I created this page so that I can start keeping notes in the case that I run into a user which I cannot resolve a conflict with. By conflict, I mean a dealing with another editor who, in my opinion, is an obvious detriment to WP and not just someone I disagree with. Everything written here has been written by me. Thus, please do not edit this page. I've been editing since 16 years, 3 days as an editor, I've only run into one person that I had to build such a case for. I don't anticipate having to do this often and hope that I never have to. OlYellerTalktome 23:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I originally intended this page to only be used for SPIs as they require the keeping of a lot of evidence but I may use it for other things. I probably won't but who knows? OlYellerTalktome 23:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this is going to be my report section for problematic editors/companies. Any case I build regarding an issue that spans multiple articles and problems that require help from someone with administrator tools will be presented here. I have also renamed the page as I'll be doing studies where I previously have no opinion of the editor/situation. OlYellerTalktome 14:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This is my own account. I've left out diffs to keep this short. The evidence can be found below. OlYellerTalktome 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I ran into Carbonator at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. He was attempting to change the description of the event to annual and when he was confronted by other editors, including myself, the wheels began to fall off. At first, Carbonator was uncivil. Then, through some coaxing, started engaging in a conversation on the talk page. He felt that I was being condescending despite my attempt to assure him that I meant no ill will. Admittedly, I sometimes run into the issue when trying to find the compromise between getting my point across and not writing 40 pages to do so. After only providing two references which other editors, including myself, did not find substantial enough to warrant changing the description, things got worse. Carbonator started leaving vulgar messages on his talk page for me, socking to avoid blocks and in an attempt to bolster his argument, and then edit warring. After several blocks and the passing of the would-be anniversary of the EDMD event, he disappeared only to reappear as a sock and attempt to have a page I created, speedily deleted. I initiated a CheckUser via an admin I talked to on IRC. It resulted in an indefinite ban. I've created this listing after the indefinite ban for use at a later time, if necessary. OlYellerTalktome 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This editor has been indefinitely blocked from WP after an SPI was done by MuZemike (talk·contribs) that I initiated in the IRC English Help channel. OlYellerTalktome 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Has had talk page privelidges revoked due to creating an inflammatory user page and talk page message. OlYellerTalktome 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This is my own account. I've left out diffs to keep this short. The evidence can be found below. OlYellerTalktome 20:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
While patrolling new pages, I ran across Dew Tour 2010 which was tagged as a large unwikified new article. From my experience, I assumed it was a copyvio due to the layout and tone but wasn't able to prove that it was. The tone of the articles are on the line between unecyclopedic prose and an advert. The format was all set before the article was created and it was linked to several other articles. I went to the other articles to see that they are all identically formatted with similar or identical categories and template while all lack any claim of notability or references. I originally considered marking Dew Tour 2010 as a WP:G11 but noticed that Dew Tour 2009 had its G11 tag immediately removed by an WP:SPA anon account (which I assume is a sock). I dug a little deeper to find that there's a very large compilation of Dew Tour related article that are all similar. Upon further searching, I found that the creators of these articles all have usernames that are closely related to the companies involved with the events. I brought my concerns to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard but have been waiting to write this report until I had a suitable amount of time to address the issue. Since then, at least one of the article was deleted under G11 then immediately recreated. My complete findings are below. OlYellerTalktome 20:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The creators know what they're doing. When the articles are created, they're full formatted and include all categoies and content. They're not built in mainspace like new users tend to do. OlYellerTalktome 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be one main company that organize these events and I believe that the company or an overzealous employee are creating these articles. OlYellerTalktome 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
For the most part, I have note attempted to assess the notability of any of the articles. I began searching and noticed that there are several news organizations that are involved in putting on the events and/or are associated via parent company sponsorship. It's a sticky enough situation that I'm currently choosing not to get involved in assessing notability. OlYellerTalktome 21:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The accounts that are obviously associated with Alli Sports have never once edited their talk pages. OlYellerTalktome 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There isn't substantial evidence that there's a person or group of people intentionally subverting Wikipedia policy to advertise for their company. The IP user is the only editor that edited around the same time as the other editors and once removed a speedy deletion tag from an article that one of the other accounts created. There's certainly a COI but subversive actions/socking hasn't been proven. OlYellerTalktome 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's concerning that so many article past patrol without a scratch. This should probably be looked into more closely. OlYellerTalktome 17:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
