Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephen B Streater


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Stephen B Streater
Final (30/27/7) Ended 09:10, 2006-08-26 (UTC)

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.


 * Just zis Guy you know? 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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. 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, and ), 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 made about a dozen videos accessible from 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.


 * 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.

All user's edits. Voice -of- All  04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Viewing contribution data for user Stephen B Streater (over the 3584 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 190 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 20, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 11hr (UTC) -- 12, February, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 22.85 (for last 1000 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 453 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 3584 edits shown on this page and last 1 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.11% (4) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 4.52% (162) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 32.48% (1164) Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 1 (checks last 5000) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 32.39% Special edit type statistics: All edits to deletion pages: 4.94% (177 edit(s)) Marked XfD/DRV votes: 2.06% (74 edit(s)) Article deletion tagging: 0.08% (3 edit(s)) Edits to "copyright problems" pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) Edits to RfAs: 3.29% (118 edit(s)) Marked RfA votes: 1.03% (27 support vote(s)) || (10 oppose vote(s)) Page moves: 0.28% (10 edit(s)) (5 moves(s)) Page redirections: 0.08% (3 edit(s)) Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s)) User talk warnings: 0% (0 edit(s)) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 632 | Average edits per page: 5.67 | Edits on top: 3.04% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 60.52% (2169 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 13.59% (487 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 8.23% (295 edit(s)) Unmarked edits with no summary: 14.12% (506 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 46.74% (1675) | Article talk: 21.21% (760) User: 2.93% (105) | User talk: 10.38% (372) Wikipedia: 11.8% (423) | Wikipedia talk: 6.75% (242) Image: 0.06% (2) Template: 0.03% (1) Category: 0.03% (1) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.08% (3)
 * Comments


 * See Stephen B Streater's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
 * My edit count (Interiot's Tool) as of the time on this stamp. Stephen B Streater (Talk) 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)




 * 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)
 * 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)
 * In the face of significant criticism I have reevaluated my opinion and i still support this candidate. There is nothing clandestine in his actions here and i think it would behoove wikipedia to discuss the video issues seriously. Instead it sounds as his we are slamming the door on his ideas. This seems a little short sighted. David D. (Talk) 03:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And to those who are against the videos. Does that mean PDF's have to go too? David D. (Talk) 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Appears civil on talk pages, works hard, and contributes to multiple areas. SynergeticMaggot 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Support, while slightly below my editcounting requirements he impressed me by his answers abakharev 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Impressive answers to questions. A civil user as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 ;-) changed to oppose --Ligulem 07:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I strongly suggest to Stephen to withdraw this nomination, so that the issues raised by opposers regarding video content can be adressed separately and in a calm and reasonable manner. I would be very interested in seeing what we can benefit of Stephen for the project. I don't believe Stephen only wants to push his company here. Stephen, please withdraw your nomination, so that this can be sorted out. The whole thing has nothing to do with adminship any more. --Ligulem 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that Ligulem makes a good point here. This RfA should not become a straw poll on the video issues, this whole discussion needs to be established in a more appropriate forum. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good point, but for one small omission. Perhaps you would also like to point out what these more appropriate forums are. I have been to Wikimedia Video policy, Village Pump (Policy) and Village Pump (Technical), as well as the talk pages of many articles, over an extended period of time. The information I have received in the first two days of this RfA has been much more useful and has saved me a huge amount of wasted development on an Ogg Java player and/or legal fees to make a free Java player licence for one of the Forbidden codecs. Although I agree that some people here have been quite hostile, this has not stopped anyone from genuinely contributing to a positive outcome. Thanks to information I've garnered here, I've also taken the opportunity to add Ogg output to FORscene. Stephen B Streater 18:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I was intentionally vague. I'm not sure of the best location for the forum. May be Gmaxwell could suggest a place?  How about Wales' talk page? OK, joking there, but this issue cannot be ignored for too long.  I have already noticed quite a few links to youtube.com.  Video issues are not going away and wikipedia needs a way to control this material. David D. (Talk) 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another good idea. But I already have about four things pending replies with him. There's a limit to how much I feel I can overload the guy - he's a volunteer too. Perhaps someone will see this thread and chip in. Stephen B Streater 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) Support Rama's arrow  17:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * This is amusing, since I was originally the moderating inluence on those articles, and the "epic battles" were simply endless argumentatiom over implementation of policy and guidelines. My seeking to nominate Stephen was in no small part a response to his endless patience with these argumentative users :-D Just zis Guy you know? 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it all depends on your point of view - my decision to support was in no small part a response to his endless patience with a stubborn admin :-D. As I said, you and I will never agree on what happened there, but Stephen at least got us to the point where we can laugh about it. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The operative word being we, since I was laughing about the absurdity of it all along. Most of the time we appeared from my perspective to be in violent agreement on the fundamentals, differing only on matters of detail.  Although I must confess that I did get rather tired of pointing out that no system remotely resembling that described in the article exists or is in process... Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the risk when you try and help people ;-) I suspect a few of these RfA people will need longer than seven days to stop panicking and start thinking constructively. I've seen it before here, and I don't think insults and threats reflect well on the people involved. Perhaps they've never come across a rouge editor before ;-) Stephen B Streater 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And we got tired of hearing it, because it was an absolute non-sequiter which served no purpose but to be combative, arrogant, and irritating, both there and here. (And don't you dare now proceed to suggest that you are free to throw out little japes like that, while nobody else is).  However, while you managed to utterly squander the (not insignificant) credibility and respect which users such as myself had previously granted you, Stephen somehow managed to increase his esteem in everyone's eyes, with every subsequent post.  You should take notes.  (I probably should, too). Skybum 02:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, JzG, do you really want to drag that debate here? Jeez, man, let it go. Be thankful that Stephen was able to fix things there (at least for now) and be done with it. A Transportation Enthusiast 08:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen. We have an opportunity to set a good example for the oppose people here. Stephen B Streater 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you expect anything less from a bunch of "argumentative users"? :-) A Transportation Enthusiast 09:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I just don't see any merit to the oppose viewpoint. Althought the wikispace edits are a bit low, Stephen seems capable. AdamBiswanger1 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Stable, mature character is fundamental for an admin. Tyrenius 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per all of the above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Phr's concerns do not trouble me that much, but Mackensen's do. