User talk:Anthonydevolder: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:37, 21 January 2023

This page is not a forum for general discussion about George Santos. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. A discussion of the admin action is ongoing at WP:AARV. Consensus takes time, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. The content previously on this user page was oversighted and should not be linked unless the oversight action is overturned.

January 2023

<~~div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">~~

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}} Doug Weller talk 21:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller - I'm curious why you blocked this account. Clearly it's getting some attention right now, but which part of the username policy does it violate? When it was created, Anthony Devolder was not anyone famous enough to impersonate, and even now the man is far better known as George Santos. Is there another issue besides potential 'impersonation' at play? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the username policy and don't understand what "clear violation" was committed either. Dwcasper (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this as well. And regardless of the username, the content is certainly newsworthy. Why remove it? FeralDruid (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MISLEADNAME, specifically "Usernames that impersonate other people". It doesn't matter that this variation is only one of DeSantos many aliases. If it's really him, he can file a complaint at OTRS. He iro 22:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really him, he most certainly would not be requesting an unblock after that much media attention. Heavy Water (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This almost certainly was him, though, given that this was created 11 years ago, long before he was a public figure. Also rather silly to delete the user page. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: "Almost certainly" doesn't override WP:MISLEADNAME. Using your real name on your user account even if it's "almost certainly" you always requires OTRS/administrator attention. For User:Fredrick R. Brennan I had to send a photograph, even. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're a public figure. Santos wasn't when he made this account. There's plenty of non-public figures who use their real names and don't need to verify their identity. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: I obviously meant "in this situation". Were Anthony still editing actively I doubt he would've been blocked so swiftly, but his contribs are blank (presumably they only consisted of this user page, if so that is against WP:NOTWEBHOST anyway). If you become a public figure later in life, and an old Wikipedia account may or may not be you, it's certainly appropriate to block if it's discovered. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all to me. 1st) under "NOT WEB HOST" says "a Limited autobiographical information is allowed." Devolder's bio on his talk page is only 121 words long. We know that it's limited to 121 words because Politico posted a screenshot of the bio talk page. 2nd) I don't know of any wiki policy that says: 'a wiki-editor (like you or I) will have our wiki page deleted if we become a public figure later in life.' So far, I feel no legit reason has been given to delete that talk page & it should be restored. ~Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the ruling is that it's being treated as impersonation unless he himself comes forward to say it isn't, it kind of feels like a way for any person who regrets posting something in the past or wants to deny it to have carte blanche to do so by Wikipedia. 2601:8C0:880:B820:787C:68AF:622A:C321 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:8C0:880:B820:787C:68AF:622A:C321: The purpose of user pages is not political intrigue. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He should have been blocked for sockpuppetry since this account appears to be his and as he appears to have abused multiple accounts by editing his own Wikipedia page with details that were later found to be false. Muhibm0307 (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account was not banned until now, so it would have been perfectly permissible for the owner of this account to create another one to edit years later (see WP:FRESHSTART). Only accounts created after the person's first ban (which I believe was last year) would be sockpuppets and bannable on sight. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Doug missed the date and thought this was a new page. He's restored it so this whole discussion (which took place while he was sleeping and no one bothered to wait for him to respond) is moot. Jibal (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This username does not correspond to any of the specified reasons for issuing it: "it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia." The only criterion that might apply is "obviously impersonates another person". This is not at all obvious.

This username was created over a decade before a George Santos (who used the name encoded in the username at the time the username was created) became famous. There is no reason to think that this was an impersonation, much less that it "obviously" is.

