules.

If your goal is to try to retain people are excited to be here and want to create reasonable content, you certainly failed in my eyes. Maybe there needs to be some oversight on new page patrollers whose seem to misinterpret their volunteer position within the community as "content remover" as opposed to somebody that encourages new users to find additional references and improve their page. Because simply deleting the content leaving a curt/semi rude remark, or recommending a page for quick delete, and then touting all your "quick delete" recommendations on your page, seems to be really backwards. It sends a really bad message to new users.


 * Let's be perfectly clear about what Waukeshawi(WW)/MilkweedPods(MP) has done. This editor has added a lot of iffy material to Wikipedia, including articles of questionable notability (e.g.,, , , , ); ungrammatical factoids, off-topic or confusing writing (e.g., , , , , ); and trivia (e.g., ). Many additions have not been verified by the sources cited, but instead seem to have been some sort of exrrapolation or personal interpretation of the source (e.g., , , , , ). The editor has also removed article templates (e.g., , , ).


 * Quite a number of people have been following and cleaning up this editor's work, including Cmr08, Solarra , and RFD , although I have been the one who has most boldly copyedited his work. In response to having his work edited by others, WW/MP has told other editors to bugger off , claimed harassment , thumbed his nose at Wikipedia's policies as "wikinerd jargon" , threatened to leave Wikipedia , and by his own admission, tried to evade other editors by opening a second account. This is a clear violation of WP:SCRUTINY.


 * WW/MP's edits have been problematic because:
 * he lacks an understanding of the mission and operation of WP (that it's an encyclopedia, not a blog; that it's not a freeforall, but has standards, policies, and guidelines; that it's collaborative)
 * he lacks perspective in determining what material is encyclopedic (not every grandchild of a socialite needs to be written about) or germane (e.g., extended information about a company belongs in the company's article, not the founder's article)
 * he fails to copyedit his own work before submitting it, resulting in sloppily written, slipshod work (e.g.,, )
 * he goes beyond the information given in sources, so that some additions fail verification or are outright inaccuracies


 * There is no doubt that WW/MP needs help with editing. Despite being given substantial guidance on how to improve, there has bee little change in the quality of WW/MP's edits. Several editors have offered help on being a newcomer and understanding how Wikipedia works . Two different editors have suggested that WW/MP seek out a mentor . Solarra has twice offered her services , and WW/MP failed to take advantage of the generous offer.


 * As to the reason WW/MP says he created a second account, it varies on a minute by minute basis . The editor has claimed "security", use of different devices, and "privacy" (all after being pointed to the WP policy page containing those catchwords). To evade the scrutiny of other editors seems to be the most common reason. The sequence of edits below in no way suggests that the editor is using multiple devices or that there is any sort of security issue with either username. Moreover, if the editor has a "security issue" for which he needs two accounts, then why does he want MilkweedPods to be his only username? And if the editor wants MilkweedPods to be his username, then why didn't he abandon the Waukeshawi account? Instead, he edited on July 21 using the Waukeshawi account, after he'd been using the MilkweedPods account for 11 days, and then flip-flopped back and forth between the two. Was he simply trying to evade scrutiny, again? Whatever. Something doesn't add up here. The editor's explanations just don't jive with his editing behavior.


 * Perhaps WW/MP never intentionally pretended to be two different people, but his switching back and forth between the two accounts certainly had that effect. It has given the impression that two different users are editing the same article, when it's the same person.


 * John from Idegon's recommendations are eminently reasonable. This user has the potential to make useful contributions to Wikipedia, but needs substantial mentoring to hone his understanding and skills. Blocking one account and requiring mentoring to continue with the other would be a sensible course of action. I would add that WW/MP should be required to submit all new articles to WP:AFC. 32.218.46.36 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