*All files have been deleted but they may contain deleted evidence and even if not, I think they should be noted. OlYellerTalktome 22:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
*I'm leaving out the names of sponsors whose names are used in the articles. There's no evidence that they have anything to do with the creation of these articles and suggesting such with zero evidence may be considered libel. OlYellerTalktome 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
An employee of Alliance of Action Sports up to 2010. OlYellerTalktome 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Has not edited since December 2008 so this user is a non-issue unless we decide we need more evidence for some large proposed action OlYellerTalktome 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
A now-retired editor who created a few of the articles OlYellerTalktome 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
May be coincidentally involved as they created/edited several annual sports related pages in succession as easily seen here. OlYellerTalktome 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Asked for help at the WP IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-help and +killiondude suggested I post it at AN or ANI. OlYellerTalktome 17:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Asked for additional help at WP:ANI on 13:31 July 18th, 2011. For some reason, this report is not found in the ANI archives. [16]OlYellerTalktome 13:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
After my discussions at both WP:COIN and at WP:ANI, I decided to mark all of the pages for speedy deletion under at least one of the following A7, G11, or G12. All pages were subsequently deleted. I left messages on the talk pages of all associated accounts attempting to explain what happened and telling them where they could ask questions (my talk page or their talk page). So far, there has been no additional action from any accounts to oppose the deletions. OlYellerTalktome 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a study of the actions of a user named Jespah (talk·contribs) and the articles that she has edited. OlYellerTalktome 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
User OrangeMikesubmitted a COI report to WP:COIN. Since then, users Orangemike, JohnInDC, and The Interior have been discussing a user by the name of User:Jespah who seems to be advocating for a cause. While it no COI has been proven, a strong POV seems obvious. JohnInDC and The Interior are insupport of a topic ban but feel that they are too close to the situation to submit the proposal. I have offered to write a report here and, if I find that a topic ban is warranted, will use this report to start a topic ban discussion. At this point, I know far too little to form an opinion about any of the involved editors. From my experience on WP and at WP:COIN, the edits made by Jespah at WP:COIN ([17][18][19]) strongly suggest to me that there's a COI or at least some POV pushing. Also, I value the opinion of Atamawho feels that Jespah's aims, "are directly in conflict with the aims of Wikipedia." As I do my best to assume good faith, I have decided to write a very thorough and detailed report before I form an opinion and take action as the result may be a topic ban. OlYellerTalktome 15:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that this situation (from the point that Jespah was first informed about POV vs encyclopedic tone/content) has spanned two years. As an uninvolved editor, I don't feel that I can find a summarize every single situation that has taken place and I consider myself a very through person. This is partially due to the fact that, as seen on her talk page, Jespah's response to messages to her on article and other-user talk pages on her talk page in vaguely labeled sections. This makes it very difficult to line up time stamps for messages on top of the fact that she often doesn't leave a signature or signs with her own name instead of her username. OlYellerTalktome 18:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
*While this entire report has been written by me, I consider the bullet points that I do not sign to be considered facts. I mostly do this so that my signature isn't seen 500 times all over the report but I think it also helps designate what's a claim/opinion and what's a fact. If you feel that anything that I consider a fact is not indeed a fact, please let me know on the talk page. OlYellerTalktome 19:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a timeline of this report only. It's intent is to elaborate on how this report came to be rather than every detail of the situation the report is evaluating. OlYellerTalktome 19:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
JohnInDC and The Interior are insupport of a topic ban but feel that they are too close to the situation to submit the proposal.
I have offered to write a report here and, if I find that a topic ban is warranted, will use this report to start a topic ban discussion.
I NotifiedWP:COIN that I've started the study and where it can be found.
Atama, one of the most involved admins at WP:COIN, has elected to take no administrative action per WP:Involved.
Comment - This is included because it will most likely mean that I'll have to notify other administrators of this report upon its conclusion. I would usually go to Atama but as they're involved, I'll find someone else. OlYellerTalktome 19:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Another admin, Daniel J. Leivickstates, "I too am involved and wouldn't want to use my tools to enforce a topic ban, but I do think we have reached that point."
