Jump to content

User talk:Xenophon71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2020

[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hurley High School, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Thanks for adding a citation to the article on Hurley High School. But please do not tick the minor edit checkbox for that kind of edit. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typographical corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Adding a citation is not a minor edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Mastriano edits

[edit]

The inserted medal section is uncited and has been removed. Please feel free to review the Verifiability policy for further assistance. Hyderabad22 (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad22, I've seen your earlier comments on this matter and strongly disagree. You clearly have an agenda and potential conflict of interest in repeatedly insisting on removing Senator Mastriano's military service medals and decorations when there is absolutely no doubt about their authenticity and accuracy. Just check his official U.S. Army photograph of him wearing his dress uniform just before his retirement. You are obviously holding him to some higher standard than his peers such as McMaster, Odierno, and Petraeus (under whom he served) with respect to their own Wiki pages and others. I am reverting and will keep reverting since they are accurate and relevant. What is your interest in Senator Mastriano's page any way? ~~Xenophon71~~ --Xenophon71 (talk)) 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wolf

[edit]

Hi, Xenophon71, welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you added some very detailed information about Tom Wolf's second term in office here. The article is extremely detailed altogether, and that addition really didn't help, in my opinion. I reverted your edit, explaining that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be concise. Then you added back the exact same text, plus a lot more, about Wolf's second term... altogether, your response to my removal was to add four times as much. Did you read my edit summary? I understand you're a very new editor. Please take my advice about appropriate length on board, and summarize your information. If you're reverted and disagree with the revert, the best thing to do is to go to the talkpage and start a discussion; not to revert back. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Bishonen, I did because that article on Wolf sorely needed updating with new information, which is necessarily detailed and important, considering his administration in Pennsylvania this past year and response to COVID and BLM. I am sorry that you think it is too long and too detailed, but if you review the pages of other governors and national political figures, you will find that it is both appropriate and acceptable by those same standards. Therefore I will be insisting that my additions remain. I do not mind simple editing for clarity and improvement of language and grammar but outright removal of important information is unacceptable. Xenophon71 tålk 21:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Go ahead and insist. Bloat added by sock has been removed. Bishonen | tålk 05:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Some or all of the content you added was copied from other websites, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xenophon71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bishonen is acting in bad faith. This is my ONLY Wiki account and I am NOT a sock puppet. This is clearly a personal attack. The editors have done a miserable job of updating Wolf's Wiki page in 2020 with additional content relating to his administration's response to COVID-19 and BLM, and the controversies that ensued. Compare my additions yesterday to how the page appeared two days ago, and you will see the stark emptiness that existed before concerning Wolf's second term. So when I spend time and effort to do the update with ACCURATE information using proper citations and news and legislative sources, he comes along and complains that it's "bloat" simply because he does not like it. Compare with the pages of other governors and national figures, and you will see that my additions are appropriate and very similar in content and length. Bishonen does not own this page, and his bad faith request to block me is contrary and abusive to Wiki policy.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank-you for your email. I declined your unblock request for the reasons stated - i.e. it solely attacked another editor rather than addressing the reason for your block. In particular, you will need to deal with the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Majorbuxton (which was not raised by Bishonen). If you have any complaints about the conduct of an administrator you can do this through the proper channels once your block has been lifted, but you must deal with the reason for your block first. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 11:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the prompt response. I was unaware of this sock puppet investigation of prior editors such as this 'Major Buxton' or 'DrWillow.' Let me assure you that I have no idea who they are, or who this 'PolandSpring1845' is who apparently followed me once I started editing. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll try to address the points on the investigation page item by item:
  • 1) "This page has a history of sock puppets being used to avoid scrutiny and to edit the content of the page because of a conflict of interest."---Comment: I can understand why that would happen because Pennsylvania is a high profile state politically and the Wiki pages undoubtedly attracts all types of operatives and trolls. I am NOT one these. I am a military historian and a resident of Pennsylvania who noticed that the Wiki pages of many of our officials were sorely lacking in updated information or had been vandalized or saddled with information taken out of context. So I decided to join Wiki, become an editor, and attempt to correct or update these pages. I am not new to editing, having been an editor at Sarna for several years past, which is very similar, but some of the functions at Wiki, including citations, are a bit more difficult to use.
  • 2) "Changes the editor, Xenophon71 has made recently are similar in nature and kind to previous sock puppets used by the sockmaster. All accounts used by this editor have insisted on reinserting an unverified medals section into the article." ---Comment: Well, first off, this is my ONE and ONLY Wiki account ever (check my IP address to verify), and the medals section is important for the career of Mastriano, and is common to other senior military officers who have their own Wiki pages like McMaster, Petraeus, and Odierno, with whom Mastriano served. So I do not understand the obstinate resistance to including them on Mastriano's page when he earned them and is entitled to show them as part of his career history. The claim was that they are unsourced, which is really not tenable, but I added Mastriano's last official U.S. Army photograph in dress uniform clearly showing those medals, which is a source in and of itself. So what is the problem here? It appears to me that Mastriano is being held to some higher standard than his peers. That's my concern with this issue, from a military history perspective. The "'National Personnel Records Center, 1 Archives Drive, St. Louis, MO 63138'" is accurate provenance for verifying service medals, so I dropped it back in where I thought that it should go, based on the prior edit before it was removed. That's all. I didn't use the citation tool at that time since I did not have a full understanding yet of how it worked for tables, which I have learned to do this week.
  • 3)The new Xenophon71 account seems to be interested in the same type of NPOV and potential conflict of interest edits the previous sock accounts were interested in....This account seems simply to be a new sockpuppet main account for the same previous user. ---Comment: Well, as I mentioned earlier, I live in Pennsylvania, am a historian, and have a natural interest in my state and elected officials, especially under the current heated political environment. I just want to ensure accuracy and fullness for the record. I don't know anything about those earlier sock puppets, and I am NOT one of them. And I have no clue as to who 'PolandSpring1845' is.
  • 4) "I see that a connection has been confirmed with Senate33. " ---Comment: The 33rd Senate District is large in Pennsylvania and important because it includes Adams County (with Gettysburg) and part of York County and York City, so it's natural that someone would use that name while attempting to edit Mastriano's page...perhaps it was one of his staffer who did not know better? Who knows, but I am NOT Senate33 either
  • 5) "You can see that the medal table is exactly the same except for having added extra spaces between each line. Not only is repeating the same edit from months ago suspicious, adding new lines between them seems like an attempt to evade detection."---Comment: Not sure about adding any extra spaces between each line of the table, but if I did, it was an attempt to make the table look cleaner and less cluttered, and nothing more, using my Notepad function to remove orphaned formatting in the copied text. I was not trying to avoid any kind of detection, since there is nothing to detect since I am editing in good faith but encountering resistance over this medal table, which seems to be a point of contention that I tried to resolve by adding Mastriano's last full dress uniform photograph as the source. Why?
  • 6) "Xenophon edited a high school article and PolandSpring edited a school district article, and both seem like attempts to get autoconfirmed so that they can edit the page after MelanieN protected it the following day."---Comment: I can't speak for this "PolandSpring1845," but I was instructed by the Wiki guidelines to do 10 edits and wait four days so that I could participate in editing semi-protected pages like Mastriano's and Wolf's. Hurley is my home town and I graduated from Hurley High School, both of which needed updating on their pages, so I did it, and even encountered some resistance there. Wiki is proving to NOT be a friendly place at all for new editors. I followed the Wiki guidelines, improved two pages, and became an auto-confirmed editor....how was that wrong, according to your own policies?
  • 7) "Previous accounts are too Stale to compare them to the master. A behavioral investigation will be needed in order to make that comparison." ---Comment: Please do! One thing to keep in mind though is that there were relatively few sources about Mastriano when he first launched his political career in 2018, so many of the references and citations will necessarily be the same, being regional to Pennsylvania.
  • 8) "Not closing because I probably screwed something up and would prefer a second set of eyes." ---Yes, I request further review by additional administrators if that would clarify things further and add more perspective.
  • Finally I do not understand the complaint that I am getting about my edits and additions to Governor Wolf's Wiki page, which were all properly referenced and sited using legitimate news and legislative sources. Until I started working on it, it had not seriously been updated since 2019 with any updated content. The editor complaining about "bloat" and too much length and detail would just revert the page back to 2019 and ignore the momentous events of 2020 with COVID and the BLM marches. This makes no sense, so I also ask the administrators to review those changes as well.

