Summary[edit]
- 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 OrangeMike submitted 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 in support 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 Atama who 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)
Timeline[edit]
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)
- User The Interior submitted a COI report to WP:COIN. Archived discussion found here.
- User OrangeMike submitted a COI report to WP:COIN.
- JohnInDC and The Interior are in support 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. Leivick states, "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."
- The Interior and I have asked OlEnglish from the OTRS team to help shed some light on the possibility of a COI.
- 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)
- Asked for help setting scope of topic ban at WP:COIN. OlYellerTalktome 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Proposed topic ban at WP:AN.
- Notified Jespah and several involved editors.
- The topic ban was endorsed here.
- 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)
Personal Notes/Observations[edit]
- 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)
Involved articles/categories/templates/files[edit]
Articles[edit]
- File:Prendergast headshot.JPG
- 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)
Involved companies[edit]
Involved editors[edit]
- 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."
Possible meatpuppets/sockpuppets[edit]
As  Confirmed by CheckUser as the same person:
- Outed self.
- Jespah claims that she was asked by the Enough Project to edit the articles of George Clooney and Satellite Sentinel Project.
- 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)
- Now admin, RL0919. has the first POV/wording conversation with Jespah.
- 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 Asks JohnInDC 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 requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation that User:The Interior, "refused access to my page" and provides a diff to and edit The Interior made on John Prendergast.
- Jespah asked User: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 two days, Jespah attempted to address the issues presented by Alugh to which she never received a response. OlYellerTalktome 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Notable communications from involved users[edit]
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 JohnInDC encountered 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 Interior stating 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)
Conclusion[edit]
Socking[edit]
- 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)
Owenership[edit]
- "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)
Overall[edit]
- 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 Project Lisa 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)
|
