Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose (3rd)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Subhash bose[edit]
Previous Case 2 Previous Case 1
The user Subhash bose is under ban , this new account created subsequent to the ban has started editing almost the same set of articles that Subhash did.It is already established that this user's IP is the same as University of Texas at Austin, the same as Subhash.
- Actually, this is a lie. Subhash's ip is, based on his talks, a roadrunner ip from a private service provider, same as mine at home, though I do not use tmy home computer to edit on wikipedia. I edit from UT, Subhash bose|Netaji edits from home.I'm sure that if admins check his server logs of wikipedia he will see this.Hkelkar 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's not a lie. As you can see from one of his suspected sockpuppets (User:128.83.131.121) that admitted to being Subhash bose[1], User:128.83.131.121 also traces to the University of Texas at Austin. So we don't need an admin to tell us that Subhash bose frequently edits from the UT network. Another IP, User:128.83.131.139, who began editing (during Subhash bose's block) the same articles that Subhash bose edits frequently, also traces to the same location and is suspicious for the same reason. BhaiSaab talk 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about past accusations, as I wans't involved in them. This present accusation is based on the claim that bose's recen tip edits are from UT, and the accuser above states that the ip address is "the same as Subhash's", and that is a lie on two counts. Firstly, since a simple traceruote of his ip (beginning with 66.) will show that it traces to a residential locality in Austin, not in UT. Secondly, even this "previous ip" is not the same as twist, which is where I'm presently editing from. Twist is located in the basement third floor of UT. I am an experimentalist, and my lab is very near twist, so I use it (for securoty reasons, my prof does not connect his lab machines, other than his own, to the WAN). Netaji, being a high-handed theorist, would never come below the 8th floor of the RLM building at UT so he wouldn't access twist.Also, I believe that many of his talk page edits are only a few minutes apart from mine. Are you suggesting that he went at relativistic speeds to UT and home and edited them? He must be a superman or something! Plus, so many users have tried to bait and vandalize his talk page regarding this that an admin has locked it several times. I believe that this is indicative of a concerted witchhunt against him.Hkelkar 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Subhash bose has verifiably edited from 128.83.131.121. You're essentially saying that he cannot edit from the nearly-identical IP, 128.83.131.139; I doubt that. BhaiSaab talk 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because 2 ip addresses are "nearly identical" does not mean they are in physical proximity. Ip addresses are virtual and do not specify physical location to the last foot.In fact, the two machines are physically separated by many floors in a very large building, called RLM (Robert Lee Moore Hall), which predominantly contains the Department of Physics.Hkelkar 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Subhash bose has verifiably edited from 128.83.131.121. You're essentially saying that he cannot edit from the nearly-identical IP, 128.83.131.139; I doubt that. BhaiSaab talk 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about past accusations, as I wans't involved in them. This present accusation is based on the claim that bose's recen tip edits are from UT, and the accuser above states that the ip address is "the same as Subhash's", and that is a lie on two counts. Firstly, since a simple traceruote of his ip (beginning with 66.) will show that it traces to a residential locality in Austin, not in UT. Secondly, even this "previous ip" is not the same as twist, which is where I'm presently editing from. Twist is located in the basement third floor of UT. I am an experimentalist, and my lab is very near twist, so I use it (for securoty reasons, my prof does not connect his lab machines, other than his own, to the WAN). Netaji, being a high-handed theorist, would never come below the 8th floor of the RLM building at UT so he wouldn't access twist.Also, I believe that many of his talk page edits are only a few minutes apart from mine. Are you suggesting that he went at relativistic speeds to UT and home and edited them? He must be a superman or something! Plus, so many users have tried to bait and vandalize his talk page regarding this that an admin has locked it several times. I believe that this is indicative of a concerted witchhunt against him.Hkelkar 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's not a lie. As you can see from one of his suspected sockpuppets (User:128.83.131.121) that admitted to being Subhash bose[1], User:128.83.131.121 also traces to the University of Texas at Austin. So we don't need an admin to tell us that Subhash bose frequently edits from the UT network. Another IP, User:128.83.131.139, who began editing (during Subhash bose's block) the same articles that Subhash bose edits frequently, also traces to the same location and is suspicious for the same reason. BhaiSaab talk 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is a lie. Subhash's ip is, based on his talks, a roadrunner ip from a private service provider, same as mine at home, though I do not use tmy home computer to edit on wikipedia. I edit from UT, Subhash bose|Netaji edits from home.I'm sure that if admins check his server logs of wikipedia he will see this.Hkelkar 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tone and tenor of arguments and edits by both these accounts are same, and I have noted the following similarities in their writing styles.