~~Xenophon71~~ comment added by Xenophon71 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Majorbuxton it shows that Xenophon71, PolandSpring1845, Maggieshea, and Senate33 were "confirmed to each other". The "confirmed" was done with the CheckUser tool. Xenophon71, you need to read the article Wikipedia:CheckUser.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how or why this supposed "confirmation" was determined by CheckUser but it is erroneous and I would like to appeal and request a re-check, using my IP address if needed. I do not know who those other editors are, nor do I have any connection with them. ~~Xenophon71~~Xenophon71(talk) 12:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Wikipedia:CheckUser has advice on contacting a so-called "CheckUser". I do not know exactly what electronic signature information is left on the logs. If, for example, you and another member of your household share the same computer that would give a "confirmed" result. If you edit Wikipedia at work, and another user on an identical employer-provided computer also edited Wikipedia at work, it might - I do not know. There is lots of stuff that should not be mentioned here that might help you sort this out if discussed with a so-called "CheckUser".-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toddy1, thank you for your advice, which is greatly appreciated. And I apologize for my curtness on your feedback with the Hurley and Hurley High articles. It's apparent to me now that there is a big mix-up here and that previous clumsy attempts at editing by those other past editors seems to have poisoned the well here. I made all edits to all pages I have focused on thus far from my home and business offices. I see that 'materialscientist' also commented on my Hurley article and has CheckUser permissions. Perhaps he can perform a closer analysis? My only other explanation is perhaps those other prior editors also live in South Central Pennsylvania and use the same IPs, since it's mostly rural here. ~~Xenophon71~~Xenophon71(talk) 13:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there has been no further discussion here over the past three days about this issue? Has it been closed with no further recourse or avenue to prove my innocence? What happens next? ~~Xenophon71~~Xenophon71(talk) 10:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC) @Voice of Clam:[reply]

