Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident

Editing stats for Anonymous Dissident at 18:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC):

General user info Username: Anonymous Dissident User groups: sysop First edit: Jan 17, 2007 09:19:43 Unique articles edited: 10,295 Average edits per page: 2.81 Total edits (including deleted): 28,937 Deleted edits: 1,713 Live edits: 27,224

Namespace totals Article	12941	47.54% Talk	1201	4.41% User	1210	4.44% User talk	5277	19.38% Wikipedia	4654	17.10% Wikipedia talk	683	2.51% File	42	0.15% MediaWiki	45	0.17% MediaWiki talk	6	0.02% Template	691	2.54% Template talk	422	1.55% Help talk	1	0.00% Category	25	0.09% Portal	26	0.10%

Month counts 2007/01	504	2007/02	134	2007/03	302	2007/04	1241	2007/05	838	2007/06	2085	2007/07	2225	2007/08	2053	2007/09	2044	2007/10	1929	2007/11	1442	2007/12	1201	2008/01	1405	2008/02	1439	2008/03	1250	2008/04	419	2008/05	863	2008/06	762	2008/07	191	2008/08	918	2008/09	1125	2008/10	517	2008/11	225	2008/12	397	2009/01	93	2009/02	636	2009/03	986

Top edited articles Article

* 561 - Quark * 232 - Bonaparte_Crossing_the_Alps * 211 - BioShock * 135 - Halotus * 128 - History_of_poison * 123 - History_of_timekeeping_devices * 115 - Johannes_Rebmann * 96 - List_of_birds_of_Egypt * 93 - Leopard * 80 - Lion

Talk

* 33 - Main_Page * 32 - Quark * 29 - History_of_poison * 20 - Civilization_One * 19 - Halotus * 17 - Johannes_Rebmann * 16 - Bombings_of_Heilbronn_in_World_War_II * 15 - Lion/Archive_2 * 15 - BioShock * 15 - Bonaparte_Crossing_the_Alps

User

* 701 - Anonymous_Dissident * 139 - Anonymous_Dissident/Pages_created * 35 - Anonymous_Dissident/monobook.js   * 31 - SkyBot_1 * 28 - Anonymous_Dissident/Projects * 27 - Anonymous_Dissident/Awards * 23 - Anonymous_Dissident/Staircase * 20 - Anonymous_Dissident/Core * 20 - Anonymous_Dissident/top * 13 - DarkFalls/To_Do/Hudson_Fysh_draft

User talk

* 840 - Anonymous_Dissident * 82 - Yomangani * 60 - Casliber * 43 - Bibliomaniac15 * 39 - Anonymous_Dissident/header * 36 - CO   * 30 - Spebi * 29 - ArielGold * 25 - Newyorkbrad * 23 - Pendo_4

Wikipedia

* 555 - Requests_for_page_protection * 478 - Changing_username/Usurpations * 253 - Changing_username * 184 - Requests_for_comment/User_names * 134 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 131 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention * 120 - List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_DYKs * 93 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 71 - Featured_article_candidates/Quark/archive2 * 58 - Good_article_nominations

Wikipedia talk

* 380 - Requests_for_adminship * 33 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion * 29 - Changing_username/Usurpations * 28 - List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits * 27 - List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_DYKs * 27 - Did_you_know * 19 - Changing_username * 11 - AutoWikiBrowser * 9 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention * 9 - WikiProject_Malta

File

* 9 - ITunes_7_OS_X.png * 3 - Slug_map.jpg * 2 - Kawa1.jpg * 2 - Skylab3_2.jpg * 2 - The_Janus_Man.jpg * 2 - Battle-issus.jpg * 1 - Edjump2.jpg * 1 - Edjump4.jpg * 1 - Edjump3.jpg * 1 - Manfred_on_the_jungfrau.jpg