Once this username and the description of the user appeared in the news, reporters are led to investigate that account to determine what was posted by that account. Blocking that access seems to be a political action. It makes Wikipedia look bad. Dfoxvog (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing which rules were violated by this account from 2011. I understand not wanting people to mess with it now and protecting the page if needed, but a violation? That's a stretch for this particular account. The violation infobox above does not accurately describe anything done by this particular account. The more recent, sock-puppet accounts are different. Moncrief (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to appeal this block? The consensus here seems to suggest that it may have been the wrong move. Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block is being discussed at WP:AARV, which is the place to review administrative actions (there is also a section at WP:AN). However, my guess is that nothing will be done to reverse the block until Doug Weller comments and expands on their reasons for blocking. They are a very active user in good standing and I expect that they will do so whenever they next sign on to Wikipedia. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia's tendency to give weight to an editor's personal qualities or "reputation" rubs me the wrong way. This sort of reaction is also encoded in some of the responses at the places you've linked. We ought to be dispassionate, and insist that, no matter who did something, a committee or a consensus decision can respond logically and in a timely manner. No one is perfect; we all make mistakes; and I don't like the "He's a good guy; give him a pass. He'll fix it when he shows up again" approach. There's a good reason that we have committees that are empowered to take action, no matter who the editor is. Moncrief (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm saying that it's not an urgent issue, so we can afford to wait for Doug's thoughts. I'm also not sure it's actually within policy for an admin to reverse another admin's block when the user blocked has not requested to be unblocked, and probably never will (since it's a decade-old, abandoned account). To me, both the block and the oversighting of the user page are overreactions and should be reversed, but I don't see any tearing hurry. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's bad for Wikipedia's reputation to leave this unresolved and unchanged for even a day longer, but that's an opinion of mine, not a fact, so we can leave it at that. I genuinely appreciate your reasoned and pleasant response. Moncrief (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moncrief: It's not the end of the world, and there is no deadline. Plenty of places have the content available. Community consensus takes time to develop. If people want to mock Wikipedia for being careful about this sort of thing then that's their prerogative. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I were concerned about Wikipedia looking bad, I wouldn't post a bunch of comments saying that Wikipedia looks bad. And looks bad to whom? Almost no one is aware of this page/block/oversight, and they won't be unless someone makes a concerted effort to broadcast it, which would be about making Wikipedia look bad. People should own their own feelings, e.g., "Wikipedia looks bad to me", "I think less of Wikipedia's reputation", etc. Personally, I find the notion that this is bad for Wikipedia's reputation to be ludicrous ... what we are talking about is one action by one administrator, not "Wikipedia" as a whole or as a collective entity. In regard to the latter, there's a whole set of administrative procedures that someone concerned about Wikipedia's reputation can proudly point to ... in particular the discussion of this action at WP:AARV. I see now that the person complaining about Wikipedia's reputation has since participated in that discussion and has apparently achieved some clarity ... that's progress. Jibal (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before even thinking of appealing an action, one ought to discuss the action with the person who took it, or at least wait until that person has responded to numerous reactionary comments made on at least four different pages. The fact is that it was a simple mistake due to thinking the page was a recent addition; it's been restored so the issue is moot. Jibal (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take, as an admin who a) had oversight for over a decade, b) at one point was a regular enforcer of the username policy and c) is currently heavily involved in editing Santos's article:

Good block, bad reason. And I don't blame Doug. A lot of admins who don't regularly enforce the username policy (which is to say, a lot of admins) aren't familiar with its nuances. Uhblock isn't the best reason. In fact, since Santos isn't serving in Congress under this name, I'm not sure un-famous works either—would we block User:Stefani Germanotta just because ...

Sockpuppetry might seem stronger, except for this account not ever having edited outside its own userspace (hardly unusual).

Fortunately there is a good reason for an indef block outside of those two: NOTHERE. It may not have edited in over a decade, but I find that still works. Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion of this at WP:AARV. One comment says "It's the standard username hardblocked template. It would have been better if the famous username template had been used, but I think that's really all it is." You might want to weigh in there. Jibal (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the account is one thing, but why is the previous content hidden? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the person who hid it didn't realize that it was old content. It's been restored, so everyone can stand down. Jibal (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank. Jibal. Ok, this is the 5th place I've posted about this, finally finished. :) Last night, literally just before going to sleep, I was on my iPad and saw the userpage. I went and looked and somehow didn't see the date and thought was current, maybe a joke, maybe malicious, who knows. Anyway, I did what I did. It was a mistake. My take is that if it had been current it would be suppressible, but 2011? No. It's clearly not someone picking this up from the news, creating an account and a user page for fun. Was it actually Santos? Who knows. Anyway, I've already unsuppressed and unblocked. It maybe the case that the account should be blocked but given the fact that it hasn't posted in the last 11 or so years, probably not necessary. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the user page is now revision deleted. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this, the account is unblocked and the page history is back to fully available: Special:PageHistory/User:Anthonydevolder I've made a comment about this below. Maybe of additional interest, check the edit filter logs for this user.[1] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politico coverage

