Festal82

Festal82 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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)[reply]

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

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)[reply]

For the first time in my life I just literally "threw up my hands." As in physically. Anyone--anyone at all--could go to the metamodernism "Talk" page, as in right now, and see that the person you're now saying "defend[s] my position" actually just did the opposite--they attacked it. Unambiguously. Meanwhile, you're busy posting a JPG of a beer mug on my User page and telling me to just chill out and not worry about things? What is wrong with you? Why don't you just leave me alone? You have a consistent habit--you've done it at least 15 times in the last week, all in plain view on the metamodernism "Talk" page--of trying to screw with me (and more than that, other editors, too) by making observations that are literally the opposite of what's just happened. I don't know you, obviously, but clearly there is something very wrong here. Do all the SPIs you want, I'm not doing any of the things you accuse me of so blithely. This is a crazy witch-hunt that is just getting crazier, and dare I say creepier, by the minute. I would ask you to stop but I have known people like this before and you don't ever stop, do you? The bigger mystery is what possible satisfaction you could be getting from all this. Festal82 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not sure how the locations of those men have anything to do with this, seeing as how the IPs are not the focal point of the case and location information has not been entered as part of the SPI. Can you explain how you think this helps your case? It just sounds like more dodging the issue to me... Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide evidence (in the form of edit diffs) for your accusations against User:Esmeme? (Not to mention your continuous dragging of other users into this, such as myself.) It sounds like you're confused about what User:Perfect for you meant by "the same views"--those people, myself included, hold the opposite view. Just because it is opposed to yours doesn't mean they are "SPA". I think you meant "SPI" there, though, since even a brief look through my edit history will show that to be a farce. Please don't make more baseless accusations (or insults!), Festal, they get tiresome. You gave enough on the talk page... Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NB: User:Festal82 does not appear to want to reply to the above. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is infuriating. I have repeatedly wrongly been accused by Festal of being Turner or others, simply because I worked with Rhododendrites and other editors to find reliable sources for Turner's manifesto, Vermeulen/der Akker's contributions and other notable events on the metamodernism page. We have all had to contend with an endless barrage of nonsense from him with his self-confessed "reverse psychology" tactics on the metamodernism talk page and Wikipedia:Gaming the system, whereas I have consistently worked to try to maintain the factual integrity of the page, along with Inanygivenhole and other users who have been working to build consensus. My (minimal) additions to the article itself demonstrate this.
I wouldn't think that Festal is related to mm.com, given his edits, but would be more concerned (as other editors are) with his drive--for whatever reason--to try to synthesize a history with previous uses of the term whose notability and relevance seems questionable at best: Zavarzadeh, Dumitrescu, Abramson, etc. The edit history of Jsd1989 Special:Contributions/Jsd1989, with their sudden lengthy contribution to the page yesterday--out of nowhere, and without any mention on the talk page--bracketed by nothing but minor grammar edits to other pages right after the account was set up in between Festal's edits, looks particularly suspicious to me. Esmeme (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is incredibly frustrating. I've been accused, at various points, by the users above, of being Timotheus Vermeulen, Seth Abramson, Robin van den Akker, and others. So I know the frustration of false accusations. Esmeme, do you deny being the anonymous London IP address 109.156.163.14, who on April 7th, 2014 appeared suddenly on the metamodernism article and removed all names and links and citations from the article that were not associated with Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com (or Luke Turner's website, Metamodernism.org), only to appear minutes later as Esmeme, claiming to have made only minimal edits to the page, and having no special animus toward Seth Abramson or non-NoM sources? Really, your claims of having had minimal involvement in the editing of the page are belied by the Wikipedia-produced statistic showing that you (as Esmeme) have made about 13% of all edits ever made to metamodernism in the four years the article has existed--i.e., about one out of every seven. Moreover, it's telling that you object to edits, here and elsewhere, on the grounds of WP:OUTING--and in violation of WP:AGF--rather than just looking at the edit and saying, "Is this a well-sourced addition to Wikipedia?"
By contrast, when I have objected to your edits it's been either (a) because you insisted on using Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com (or Luke Turner's blog, Metamodernism.org) as a primary source, while objecting to the use of sources from WP:N media like The Huffington Post and Indiewire, (b) because they've involved the removal of WP:N scholarly and popular sources whose additions you've complained about seemingly because they sourced the work of Zavarzadeh, Dumitrescu, and others rather than Turner and his associates, or (c) because they insisted that the article be "about" the research of Turner and his associates, rather than about the philosophical concept known as "metamodernism." In any case, the article is finally in a great state, with a seeming consensus reached on many outstanding issues, and then suddenly there's an SPI? That has me wondering, just as Rhododendrites does below, what the game is here.