Did you follow the advice and contact a checkuser?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to place another unblock request on your page, using the following:
{{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}
Remember to replace "your reason here" with why you think you should be unblocked. You should adress the reason for your block, including explaining the evidence at the sockpuppet report, rather than attacking other editors. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you I would wait at least a week in hopes of hearing from from a checkuser - you need advice from them to help you explain the checkuser evidence in the sockpuppet report.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the CheckUser evidence needs to be sorted out before 3 March 2021. Have a look at mw:CheckUser, which has some screenshots showing kind of stuff that the tool produces.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes - I reviewed the evidence, and the geolocation of the IP addresses come back very close to the same location. The user agents (though common) are the same. I'm going to ping SQL and ask for his input as well. I believe there is some ambiguity with the evidence as far as being a match with technical evidence. I'd like to get his thoughts. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: - As you mention, technically speaking, that's a pretty good match. SQLQuery me! 22:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Even absent the technical evidence, adding the same table, in the same order, in the same place as a previous sock puppeteer is suspicious to say the least. Even if you went back (8 months) and found it in the page history, that's a lot of skill and luck to be able to find it. That there is also technical evidence linking this user to another editor at that page makes me believe that this is not a false positive. That said, if any administrator is convinced by an unblock rationale, they may undo my block without consulting me. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SQL: @Oshwah: @Voice of Clam: @Wugapodes: @Toddy1: @Materialscientist: Please note that I did not have to go back 8 months to find the medal table, as it was posted on Mastriano's "Talk" page by the other editor here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doug_Mastriano. And then it was a simple matter of just clicking the 'edit' link to access the code here [[1]] and then copying and pasting back into the "Military decorations and badges," where these are typically included. For example see the tables at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster (which BTW does not have the same kind of source information as the other editor is demanding of Mastriano's table), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_T._Odierno, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._McRaven, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham, among others from that same peer group. So posting medal tables for retired notable military officers really is not that unusual and there is a standard Wiki format for doing that, which had already been done for Mastriano's page, and I simply copied and pasted back into the article from his talk page, adding space lines in each cell to make it easier on the eyes, since it appeared all crammed together on my laptop screen. With that said, when the other editor then removed the table again on the basis that it was not properly sourced (???) and without attempting to help on a collaborative basis, I did dig back to the original, which was not hard at all since all you have to do is select '500' as a viewing limit and then scroll down. See here, noting the edits and comments made on May 1, 2020: [[2]]. So it didn't take much skill at all to find this information, and this is where I found the specific source cite 'National Personnel Records Center, 1 Archives Drive, St. Louis, MO 63138,' which is correct [[3]], but I did not know how to properly use the "cite" function when I dropped it back in due to the other editor's comment about the medal table being "unsourceable." Please note the comments between the editors here in that discussion: [[4]].
As for the CheckUser report and review, not being an expert on networks and IP identification and not having access to that tool and the actual data, all I can say is that South Central Pennsylvania is a large geographical region in the heart of the Commonwealth that encompasses the 13th U.S. Congressional Disrict, and the 33rd State Senate and 91st and 193rd State House Districts, and includes Chambersburg, Carlisle, Gettysburg, part of York City, and several large towns in Franklin, Adams, Cumberland, and York counties. The area also has a large military, academic, and government presence, with the Army War College, Gettysburg College, Shippensburg University, York College as well as the National Park Service with the Gettysburg National Military Park. However, despite these prominent places, it is largely rural with limited internet options and availabilty, with only three providers serving the entire area---CenturyLink (my provider), Comcast, and Xfinity. There is very little high-speed internet access outside the towns so most folks use Centurylink and its ADSL2 system. Here's a December 12 news article from the Gettysburg Times related to this very issue: [[5]] Consequently, any would-be Wiki editor from South Central Pennsylvania will likely have very similar IP addresses and may reside or work in close proximity to each other in these government, business, and academic clusters but yet not know each other or even have ever met, thus generating "false positives" with CheckUser, as has apparently happened in my case, resulting in "collateral damage." But I can certainly see how any new Wiki editors from my area (Gettysburg/Adams County) who are interested in updating the Wiki entries for our most prominent elected officials like Mastriano and Wolf might fall under immediate suspicion of "socket puppetry" considering the tortuous history of this "MajorBuxton" investigation, which apparently started way back in 2016(!), and the edit warring that has obviously taken place on these articles over the past two years. There is apparently no room for allowing benefit of the doubt here, but I do ask that the editors and admins involved in my specific case take all of this information into consideration.
Consequently, having learned much through this process over the past three weeks, and with some much appreciated advice from a couple of the admins, as a potential resolution, I am perfectly willing to start over and discuss any potential edits collaboratively on talk pages first with other editors to demonstrate my good faith if given a second chance. That's all I can ask since I care enough about this to go through this process and try to do it right. Xenophon71 (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophon71&oldid=995508842"