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, unfortunately, per Gmaxwell. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Dryman 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Ter e nce Ong (T 14:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Mainspace edits could be higher, and more disperse, but the editor is good a conflict resolution, which Wikipedia can use in an admin.-- danntm T C 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support per CrzRussian and Danntm and consistent with my RfA guidelines. Joe 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Sounds like a good guy. ShortJason 02:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I trust him. --Guinnog 08:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Has engaged constructively with reasoned criticism and remained cool under fire. Has added external links to interesting videos which most people with computers can view out of the box without seeing any ads, promotional messages or hawking of software. I can certainly forgive him for thinking this was a good thing, much as I consider myself a part of the free culture movement. Haukur 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: seems like a great bloke. Thumbelina 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: I'm typing this on Debian stable, if that means anything. The candidate sounds like a reasonable guy. I don't think insufficent zeal for free software should disqualify him. The concerns of those who oppose his nomination would lead me to oppose it as well, if he had been unwilling to address them. Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support he is an asset! When building an encyclopedia, you need people with his credentials.  Quality not quantity of articles, to paraphrase Jimbo... for that you need experts not only contributing to articles, but making administrative decisions to ensure the quality of articles -- Samir   धर्म 04:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I wasn't going to voice an opinion, but some of his responses in this RFA impressed me. If he's that good at taking advantage of feedback, he'd probably make a good admin, even if it takes him a little while to find his sea legs. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per nom and well-thought responses to difficult questions, although it's obvious consensus will not be reached here. I hope that SBS will continue to be part of a discussion of future technologies here, while remaining mindful of the concerns that have been expressed. Newyorkbrad 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I see the force of some of those who oppose, but on balance deserves support.--Holdenhurst 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support FellowWikip e dian 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Seems a solid fllow who will help things along.--Brownlee 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Stephen's commitment to Wikipedia is unerring - I should know! He's calm, mature, diplomatic, and is a penetrating and perceptive researcher - exactly what you'd want in an admin. Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I believe this point is now resolved. Stephen B Streater 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, my error, thanks. Phr (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * FORscene could output video in any format, including Dirac. I've spoken to the BBC guys about Dirac, and it's basically good, though too slow at the moment for a Java player - one of the big advantages of the codec I published these videos in. Forbidden Technologies has the same issues with patented formats like MPEG as we do here (people sometimes ask if FORscene can output in these formats). As a technology company, Forbidden is in a position to fix this. We don't seem to disagree on an end point, though I think my approach is more likely to get there. Put another way, eventually might be closer than you think. Stephen B Streater 22:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious (has nothing to do with this RFA): Phr, what is your relation to the subject of this image you uploaded? --Ligulem 12:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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  (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)
 * 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  ;-) --Ligulem 14:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Phr. We can't have admins who do not understand foundation issues. Kimchi.sg 11:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 WP:EL 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)
 * Perhaps you would be less concerned about the WP:EL guideline if you could see the web pages linked to, which are pretty neutral. The Go article has had several hundred edits since 5th May when I linked to the London Open video. This video has been watched hundreds of times without anyone removing it - that's several hundred people who are happy to enjoy the video while the bureaucracy works out a long term solution in its own time. Incidentally, the Go article has quite a few links to Java sites too, which are very handy if you are a Go player. You might like to reflect on the fact that 5,000 people have watched these videos and not removed them from their articles, and perhaps consider this could be quite a good thing in the long run for WIkipedia. Stephen B Streater 23:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sticking with oppose. I'm not reassured by the hand-waving of the candidate on this page. What we emphasise on this site is free-to-use content, not eventually, not tomorrow, but now. "Will be compliant to " just doesn't cut the cake, sorry. I'm afraid the candidate has missed the implication of foundation issue point 4. Refusing to acknowledge the conflict of interest in adding links for own product in articles also concerning. And your stressing on this page, that people haved watched the videos "without removing it" several times - does that mean you know the links promote your firm's product, and expected them to be removed as spam? Kimchi.sg 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect your purist view, but think it will not deliver the best solution for Wikipedia. As the videos are not about my company, but about the subjects of the articles, neither I nor the viewers have removed them as spam. When they are moved to a free player, this will lessen your concern, but there are many more issues to resolve to get a really good video solution here. Many of these are discussed in various debates on the wikis. The solution will not come about by magic but by consistent hard work over many months. It is unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, that some people see this work in progress as a negative. You will understand that the feedback from Wikipedians who use this system has been invaluable on crafting a solution for Wikipedia. The work has been well received by users; perhaps it is time to seek some higher approval for this work to calm some nerves. Stephen B Streater 18:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. Serious policy issues and Q1 answer (many non-admin tasks described) bother me. Voice -of- All  04:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -- not enough time with the project --T-rex 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Stephen has been insisting on adding videos and encouraging others to add videos to Wikipedia via an external video site which uses encumbered codecs embedded in proprietary software. These actions have spread across many pages, now 95 links in total . Typically when encountering promotion of this magnitude I would suggest a block for spamming, not a grant of adminship. I understand that Stephen wants to help Wikipedia, but I suspect that his position of CEO of forscene is coloring his judgment. Video uploaded to third-party sites in proprietary formats is not a contribution to Wikipedia, and to encourage others to do so is utterly unacceptable. Soon we will have support for an inline (java (GCJ or sun) based, or VLC plugin (Linux, Windows, Mac) based) playback of both Ogg/Theora and Ogg/Vorbis, and none of the video locked up on forscene's site will be able to participate. --Gmaxwell 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's only fair to note that the "95 links" provided above consist of about three links in article space. Outriggr 04:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your quote of me, which is on the main Mediawiki video policy page, asks for people who are interested in exploring alternatives. Exploring alternatives is a good thing when the existing solution is hardly used. And I also offer information and assistance. This has been up for nearly a month. Why has no one working in this area even contacted me to ask how my solution would fit into Wikipedia? Stephen B Streater 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * May I also suggest that you are being overly pessimistic on two counts. First, these videos are only accessible from Wikipedia because FORscene made this easy, so your implication that FORscene has somehow stolen videos from Wikipedia is flawed. Secondly, there is no reason why Forbidden couldn't add a free codec output format to FORscene. If these codecs are as freely available as you suggest, it should be a matter of minutes to add a publishing option to FORscene to output in these formats for adding into Wikipedia in the usual way. Stephen B Streater 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now added Ogg output format to FORscene, so I suggest you strike your comment that none of the video locked up on forscene's site will be able to participate as this is factually inaccurate and misleading. Stephen B Streater 14:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Gmaxwell, I am paying particular attention to your comments because you speak for many here. I appreciate the assistance you have given me in your contributions here, but I feel there are still some important errors in your comment above, which I am outlining here and asking you to remedy:
 * "Stephen has been insisting on adding videos" - not true. I have not added any videos (except in Ogg format) since being requested not to. Please acknowledge this. Stephen B Streater 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "and encouraging others to add videos to Wikipedia". This link asked for people who wanted to explore Java video to try out the FORscene Java player, not to add FORscene videos to Wikipedia as you state. I suggest those involved in the Ogg Java player would learn something by taking up this offer. Please either find a better link (if there is one), or strike your unsupported claim. Stephen B Streater 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Typically when encountering promotion of this magnitude" - the typical Wikipedian would be hard pressed to find the company responsible for hosting the videos. We have 1,000,000 hits a month on the Forbidden website. And 25 hits a day on our neutral video hosting site from Wikipedians who mostly couldn't trace the source if they were interested or wanted to. This is not promotion. Stephen B Streater 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Video uploaded to third-party sites in proprietary formats is not a contribution to Wikipedia" - entirely missing the point which is that developing a free solution for Wikipedia is a contribution to Wikipedia. Forbidden doesn't want to pay Wikipedia's video hosting bill. Please acknowledge. Stephen B Streater 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Soon we will have support for an inline (java (GCJ or sun) based, or VLC plugin (Linux, Windows, Mac) based) playback of both Ogg/Theora and Ogg/Vorbis, and none of the video locked up on forscene's site will be able to participate." - FORscene can output Ogg format videos now - long before the Java player is available. I've uploaded a couple: here and here. Most people can't see these (yet), but you will recognise them from two of the videos you unlinked. Stephen B Streater 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we have had some productive discussions in this RfA. We may disagree on certain issues, but your position of influence brings with it a responsibility to ensure your RfA contribution is accurate. Did you say  you were from Xiph, whose primary focus is on the Ogg family of formats - which you have been promoting here. Is this not a clear conflict of interest? If true it is extraordinary that you have not declared this openly. Stephen B Streater 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stephen, I'm going to take your points in reverse order.
 * Above, you publicly accused me of having a conflict of interest. Your claim is false and I find it highly offensive.
 * I did not accuse you of anything. I asked whether your involvement with Ogg was a conflict of interest, which is a valid question. You have given your answer below, which satisfies me that you should have declared this. However, I acknowledge that you have done good work there, and respect you for that. Stephen B Streater 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Back in 1999 I contributed some code the LAME (VBR support and some other odds and ends). Lame is an open source MP3 encoder. However, I was (and am to this day) very concerned about the use of file format royalties as a mechanism to artificially perpetuate the existence of highly profitable 'middlemen' in the music industry whom do nothing other than collect money off the works of others. Frustrated by both the limitations of the MP3 format and by the impossibility of ever making a set of truly free MP3 codecs, I went in search of others working on unencumbered formats and found Monty and his Vorbis codec project.
 * At the time the Vorbis format didn't actually compress but it was in active development. I contributed some to fundamental research and fixed a few minor bugs here and there... but mostly I participated as a fanboy, and the quality of the Vorbis codec owes its quality today more to Monty's ability to ignore my stupid ideas than to anything I contributed.
 * Eventually, it became clear that generosity of single organizations was not a sustainable way to support the project and Xiph.org was founded as a 501c3 non-profit to act as a central clearing house for interested organizations to contribute funds to the creation of open media formats and codecs. Xiph.org supported a number of open media sub-projects and made it possible to have Vorbis' developer work full time on the codec. I was uninvolved with the formation of Xiph, my name would appear nowhere Xiphs records.
 * With the transition to Xiph hosting was required for the project's server. I provided this for a number of years. I performed sysadmin duties, laughed at dozens of slashdottings, did release engineering, email stuff, and minor bug fixes. My work was an unpaid labor of love and I have never received a penny from Xiph.. well, I do have a Vorbis T-shirt.
 * In the time since the completion of the core codecs, activity levels have died down within Xiph. Changes in my personal life in 2004 made it impossible for me to continue providing hosting. I have had very little interaction with anyone involved with Xiph in the past two years.
 * I was completely uninvolved with, and unaware of Wikipedia's initial decision to only permit media in unencumbered formats (which pretty much leaves us with Ogg for video and audio). Although it's a position I strongly support, and I often participate in debates when the subject comes up.
 * My involvement with Xiph has never been a secret, although I don't mention it too often because it would be so easy to overstate my minimal contributions. I brought it up in this discussion because, frankly, I believe you were being a little bit careless with making sure your claims were truthful and I wanted to discretely point out that there are people who could call bullshit on your claims.
 * So, if you'd like to interpret my past support of a non-profit whos technology we use, and which has goals which are substantially aligned with ours (most people here believe that perpetually free content requires perpetually free formats), then be my gust... But I suspect you'll just do more damage to your reputation than to mine. Frankly, I think your claim could only be more ludicrious if you accused me of a conflict of interest for also being a Wikimedia Commons contributor.
 * It was true at the time that there was no way to create Ogg/Theora files with your software, and I still I don't see any option on your site to convert existing videos uploaded by others. The images suffer transcoding loss, so it's not ideal. Thank you for the uploads, however
 * But at the time, it was possible to export videos from FORscene, convert to Ogg however you're supposed to do that normally, and upload to Wikipedia. Saying that video was trapped on the system was inaccurate. The new Ogg output option enables publishing directly from the FORscene into Ogg, which keeps the transcoding loss to the same as for FORscene publishing. FORscene does not ask people to give away their content - it's a tool, not an ideological master - so the rights to videos made in FORscene would have to be given away separately. I foresee a debate here in the future (hopefully not in a future RfA!) when references are (links to) videos from reliable news channels which are not available free, so the format is irrelevant. Just as we now link to external references such as DRMed pdfs, in future people will want to link to eg Sky News reports. There is no way these will be available under a Commons licence, anymore than newpaper reports are now. Suppose the only video of 9/11 was copyright but available in the FORscene Java format. Would this mean that the article should not have any video of the incident? Better for the article to describe the event, and link to the reliable source video as a reference. PS If you read the license carefully, you'll see the videos I'm uploading aren't just for you ;-) Stephen B Streater 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You've offered to contribute via hosting on your site, and inserted videos. I'm fully willing to accept that you are also interested in contributing in other, more productive, ways.. but you've never made those clear. Thus far I can thank you for contributing a pair of videos, and contributing to my stress level.. (although I expect that is mutual :) ).