MediaWiki

* 17 - Editnotice-4-Changing_username * 11 - Sp-contributions-footer * 6 - Watchlist-details * 2 - Edittools * 1 - Editnotice-4-Requests_for_page_protection * 1 - Addedwatchtext * 1 - Protectedpagewarning * 1 - Editinginterface * 1 - Editnotice-11-Did_you_know * 1 - Uploadtext

MediaWiki talk

* 4 - Watchlist-details * 1 - Editnotice-4-Changing_username * 1 - Edittools

Template

* 101 - Did_you_know/Next_update * 38 - GAreview * 33 - Did_you_know * 28 - ThanksMALT * 27 - Infobox_Bot * 22 - Infobox_Bot/doc * 16 - WikiProject_Malta * 15 - User_NPOV2 * 15 - DYKclerk * 15 - In_the_news

Template talk

* 407 - Did_you_know * 4 - Cite_web * 2 - User_contrib * 2 - Film * 2 - Australian_politics/name/Call_to_Australia * 2 - WikipediaSister * 1 - Infobox_Bot * 1 - Otheruse * 1 - See_also

Help talk

* 1 - Moving_a_page

Category

* 4 - WikiProject_Malta_articles * 2 - Drive-by_shootings * 2 - WikiProject_Malta_templates * 2 - WikiProject_Malta * 2 - Wikipedia_sockpuppeteers * 2 - WikiProject_Malta_members * 1 - Unassessed_Malta_articles * 1 - Top-importance_Malta_articles * 1 - Template-class_Malta_pages * 1 - Category-class_Malta_pages

Portal

* 8 - New_South_Wales/News * 3 - New_South_Wales/News/Archives * 2 - Music_of_Australia * 2 - New_South_Wales/Intro * 1 - Comics/Anniversaries/December/December_4 * 1 - Germany/Things_you_can_do * 1 - Ancient_Rome/Selected_picture/2 * 1 - Music_of_Australia/To-do * 1 - Victoria/Did_you_know/1 * 1 - Biography/Selected_anniversaries/September_1

Admin stats for Anonymous Dissident at 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC):

Logs Users blocked: 479 Pages deleted: 1105 Pages moved: 149 Pages patrolled: 133 Pages protected: 360 Pages restored: 17 User rights modified: 5 Users unblocked: 11 Pages unprotected: 31 Files uploaded: 66

