User talk:Anthonydevolder

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

January 2023[edit]

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. Heiro 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]
Heh, that was about the simplest explanation for this whole fuss, and yet no one thought of it. Heavy Water (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{re|HeavyWater}} Which explanation? Doug Weller talk 18:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I meant that you didn't realize it was old; the long "What Doug Weller was really thinking by deleting the page" conversation never involved that simple conclusion. Heavy Water (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moncrief, why did you revert HeavyWater’s post and my reply? Doug Weller talk 18:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did? I certainly didn't mean to. Let me check my history. Moncrief (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. I truly don't know how that happened. I was only trying to add a comment below. Weird. Moncrief (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politico coverage[edit]

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]
    Lol. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller 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.
    When blocking an account entirely, aren't admins supposed to be far more thorough than taking a mere glimpse? I'm not an admin, but I would think admins are supposed to be more thorough before forbidding an account from participating in the project. We all make mistakes here, but account blocking is a big power to wield without caution. SecretName101 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been blocked again by another Admin. Remember, blocks can always be undone. We do them when we think there might be further damage. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the permanent ban of Prose072 -- see User_talk:Prose072#January_2023: Could this please be revisited in light of this page being unbanned? I have no dog in this fight, other than that I feel badly they were banned permanently for posting content that it turns out was never prohibited. I don't have a quick link to the page history for Prose072's additions, as they were completely removed, but the link to the banning mention on his talk page should help understand what happened. Prose072 copied and pasted the 2011 content of User talk:Anthonydevolder inside this comment section. I'd like to request that their permanent ban be reviewed. Thanks. (I can email the committee as requested at the link above, but I thought I'd start the conversation here to avoid that step, as there are OSers reading this page.) Moncrief (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moncrief: They were editing disruptively, but I agree with you that perhaps Doug Weller may want to lower the term of the block from indefinite to something shorter in light of the unoversighting. The content was not never prohibited, it is prohibited to post oversighted content while that content is oversighted. The block wasn't wrong but indefinite may be too long a term. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{re|Psihedelisto}} I think you mean User:Izno. I’m not taking it over. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll email the Arbcom, as requested in the block notice. Moncrief (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moncrief, this is already being discussed by the committee (the discussion of which I have recused from as the blocking admin).
Separately, the committee does not take 3rd party appeals in the general case. Izno (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I won't email then, for that reason and because it's already being discussed. Moncrief (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why blanked after 11 years?[edit]

Why would this be blanked after being left alone for 11 years? Why should media attention of a subject cause different interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Whomever is searching for this page is EXACTLY looking for what was posted on the page over a decade ago. Yomain (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the page is subject to Criteria 5 for speedy deletion. That's why it had to have been blanked. 138.229.228.189 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The short answer is that if it wasn't blanked it would qualify for deletion (see WP:U5), and in my experience it probably would be deleted. There is something unrelenting and predictable about the Wikipedia deletion machine. The content's still there, and I dare say most people know how to still find it - especially with a huge "blanked" notice written on it pointing to the page history. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@zzuuzz - I don't see how Anthony Devolder's 11 year old talk page qualifies for deletion under WP:U5 which states, Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals... I don't see anything in Anthony Devolder's bio that isn't closely related to wiki's goals, do you? And, under WP:U5, it says, Before placing this template or deleting a page under this criterion: Read Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content and Wikipedia:User pages#Deletion of user pages. and is directed here
WP:USERTALKBLOG which says inappropriate content is unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons. None of which applies to Devolder's talk page bio, as far as I can see. Do you feel it does? I feel that good people on here have half-read and unfortunately overreacted. I feel it's now at the point where people are 'looking' for reasons to delete and blank as opposed to there are actually 'being' real reasons to delete and blank. Most talk pages I've read on here (and I've read 100s) include things the wikieditor has accomplished -- which exactly what Devolder's talk bio was about, things he had accomplished. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Policies can never fully describe practice, though if you want me to go into that I probably can (Wikipedia:User pages is only a guideline btw). If I can put it simply and frankly. Someone who doesn't contribute to Wikipedia at all, apart from to post on their userpage a self-promotional illiterate "non-truthy" attempt at a non-notable biography (and attempt to create an article with the same qualities (it would be G3, G11, A7, and probably more)) - it's going to be deleted. It happens all the time. Hopefully I've preemptively prevented that from happening. If not today, while it's in the news, then at some point. Let me take the opportunity to point to Wikipedia:Database_reports/Potential_U5s, which is something people slowly trawl through. If this user page was only a little longer it would probably already be on that report. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@zzuuzz - Thank you for explaining, I do appreciate that. Oh, and parts of your reply made me chuckle, so thanks for that too :) ~Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Anthonydevolder, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change of your current account here. The new username that you choose must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.