MP 05:42, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,447)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waukeshawi MP 05:28, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-1)‎ . . User talk:MilkweedPods MP 05:27, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-474)‎ . . User talk:MilkweedPods MP 05:26, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-1,084)‎ . . User:MilkweedPods WW 05:25, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-2,317)‎ . . User talk:Waukeshawi WW 05:25, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-1,092)‎ . . User:Waukeshawi WW 05:17, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,011)‎ . . Talk:Chenequa, Wisconsi WW 04:50, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+57)‎ . . Chenequa, Wisconsin WW 04:35, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+124)‎ . . Chenequa, Wisconsin WW 04:01, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-6)‎ . . Jim Sensenbrenner WW 03:59, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+124)‎ . . Chenequa, Wisconsin MP 03:46, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+5)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waukeshawi MP 03:44, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+332)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waukeshawi MP 03:40, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+98)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waukeshawi MP 03:39, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+2,449)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waukeshawi WW 03:34, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-6)‎ . . Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company WW 03:31, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-150)‎ . . Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company WW 03:28, 22 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+195)‎ . . Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company MP 23:17, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-22,869) . . User talk:MilkweedPods MP 22:58, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (0) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 22:14, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1) . . User talk:MilkweedPods MP 22:13, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+103) . . User talk:MilkweedPods MP 22:09, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+236) . . User talk:Jwoodward48wiki MP 22:05, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-1,490) . . User talk:MilkweedPods MP 22:05, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,490) . . User talk:MilkweedPods WW 21:30, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-1,219) . . User talk:Waukeshawi WW 21:29, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+146) . . User talk:Waukeshawi WW 21:28, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+94) . . User:Waukeshawi MP 21:27, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (0) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 21:26, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (0) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 21:26, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (0) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 21:25, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-85) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 21:25, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+174) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 21:22, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (0) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 21:21, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+66) . . User:MilkweedPods WW 20:54, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+326) . . User:Waukeshawi MP 20:34, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+461) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 20:19, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+25) . . User:Waukeshawi MP 20:19, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+111) . . User:Waukeshawi WW 19:49, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+66) . . User talk:Waukeshawi WW 19:48, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+35) . . User:Waukeshawi WW 19:42, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+6) . . User:Waukeshawi WW 19:42, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+504) . . User:Waukeshawi MP 19:39, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+385) . . User:MilkweedPods MP 19:33, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+83) . . N User:MilkweedPods MP 19:32, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+87) . . User talk:MilkweedPods MP 19:27, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+56) . . User talk:MilkweedPods WW 19:26, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-1) . . User talk:Waukeshawi WW 19:25, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (-2) . . User talk:Waukeshawi WW 19:25, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist). . (+57) . . User talk:Waukeshawi

I don't have problems with anybody else, because they sign in to their accounts. You have purposely evaded identifying your account on Wikipedia by intentionally NOT signing in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

On top of your hounding, you went out of your way to bring other people attention to my account, telling them I need mentoring and I am breaking rules by sockpuppeting and even going so far as to say that I must speak a foreign language. In reality, you have an unhealthy obsession with my account.

Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by using the session for the inappropriate uses (like harassment and wikihounding)

You are wikiBullying.

This whole situation is ridiculous. I would understand your tenacity if I was spamming, but I was interested in creating content regarding historic/notable people that were heavily involved in job creation in the late 1800's and the families went on to marry into each others, and many of them are still around today through current business, civic involvement, political involvement, and/or philanthropically. If you were THAT interested in what I was doing, you could have just went to my talk page, as a signed in user, introduced yourself, and establish some trust with me where we could work together as a team.

By following me around and not signing in you making it impossible to establish trust, your IP constantly changes.

And copy/pasting my history?

I was working on establishing notification on each account to display which was my main account, (something that is allowed for privacy and security reasons)

Then I went back deleting everything out of frustration after you requested a user submit this on your behalf.

I really don't think there is anything wrong with creating a second account out of privacy and security concerns when an obviously long-term user is refusing to sign in to identify their account, and instead hides behind their IP following me around, making rude/snide edits and bizarre over-invested accusations of me being foreign, needing a mentor, and sockpuppetry. Its quite frightening. Especially to a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkweedPods (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't have an account.
 * 2) Neither I nor anyone else ever said you must speak a foreign language. The only statement made about your linguistic ability was made by another editor here.
 * 3) Making false accusations about another editor is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on civility.
 * 4) I am not the only editor to have suggested you could benefit from a mentor.
 * 5) Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of other editors is sockpuppetry.
 * 6) Creating a second account to avoid scrutiny and then later claiming "privacy and security concerns" is simply a ruse.
 * 7) Sockpuppetry is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. There is nothing wrong with bringing it to the attention of the community. 32.218.38.171 (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WIkihounding is also a violation.

"Let's be perfectly clear about what Waukeshawi(WW)/MilkweedPods(MP) has done. This editor has added a lot of iffy material to Wikipedia, including articles of questionable notability (e.g.,, , , , ); ungrammatical factoids, off-topic or confusing writing (e.g., , , , , ); and trivia (e.g., )."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Nunnemacher&diff=615888242&oldid=615888223

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nunnemacher

What's wrong with this article? Milwaukee was a beer capital. This company was huge. They manufactured the equipment the breweries used. Not just here, across the US. He was extremely notable within his industry of beer/malt equipment and grain equipment. I have 7 sources. He was on the board of directors of a financial institution. Financial institutions don't just add anybody on their board of directors. They tend to be involved in the community/own a successful business/are involved in job creation/existence in some way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katherine_E._Tuley - ok, I have more sources, from outside her "societal dame" group, but whatever. Thanks for the encouragement. Trying to save on disc space here or what? Nobody could move information over to the spouse? Nope. Hurry up and delete it! yay!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albert_F._Gallun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_F._Gallun

Again, what's wrong with this article? Are you trying to save on disc space here? He was the president of the company. And it's a family owned company. It was one of the largest tanneries in the country. They were considered pioneers in the industry in the chrome/mineral method of tanning. This makes them notable within their field of tanning leather. Why would you consider it iffy? One of my article's references is PBS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Nunnemacher&diff=616595262&oldid=616595118

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Nunnemacher

Again, what's wrong with it? He was heavily involved in the community, and banking. The guy built an opera house. Why is that iffy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisette_Schandein&diff=prev&oldid=616666527

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisette_Schandein

I have 13 sources here. What's the problem. Why can't a beer baron heiress who was also the first VP of Pabst be notable? Especially one who had an affair and arranged fake marriages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nordberg_Manufacturing_Company&diff=615702824&oldid=615701244

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordberg_Manufacturing_Company

In 1944, they designed and built the largest diesel engine that had ever been built in the United States Again, I don't see a problem with this article.

