Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perpetualgrasp/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

There has been persistent disruptive editing on the John McGuirk article by several anon IPs. While the others are probably too old to look at, at this stage, the 134.226.x.x IP is still trying to edit. The IP is removing reference to the nature of the website and disputing sourcing. Diff 1, Diff 2.

After restricting edits to autoconfirmed users, user Perpetualgrasp began attempting to edit the page and engaged on the talk page. User Perpetualgrasp has made no edits to any other article, only to that article, it's talk page, and associated users' talk pages. Their attempted edits to the article are identical to those of the IP: Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5.

After that last edit, at 12:30 on the 25 May, I gave them a a 3RR warning, at 14:49. The 134.226 IP then attempts their edits (Diff 1 and 2 above).

User NakamuraTaki has made two edits, ever - one to create their user page (in Japanese, where they declare themselves to be a "girl gamer living in the south"), one to the talk page of the John McGuirk article, where they make the same argument Perpetualgrasp and the IP.

This is pretty much a WP:DUCK case, I think. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would point out that Bastun has presented no evidence that there is any link between myself and others who have edited, or attempted to edit, the page, other than that we have attempted to make similiar edits. Whilst Bastun clearly believes that implies collusion or sockpuppetry I would argue it instead represents a view amongst readers that the claims made in the article, which I believe were added by Bastun himself, are incorrect or biased. Bastun himself has repeatedly implied that I am acting in an incorrect or bad faith manner, due merely to the fact I have argued that I think he has constructed an article that does not adhere to WP:NPOV.


 * I have engaged on the Talk page as to the reason for my edits, and I have also pointed out, in relation to 3RR, that Bastun's original reversions of my change did not provide a legitimate reason for that reversion - had they done so I would have taken my case to the Talk page earlier. It is my view that Bastun seeks to priveledge a particular narrative, and is ignoring mainstream sources which do not support that viewpoint, Whilst I would hold to WP:ASF, it appears, on the face of it, that Bastun is not acting to improve the article, but rather to pervert it. This latest accusation is, I thought, simply a vexatious attempt to preclude me from arguing against his edits. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also point out, whilst accepting that it may be coincidental, that this investigation was opened by Bastun roughly 10 minutes after a more senior editor approved my addition of a tag indicating an NPOV dispute to the article in question. That addition was based on a 50% split between 4 editors, including myself and Bastun, but which did not include the accounts Bastun has argued are under my control.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A) FWIW, it took more than 10 minutes to write the report above, including, as it does, various diffs and links copied from three different pages, but sure. B) Perpetualgrasp is obviously not privy to the inner workings of 's thought processes, but "seniority" does not come into it, and I'm fairly sure it was not based on a "50% split" in some imaginary poll :-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just to be clear that I'm no more "senior" than anyone else here (except maybe in my Victor Meldrew-esque mindset). However I do agree the article needed the NPOV tag (which is why I approved it) as it's clear there's a dispute; once it's resolved it can be removed. That said, I don't think the timing of this SPI is in any way questionable, and I think Bastun is right to raise this. — Czello 14:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that one of the IP addresses noted above as being a potential sockpuppet of mine has returned to the article in question and is arguing against my position. Well, I suppose it's more accurate to say someone in Trinity College who shares the IP address has returned to the article in question.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I don't have an opinion on whether or not Perpetualgrasp is NakamuraTaki, but I certainly don't believe Perpetualgrasp is new here. Their third edit referenced "NPOV" in the edit summary, and that's before they even got a welcome message. Even their first and second edits mentioned neutrality and assuming good faith. Woodroar (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a compliment - This is actually the first, and only, time I've ever edited, or commented upon, a Wikipedia article but I did try and read up on what the SOP here was before making my first edits and remarks.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible, I'll admit. Just not the norm! Woodroar (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌ ST47 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)