Concluded that this report won't be exhaustive. Reported at WP:COI.
Comment - For it to be exhaustive (read and analyze every single piece of evidence), it would take weeks for me to go through everything mostly due to the fact that singular conversations sometimes happen across talk multiple talk pages, have self-typed signatures that don't match time stamps, and varying signatures (between the user's name and username). I don't feel that reports have to be exhaustive to be accurate and given the situation, I feel that it will still be very accurate. OlYellerTalktome 16:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - The discussion was unanimous in that a topic ban needed to be applied but the scope was lightly discussed. Jespah left a comment after the conclusion of the discussion. I thought it was very mature and I hope she continues to edit in other locations so that she can learn our policies/guidelines and eventually the topic ban can be lifted. OlYellerTalktome 15:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of running in circles. This issue has taken been going on for over two months (from what I've found so far) with no improvements from what I've seen. It's obvious that Jespah has a personal interest in the subjects whose articles that she edits but that's no a policy violation by itself unless she's directly undermining WP's goals with WP:POV pushing. I haven't gotten into the meat of the edits to form an opinion on the latter, yet. OlYellerTalktome 19:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Note - At WP:COIN, Johnuniq states that, "Jespah has very close contacts with the subject's photographer" and cites this file. As it has been deleted, I don't know what he was referring to. Making this a sort of placeholder in case this is found to be important later on. OlYellerTalktome 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Jespah states: "I was asked by The Enough Project to add the information about George and SSP. I edit Enough's wiki pages. As you can see, George works with John Prendergast, the co-founder of Enough."
Jespah claims that she does, "not know Mr. Prendergast" but she "like[s] and respect[s] his work".
Jespah states that she is, "not affiliated with him" and by "him" she means John Prendergast.
Jespah uploaded an image stating that, "We (The Enough Project at the Center for American Progress) created this work entirely by ourselves."
Comment - Using the word "We" constitutes a clear connection and admission to the subject of an article which Jespah has been advocating. In short, a COI now seems clear. OTRS has recieved permission to use the photo which, I believe, is independent from a COI but indicates that there's a connection that can be more closely looked in to if needed. OlYellerTalktome 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Jespah uploaded an image stating that, "The Enough Project created this work entirely by myself."
Comment - Again, this seems to indicate a clear connection with the subject. OlYellerTalktome 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
OlEnglish, an OTRS member, checked the OTRS information and states that, "The text of the ticket does not provide any direct evidence of a connection between User:Jespah and The Enough Project." then goes on to state, "This is based on the ticket linked from the notice at Talk:John_Prendergast. I did not check any other tickets, if they exist." OlYellerTalktome 16:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Jespah seems very open to help at this point but the idea of being "encyclopedic" seems to be missed. The final response from RL0919 gives, in my opinion, clear examples of what should and should be included. Jespah leaves no response to that message. OlYellerTalktome 17:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Follow Up - About a month later, Jespah asks RL0919 to read through the article and he responds by stating, "I took a look at it and didn't see any obvious problems except for a few wikilinks that weren't formatted correctly. I fixed those." OlYellerTalktome 18:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Jespah AsksJohnInDC to, "expand on the initiatives Mr. Prendergast has founded and the fact that he is, globally, a highly-respected peace activist."
Comment - This seems to indicate that Jespah was looking for help with her content dispute which seems like canvassing to me but I'm not very knowledgeable about canvassing. OlYellerTalktome 22:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
On April 26th, Jespah stated, "the article as it currently stands is of high enough quality to not need any further 'enhancements' from me and agree to distance myself from editing articles on this subject for at least a short period of time." On April 28th, Jespah resumed editing.
Comment - Obviously "a short period of time" is up for interpretation so conclusively determining Jespah's intent is impossible. I don't take much from the agreement to stop editing the page for a period of time but declaring that the article, in it's then-current state needed no enhancement, to be noteworthy. OlYellerTalktome 18:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Jespah states, "Some people here actually make me cry. I feel like I am in an insane asylum. You say it is supposed to be encyclopedic, and the information I have provided regarding the peace process certainly is that and is not redundant."