P.S. I would also direct users wondering about your editing perspective to look at your angry edits of May 26th, which I don't think neutral observers would consider anything but the product of some strange animus toward specific individuals not associated with NoM. Likewise, your emotional defense of using Luke Turner's blog as a primary source, at a time when other editors were attempting to eliminate even WP:N primary sources from the article, is telling. You also insisted that you knew Luke Turner had written The Metamodernist Manifesto, even when the Manifesto itself said Shia LaBeouf had written it--a claim echoed in major media such as The Independent and The Guardian. Somehow you knew better. How? Festal82 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what the accusation is above. The IP address Festal mentions isn't even a London one according to the search I just ran at http://www.whereisip.net, but is from Leicester, UK, which is a completely different place, and there doesn't appear to be an edit on 7th April that "removed all names and links and citations not associated with Notes on Metamodernism." We discussed all the contentious points on the talk page and found consensus, and I worked in particular to find secondary sources for all the things you mention. As I have said previously, I have indeed been aware of the manifesto for a couple of years, not to mention the fact that it has Turner's name on the bottom, and myself and Rhododendrites worked to find secondary sources that put the authorship of it beyond any doubt. I'm done with all your mud-slinging. Please stop throwing around baseless accusations. Esmeme (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Esmeme? You haven't pushed Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com and Luke Turner's Metamodernism.org as the only websites worthy of citation in the metamodernism article? Here are the first ten edits you made to the article: (1) Three links to Metamodernism.com added; (2) an attempt to remove Seth Abramson from the article (whose presence in the article was at that time supported by two websites that were not Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com); (3) the removal of two citations to websites that were not Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com; (4) the adding of three names of metamodernists only discussed as such on Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com; (5) an edit insisting that Luke Turner (of Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com) wrote the Metamodernist Manifesto, when every major media outlet in your country (the UK) and mine (the US) were saying Shia LaBeouf wrote it because (a) he said so, and (b) his name was listed on the document itself as the author; and (6) an attempt to remove four names from the article with citations to The Poetry Foundation, The Huffington Post, and Indiewire.
All told, in those first ten edits you added five links to the non-WP:N blog Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com and removed eight links to sites other than Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com, among them three WP:N publications: The Poetry Foundation, The Huffington Post, and Indiewire. That's just in your first ten edits. In later edits you would object to citations from the Journal of American Studies, World Literature Today, The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Contemporary Literature, and (once again) The Huffington Post and Indiewire--all WP:N publications. Meanwhile, you would continue to argue that the only use of the term "metamodernism" worthy of discussion in the WP article on metamodernism was the one presently in use on--you guessed it--the blog Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com.
I fought you on all of those changes--and now I'm being investigated for trying to push Notes on Metamodernism/Metamodernism.com? And you're indignant? Are you joking? Festal82 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I objected to these changes because of reasons well documented on the article's talk page. As myself and other editors wrote at the time, I strongly felt each of those additions to be either unreliable, irrelevant, self-promotion, or WP:SYNTH. End of story. Yes, I do believe, as I have consistently argued, that Vermeulen/der Akker's definition of metamodernism is the prominently understood one, and have sought to find numerous secondary sources to back this up. I was previously unaware that mm.com was considered a "blog", but I have not added any citations from that site ever since objections were raised on the talk page. Please do not try to "fight" me on anything, but seek consensus as myself and other editors have done. Also, please do not patronize me by speculating wildly about which country I am in. Thank you! Esmeme (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Festal has made 27.17% of the total edits to the metamodernism page, and the vast majority of my own 11.75% of the total edits was to undo changes made by Festal and IP addresses that appeared to be unreliable or controversial content. Esmeme (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the end of the story. This is Wikipedia, not a place for you to unilaterally decide what material is "unreliable," "irrelevent," or "self-promotion." You repeatedly ignored citations to WP:N popular and scholarly sources because you didn't like what those sources said--period. That (your WP:OR and mere opinions) wasted hours of time for me and for other editors working on the metamodernism article. Meanwhile, your edits based on WP:SYNTH were anything but--you removed citations independently establishing readings of metamodernism that differed from your own not because they were all linked together (per WP:SYNTH), but for precisely the opposite reason: because each was entirely distinct, and differed from Vermeulen and van den Akker sufficiently to arouse your ire. As for your country of origin, do you want to know how I know you live in the UK, and not the US? Because in the US 100 people have read Abramson's definition of metamodernism for every one who has ever heard the last name "Vermeulen." Your eurocentric approach to metamodernism is based on where you live, and the names your friends use when they speak (if they ever do) of metamodernism. Meanwhile, in a much more populous and (for better or worse) culturally influential nation, any talk about metamodernism that's happening is happening--whether you like it or not--on WP:N sites like The Huffington Post and Indiewire, and is being written, in significant