Sodapaps

Sodapaps (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
26 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets

Self-admitted IP socks

To be determined

Evidence submitted by InaMaka

Their edit summaries are similar, essentially violating repeatedly WP:LIVING claiming Kristi Noem "is a college dropout"--in POV--manner--even though she currently is in college at South Dakota State University, claiming over and over again that SDSU could not be listed as Noem's alma mater because Noem did not graduate, inserting POV pushing personal commentary on Noem's farm subsidies, etc. Please re--InaMaka (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)view these very, very similar edits by anon IPs and Sodapaps:[reply]

Since the block of Sodapaps the other anon IP editors have not returned--leading one to believe that Sodapaps was the source of all of the various IPs with very, very similar edits.--InaMaka (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 64.179.158.185 IP address is Rapid City, South Dakota and 24.220.251.91 is Watertown, South Dakota, therefore they are not located all over the place.--InaMaka (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are located on opposite sides of the state. Do you honestly believe he/she drives 200 miles just to sockpuppet? -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Cool your jets. No, of course, I don't think Sodapaps is driving throughout the U.S. or South Dakota to sockpuppet. That's a very silly point that really should go without saying, but now having edited on Wikipedia for years I guess should not assume that everyone assumes such blantantly obvious pieces of information. However, Sodapaps could be using an IP proxy server and that explains the Washington, D.C. IP address and the others. That is has ALWAYS been my point. I NEVER believed that Sodapaps is driving around the country to sockpuppet, that's just silly and truly a non-issue--a red herring if you will. Now, let's focus on the meat of the discussion which is the edits from ALL of IP addresses were basically the same--tone of voice, exact same wording, etc. That should be the focus and not where the IP address came from because once again, as you should know, the IP addresses can be masked with a proxy server. I apologize to anyone who had to read this sophomoric explanation of the obvious, but it had to be done.--InaMaka (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Marcus: I am not the only person that has noticed that Sodapaps' editing is coming from very different places. A Wikipedia admin asked Sodapaps to explain how he was commenting on my talk page from two different places in the country in the same day. One of the IP addresses that he used on my talk page is 67.54.133.37, which is Lodgepole, South Dakota, and the other one is 64.179.158.185, which is Rapid City, South Dakota. Also, on my talk page, Sodapaps claims that 64.179.158.185 is where he is located. He specifically states that 64.179.158.185 is him. Now, as he is talking to me CKatz, an admin, notices that he is also talking to me from 67.54.133.37 which is Lodgepole, SD. Now, how is he talking to me from two different spots in South Dakota on the same day that are 123 miles away from each other? The simple answer is that he was using a proxy server to jump around and pretend that several different editors completely agreed with his POV pushing, his exact wording, and all six were working on the exact same article, Kristi Noem, on the exact same day. That explanation seems pretty far fetched to me. Also, if there were five or six other editors out there that disagreed with my edits and my complaints and they completely agreed with Sodapaps' edits then why haven't these six supposedly different editors come forward to edit the article while Sodapaps is blocked? Why haven't they come forward to defend Sodapaps' honor in this particular forum, since I placed a notice on each of their talk pages? The simple answer, again, is that they are all Sodapaps and he was using proxy servers to pretend there was six editors, three in SD and three on the east coast interested in fairly obscure SD politician and they all agreed with him.--InaMaka (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't know what InaMaka has against me. Yeah, this is Sodapaps and, oh my, I'm on a different IP because I'm blocked. That was hard to get around. So check it, I'm tethered to my cell. First off, I don't understand why I would have to go to such lengths as using an IP filter to post on Wikipedia. Obviously by the fact that I have a registered account and use it when InaMaka hasn't convinced the admin's to block me (even though he has continually provoked me for no reason and continues to lie about me), I am not concerned about my IP. Secondly, InaMaka is lying once again. 67.54.133.37 is a WildBlue IP, and as I already explained I was at a work retreat in the Black Hills this weekend which uses WildBlue for their internet. (Satalite... surprise, surprise, located in Minnesota. Since InaMaka can't get it right, here is the full information on that IP. Minnesota. Faribault. 55021. Wildblue communications.) Further, does it surprise anyone that folks in the Virginia/D.C. area would be posting on the page of someone running for national office? I mean, let me think. Who in the D.C. area would have an interest in "obscure" South Dakota politics? Let me think... oh yeah, people in politics... and, it's not "obscure" its a national race. As to why none of those IP's are coming forward, perhaps it's because they, like me, have grown weary of trying to make legitimate posts and having InaMaka remove them and refuse to work with any of us on working out the language, etc. At one point I did post to InaMaka's page (or was it Kristi's talk page) that I was thankful that we could come to a compromise in its current format, to which he simply insulted me again by calling me a sockpuppet. Personally, as I have stated to the admins, I could care less what you do to me or my IP, but if you ban all those other IP's, you will be banning folks that are simply victims of InaMaka's tyranny. Yes, I know. No personal attacks. Well, truth is truth and you can't get around that. (The following IP will be for Verizon Wireless.) -Sodapaps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.131.22 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to point out another blatant lie of InaMaka: My first edit was on June 18. After that, editing continued on June 19, June 20, and June 21, though I was not a participant in those edits. On June 22 I created an account and logged in as Sodapaps to create more edits. June 18 - 22 = 5 days. InaMaka claims all this happened on one day. Obviously he is not above stretching the truth to prove his point. On a similar note, it saddens and angers me that I create a legitimate account because I want to make some edits, and in my first experience as a Wikipedia editor I run into someone like InaMaka who has made me feel beyond unwelcome, who has repeatedly called me a nubie and a liar, and who has continually called me a sockpuppet (admittedly a term I had not even heard until this whole thing). I am thankful at least that InaMaka has been called out on this to some extent, and I apologize that I let my anger get the best of me. That being said, I hope other new editors don't have the same experience I have had. -Sodapaps, posting on tethered cell. Yup, there's another IP to add to known socks list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.150.203.81 (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one for ya, InaMaka. Hey, maybe you can block the enter Verizon network. That'd be cool. -Sodapaps on phone thether —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.197.135 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear from the two current conversations on InaMaka's talk page that his character on these matters is certainly questionable. He likes to call people names, accuse them of lying even though he has no evidence to support this, and use intimidation techniques to get a rise out of editors. On the same page you will see that he has even been warned about this by Wikipedia admins. He has even responded to them in less than civil tones. I sincerely hope that no one takes him and his complaints seriously.Sodapaps (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the above isn't enough to discredit InaMaka and his claim, then perhaps we could look at his history found on his archived talk page. I am especially fascinated by the number of times he has broken Wikipedia rules, and been asked by other editors to act more civil. His responses to these things are more often than not condescending, arrogant, and just plain rude. He clearly has no regard for the Wikipedia civility rules and his snobbery must be stopped.Sodapaps (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but I believe if an IP is non-portable it can't be used as a proxy as is being claimed. So that would eliminate 140.239.100.85 and 24.220.251.91. Just trying to move things along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodapaps (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

I did a whois and they are located all around the country. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the IPs are self-admitted to be IP socks of this account. Sodapaps posted comments as 64.179.158.185, then changed the signature to "Sodapaps", and admitted to using the IP here. He/she did the same thing with a talk page post from the IP 67.54.133.37, changing the sig to "Sodapaps". --Ckatzchatspy 20:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Regardless of what it says above, it is clear that Sodapaps has engaged in socking (He basically admitted it.) and has openly implied that he will continue to do so. Indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. –MuZemike 07:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More