 * I'm more relaxed about your contributions now, given the amount of help you have provided. If you read the debates carefully, you'll see that there was a view expressed that Wikipedia couldn't affort to host videos. Offering to host them externally was a generous offer. Now you say Wikipedia can afford to host the videos, I can withdraw my offer. Stephen B Streater 08:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a bit difficult for me to see what exactly your offer is/was. It is very hard to read all this from discussions. But I don't quite understand why you say you withdraw your offer. Of course this is something that is up to you and you can withdraw whatever you offered at any time. But withdrawing such an offer doesn't exactly make me so confident in believing this was something stable. Could we find a way to discuss what exactly your offering is and what Wikipedia is willing to accept on a separate page please? OMG, I have never had more stress in voting in an RFA than in this one. Stephen, may I ask you to be a bit less demanding on the consensus finding process of Wikipedia? We don't have guys like you that often, so we need to learn to cope with you (in a good sense). BTW let me state clearly that Gregory is certainly a well respected expert on the field and seems to have a big weight on Wikipedia, but I can't necessarily see that he is speaking for Wikipedia as whole. --Ligulem 10:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As usual, you make some good points. Forbidden hosts a lot of video, so could help out Wikipedia with video hosting if needed. It turns out this is not necessary. I'm just closing this proposal off so we don't have to many pending offers, as this can be confusing. As for being less demanding, I am usually more gentle with people, but this process is only seven days long. A huge number of issues have been raised (by others, mostly). In order to get them all dealt with, I've had to cover a lot of ground. If we had a month, it could all run very smoothly (as I do with mediation), and we wouldn't have all these wild accusations. I did say this was a big issue right at the start, but would have been happy to discuss it before or after the RfA. Once raised, it has had to be sorted. I'm planning to summarise things at the bottom later on. Stephen B Streater 11:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My comment on the magnitude of your promotion was related directly to the nearly 100 external links which were inserted in wikipedia. I wouldn't consider the amount of traffic your company receives relevant.
 * I can see why you might think this. The handful of links I posted in articles were hardly promotional though. The content was (and is) relevant to the articles, and the product name and company was not mentioned in the videos. Stephen B Streater 09:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a better link is required, you adjusted our media help page to instruct people to use your service.
 * A better link is required because the link you provide does not support your claim. We had a discussion on the relevant talk page for nearly a month. The (limited) discussion there highlighted the issue of lack of video content here. I put up a notice on the main page asking people who wanted to explore Java alternatives to contact me. You will notice that my version was actually reverted to by Naconkantari, who is a well respected Administrator here. Stephen B Streater 09:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have not added more links to your companies site since this was raised in the RFA, however you went ahead and added links after initial objections to your proposal to use unfree formats were raised. It's not the end of the world... it really does look like you made an honest effort but managed to write in all the wrong places. --Gmaxwell 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I read this edit as proposing fixing the web before we moved on to mobile (FORscene also offers a complete mobile solution). He does not discuss the use of FORscene here, except to say that streaming might be nice in future. My reply included: Wouldn't it be better for WP to embrace Forbidden's Technology under some sort of Wiki-licence - a very generous offer, I think. Stephen B Streater 23:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Changing to oppose per Gmaxwell. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose due to apparent failure to understand foundational principles which are the reason Wikipedia exists. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) No.--SB | T 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per the above. --pgk( talk ) 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per agreement with points raised by GMaxwell and Kelly Martin.-- Dakota 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) It pains me greatly to oppose a jzG nom, but the concerns raised by GMaxwell and others about pushing proprietary formats are just too concerning to me, despite the users great contribs to mediation and other areas... I hope Stephen will continue to contribute in these areas but reform his approach on this important issue and align with foundation policy. With regret: Oppose ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per GMaxwell. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per issues stated above.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per GMaxwell. Dionyseus 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Does not seem to understand what Wikipedia is and what it is WP:NOTnot. :) Dlohcierekim 03:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Stephen is a very bright person and if he shows that he respects consensus and concerns raised about the "free content" issues raised here, then I'm more than happy to support him in a few months. At the moment, I feel he'd better stay without the admin bits while taking part in the discussion over videos for Wikipedia. I just would appreciate if those that think loudly about issuing blocks to Stephen would refrain from doing so. I also think there should be some explaining pages/policy where non-experts like me can read about this stuff (links/new pages are welcome). I would also welcome a more civil and non-vitriolic discussion from the opposers. If the ideas of Stephen don't fit with Wikipedia, then it's as simple as that. No need to engage in a paranoic witch hunt here. --Ligulem 07:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your continued support (even though it is expressed as an oppose opinion!). To answer your earlier point - you say why not withdraw until my experiments are concluded. The answer is that it maybe possible to make a fully Wikipedia compliant production system before the RfA finishes. I don't know how little work is involved, as I've only been informed about the new WP infrastructure yesterday and people don't get back to work until today. The main guy involved in this area has a baby due tomorrow, so I don't know whether he'll be in today either. Stephen B Streater 07:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is now done and FORscene can output Ogg format videos. So it looks like my ideas do fit in with Wikipedia after all :-) Stephen B Streater 14:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. 5.532 edits per page is scary. I suggest exploring more of this vast site of ours before seeking adminship. — freak([ talk]) 16:29, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Freakofnurture. 5.532 edits is kind of too high for administrators because usually administrators go about around 1.3 pages. -- Big  top  21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that rather show a shortage of administrators who do the sort of work I do? Stephen B Streater 21:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I've observed a number of administrators on a number of pages (not the ones you know me from) who briefly touch on the topic, make a couple of snap decisions based on their knowledge of WP policies, or just their gut feelings, and then move on.  This is a great way to get a low edits per page ratio, and a lousy way to be an admin.  (JzG -- just to forestall any potential conflict here, I'm not talking about you.  You stuck around, which is a point in your favor).  Too many subjects -- particularly the more contentious ones, which may not be resolvable via simplistic applications of the rules -- require a significant depth of ongoing involvement, which will naturally give one a high edits per page ratio.  But that's exactly what is needed in Wikipedia administrators!  