A Nobody's oppose

 * 1) Regretful oppose. I would support per User:Anonymous Dissident/Awards, but I have to oppose per Articles_for_deletion/Stonehenge_in_popular_culture (which we cannot do per Merge and delete), Articles for deletion/Fictional Child Prodigies, Articles for deletion/Gargoyles in fiction (if we went by strength of arguments and not a head count, it would have been a “keep”), Articles for deletion/Optimus Prime (person) (4th nomination) (a WP:PERNOM), Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm (merge discussions should take place on talk pages), Articles for deletion/PlayStation 3 technical problems (again, please see Merge and delete), and Articles for deletion/Stonehenge in popular culture (another please see Merge and delete).  Now, I realize bureaucrats aren’t closing AfDs and all, but how one argues in those reflects how one judges things in general and the above examples give me a pause when it comes to judgment.  Anyway, good job earning so many awards and never being blocked (I don’t count blocking and unblocking yourself as a block!).  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could find any more recent examples? The most recent out of all of those was closed on January 5, 2008, over a year ago. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about this. A Nobody often opposes over very dated AFDs he disagrees with the closure of, or the vote cast on. It's not like it'll have any effect on this RFB whatsoever.  Majorly  talk  22:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Majorly; he can oppose like this all he wants, although the notion that Anonymous Dissident's inclusion stance is somehow related to how he can function as a bureaucrat is absolutely laughable. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * January 2008 to April 2009? That's basically the average time it takes for someone to make their first edits on Wikipedia, to their adminship. You can't seriously be opposing over that? &mdash;Dark talk 05:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just had a quick look at those AfDs. For three of the articles mentioned, you've cited an essay, merge and delete. According to your view, merging and deleting articles is a violation of GFDL. However this means that much of Wikipedia's admins are also in violation of GFDL. Regardless, I fail to see how bureaucratic duties have anything to do with copyright. This is not a question of judgement, this is a question of copyright. As for Optimus Prime AfD, you are opposed to his use of "per nom" in one AfD, in July 5 2007? Note that bureaucrats are not gods. &mdash;Dark talk 06:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging then simply deleting an article would be a clear violation of the GFDL. Admins releasing deleted material are supposed to release it under the GFDL. Normally, they should give a copy of the history, at least the list of contributors. But yes, there are many violations of the GFDL, within Wikipedia, when deleted content is reused without attribution (frequent examples are selective BLP deletions). Cenarium (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RFA/RFB would collapse in an instant if we didn't have people who were willing to do the hard work of digging up diffs and pointing out perceived flaws. Of course we'd love for opposers to always have attitudes that exactly mirror community norms, and always do a brilliant job of only presenting the most hard-hitting diffs ... but we have to live in a world where different people have different goals, and make the best of it.  I've given A Nobody some "pointers" myself, but my impression is that he has taken the pointers to heart; that's a fairly short list, and he is crystal clear about what problems he sees, and he's absolutely right; per GFDL, we should preserve histories whenever it's relevant.  (Since it's clear that the support for migrating from GFDL to CC-BY is overwhelming and the vote is coming soon, I personally am not quite as concerned about GFDL as A Nobody is, but that's another matter.)  Although I'm weak in behavioral issues, I've noticed that the most helpful Wikipedians are about 3 hairs shy of being the most notorious Wikipedians, and unless you have a crystal ball, you really can't tell the difference in advance: the helpful ones are focused and persistent and are able to persuade people to come around to their point of view, the notorious ones are the same, except unsuccessful.  A Nobody has a history of doing good things at AfD (mostly under another username); I don't always agree with his calls, but his long experience and huge output counts for a lot, in my mind.  And another thing: protest votes have always been acceptable at RFA/RFB, and A Nobody had the class to wait until the issue was already decided in this one. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with this RfB, so if someone would like to leave a message on my talk page that'd be great. How in the hell is merging two page histories a violation of the GFDL?  It's an argument I've never agree with for about the two years it has shown up.  If I merge page histories the history is secured.  If I work the merged material with akin to "Restore merged edits by X from revision Y" there is absolutely no copyleft violation.  If I am wrong, or if I misinterpret this, let me know.   Keegan talk 04:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Not directed at anyone in general) Perhaps this could be discussed elsewhere? – Juliancolton  | Talk 04:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. Mine wasn't directed at anyone in particular either, I had no place to put it.  Take it to User:Keegan/GFDL for further discussion.  I have nothing to say about it, I just want an answer.   Keegan talk 05:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to talk page. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Erasing the history of how an article was created, for instance by copypasting from one article to another and deleting the first article, is a violation of GFDL because under GFDL, it's the creators of the text who own the rights (such as the right to require that people cite where they got the material if it's copied), not Wikipedia. If you erase all trace of who created the material, then they lose their rights. This is not an issue that people feel strongly about or that gets much discussion, but if you're asking whether it's better to preserve edit histories or not, the right answer is that it's better to preserve them. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, copy-paste is illegal. Many thousands of users do not know that.  I assume that AnonymousDissident does know this, as should all administrators.  "Merge and delete" does not mean copy and paste.  It means merge page histories and get rid of the old page.  This is entirely legal and is an option to close a deletion discussion.  A Nobody takes the ball and runs without even looking where he's going- this is not good.   Keegan talk 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 3 links (if I'm counting right) where A Nobody brought up a problem with WP:Merge and delete were cases where AD didn't say "merge and delete", he said "delete", and his suggestions (such as "copy this stuff into a section" or "copy it to various pages as appropriate") aren't compatible with a history merge. I don't think A Nobody is off-base in the objection; it's just not a popular objection, and probably something should have been said and should be said in AfDs if and when it's important. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)