I've had a small part in a recent debate over at Talk:Metamodernism. Most of the problems over there have to do with a website titled MetaModernism.com that is being pushed by editor Festal82 to be included as a primary source. Given that this is a pretty obscure topic, mixed with the site's extremely low Alexa ranking, there's been some discussion made (in some cases outing, which I would not normally condone as per AGF) about Festal82 himself being one of the owners of MetaModernism.com (which, btw, is a blog created by Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker to promote this "metamodernism" term they found and redefined/reapplied). Festal82 seems to be quite heavily emotionally invested in this topic to the point of adding talk page messages that are just a bit over 16k characters in length. Festal82 is also a SPA, which is made clear by his edit history which provides absolutely no edits that don't involve the Metamodernism page in some way (his handful of edits that aren't on Metamodernism or Talk:Metamodernism are either on the talk pages of other users who have edited Metamodernism, or linking to Metamodernism in other articles). What really made me suspicious was when two new SPAs popped up, Mz1933 and Jojojomamama, both seemingly sharing the same views on the subject as Festal82 (Jojojomamama's first and thus far only edit was an edit request that wasn't actually a request, but rather an opinion on how the article should be written that suspiciously mimics some of Festal82's previous points, especially those in the 16k character post I linked already). The appearance of these accounts led me to look over the article's history, which showed a suspicious trend: the article would be edited primarily by one SPA until that account quit editing, which would occur shortly before another would show up (which a brief period of IPs primarily editing). The SPA accounts appear in this order of earliest to most recent: Fredrik holmsted, Robin van den akker, AColte, Metamodernist, Findmeaway, Festal82. None of these accounts have edited after the next appeared, with Festal82 being the latest. It should also be noted that all of them speak in the same distinct manner as Festal82, which is basically a mix of buzzwords and "metamodernist theory" from MetaModernism.com (ie, Festal82's "I agree absolutely that metamodernism is not a "club," that it is instead a "cultural paradigm."" comment on Talk:Metamodernism is extremely comparable to Metamodernist's "Metamodernism as a paradigm of inquiry" edit summary). The most important of these accounts to this case is User:Robin van den akker, who I would say it's safe to assume is the same Robin van den Akker that co-authors MetaModernism.com as referenced in Metamodernism. This helps make the Festal82 = a MetaModernism.com author theory much more believable. This edit helps clarify that den Akker is very set on using WP to promote his website/writing, which he does by readding information added by Fredrik holmsted (who created the Metamodernism page) that had to do with him and his theory of "metamodernism".
To summarize, all of these accounts are SPAs here to edit Metamodernism in favor of den Akker's writings, each of which disappears shortly before the next is registered with Festal82 being the current and latest account following this trend. Perfect for you (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Saying "both seemingly share the same views" was probably not the best way to word that, but the point I'm getting at is both accounts showed up in support of Festal82 within a week of his edits coming into question. Mz1933 readded information originally placed in the article by Festal82 that had been removed by other editors. Jojojomamama's single edit was an edit request that wasn't actually a request but rather a brief reiteration of Festal82's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metamodernism&diff=prev&oldid=614596404 various] previous comments. I would also like to add that within the last 24 hours, yet another SPA showed up to defend Festal82's position, this one suspiciously knowing a bit more policy than the previous ones (ie, "I do not believe my doubts and comments should be discarded just because I am a SPA"). Something is obviously going on here, if it isn't elaborate sockpuppetry, Festal82 may be lobbying by communicating with meatpuppets offsite. Perfect for you (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The three editors for Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com are Luke Turner, who operates on Wikipedia (and on the metamodernism article) as Esmeme; Timotheus Vermeulen; and Robin van den Akker. Vermeulen, a Google search reveals, lives in Germany; Turner, in London; van den Akker, in the Netherlands. I am an American, and any IP search will reveal that. I have absolutely no association with Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com, nor have I ever "pushed for it to be a primary source"--in fact, my edits, more than any other editor's, have focused on adding citations to the article that are not from Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com. I think the above editor has me confused with "Esmeme," who is indeed an editor for Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com, and has indeed pushed--for months now--for the only reading of metamodernism on Wikipedia to be the one from his website, Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com. (Other editors pushing this view, who also oddly don't appear in this SPA request, include "inanygivenhole.") Meanwhile, some of the handles mentioned above, for instance "mz1933," have solely participated in the metamodernism article (as a quick search reveals) to include information not promoted by Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com. And my own involvement has involved stridently emphasizing that the article cannot limit itself to Vermeulen/van den Akker/Turner's reading of metamodernism. Any search of the "Talk" page will confirm this. As I've said before, I'm an American metamodernist studies scholar; while there are indeed NoM/Metamodernism.com editors editing that article, somehow this SPA request has managed to miss most or all of them and I wonder why that is. Festal82 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's his view of things. This is not ANI nor a drama board and not the place to report disputes or problems with editors. ANI is the place to report people for violating policy. Each person is entitled to their view (including defending themselves), in line with policies. Clerks here are not biased, and will weigh the evidence appropriately. We are not here to continue the dispute of articles. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
Hi, another obvious sockpuppet of Festal82 has appeared: GLA1976. The new account popped up within the last hour and removed the Neutrality/External Links tags on the Seth Abramson page without any reason, and deleted my comments about the need for a cleanup after confirmed sockpuppetry on the Talk page [1] (under the false claim that they were 'archiving' them, but actually they simply deleted them entirely). They also whitewashed the negative comments from the "controversy" section of the article, and reinserted more of their metamodernism spam: Special:Contributions/GLA1976 Esmeme (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Another obvious sockpuppet has popped up on the metamodernism talk page, trying once again to start up Festal82's line of disruptive editing. The well-trodden pattern to this is a) an attempt to remove or downplay the significance of the manifesto section, whose notability has been discussed exhaustively and long since established by other legitimate editors with an abundance of reliable sources, and b) to try to bring back the WP:SYNTH "History" section that Festal introduced, in accordance with Abramson's hoax Huffington Post blog posts, and to also unduly position Seth Abramson's name here. Since Festal's sockpuppets are the only accounts who have ever argued for this, going back months, and since this account has sprouted just hours after the most recent sockpuppet account was banned, this seems cut and dry.
While these sockpuppets are currently springing up all the time, I feel that extending to the metamodernism page the same protection that DeltaQuad has put on the Seth Abramson page would also be helpful. Esmeme (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I could provide more examples, but this gives a flavor. Having been active in the discussions on the page for many months, I'm absolutely certain that this is one of Festal's puppets, and that the comments on the talk page are trying to introduce some kind of unwanted disruption to the peace and consensus the page has enjoyed since Festal's ban, and to once again unduly promote Abramson's writing. The user is also continuing Festal's habit of misrepresenting and unjustly attacking my edits, despite the fact that I have always been transparent and sought consensus--and the fact that my recent increased activity was to repair the damage Festal caused.
The fact that the user is so keen to make their IP address visible--including this strange statement while posting under the IP: "(using a public computer now and I'm a privacy weirdo)" [8]--makes it seem likely that either they were in another location at the time of the post, or possibly using a meat puppet on this occasion, so I don't know how one deals with it if this is the case? Esmeme (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@Esmeme: Additional information needed At this time, I think you were a little overzealous with this one. I went and looked through the CU logs and compared the IP that edited the talkpage, and compared it with the logs on the last check I ran. By this alone, I think they are unrelated, without running the CU check. Could you present where Festal82's comments line up with this user's in relation to the same talkpage? If those line up, I'd be willing to consider a check. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)