Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephen B Streater

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phr (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 19 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stephen B Streater

Voice your opinion! (9/2/1) Ending 09:10, 2006-08-26 (UTC)

Stephen B Streater (talk · contribs) This is a co-nomination between lethe and JzG.

Stephen B Streater has been a Wikipedian since February 2006. He initially came to my notice because he created articles on his own products - a bad start. His response was exemplary. He accepted the deletion of the articles, went and learned the policies, and quietly worked at building the encyclopaeida while his products grew in importance. I moved his article back into mainspace myself, once there was compelling evidence per WP:SOFTWARE. Stephen is also a calm and meausured contributor on numeorus science and technology subjects. He injects calm and balance into conflicts.

Stephen has impressed many of us with his calm responses to less-than-calm comments, with his willingess to listen before forming judgments, and with his ability to work productively with difficult people. He is mature and shows genuine commitment to the idea of building a great encyclopaedia. In other words, he is exactly what we want in an admin.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am happy to accept this nomination. Stephen B Streater 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
I don't see sysop functions as chores.
Working on a contentious article, one colleague commented: Stephen has earned our trust on both sides, so if he has to be the one to execute changes, that's fine. [1] A voluntary de-facto article protection. A series of edits here helped cool the situation at personal rapid transit which had been in a low level edit war for many months. More editors have since joined this interesting article, which has continued to develop, often after consultation on the relevant talk page.
I like to intervene in disputes to bring people together - participatory mediation. Often all it needs is to provide the missing link between two editors. Two areas where I have been able to contribute successfully are content disputes and personal disputes. Sometimes one has to resort to compromise, but I prefer more creative resolutions where the parties are happy with the way forward. Though difficult to achieve, it is very rewarding as it reduces effort wasted in conflict later on and can enable people to work together productively.
After the excitement of every day life, I like to relax into some routine maintenance. On AfDs of failing articles, I tend to preserve useful content even where I vote for deletion (eg [2], [3] and [4]), and this would extend to tidying up AfDs which I close as merge. It is inevitable that not all the 100+ articles deleted each day have had a full debate, and being able to see deleted articles in deletion review would allow me to contribute more there. I would continue to tidy up my share of the more colourful contributions. These are mostly from my watchlist but also by following other contributions from these marginal editors. The negative energy on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where people can sometimes get rather exasperated, would benefit from more positive solutions.
I notice that neutral point of view disputes have one of the biggest backlogs. I take the luxury of looking into some depth about the controversial subjects I get involved with. This has led to my high average edit count per article. The result is often a more neutral point of view in my edits. In this light, this Barnstar was much appreciated.
Admins carry a lot of weight with new users. Rather than a simple revert, I enjoy educating our newer users in how to make their efforts more productive. Perhaps a relevant motto here is "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life". Speedy deletes are a good opportunity to help new users, showing them not to take the rejection personally.
Wikipedians should expect some useful tools, implemented as Java applets, further down the line.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
My favourite edits are those which help move Wikipedia forwards. An edit in the resolution of a heated debate may be further improved by others, but may nevertheless be a necessary step towards a solution. I also like those major edits which accurately reflects consensus and persist. This edit led to this, which cooled an edit war on no personal attacks. A series of edits starting here helped turn UniModal into an interesting Wikipedia nugget following its narrow AfD, with positive contributions from all parties in a heated process. These uncontroversial changes to Requests for adminship followed a burst of editing conflicts, but were largely accepted. I have helped tidy up the Java applet article, starting here. The wind power definition fix has survived the test of time. I've also been helping raise Mathematics to featured article with minor fixes, first paragraph and second paragraph. I've started a number of new articles, and it's particularly gratifying when other people chip in too eg Nokia N93. The second (keep) AfD for the FORscene article demonstrated an improved grasp of how articles should be constructed, and I also have an editor's Barnstar from AfD.