Similarities in reasoning using Logic:
Netaji:
The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) [2]
HKelkar
The very claim that RSS is fascist is a POV statement unless it is qualified as a claim, since there are ample arguments to refute their alleged "fascism". Thus, you are gaming the argument by a circular logic. You have assumed the very thing you are trying to establish and that won;t work. It is like saying A->B because A->B. Munje went abroad, then founded an org in India. Association does not prove ideology.Hkelkar 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC) [3]
Similarity in reactions:
Netaji
I'm afraid your most recent edit 'boycott of muslims' had absolutely nothing to do with the Gujarat riots and is a completely independent event. Plus, your extract from the supreme court was unnecessarily long because it is already cited and quoted, and I have adequately paraphrased your POV. Please refrain from further anti-Hindu propaganda or we will have a revert war on our hands. Agree upon a compromise and move on.Netaji 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [4]
Hkelkar
I'm afraid attacking the source is the last resort of a losing argument. I have not attacked any sources, merely questioned them. I admit that generally Christianpost is partisan. Since a non-Hindu site has not attacked a hindu organization in this case, it bears mentioning. Plus, the article is written by a non-Christian. The thesis was submitted through Sorbonne University, Paris, France.Hkelkar 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) [5]
Noting that the same source Christianpost has been mentioned by user Subhash Bose in this edit
There is very high probability that this is a new Sock Account created to facilitate Subhash to circumvent the ban.I have noted another user Bakasuprman to be continually trolling the pages where evidence against Subhash has been mentioned.He has already mentioned in a few edits the necessity to "make noise" to influence the case checkers TerryJ-Ho 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, plz refer to bose's talk page for counterarguments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Subhash_bose#Sockpuppetry_case_2
Note - Checkuser came out InconclusiveBakaman Bakatalk 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content moved to the discussion page by Bakaman TerryJ-Ho 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - view talk page for responses Bakaman Bakatalk 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I believe that this case is bogus, as I have provided conclusive evidence in previous cases that I am not Netaji's sock puppet or any other kind of puppet. I believe that this is an indirect response to our debate on the talk page of RSS party here:
I have obtained help from Netaji regarding this offline (we are in the same department and meet up during lunch , discuss etc.). That is why we have cited the same source, he referred it to me. I am told that may be construed as "meatpuppetry". While I disagree, if an admin thinks I shouldn't correspond with Netaji regarding wikipedia then, of course, I will cease to do so. As for our sockpuppetry accusation; I reietrate that we have already cleared that up with the admins on irc, where we chatted with them from different computers (established by different ip addresses). Plus, Netaji edits from his home mostly, as his ip address is not UT (see that chat transcript), and mine is AT UT, miles away from his home. The chat transcript is located here:
posted there by netaji. I believe the admin can get independent confirmation from admins Blnguyen and Skriet.
- Open two sessions of chat (using same or different client)and send the information you want to convey or call a friend ask him to type what you want to convey ..and your proof is ready..assuming good faith does not being being naiive..TerryJ-Ho
- Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is probably true.If you look at the chat transcript, you will see that the edits made by both users are often within seconds of each other. This is impossible under the pretxt above, unless Neta is a relativistic typist. Plus, the login made at that time by me, Hkelkar, was from another ip. Thus, I am clearly a different person who has made another login at that time itself BY YOUR OWN arguments. Therefore, from that time on, I have been making edits from twist while bose has been editing his talk page from home (I'm guessing, or maybe from another UT machine, certainly not twist, which I use all the time). Thus, even if I was a person typing under Bose's direction (a patently false claim), the login created by me since then is unique to me and so I am now established as a unique user distinct from bose.Hkelkar 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this may be a manouever by the accuser in order to get his opponents blocked so that he can make unsubtantiated claims (which I have refuted) on wikipedia articles. Of course, in the interests of assuming good faith, I will say that this is only a possibility and hope that I am wrong. I also hope hope that TerryJ-Ho will refrain from wasting his time smearing his users and use his abilities to contribute to wikipedia.Hkelkar 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, earlier case filed against netaji and myself as sockpuppets (I'm sure admin can look for it) was dropped.Hkelkar 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Note for admin that the first block on Netaji using Pussyamitra Sunga Login was confirmed by an email the user sent to the admin with the same email address rather than thru the RFCU TerryJ-Ho 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. I do not know about what Netaji did in the past, nor can I speak for him.Hkelkar 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I think things have been cleared now. Lemme add my worth in saying that neither User:Hkelkar nor I are sockpuppets of anybody, each other, of the Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons or anyone. I took a detailed log of the chat I had with Hkelkar, User:Blnguyen and User:Srikeit, both admins and it was clear that we are 2 different people. We conversed within seconds (not minutes as Hrishi said above) of each other and so it is categorically impossible for me to direct him, unless I break the world's typing record! Plus, my ip address is to my roadrunner ISP, and his is to UT's twist.ph.utexas.edu. So there!Netaji 01:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, the correct way of saying it is "permutations and combinations". See netaji? Even we experimentalists know things :). Anywho I suppose I should be honored that you think I'm a big theorist like Netaji, but, sadly , I am just a meager experimentalist.Hkelkar 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Netmeeting? Ii netmeeting kaa hai bhai? Ii sub fancy-shmancy humre nahin maloom.
- <Translation: In a yokel's voice> Netmeeting? What is this netmeeting? I do not know all these fancy-shmancy things.
- Anywho I think you give me waaay too much credit. I have too much of a life to waste time on such underhanded tactics.Netaji 12:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see the point in this case. A RFCU is far more reliable than the judgment of an admin closing this case. The RFCU came back inconclusive, meaning that they are not the same person; however, this does not rule out meatpuppetry. Iolakana•T 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User has removed the Sockpuppeteer tag unilaterally
[6]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rushdie (talk • contribs) .
- Nope. The tag is still there right on my user page Salmaan-bhai.Shiva's Trident 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't removed. Rushdie is merely another person out to get Subhash.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]