  • To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
  • If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page here: {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Appeals: If your username is not in violation of Wikipedia's username policy, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I am painfully aware that there are many, many people watching this page. Other aspects of the situation are still under discussion in multiple forums, but this sort of block (as opposed to the previous "hard" block that was removed earlier today) is very much standard practice in a situation where an account name matches a name used by a well-known indidual. The only thing this block is saying is that Wikipedia does not know who operated this account. It is likely we will never know with any degree of certainty. The press may speculate all day about the identity of the account operator, but Wikipedia should not be doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beeblebrox, the congressman was not well known in 2011. The account and userpage weren't created after he was elected, they were created a decade prior. How does that reasoning make sense? I am not aware of any policy that states very old accounts should be blocked just because their names are similar to notable people, without any evidence that they're impersonation accounts. Could you clarify this please? Regards, — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose I could rephrase if that helps. This is a username block and not anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beeblebrox, I feel Nythar is 100% correct. So in reply to you, yes, I feel rephrasing would be better. I know it may be a pain, but accuracy matters. Thanks :) and Best regards,
      BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The thing is, it already is a block just for the username and nothing else. This is not a big deal and I don't plan to give this any more of my attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Press - let’s not use unreliable sources[edit]

I don’t think we should be using unreliable sources such as Business Insider and the New York post. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Are you sure you meant to be posting that on this page? It doesn't seem to be responding to anything going on either on the User or User Talk page. Perhaps this was meant for Talk:George Santos? (Also, it seems to be missing at least one word, so you may want to review this post before copying it elsewhere.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler Thanks for pointing out I missed a word. Or rather more than one. I meant the media mentions listed at this page. We wouldn’t use these in a BLP article and I don’t think we should list them here. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my search had missed the collapsed box at top. Sorry 'bout that! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, probably the links to stories from all of the following should be removed: Newsweek, New York Post, The Daily Mail, and International Business Times. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we're using them as sources, but to document that this page has been subject to attention, which I think is something that we would want to know even for major-but-unreliable sources. We link to unreliable sources all the time in proper context; our article about Newsweek has a link to their site, for example. I could see compromising and keeping the listing of the mention without actually linking to web-based versions of the articles, justto discourage people from using them as sources... but they are cromulent sources for the statement "this publication had an article about this page." --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an interesting question, since these aren't actually being used as sources. Hmm. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added these links for this reason (and just to be clear, I wouldn't object to their removal). The media mentions banner seemed to be more of a place to list articles that have referenced a page and not an endorsement of those sources. My goal was to document media mentions. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template's doc page reads, in part: "This template should be used for press sources which mention a Wikipedia page, as it will link the article's talk page to Wikipedia:Press coverage." It is not about sourcing of encyclopedic content. I don't know that I've ever seen it used on a user talk page before but I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be, barring a consensus to the contrary. That doesn't strike me as a debate worth having. This is a very minor sideshow in a media circus. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to press it as these aren't the worst of deprecated sources. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter[edit]

The filter log shows that this account trippped the edit filter three times in short order at 00:07, April 30, 2011. This person was trying unsuccessfully to create an autobiographical Wikipedia article with essentially the same content as the user page at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone reading, it is this user's filter log, showing their three attempts to create the page Anthony devolder (which were unsuccessful and the page thus never created). — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify that it was only one attempt hitting three separate filters (you can check this with the timestamp variable in the log details). And if anyone's wondering why it was disallowed, as some probably are - it basically happens if you talk about GAY using too many capital letters as was done here (other criteria may apply). -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert[edit]

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny! Starts at about 5:00 in the YouTube link. Moncrief (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthonydevolder&oldid=1191631378"