Isn't it? Skybum 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per all of the above. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per GMaxwell. *drew 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per GMaxwell -- Tawker 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Freakofnurture. the issue of the edits has to be sorted out. Maybe in 2-3 months time. --Ageo020 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per GMaxwell.--Peta 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - this AfD for the company ""Itiva" seems to show the user attempting to delete the article of a company in the digital video business, the same business that he is apparently in. It would have been appropriate to abstain from that AfD, whether it was a legitimate deletion candidate or not.  This user can continue to be a valued WP editor, but I don't believe his interests are well aligned with the nature of adminship. Outriggr 04:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stephen thought the article should be deleted, he nominated it for deletion, cited several policy reasons supporting his opinion, the other people agreed, and the article was deleted. I don't see what's inappropriate to it. I also don't see how Stephen could have abstained. It would be silly to say "I think the article should be deleted because of this and this, but I abstain". Or do you mean Stephen shouldn't have nominated the article in the first place, leaving us with a Wikipedia article which apparently does not belong here? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I mean. Abstain: "to refrain deliberately". It's a clear conflict of interest, as a businessperson, to nominate an article on a competitor for deletion. It is not a trait I want to see in an administrator. If it deserved to be deleted due to notability, let someone else do it in time. I don't think the situation can be sugarcoated by mentioning how "valid" the deletion criteria were. This is really just a continuation of the themes presented by others above. Outriggr 05:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I read "abstain from that AfD" as "abstain from 'voting'". I still disagree, but now at least I understand your position. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My interest was clearly declared in the talk page for the article. The closing Admin would have been fully aware of this. I also won a Barnstar for the this AfD. Did this AfD make the encyclopaedia better? Stephen B Streater 06:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've not seen any evidence that Stephen has tried to hide who he is or what he does. He's always been quite open about his association with FORscene. How many anonymous editors (or even admins) have participated here in a way that would raise eyebrows if we knew their true identity? We can't (and shouldn't) question the motives of anonymous editors unless the content of their contribution is bad. We should afford Stephen the same benefit of the doubt, because his contributions have been honest and good, and to do otherwise would punish him for being forthcoming about his identity. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems, on the face of it, like a very valid point. But the truth is, I expect any administrator, anonymous or not, to refrain from becoming involved in administrative decisions to which they may bring a prior "POV". Your first question above is one which no one can answer, and thus is largely rhetorical. But the standard is the same for everyone, anonymous or not. He has made a choice not to be "anonymous" (which, as a more-prominent-than-average figure, cannot necessarily be construed as being "for the benefit of the community"). Anyway, I am not implying anything negative about this user's character - how dare I - but I am interested in declaring an opinion about this RfA based on the apparent facts in front of me. Outriggr 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair to myself, the article was clearly written as spam by Itiva promoting themselves in advance of their trade show. I made clear on the talk page that I was from a potential competitor (though not an actual competitor in fact, but you'd have to understand what we do and the flaws in their technology to see that) and that I was planning to propose their article for deletion if they couldn't produce any evidence of notablility. I gave them time to get press from their show. They didn't respond, and there was no press coverage. The AfD followed and made the correct decision. Stephen B Streater 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - not only because of the video codec issues brought up ad nauseum above, but because he's editing FORscene regularly, including adding material, not just grammar/layout fixes. More than one conflict of interest means no support from me without a long period of self-enforced neutrality, sorry. -- nae'blis 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you did not know his identity, would you have a problem with the FORscene edits? It seems wrong to punish him for being completely honest about his identity. It's so easy to be anonymous here at Wikipedia, so if his intentions were bad then he could have just as easily kept quiet about who he was - and nobody would be questioning his FORscene activities here. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if we did not know his identity/affiliation with the company, then I suspect his edits would be challenged/disputed if they lacked authoritative sources. Please note that I'm not saying that Stephen has made bad edits to the article per se, but he does have a conflict of interest (compare Elonka Dunin or Jimbo Wales for a more discreet way to add information). The fact that his interests are actually commercial makes it all the more troubling to me; see User:MyWikiBiz for another manifestation of this phenomenon. I think he's a good and thoughtful editor, just not admin material at this time. -- nae'blis 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take your advice on this one. We did have a discussion about the pricing on the talk page first, and other people editing the section after I had put in the prototype. I'll leave it to someone else to add the Ogg Theora publishing option in and its relevance to Wikipedia. Of course, I never edit Stephen B. Streater. Stephen B Streater 17:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw you hadn't, and like I said I think you've got good intentions, I just don't want to see you under a cloud. -- nae'blis 04:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nae'blis: fair enough, if you think he's not admin material. I just don't think it's fair to consider the conflict-of-interest issue if there is no evidence of outright abuse, for the simple reason that there are thousands of anonymous editors (including many admins) who are not subject to such examination simply because nobody knows who they are. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Every time I've seen it come up, the user's gotten flak for it. So whether it's disclosed by the user or discovered later on, it represents a source of friction, especially when there's some gain/fame to be made from the edits. It's a little different, at least in my world, from editing about your hobby because you're knowledgeable about it. -- nae'blis 04:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find pushing the boundaries an efficient way to see how things really work (though ironically, this has a negative effect on an RfA). This is a wiki, so this strategy doesn't do any harm and can be very illumunating. Once illuminated, I stop pushing. The consensus on this article has been that some edits are open to me. It has the friendly and constructive atmosphere that I encourage across Wikipedia. Any potentially contentious edits, such as this one, I have left to others to make. I'm happy to include you in a new consensus, and will leave others to keep this article up to date. Its web-based nature means updates come easily and frequently. There will be three updates needed in the next few weeks - a new thumbnail and two new major features. Stephen B Streater 06:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose; I see a continuing misunderstanding of free-as-in-beer vs. free-as-in-speech. TomTheHand 17:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read, written and signed hundreds of contracts in a number of jurisdictions. I even once outgunned a top Oracle lawyer on a point of US constitutional law. We went to his Palo Alto office to check on their rare facsimile of the originals to resolve this