Comment - It seems obvious to me that Jespah is emotionally invested in this article from this response. Users Atama, JohnInDC, Daniel J. Leivick, and The Interior were attempting to help her but she responds as if they're personally attacking her. A complete 180 degree misinterpretation. OlYellerTalktome 18:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the capitalization of a subject's official/unofficial job title, Jespah states, "If John Prendergast says he was a Special Advisor to Susan Rice, that is what he was."
Comment - I think this show that Jespah, after having verifiability discussed with her multiple times, refuses to accept WP policies/guidelines. The arguement was whether or not Prendergast was a special adviser or if his job title was "Special Adviser". What seems like such a trivial bit of information can't be compromised on. Admin Atama, at length, attempted to find and discuss a reference that made a designation and this was Jespah's response. OlYellerTalktome 18:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Makes a statement at WP:COIN regarding copying in text from a project's website into WP.
Comment - Jespah still does not understand, having been told several times, that WP:OTHERSTUFF existing is not a valid argument as to why POV text should be kept in an article or that text copied from the subject's website is almost inherently has a WP:POV. OlYellerTalktome 14:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Jespah askedUser:The Interior on his talk page to "leave [her] work alone and stop policing the page".
Asked The Interior to " please refrain from editing my work, as you create an extremely stressful and unpleasant atmosphere; there are an abundance of editors who can take your place. I ask again, please stop! If you are a nice person, you will."
Comment - I found this response to be way out of line. The only thing I've seen from The Interior is patients and attempts to educate. It seems that any time something doesn't go Jespah's way, it's apparently a personal attack on her. OlYellerTalktome 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
When JohnInDC entered a conversation between Jespah and The Interior, Jespah stated, "My remark was not directed at you. <...> Perhaps you will consider editing someone else as well."
Comment - It seems that, no matter what policies or guidelines are presented or how well intentioned someone is, Jespah considers their actions a personal attack. She seems to just want everyone to leave her alone to edit the articles as she pleases. OlYellerTalktome 21:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
After approximately 8 hours, she attempted to remove her comments from The Interior's talk page.
Comment - If I had to guess, I'd say she slept it off and felt that the comments were over the line. OlYellerTalktome 17:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Jespah states, "Please feel free to not edit. No one is holding a gun to your head."
Comment - It seems obvious at this point that Jespah wants to end content disputes with other editors leaving her alone to do what she wants. OlYellerTalktome 23:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
After a new editor, Alugh (talk·contribs), added a COI and peacocking tag to the John Prendergast article and changed the size of an image, Jespah left a message on the user's talk page. The section was entitled "diminution of photo" and Jespah stated, "i don't want the photo you reduced to be that small" and "why didn't you ask?".
Comment - I personally feel that the actions of Alugh (talk·contribs) are highly suspect. Just before receiving the message mentioned above, Alugh started a new section on the talk page of John Prendergast that calls Jespah out for a conflict of interest after having only edited for about 24 hours. I certainly won't suggest that it's a sock of a certain user or that I'm even sure it's a sock but it definitely smells fishy to me. It should also be noted that for twodays, Jespah attempted to address the issues presented by Alugh to which she never received a response. OlYellerTalktome 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This section may morph into a "Civility" section. Several editors mention explaining policies and guidelines to Jespah with no positive result. From what I've seen so far, the result is not only not-positive, it's quite negative. Naming it civility now might imply that I think she's always uncivil which I don't know to be the case at this point. OlYellerTalktome 22:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The Interior (talk·contribs) left a very large section on Jespah's talk page, attempting to explain spam links, soapboxing, POV editing, and editing with a COI. Jespah responded by saying that The Interior was being, "unfair and unreasonable" and that he must, "have nothing better to do!".
Comment - In my opinion, it seems that The Interior went out of his way to explain bit by bit what was wrong with Jespah's edits. Jespah responded with what I consider a personal attack. To me, this not only implies that Jespah has ownership or connection issues with the article, is unwilling to take advice from other editors, but is willing to personally attack during what she saw as a content dispute. OlYellerTalktome 21:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
User JohnInDCencountered Jespah while she was requesting help at WP:RFEA. Jespah states, "I can understand both points of view re how the bio reads".