I have added about a dozen videos to Wikipedia articles, shot on various camera phones. These are watched every day, with about 5,000 views so far, and none has been removed; I think that gives a pointer to the Future. While video is still in its infancy here on Wikipedia, most (over 90%) of you will be able to see these examples of Wikipedia videos eg Bungy jumping and Childbirth.
Although not strictly my edits, I am most pleased about the appreciation editors have shown when things work out well. I've been blessed by a collection of positive sentiments on my talk page eg CComMack, Nigelj, Phaedriel, Lwieise and more scattered throughout article talk pages. I find it particularly rewarding when an idea in a contentious debate gets picked up and leads to a resolution.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
I've been in my share of editing conflicts - I tend to engage in conflicts between other people as conflict usually indicates important ideas are fighting to surface. As I am without malice, my contributions often end up as mediation. I don't get stressed by Wikipedia. There is good in everyone, and helping to tease this out while encouraging people to acknowledge and respect each other allows the true strengths of Wikipedia to reveal themselves. It is easy to remember that we are all working towards the same goal.
Where conflict is concerned, often a bucket is needed to supplement the mop. [5]
4. What personality traits make you suitable for the admin role?
Tough enough to deal with vandals, patient enough to deal with new editors, forgiving enough to bear no grudges, strong enough to insist on what is right, flexible enough to retract when wrong, detached enough to avoid personal conflict, persuasive enough to resolve differences, knowledgeable enough to work within the rules, imaginitive enough to add another question to the standard three.
Comments
Username Stephen B Streater
Total edits 3463
Distinct pages edited 626
Average edits/page 5.532
First edit 12:14, 12 February 2006
(main) 1589
Talk 758
User 103
User talk 359
Image 2
Template 1
Template talk 1
Help talk 1
Category 1
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 405
Wikipedia talk 242
Support
  1. I unreservedly support this nomination. He has consistently been the voice of sanity and temperance over at Personal Rapid Transit, where such qualities are in short supply. His interventions there cooled down a kerfuffle which had sent several full-fledged admins fleeing. If he can negotiate with a tar baby like that and still feel like logging back into Wikipedia on the 'morrow, then I figure he can handle most anything. Unless power corrupts, and I doubt in this case that it will, he'll make a stellar admin. Skybum 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Calming and reasoned approach is perfect at disarming the worst conflicts. I have seen him around a lot getting his hands dirty. In the good sense. David D. (Talk) 07:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Appears civil on talk pages, works hard, and contributes to multiple areas. SynergeticMaggot 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Good interactions with other editors. Apears to be a sensible all-round chap and solid admin material.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, while slightly below my editcounting requirements he impressed me by his answers abakharev 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Impressive answers to questions. A civil user as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Good Wikipedian. I'm pleased to have a Wikipedian with this profile among us. Thanks for joining the project! I don't see any reason not to trust this user with the admin tools. He's shown to behave reasonable enough. And I propose not to discriminate this user due to his background. --Ligulem 11:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (←This user doesn't want to recieve "thank you's" for RFA votes, thanks ;-)[reply]
  8. Support. Pleasant cooperation on Talk:Mathematics and some other articles which I don't quite remember now, I trust Lethe, and no reason not to support, though I admit that his reply to Phr below is slightly worrying. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Seems to be a clued-up user. Just, please, don't let your business interests get in the way of making the best judgements for Wikipedia. The two should be kept seperate but I'm willing to trust that they will be. --kingboyk 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support. I learned long ago (on a course called Insight 1) many things about people, but the one which applies here is: It's easier to give than to receive. And when you are giving something away for free, it's particularly hard ;-) Stephen B Streater 14:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Rama's arrow 17:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support - There is precicely one thing that JzG and I agree on: Stephen's worthiness for adminship. JzG and I (and others) had epic battles at the Personal rapid transit articles, and Stephen was the moderating influence. Before he arrived it was a war; since he got fully involved, things calmed to the point where there hasn't been a contentious edit there in weeks. He is calm, reasonable, patient, and has a great understanding of what Wikipedia is (or, more accurately, what it aspires to be). If he's not admin material, then nobody is. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Neutral Oppose (vote changed and explanation slightly rewritten based on examining the codec situation 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)) I take issue with the statement "I have added about a dozen videos to Wikipedia, shot on various camera phones" when what was really added was external links to off-wiki videos with unclear licenses, which apparently need a special patented player applet supplied by the candidate's company (see FORscene). I consider the cited edits to be linkspam per WP:EL no matter how good the videos are. Referring to this as adding videos to Wikipedia shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's nature as a free encyclopedia. Adding videos to Wikipedia would be wonderful; that's done by licensing them freely, converting them to a free format and uploading them to Commons, not linking them externally. Candidate otherwise seems very good. Phr (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've proposed making the format freely available within Wikipedia, including the wiki-style web browser editing. Far more people have Java than the current system. There is a discussion on meta.wikimedia.org. Being a wiki, I (and others) have led by example. This is a big subject which needs further discussion; but then, being a visionary was never the easy path :-) Stephen B Streater 10:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stephen, "freely available within Wikipedia" is totally unacceptable; Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and that, more fundamentally than anything, includes the freedom to fork and re-use, which means the format has to be freely available everywhere and not just within Wikipedia. We don't use patented formats on Wikipedia; we don't even use mp3 audio, for which there's about a bazillion implementations distributed as source. We are similarly cracking down on fair-use and "permission within Wikipedia" photographs. The last thing we want to do is become a marketing platform for some company's patented codecs, even when the company is run by as genuinely esteemed a contributor as yourself. I'm sorry but you're showing a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, even though your contributions as a mediator and article content writer are excellent. Please do everything you can to separate your "business hat" from your "Wikipedian hat". After reading FORscene about the nature of the codecs, I now see your video links as out-and-out spam and I'd appreciate it if you could remove all of them (of course it would still be great if you were to contribute the videos in a free format by uploading to Commons as described above). Also, right after reading that article, I went into the shower and while in there I decided to change my vote to oppose; I came out and saw your response, but please don't interpret the vote change as a reaction to your reply (i.e. I had already decided it). I am regretful of this as I think you are a fantastic candidate in many ways, but this issue is just too basic. I'll consider supporting a future RFA for you (in the event this one doesn't pass) if you show you understand and can uphold Wikipedia's libre content policies even when your business interests pull you in another direction. As a very minor separate issue, I think you have too many extlinks to your company on your user page (Google bombing) and I'd appreciate it if you could decrease the number (not to zero, we do want to know what you do). (There's better ways to deal with this). Phr (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your last point first, you will see that Google shows no references to the website containing the videos, and Google shows no links from my user page. I don't see any evidence of Google bombing. Perhaps you could clarify what effect you would like me to reduce. Stephen B Streater 13:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On your main point: I found out about the libre policy some time ago, which is why I changed the conditions on the FORscene image here to reflect this [6]. As we own our codecs, we can do anything we like with them. We could, indeed, release one as completely free to use, as was done with the more conventional video format used already in Wikipedia. We could also add a completely free video output format into FORscene, and allow publishing in this format - we already have five publishing options. The point of the discussion on mediawiki is to find the best way forward. I always find when making a big step like this that some prior discussion is fruitful. Stephen B Streater 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at your first objection again, I see you may have made a false assumption. The mediawiki discussion predated my learning about libre, which predated my change to the FORscene image rights, which predates now. So when I first proposed making the format freely available within Wikipedia I was not aware of the details on Wikipedia policy here. This is why we have discussions. However, you will notice that some patented codecs are allowed in Wikipedia (eg Dirac) and that being free in Wikipedia does not mean being charged for anywhere else. There is no logical inconsistency between Wikipedia policy and using FORscene to publish video. Stephen B Streater 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed my request about user page links since I think there's better ways to deal with it that wouldn't mess up your page (I'll leave that for another time). But to explain, we have a big problem with spammers putting links in Wikipedia in order to get better search engine placement, and it looked as if your links might be doing the same thing inadvertently. I felt it would look better if you took some steps to avoid that, even though the effect (if any) was presumably unintentional.