one. (I am a British citizen). And my company contributes to Linux and supports the GPL concept (where appropriate). I'd be interested in an example of continuing misunderstanding so I can clarify it. Stephen B Streater 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I am uncomfortable with this user's stance on many topics. A decent editor, but I am concerned that his application of policy would be flawed. Therefore, I must oppose. Also, Java applets are often a good thing, but they would be hell on accessibility. DS 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. The idea of the Java player is that it would be in addition to the traditional plug-in, so would not restrict accessibility but rather open video playback to a much wider audience. Stephen B Streater 07:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, his responses to the opposition does not encourage me. Rather than fixing the problem that the community has identified, the user continues to make excuses, explain, and do everything except solve the problem. Since it would be possible to repost the video by uploading it (in a free file-format) to the Wikicommons, and the user has consistently refused to do so, I am concerned that his alliegence is to his business first. Vpoko 23:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I withdraw my remark - looking at all the arguments again I don't feel I have a clear grasp on the issue, and it's better if I don't give an uneducated opinion. Vpoko 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reconsidering. I am in fact uploading some of these videos to Wiki Commons. I'd be interest to know what you think of the first two: Bungy and Medical. I have to check the videos carefully before uploading, because I may not have the right to grant a free licence, even though I shot and made the videos. This will depend, for example, on the prominence of people in the video, who may need to give permission. Several people were not sure, and gave permission on condition they could unpublish the videos if they changed their minds, which is not possible with Wikipedia-style licences. I will have to go through the videos, find the people involved (if I can contact them) and try to get new permissions (possibly in writing), which may or may not be given. Stephen B Streater 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Edit: It's worth mentioning that the fact the videos have been seen by so many people without the world coming to an end could well encourage them. And several people have said I'm being a bit paranoid here. I'll see if I can find any guidelines on video rights. Stephen B Streater 08:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral per Phr. --ZsinjTalk 13:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There are foundation issues and there is WP:EL. Foundation issues are pretty clear about the strategic goals and restrict what can be held on the Wikipedia servers. Finding a good fit for a revolutionary new technology to meet these (essentially immutable) ideals takes time. Now we can see the wisdom of the people who drafted WP:EL. It is not a foundation issue. It is not even a policy. It is a guideline. The point of a guideline is that it can be flexed here and there to test out new ideas. Some of these work out, and inform policy decisions. So I hereby invoke ignore all rules (except foundation ones of course) and declare that this experiment with video is working. While you explain to my Mother how to play back Ogg Vorbis videos on her new Intel Mac (if that is indeed possible at all), without having to trust you, a complete stranger, with software installation (she doesn't know what that is, BTW), she can be enjoying videos linked to from Wikipedia articles using the same computer and Internet connection thanks to the flexibility wisely instilled in Wikipedia guidelines. You may also be interested to know that I am not the only person adding FORscene video to Wikipedia, as you will see from the Wikimedia debates. Perhaps when we get a significant number of video views we can start to work out a consensus on what people here want from their Wikipedia video. I suspect it will be a long way from what is available at present. Stephen B Streater 00:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that quality, not just quantity, of contribution should be considered in Stephen's case. I learned more about Wikipedia rules and policy through his patient and knowledgeable guidance, than from any of my interactions with admins. He stepped into the PRT war, and he not only resolved the conflict, but has received supporting votes from parties on both sides of this extremely contentious debate. I would hope we would not dwell too much on the minutia of edit counts (or, even the foundational issues raised by Phr, which - no offense, Phr - seem to be somewhat overblown), and focus instead on his stellar record as a positive, moderating force even in the most contentious debates. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stephen, since you're a self-interested party I think you should leave the question of those links up to other editors; so I once again ask you to remove all of them, perhaps leaving suggestions on the relevant talk pages that someone else restore them, per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item 3. Many people have argued in different situations, sometimes convincingly, that some well-established guideline should be changed or shouldn't apply to them, but you're the first person I remember trying that in the middle of his own RFA.  We currently have a consensus guideline about extlinks and a process for modifying it if needed, and I'd feel much more assured about your candidacy if you'd show your willingness to respect them instead displaying what can come across as a MPOV (that leaves aside the codec issue, on which I agree there's signs of progress). As for other people besides yourself also inserting inappropriate FORsec links, I think especially if you become an admin entrusted with the duty of helping make sure our policies and guidelines are followed, you should ask those people to remove their links as well.  Don't carve out exceptions for your company's products.  Re your suggestion that I look at your videos: I can't do that because I don't use a Java plug-in.  The GNU/Linux distro that I use comes with Theora but not Java, so I'd have to install Java.  (And if we start taking FORsec links, why not Flash or Realmedia or WMV?  I don't see anything special about FORsec.  The number of views is irrelevant--we'd get tons more Flash views than FORsec views but we still don't use Flash).  If you can upload the videos to Commons in Theora, that would solve the whole linking problem and of course I could look at them then. About your Mom's Macintosh: you possibly miss the point that by sticking rigorously with free formats like Vorbis, we're exerting influence on the vendors of Macintosh-like products to make them able to play Vorbis out of the box if they can't already (maybe they can).  That is consistent with our free-culture mission, to create more widespread use of free media formats as well as free content, but in any case those formats are the only ones we can use for the 100% free systems that we really want to run on.  What we ultimately want is for your Mom to ditch her Mac and run a GNU/Linux system like the one I run--we're not there yet, but we can't lose sight of that. Finally, I wish you would stop incorrectly referring to the insertion of external links into our articles as "adding video to the articles".  Again: we're a self-contained encyclopedia and adding media (jpegs, video, or whatever) to an article means uploading the media to our servers, not linking externally.  Your attempt to control the frame of discussion by persistently misusing that phrase comes across as a salesman's or politician's tactic.  