WIkihounding is also a violation.

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."

Leave me alone.

MilkweedPods (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not an uncommon practice to monitor editors that have been problematic. The 32 IP and myself are not the only ones that have pointed out the problems with your editing.  Asking people to leave you alone is not an option.  This is a collaborative project.  By definition.  If you cannot work with others, you cannot be here.  It is just that simple. Note to patrolling admin: The editor in question here has admitted using multiple accounts and refuses to provide a clear explanation why.  As a matter of fact, in all the volumes he has written here, he barely touched on it.  can we just close this?  Or would you suggest that I take it to ANI, as it is obviously more than just socking? John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How could I be anymore clear?

WIkihounding is also a violation.

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."

I asked you and the IP to both leave me alone. And you instead collaborated with your grand conspiracy theory of sockpuppetry for the sake of Wisconsin History.

Bullying and Hounding are violations and I asked you both to stop. I never pretended to be 2 different users, and I never denied that I was. I simply created a second account, because you two wouldn't leave me alone.

I asked you both to stop, neither of you did. I created another account out of privacy and security concerns, because I was concerned about your behavior and the IPs and thought you were the same person.

...And you both continued to badger me and follow me around on all the content I was involved in, and then you did this out of retaliation or boredom, or both. I really have no idea.

Please leave me alone.

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."

Don't bother with dispute resolution. I'm not interested in being involved with content creation here anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkweedPods (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

John from Idagon:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Harnischfeger&diff=618120834&oldid=618118564

There is NO requirement that states biographies of notable company founders may not have information regarding their company and where it is today in the biography. But you butted in and deleted all the information. So if somebody looks up Harnischfeger, it will be impossible to immediately learn that Joy Global is a thing. Good thing you removed it. You "won."

Wikipedia actually asks you consider thinking outside of a narrow range, to "be bold." It was not that out of topic to make a small reference as to where they are today, which then allows you to move to Joy Global and see what they are about. Joy Global wouldn't have existed without Harnischfeger. It asinine to remove it.

This wasn't about a living person with an attempt to enter scandalous defamatory information, or an autobiography about me because I have a band and we play in my parent's garage.

You felt compelled to remove relevant information for no reason other than to show me you were boss.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chenequa,_Wisconsin&diff=616184404&oldid=616161756

You removed a large portion of the history of the lake/community, which evolved into a STATE LAW which prevented counties from condemning land for park use, something that had state wide consequences. Something they still can not do today.

Do you understand that these people went to the Supreme Court to create their village, and then changed state law to keep people out? They formed a village around the lake, shut the hotels down, and changed condemnation laws. You told me to "get a blog" and deleted it. That whole history is the reason the area is synonymous with its power, wealth, prestige and exclusivity. The founding families were prominent business owners that carried a lot of weight and were extremely notable - The Supreme Court allowed them to incorporate their own village! http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DIR/Municipal_Boundary_Review/Incorporation/Cases/In_re_Chenequa_1928.pdf Also, this decision allowed Oconomowoc Lake and St Francis to incoporate. But wow, thank goodness the article was half deleted by you preventing people to learn about it. You "win!" Wouldnt it be awful if people actually learned about the village when they went to the wikipedia page about the village?

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chenequa,_Wisconsin&diff=617901056&oldid=617876863

Here you are removing a notable person that owns property in the village. There is absolutely NO Wikipedia rule that says notable people which are owners of real estate/property in the community, but are seasonal due to the nature of the property/region may not be referenced in the municipality's article as a notable resident. None. This is you being a bully, following me around with your "I'll show you" bully agenda. They pay property taxes. They own property. There also is no requirement that something in one article must be referenced in another.

At this point I think it is well enough established that for some reason you two have nothing better to do then follow me around. There are literally millions upon millions of articles for you both to engage in, but you two chose to gang up on a new user and incessantly badger me and inhibit anything that I worked on. What a truly horrifying experience.


 * Neither account has edited in 5 days, nor has the known IP. both user pages labeled "good bye".  I would if within policy suggest blocking both til a comment appears on a talk page of one or the other indicating that they are getting the jist of what you are saying below. John from Idegon (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * /, you can't just create new accounts whenever the whim hits you and then continue editing the same topics, it is now allowed per policy. Please let me know which of your accounts you would like to continue editing with, I will block the other one. Moving forward you can only edit from a single account unless you have an exceptional reason covered under WP:SOCKLEGIT. Please don't respond with any additional walls of text - the only thing I need to know is which single account you intend to edit from moving forward. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all of their accounts with a link back to this SPI. If they would like to return to editing they just need to let me know which single account they would like to use from the following:
 * or
 * or
 * or
 * or
 * or


 * I'm closing this report pending the return of the editor behind the accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)