part, by someone you apparently have a bizarre animus against that affects every edit you make. Festal82 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another baffling and completely unwarranted attack. I have replied to Festal's issues above, and as I have made clear, have always sought consensus on the talk page. I rest my case. There is no place on Wikipedia for this sort of behavior. Esmeme (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experiences as an observer at the metamodernism article, this SPI smells bad. I have no idea if Festal82 has used sock puppets, but the content of the accusation -- that he/she has been pushing for metamodernism.com, is very strange since festal82 is one of the editors most critical of the relative authority granted to that website's authors. Furthermore Festal82 has, it appears to me, been rather unrelentingly criticized and hounded by multiple SPAs, new users, and IPs at Talk:Metamodernism, at his/her talk page, and elsewhere, making very similar claims. Without weighing in on who/what is correct in terms of content (as immaterial here), based on the behavior I've seen thus far (including possible socking and other concerns I've raised at ANI) this appears to me to be the latest in a string of attempts to game the system. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a noticeboard for bringing editor behavior to admin attention, then? Festal's gone far enough this time. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Inanygivenhole: @Rhododendrites: Yes, I agree, it would be good if someone could help out here or advise about what to do. The above accusations and attempts to wrongly out me and continually misrepresent my edits (and those of other users) across the talk pages feels like WP:HARASS, and is extremely unpleasant. Esmeme (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting close to losing my patience with this harassment. I literally itemized your edits chronologically, Esmeme--check my work if you doubt it--so your claim that I'm "misrepresenting your edits" is literally an impossibility. And Inanygivenhole has been harassing me for weeks, as I know Rhododendrites has seen--and was attempting to note above, until Inanygivenhole did what s/he has done time and time again: Took exactly the opposite from a comment from what was actually said. Rhododendrites was calling you a bully, Inanygivenhole, not exhorting you to move your bullying to new boards. Festal82 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again I find myself using this template on you, Festal. Really, what's your problem with me? It's rich that you would accuse me of that, since you've shown a consistent pattern of doing the exact same thing yourself. Just ask Esmeme or anyone else who's taken the time to read your half-coherent screeds. Festal, I'm starting to doubt whether you've taken the time to understand a single thing I've said so far, since you've managed to systematically misrepresent and straw-man almost literally all of them. I was asking Rhododendrites if there was a place I could report you to for your wikihounding, WP:OWN issues, and constant harrassment, since the SPI is really in the hands of the checkuser at this point.
I don't see the point of stooping to your level and defending myself against your baseless accusations until you've managed to provide evidence in the form of diffs, like I asked several days ago. Making accusations which you aren't able to defend is an (among other things) annoying, disruptive, and most of all uncivil thing to do and I've had enough of you doing it. Where's the beef? Where's the evidence? Why don't you stop running your mouth for once and put forward some evidence about what you've been accusing me of for over a week now? Inanygivenhole (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that instead of providing evidence, Festal has chosen to engage in further borderline-uncivilized behavior and avoid owning up to his actions. Would anybody be able to tell me which behavior noticeboard I should bring this up at? Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
07 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Please, User:DeltaQuad, I beg you to just hear me out. I have been wrongly banned. If you look at the original investigation, you will see that this other editor, Esmeme, who has been hounding me for months, requested that ten accounts be checked--he claimed all were me. Only 2 were; one had made 163 edits to the article on metamodernism, the other had made just 2 substantive edits. Only 2 were made because I used that account accidentally for literally a matter of minutes; I have ALWAYS edited "metamodernism" as Festal82. The other accounts linked to my IP address (none of which were the original subject of Esmeme's complaint), were used to edit OTHER pages, which I understand is allowed if the handle uses are non-concurrent as to each individual page they edit, and mine were. Esmeme--note, a SPA just like me--is now saying I used "many" puppets to edit "metamodernism." The investigation _proved_ this was unso, and moreover proved nearly all Esmeme's allegations regarding my supposed puppets were false. Please, I beg you to look at the investigation again and see that, as to the "metamodernism" article, all I did was accidentally use a second handle for _ten minutes_ after months of serious and committed editing of the "metamodernism" article and, not for nothing, bullying by Esmeme that was decried by neutral and longtime WP editor "Rhododendrites." — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuerytoDeltaQuad (talk • contribs)
This is nonsense. It wasn't me who filed the original sockpuppet allegation, nor have I ever partaken in any bullying. The evidence clearly showed that Festal was using these other accounts to add to both the metamodernism and Seth Abramson pages. I have also had enough of him bandying about baseless accusations about me, trying to wrongly out me, and continuing to WP:HARASS and terrorize myself and other wikipedia editors. Esmeme (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
07 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: As requested, here are some diffs demonstrating that this account holds precisely the same views as Festal--views that absolutely no other editors on the talk page have agreed with or echoed in the whole time Festal and his puppets have been active:

