:::Of course I wouldn't be interested - I have already tried to explain to you that it is impossible to take ownership of an article. There is nobody specific to ask on this - Wikipedia is guided by appointed administrators, who have certain extra powers. They do not, however, have the power to hand over an article, in fact it is expressly forbidden - they are bound by the same rules as any editor. You first need to thoroughly read the guideline WP:OWN, which will tell you why you cannot control what is written in Jeff's article in Wikipedia, other than through consensus properly discussed. Your only recourse is to ask for Jeff's article to be deleted, if it bothers you and him that much. 

 :::As far as your speaking on his behalf goes, that is not really a valid exercise where the subject of his being a freemason, or not a freemason, is concerned. Editors work on the hard facts gleaned from searches on the internet and the bookshelves - encyclopedic information gathered and supported by reliable independent sources. Having read the source I quoted, you must admit that it states quite categorically that he is. Working on that, the info, as encyclopedic, was introduced into the article in good faith - another pillar of the guidelines. To remove it without discussing the matter on the article talk page, and without providing hard sources to show why it should not be included, is seen either as vandalism or censorship, for whatever reason. 

 :::Where the particular subject in question is concerned, it is well known that brothers of the Masonic lodges never like to be identified in public, and it might be suspected by some editors that you are trying to arrange the removal of the info for that reason. I personally am not suggesting this is the case, merely putting a devil's advocate hat on. 

 :::As I have said before, I urge you to introduce yourself on the article talk page, and give your side of things as you see it, in an attempt to gain consensus for the removal of the info. However, I would urge you not to follow the "ownership" idea, as this is guaranteed to inflame the senses of most of the editors, and all of the admins, in Wikipedia. Best wishes.