Covered in Politico at (Redacted) -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of the userpage is available on the internet archive for those interested. Hadn't been edited since 2011. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Is it really allowed like this to post links to WP:oversighted content onwiki? We have no way of knowing the circumstances of this page's creation and speculation about it doesn't serve a project purpose. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto I ain't an admin, but that link got redacted for the time being. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, posting a link to an article about oversought content wasn't the best move for any of us. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any explanation for why oversighting was necessary? We'll now get mocked for removing politically sensitive content after the media pointed it out (Mediaite already noted it has been removed by Wikipedia. Heavy Water (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heavy Water Out of an abundance of caution, I'd imagine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link showed oversighted content. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems strange that material is being covered in the news, and can be seen easily many places online - except for Wikipedia, where it actually originated. IMO not a good look for us. I think this deserves wider discussion beyond this talk page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking this account has the effect of hiding negative information about a public figure: doing so assists them to the detriment of public interest in understanding their past. 2400:2411:1C1:C400:7928:847C:9B08:2CD2 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's publicly available, even if it might be a privacy violation, WP:Oversight is not gonna solve anything for the owner of this account. Muhibm0307 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also brought up at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Moncrief (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'll now get mocked

I think Wikipedia will survive. I also don't think saying "We'll now get mocked" is the way to reduce Wikipedia being mocked, if that's the motivation. IMO, it would be better to note that this was one action taken by one administrator--a very experienced one, but this was an unusual situation and he may not have applied the best possible tool to deal with it. There's an informed discussion about this at WP:AARV, and those who wish to minimize mockery would be advised to read that discussion to better inform themselves. Jibal (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it standard to include links on talk pages when mass media covers things on Wikimedia? Why redact link to publicly available news article? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation: That's something done for article talk pages not user talk pages, though? By the way, I don't have an opinion either way on the original oversight decision, but unless the oversight is undone it seems contrary to policy to have the link here. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say here what I said at ANI: I don't fault Doug for starting off with a page oversight and a username block, but I do think the issue of this being reported in multiple sources should be taken into account when deciding what to ultimately do with the information. It may just be completely pointless, and make us look goofy to boot. Who knows? I had a couple IRC buddies who worked for the government around the time of the Snowden leaks, and they were always complaining that they weren't allowed to read the news because it had classified documents in it. jp×g 06:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are also now articles in BuzzFeed News, The Independent, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, the Bharat Express News, HuffPost, and Mediaite. Obviously, I am not an OS, so I don't know the considerations involved, but there would seem to be little point in continuing to have the page OSed. jp×g 06:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably undo that, give me a chance to think about it. I did all this last night just before turning off the light to sleep and didn't notice the date. Mea culpa. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last night, literally just before going to sleep, I was on my iPad and saw the userpage. I went and looked and somehow didn't see the date and thought was current, maybe a joke, maybe malicious, who knows. Anyway, I did what I did. It was a mistake. My take is that if it had been current it would be suppressible, but 2011? No. It's clearly not someone picking this up from the news, creating an account and a user page for fun. Was it actually Santos? Who knows. Anyway, I've already unsuppressed and have unblocked. The Disney stuff had me convinced (given my missing the date) that it was a hoax and an attack on Santos - it seems unbelievable. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User page revision deleted by another Admin. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was me. I should add something. I've just removed the content from ("blanked") the latest revision of the page. The full content is still available in the history. In a funny way, as you'd only find on Wikipedia, this should actually help to ensure the page does not get deleted entirely in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 Thank. Jibal. Ok, this is the 5th place I've posted about this, finally finished. :) Last night, literally just before going to sleep, I was on my iPad and saw the userpage. I went and looked and somehow didn't see the date and thought was current, maybe a joke, maybe malicious, who knows. Anyway, I did what I did. It was a mistake. My take is that if it had been current it would be suppressible, but 2011? No. It's clearly not someone picking this up from the news, creating an account and a user page for fun. Was it actually Santos? Who knows. Anyway, I've already unsuppressed and unblocked. It maybe the case that the account should be blocked but given the fact that it hasn't posted in the last 11 or so years, probably not necessary. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 :I see that the user page is now revision deleted. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
+::As I write this, the account is unblocked and the page history is back to fully available: [[Special:PageHistory/User:Anthonydevolder]] I've made a comment about this below. Maybe of additional interest, check the edit filter logs for this user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Anthonydevolder] -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 10:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 ==Politico coverage==