Eric W. Jepson – the W Stands for “Weasel”

[Zoloft]

Eric W. Jepson – the W Stands for “Weasel”

Following up on our blog post about Nihonjoe’s conflict of interest editing, we present this as a public service to the Wikipedia community.

Eric W. Jepson edits Wikipedia as Thmazing. If you search Wikipedia for his name, you will find he is named or used as a source in a few articles. Did he add himself to Wikipedia? Yes. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? Good question. It’s strongly discouraged, but not completely prohibited. Most people understand that they probably shouldn’t do this – but then there’s Eric W. Jepson.

Please read the blog post and leave a comment if you like, we're going to continue posting on COI violaters...

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

[Kraken]

I'm still amazed that this didn't even attract an incident report let alone the indefinite block it merits.

I can't help but think the very public slap down of Fram by a high ranking user has given everyone pause regarding pursuing such matters to the noticeboards. I definitely think pre-block Fram would have escalated matters in response to that threat.

It seems to be the case that if you're facing charges of conflict of interest editing, you're allowed to use any tool at your disposal to fight back. Up to and including chillng threats of revenge OUTING. Not what I would call a fun hobby.

If only there was an ongoing Arbitration Committee Case that gave the leaders of the Wikipedia community the opportunity to demonstrate that they give the highest priority to open and transparent challenge to the excuses and methods so often seen by violators in this area.

Sadly, even they will demand to see your papers before you're allowed to have your say on such things. Your papers (user name, edit history) being the primary means by which someone can OUT you.

When you have a community built on fear of the truth and use of intimidation to suppress it, and these signals come from the very top, then it can hardly be a surprise to learn that if you chuck a rock in any direction, you'll inevitably hit an established and experienced Wikipedia user who is engaged in blatant nest feathering intermixed with their hobby editing.

What would be worse for Wikipedia, you wonder. That Eric and Joe might be in cahoots, or merely that Eric took his cues from Joe regarding what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia....

[Salvidrim]

I'm subscribed to WPO posts by e-mail and I originally got this post on March.9th (https://wikipediocracy.com/2024/03/09/e ... for-weasel) but now I see its post date is March.11th (https://wikipediocracy.com/2024/03/11/e ... for-weasel), were there any editorial changes that led to it being pulled and republished two days later?

[Randy from Boise]

I'm subscribed to WPO posts by e-mail and I originally got this post on March.9th (https://wikipediocracy.com/2024/03/09/e ... for-weasel) but now I see its post date is March.11th (https://wikipediocracy.com/2024/03/11/e ... for-weasel), were there any editorial changes that led to it being pulled and republished two days later?

Gravity is a trickster.

t

[Midsize Jake]

I'm subscribed to WPO posts by e-mail and I originally got this post on March.9th (https://wikipediocracy.com/2024/03/09/e ... for-weasel) but now I see its post date is March.11th (https://wikipediocracy.com/2024/03/11/e ... for-weasel), were there any editorial changes that led to it being pulled and republished two days later?

That's my fault — I have this weird idea that new blog posts should post on Monday mornings, which is probably based on some stupid old SEO article that I read on a website that probably doesn't even exist anymore. Nevertheless, this post was ready to go on Saturday night, so we used the auto-scheduling feature in Wordpress to delay it until 12:01 AM Monday. The notification e-mails go out as soon as you schedule it though, so that's why you got it two days early.

[Salvidrim]

I'm subscribed to WPO posts by e-mail and I originally got this post on March.9th (https://wikipediocracy.com/2024/03/09/e ... for-weasel) but now I see its post date is March.11th (https://wikipediocracy.com/2024/03/11/e ... for-weasel), were there any editorial changes that led to it being pulled and republished two days later?

That's my fault — I have this weird idea that new blog posts should post on Monday mornings, which is probably based on some stupid old SEO article that I read on a website that probably doesn't even exist anymore. Nevertheless, this post was ready to go on Saturday night, so we used the auto-scheduling feature in Wordpress to delay it until 12:01 AM Monday. The notification e-mails go out as soon as you schedule it though, so that's why you got it two days early.

Cool, was just curious. Initially surprised when I clicked on the link in the e-mail and it said "page doesn't exist", I thought something got taken down, but then I saw the same post at a more-recently-dated-URL on the home page anyways.

[Yamato]

“Th” stands for thopic ban incoming.

[Ryuichi]

“Th” stands for thopic ban incoming.

In line with the thoughts of our very own Tim: at the end of the Supports, there's a couple of high quality "lodestars"; both Opposes.

[Vigilant]

Gamaleil votes in the wrong section and two other dipshits follow suit and say, "per gamaliel" ...

FFS.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I think the W in Eric W Jepson is actually for Wayne, but he really is a weasel. After saying he probably wouldn't be back, he's been back at ANI to offer some justifications for his COI editing. He wants you to know that he didn't make any money from it. And, if he was self-promoting, why wouldn't he have cited himself more?

Today, he comes back with this:

That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of WP:AGF. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on Brad Teare but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. Thmazing (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Brad Teare (T-H-L) was created by Thmazing in 2011. Jepson interviewed Teare and his wife in 2009. That interview is used in the Wikipedia article as a source for the fact that his wife is Debra Teare (T-H-L). I'm sure there were other sources than Jepson for this simple fact.

Jepson was on a podcast with Brad Teare in 2011, about working on an issue of Sunstone magazine. Then in 2018, Jepson edits a comic anthology which includes Brad Teare. I'm not suggesting that they are close friends, but if you've worked with someone like that, you're not the best person to be working on their Wikipedia article.

complaints

I don't think Brad Teare should be deleted, but why is it using GameBoardGeek as a source for someone's age? Debra Teare was probably a very nice person but unless there are a lot more sources saying what a great painter she was, that article should probably just be deleted.

[Yamato]

Thmazing has been topic banned from Mormonism. His reaction:

It's charming that the handful of editors engaged in this discussion believe they represent "the wider community," don't you think? People are funny.

25 self-appointed judges out of half a million editors who've made over a hundred edits, is another way to look at this. My point is that people who choose to get involved in these discussions tend toward certain attitudes and preferred solutions that may not be typical of Wikipedia writ large.

[Kraken]

I just realized that comment might feel like a personal attack. Not intended, I assure you! I've observed this process many times and being on the receiving end has confirmed a lot of my prior thoughts. I'm referring more to the system itself, which has its unique warp, as all systems do. Thmazing (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You saw it, you understood it, you stuck around anyway, a passenger, until it was your turn on the ducking stool.

And now you're sad/mad?

The mark of divinity. The sheer sheepishness of it all.

A man must change what a man must change. He must kill his Gods, if they do not serve him well.

[Vigilant]

Good thing he's 'heard the community and taken their advice to heart'...

[eppur si muove]

Now that things have run their course, I wish to point out that the picture is of a creature stoatally different from a weasel.

[Zoloft]

Now that things have run their course, I wish to point out that the picture is of a creature stoatally different from a weasel.

But their pasture isn't on fire either.



I used a public domain image. Weaseled out.