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)[reply]

I've added another obvious sockpuppet, ClaphamSix, who has made a long post on the Philosophy Project talk page [Edit, this has been moved to the metamodernism talk page here ] mirroring exactly the false claims that Festal makes above in his protestations against his ban. Several of his points also echo exactly Seth Abramson's latest blog post here, where he mentions that very Philosophy Project group. His aim here is clearly to bring into question the hard work the legitimate editors have done on the metamodernism page to debunk Festal/Abramson's hoax history, and to bring other editors to the page that might not be aware of the struggles we've encountered, or the lies Festal has been spewing. This is really becoming a bit of a nightmare to counteract! Esmeme (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: ClaphamSix has now moved onto the Seth Abramson page, and removed the entire controversy section there [9] (a clear case of whitewashing that goes one step further even than GLA1976), arguably removing the most notable and widely reported content on the page. This is surely yet more evidence that they are one of Festal's socks. They have also removed the tags on the page. Esmeme (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another piece of evidence that this is one of Festal's socks: ClaphamSix's demonstrably false claim that I "had 14 accounts checked in the past 30 days", and denials about the multiple disruptive actions of the confirmed sockpuppets [10] - which mirrors Festal's deceitful protestations on this very SPI page above [11]. Esmeme (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I am not sure whether ClaphamSix is a sock or no, but at present this user is behaving well enough - not warring, etc - although with poor discussion skills (just like any new user). There has been a long and serious dispute over the metamodernism article and ClaphamSix at least had the good sense to ask the philosophy WikiProject to weigh in. I think it useful to have both sides represented in the discussion until it is settled. At present, ClaphamSix is the only protagonist for one of these PoVs and I suggest that any further investigation or enforcement on this account be delayed until it proves necessary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to respectfully disagree with this, since Steelpillow may not be fully aware of the history and frustrations we have all experienced on this page with Festal's POV pushing, which no legitimate editors agreed with, and with inaccurate content he attempted to bully through by flooding the discussion with page-long screeds, and WP:HARRASS content, just as this new account is doing. The baseless accusations and straw-manning against me can hardly be considered good behavior. Given the content and manner of his recent posts, I have absolutely no doubt that this is another of Festal82's sockpuppets. Esmeme (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Esmeme: I'm a bit out of the loop, and the amount of reading required to catch up is unreasonable. Would you be able to fill me (and the rest of us) in on what Clapham's been up to? Thanks, as always, for your tireless contributions to the article and the amount of time you've spent dealing with Festal (and other people's) crap. If it weren't for you, the article would be the POV-pushing, self-promotional mess that Festal so desperately wanted it to be. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Inanygivenhole: a quick summary: after a period of quiet following Festal's sockpuppets' ban, another sock GLA1976 popped up and whitewashed the Seth Abramson page and deleted my comments. I swiftly reported it above, and the account was blocked. Within hours, a new account AllurbaseRbelong2us popped up making the same disruptive, misrepresentative comments as Festal on Talk:Metamodernism. I immediately reported this, and after openly disclosing their IP, they stopped posting completely.
Then, within a few more hours, another new account ClaphamSix sprung up, making alarmist and misrepresentative comments, first on the philosophy WikiProject page, then the metamodernism talk page, echoing precisely Festal's lies and Abramson-related, hoax-historical narrative PoV pushing. I reported this account immediately too, fearing exactly what has resulted, but although the CheckUser admin said it was a sock, it has remained awaiting behavioral evaluation by the clerks. Since then, as should be clear for all to see, Clapham has flooded the talk page with false claims, lies, misrepresentations, disruptive comments and harassment - a large amount directed at me, in order to try to discredit the consensus-led edits me and other legitimate editors undertook to repair the damage Festal's socks had done.
Having had Abramson's hoax exposed yet again by Steelpillow, ClaphamSix immediately moved onto the Seth Abramson page and whitewashed the controversy section there, before ceasing their activity completely (at time of writing). I strongly suspect this account and the others I added to the SPI page were set up by Festal when he was travelling out of town, in order to evade CheckUser detection. I am in no doubt, at least, that this is the same user, having endured weeks of these lies, disruption and harassment previously, along with Inanygivenhole and the other editors on that page. I suspect the latest IP edit to the metamodernism page, 71.89.79.139, hours after Clapham stopped posting, may provide yet further evidence of this pattern of evasion and disruption. There has been no crossover in the timing of posts between any of these accounts. Esmeme (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

@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)[reply]

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More