I realize that as a successful CEO you have to do that kind of stuff for a living in the business world (and it's a skill that I admire very much), but I again ask you to resist the reflex here--separate your business hat from your Wikipedia hat, and deal with this as a neutral, self-examining Wikipedian would, not the way a CEO would. Phr (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Forbidden develops FORscene under Linux, which it contributes to from time to time. FORscene will be making Wikipedia videos fully conforming to the strictest Wikipedia policies and guidelines long before my Mother moves from Mac to Linux. And then we'll be able to move the handful of experimental videos over. Like an RfA, it's no big deal. In the rush for purity, the technicians have been missing the needs of the users. As this is getting rather long, I might sort out some misunderstandings on your talk page, and just come back with the agreed answers, as before. I will update the passage you are concerned about though. And thank you to A Transportation Enthusiast for your strong support. As you will know, this is a diverse place, and disagreement on the route often temporarily disguises agreement on the destination. Stephen B Streater 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We will have an inline (java based (both sun and GCJ) or via the VLC plugin, whichever the user has installed) free software Vorbis and Theora viewer enabled very soon. Your effort to promote your commercial venture has been highly counterprodutive. I agree with Phr above, your claim to be adding video to Wikipedia is incorrect at best and overtly dishonest at worst. Not only must I opposed this adminship, but I will caution you that if you continue to insert video in patent encumbered proprietary formats or otherwise continue to use Wikipedia to promote your company you will be blocked from editing. --Gmaxwell 20:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad there will be a Java player soon. As far as I was aware, I was the first to mention this as a desirable solution on the main Wikimedia video policy talk page here. This led to a debate here. The Wikimedia talk page on video policy is an entirely appropriate place to discuss these ideas. It was not even listed amongst the possible options here until I added it. It's also worth mentioning that they have also been discussed in Village Pump Policy and Technical pages. No one in any of these places reported the progress in this area. So perhaps you could enlighten me (and the others engaging in these discussions on the video policy pages and Village Pump) on where all these discussions and debates should have been taking place. Stephen B Streater 21:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We've been working on and off on this for a long time, the discussion long predates your involvement, a random example. It's now Michael Dale's summer of code project. The reason there was no talk about it on that page is because you picked the wrong location, meta is almost universally the wrong place to start a discussion... this isn't your fault, as that kind of disorganization is an ongoing problem for us, but when you went for a month and didn't gain any comments except from someone else you're working with, that should have been a tip that you were alone. To call that a debate is amazingly misleading. Village pump is also a poor location, because it's so often filled with misguided garbage that few people of consequence pay attention. IRC and the lists have been the most active places for discussion. Meta is currently the wrong place. --Gmaxwell 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I have to say that no one mentioned this before now. I have known the Duck->on2->Theora people for a long time - they even visited me at IBC last year and we had a long chat about FORscene then. They are good people. I also thought it a bit ironic that the Dirac extract quoted to me above was last edited by ... me - I know some people at the BBC section working on this, and we discussed using Dirac in FORscene then. Is there any list in particular you would recommend? Stephen B Streater 22:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you've the On2/Theora people for a long while and have been unaware of what we are already working on why did none of your proposals suggest using the Java Theora implementation to improve the usability of the open codec we already support? I hope you can understand why some people be getting the impression that you are more concerned with promoting your company and it's technology than the long term best interest of the project. --Gmaxwell 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When I spoke to them last year, they said they didn't have a working Java player, but were working on it. Incidentally, they liked FORscene a lot :-) When I looked at the pages here, it didn't see mention of a Java player. In fact, quite the opposite - I had to add this in as an option as no one else had. People believe what they want to believe, and rarely look at the evidence. It takes time to appreciate me. If we weighted the expressions of support/oppose above by how well people know me, I'd be in with a huge majority. It's funny that people think I would actually choose to give away free video hosting if Wikipedia was prepared to pay for it. Stephen B Streater 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been a Java implementation of Theora since 2004 (google I'm feeling lucky hit). I'm not sure of who you talked to at Xiph back before that existed, but it wasn't me. In any case, we have no current need for video hosting, unless you have a few gbit/sec of connectivity to spare and have room for some equipment. ;) We do have a need for free software player technology for free formats that integrates with MediaWiki, fortunately someone is working on that and it will soon be ready for production use.--Gmaxwell 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Two guys came round, from On2 I think. They said they had been following my progress from Duck days for around ten years. I've probably got their cards somewhere, but without a finished Java player (they said with fifteen staff there was only so much they could do) I wasn't immediately interested in their technology. We get thousands of visitors each year at IBC, but I remember these guys because they bothered to come round to see how I was, having only heard of each other by reputation many years earlier. Stephen B Streater 14:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As it happens we do have a few Gb/s spare, but I already have enough equipment :-) Stephen B Streater 14:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral; to be sure, the answers to the questions were very well thought out, and it is great to hear that mediation comes easily to Stephen. I am also glad to see him take on disagreements in a very straightforward matter.  As an admin, however, policy can be important, and I think it would be best for the issue with the videos to be ironed out before adminship occurs.  Otherwise, a very well-qualified candidate. -- Nataly a  03:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Can't be sure how to call this one. There are some issues with regard to licensing and foundation matters that I can't ignore, but overall I don't see much else against having him as an admin. I suspect this RFA has come in at the wrong time only. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's funny you should say that. In reponse to this on my Talk page, I replied October - not because I don't actually understand how things work here yet, but because I do. With limited spare time and cooperation, I've had to temporarily ignore a guideline to complete my tests. By October this will be tidied up. We could have had a free Java player too, but I've lost interest in doing that as there will be an Ogg Java player soon (which I didn't know until the RfA). In fact, by October, I could have tied up all the loose ends. But then, I'm not afraid of an RfA ;-) With a second proposal for nomination from two highly experienced and respected Admins, it would have been churlish to refuse. Could I fix up everything in time? A race against time! I hope to tidy up the main loose ends before the RfA finishes (I've added Ogg output to FORscene, and have already compressed some of my FORscene videos ready for upload - the two mentioned in my answers in particular). The usual dose of paranoia here was always going to lead to healthy debate on an early entry, but my CEO nature is more concerned with the a long term solution than short term expediency. Stephen B Streater 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - It disappoints me to see such a good editor in many aspects fail his RfA due to one issue.  However, I have to agree, I think unfortunately his head may be stuck in his corporate interests when on Wikipedia, that head should be pulled all the way out.  I really do think he's a great editor in many aspects, but this one concerns me just a bit too much.  