    Re video: if you're willing to release a free codec (that is, one whose algorithm is ok for use in free software), which means either an unpatented codec or one with a broad patent license allowing free-software reimplementations by anyone, then that would be great. Copylefting the videos is not enough--we need to be able to implement the codecs in copylefted software, and to have a free implementation actually available. It sounds as if you're hoping to get Wikipedians using software and formats that depend buying licenses from you for non-Wikipedia use, and we don't do that--of the possibilities you've mentioned, only the completely free ones are acceptable. Yes, I know there would certainly be some user convenience advantages to using proprietary formats, but our position has always been that we don't care, freedom takes priority over convenience. For example, we use Ogg Vorbis format for audio instead of mp3, even though a heck of a lot more users have mp3 software, mp3 editing tools, portable mp3 players and recorders, and so forth.

    As for Dirac, the Dirac (codec) article explains, "While the BBC owns some patents on Dirac, they have irrevocably granted a royalty-free license for their Dirac related patents to all of humanity." If you're willing to do the same for the FORscene codecs (or even limit such a license to copylefted implementations), then that would go a long way towards solving my objection. Are you offering that? Otherwise, since we're a libre project, being able to use something without being charged for it is not sufficient for our definition of "free". We need the freedom to repurpose it off-wiki and to not rely on any software that can't also be repurposed and re-used, so we take an m:eventualist approach to the convenience issue, and we make do with less convenient codecs if that's what we have available. I don't see how the arguments you're making for the patented FORscene codecs don't also apply to mp3, and as I've mentioned, we've declined to use mp3 over these very issues. Phr (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just curious (has nothing to do with this RFA): Phr, what is your relation to the subject of this image [7] you uploaded? --Ligulem 12:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know him from way back. Yes, that's one of the pictures with a not-so-great license, and I've mentioned I need to get around to uploading a better one [8] (which will have a better license). But someone had asked for a picture, and that's what I could get hold of without an unknown delay. Phr (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be addressed on a user talk page if it has nothing to do with this RFA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zsinj (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm yes, it just seems that Phr might not be that authority on "with permission" copyright [9]  ;-) --Ligulem 14:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Phr. We can't have admins who do not understand foundation issues. Kimchi.sg 11:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See reply above. Many external links contain copyright and patented material. The goal of bringing useful content inside Wikipedia is a good one I think. There is no simple way to do this, but I have been working towards this goal in various discussions, including the ones quoted. There is more than one way forward, as indicated, so some discussion is needed in advance of choosing a solution. As you would expect, I would be happy to copyleft the videos I have added to the articles. I would also like the "anyone can edit" to apply to them too. Stephen B Streater 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm here, I'd also like to add that I would like anyone else to be able to add videos to Wikipedia as easily as I can, and I would like to be able to edit their videos too as easily as I can edit my own. This goal does not contradict any foundation issues. Stephen B Streater 13:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you refer to your external links as "adding videos to the articles"? They are not additions to the articles, they are external links, and yes, we have lots of external links to copyrighted/patented objects, but those are not part of Wikipedia. Adding videos to the articles means uploading them, and we don't allow uploads in proprietary formats, and in fact we prefer to avoid external links in those formats. Have you read WP:EL? Do you really think the dozen links you've apparently added pointing back to your own web site to videos in your own format are consistent with [10] sections 1, 3, and 6? I shouldn't be having this hard a time explaining this to you and I wish you would spend some time coming up to speed on these issues. You should also understand that you have a conflict of interest that you really have to be careful about. I don't see you acknowledging this conflict, which worries me. I think it may already be warping your perceptions somewhat, and before you can stop that effect, you have to be aware of it. Phr (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral per Phr. --ZsinjTalk 13:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. From the discussion above I think the concerns about foundation issues are misplaced; indeed, Stephen seems to be doing good work. Per my own criteria, however, I'm loath to translate good editors to the bureaucracy without a little more experience. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen, I'm even more concerned about this issue after the latest round of messages than I was before. I should probably stop cluttering the RFA with it but if you can leave me a talk message explaining why you think my concerns are misplaced, that might help me feel better. I agree with you that Stephen is doing good work in other areas but I think the understanding he's showing (so far) of foundation issues (and of WP:EL) is weak. Phr (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stephen_B_Streater&oldid=70633447"