Comment - There's nothing wrong with Jespah going to RFEA but I think this may reflect Jespah's feelings about disagreements. What seems to me like a content dispute, to Jespah, seems to be a personal attack or affront to the subject of the article. Jespah understands that there's two opinions but instead of disagreeing with the other, she thinks the other is so invalid for consideration. OlYellerTalktome 22:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
On JohnInDC's talk page, Jespah directed a message at JohnInDC and The Interiorstating that, "I have seen punctuation, grammatical and other errors in your edits, including incomplete citings, omitted references, etc. Completely unprofessional, wouldn't you say!" Hours later, Jespah removed the portion about being completely unprofessional.
Comment - This is pretty mild when it comes to anger and I'm not even sure if I would consider it a personal attack but I think it shows that there's a fair amount of emotion involved in Jespah's editing. We're obviously humans and will show emotion in our editing but Jespah seems to more consistently show negative emotions towards others who she has been in contact with. Along with her attempt her comments in another altercation, I think this shows that even Jespah herself feels that she sometimes crosses the line with her comments. OlYellerTalktome 22:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There's probably not even enough information to suggest that a checkuser been done. It's fishy but not clearly indicative of anything. OlYellerTalktome 15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding a COI, after extensive review, I do not feel that there is a close connection between Jespah and any of the subjects that she edits (at least in a traditional sense). While it seems that Jespah doesn't work for or formally represent the subjects whose articles she edits, in my opinion, she obviously creates the connection herself. OlYellerTalktome 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
My initial reaction was the Jespah simply didn't understand policies and guidelines such as WP:POV, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:SOAP, WP:V, and WP:COPYVIO or concepts like the one presented at WP:VNT. This lead me to believe that Jespah simply needed some guidance because, like almost all new users, she started editing before reading and understanding the very extensive set of policies and guidelines that govern WP (which is excusable in my opinion). That was until I saw that this issue has been going on for over a year and has involved at least two admin and two other users who have been incredibly patient, informative, and kind when trying to help Jespah. She's been around long enough that, in my opinion, she should be aware of these concepts especially given the guidance she has received. Instead, she continues to add text verbatim from the subject's website (with permission) and defends that process. She shows no signs of learning these concepts regardless of the guidance given or even willingness to change her behavior. OlYellerTalktome 14:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
"We" and "our" semantics aside, it seems obvious to me that Jespah feels that these articles should be hers to deal with. While she often wants to work with others, it seems that she's willing to work with others only if they support her position. If they do not support her position, she feels that they're either personally attacking her, unable to understand that her opinions are facts, or that they don't see the bigger picture. OlYellerTalktome 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The report concludes: Jespah has been editing since December of 2008 and, as of this post, 98.1% of her 1121 non-deleted mainspace edits (I can't see the deleted ones) have been made on 7 articles. These 7 articles are John Prendergast, Unlikely Brothers, Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough ProjectLisa Shannon, Not On Our Watch, The Enough Moment and are either about organizations or people who do humanitarian work in Africa. Of the other 1.9% of her edits, all of the 21 edits are in regards to humanitarian work in Africa and/or the subjects covered in the top 98.1% of her edits. In short, I see not one single non-deleted mainspace edit that doesn't have to do with humanitarian work in Africa. While this isn't an issue by itself, when paired with Jespah's ownership issues, strong personal interest in these subjects, POV pushing, and extreme lack of ability or willingness to work with other editors to improve her editing patterns, it currently makes her a detriment to WP. Not only is she directly a detriment to the content of WP, she has tied up several other editors for an excessive amount of time which effectively impedes their ability to improve the project in other areas let alone the stress it causes them. I can only speculate on their stress; I'll refrain so that those editors speak for themselves. OlYellerTalktome 15:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I will be proposing at WP:AN that Jespah be banned from editing the articles John Prendergast, Unlikely Brothers, Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough Project, Not On Our Watch, and The Enough Moment as well adding information about those topics to other articles. I'm not overly confident in this scope and ask that we use it as a starting point with the goal of allowing Jespah to edit subjects in which she is not so personally invested. I started with what amounts to humanitarianism in Africa but I feel that it's far too broad. OlYellerTalktome 17:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