Sorry, Zapptastic (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Stephen is trying to do the right thing, and I would like to commend him for that. Free/Open content is a tricky thing to get your head around. There's wikipedia trying to be open on one side, and several traditional  media people on the other side trying to undermine wikipedia at every step. This forces us to be much more strict than we'd like to be. Stephen is the unfortunate person caught in the middle. I haven't asked Stephen my questions, so I can't support right now, hence neutral. In the mean time, basically he should contact one of our foundation copyright experts, and work things out! :-)  Kim Bruning 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I'd like to wait to vote until this video issue dies down.  Λυδ  α  cιτγ  17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per above. Michael 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment So let's get this straight. My company has some wonderful technology which allows wiki-style editing of video in a web browser, with publishing to a cross platform player. I openly state my position on my user page and in every debate on the subject, (of which there have been many) including wikimedia, policy and technical discussion pages. I raise the idea of making it freely available on Wikipedia. This is well received by a significant number of users. I start a handful of experiments to see if there is a justification for the work involved, and this demonstrates an appetite for this technology. I propose making this technology available to Wikipedia, with appropriate free licences (which I have the power to grant). And some people see this as a bad thing. Perhaps some of these people would explain the correct procedure for giving free access to a uniquely powerful technology to Wikpedia. And be generally a bit nicer about this. If I hadn't come across so many of you before, I'd think it was personal or something. Stephen B Streater 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For future discussions please use the words 'at no cost' when you are talking about non-free software. On Wikipedia we usually use the word free in the sense of freedom or Free Software (as is used in our tagline). Saying freely available about non-free and patent encumbered software creates confusion. The use of proprietary software is rejected even for our site infrastructure, so any proposal that suggests that we distribute non-free software or proprietary formats to our readers is a complete non-starter. I haven't seen any proposal from you that didn't include such an arrangement, so I'm not sure where to tell you to continue the discussion. --Gmaxwell 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look closely (though to save time I'll repeat it here), you'll see that I have suggested one alternative is to make this technology available to Wikipedia, with appropriate free licences (which I have the power to grant). I think this covers your point. However, if the Ogg formats are any good ;-) we can just use those. Technical work is always much more straightforward than legal work. Either way people it's easy to republish FORscene videos in any supported format, so as soon as you have your Java player, we can republish in the Ogg format. If Ogg has issues, we can look again at what Forbidden technology would fit the bill here on the Wiki. Stephen B Streater 00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that all of the above free-as-in-speech vs. free-as-in-beer fundamentalism does Wikipedia no credit, IMHO. I have seen so much great media expunged from Wikipedia because there is some sliver of a hint of a shadow of a doubt about its origins, licensing, codecs, "freeness", et cetera; or because of frankly paranoid suspicions of the motivations of the person posting it. (This problem goes way, way beyond the little conflict here). And I frankly think tht it's absurd. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should illegally use copyrighted material or post files in codecs which require proprietary software to run (I'm a Mac/Linux guy myself, so I'm sensative to this), but that's not what is going on here. And while I understand some people's unspoken concern that this is a "slippery slope" -- ie, if we let FORscene into Wikipedia one day, then the next thing you know, Microsoft will be posting media which requires people to use Windows Media 10 -- that's frankly not what is going on here either.

What we have is a person who is using his specialized knowledge to improve Wikipedia. All of that do that; but in Stephen's case, a minor part of his knowledge comes from the fact that he is the CEO of a software company. Personally, I think that is great. Heck, I'd welcome Bill Gates here if he behaved himself as well as Stephen has. Posting topical non-commercial media which plays easily on all operating systems, is cost-free, and always will be, should not warrant the berating that Stephen is getting here. I wish more people did what he did, frankly. Skybum 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's great to have the support of the people I have worked with :-)
 * I have no problems with foundation issues or objectives. This is a complete myth. As is the idea that I don't understand them or support them. I have been happy to donate my contributions here freely and unencumbered. I have often seen RfAs where some misconception suddenly flares up and then the RfA ends before it can be put right.
 * Work in Progress, by definition, does not come up to production standards. And, in the absence of any timely support or even comment from the opposers here despite many separate discussions across all the relevant Policy and Talk pages, the only way to explore these solutions was through temporary use of external links. I did not set up the system here, but it is not unreasonable to relax some constraints during development, particularly when it is undertaken on a volunteer basis. As I have mentioned above, I have no desire to pay for Wikipedia's video hosting (as external links entails). But I am keen to ensure a successful video solution is rolled out across Wikipedia, and the work I have done will only make this easier. Stephen B Streater 07:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Stephen is trying to do the right thing. So people shouldn't yell at him! Let's see if we can actually help him do the right thing right. :-) Kim Bruning 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A welcome ray of sunshine - someone who understands what Wikipedia ia about :-) I'd welcome your questions when you're ready. But I'd appreciate some answers too, particularly to this. Stephen B Streater 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll This poll is not here to determine a consensus, so doesn't have all the formal trappings. This poll is to determine how many people have used Ogg format video on their current computer(s). To help the goal of moving video in Wikipedia on, please add your name to the appropriate list. Stephen B Streater 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can play back Wikipedia Ogg videos on my computer
 * Linux Stephen B Streater 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mac OS Stephen B Streater 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ubuntu-6.06 default install, Tom Harrison Talk 16:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot play back Wikipedia Ogg videos on my computer
 * Windows Stephen B Streater 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mac OS Stephen B Streater 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Windows XP sp 2 - I don't have the codec, and I probably would not install it unless there were a compelling reason to do so. Having the video playable in Java would be easier for me than having to download a new codec. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mac OS X v10.4 -Zapptastic (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Other
 * Nokia N90 - No Stephen B Streater 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Video iPOD - No Stephen B Streater 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On Debian stable I get sound but no picture. Based on past experience I could probably wring a picture out of it eventually. Tom Harrison Talk 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded a video to Wikipedia Commons in Ogg format (I didn't find any at all from 2006, but I didn't check them all)
 * Three videos Stephen B Streater 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Could I have a link to a short sample video in Ogg format? Tom Harrison Talk 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll make one now. I don't promise to have fought my way through Wikipedia Commons uploading bureaucracy before we all go to bed though ;-) Stephen B Streater 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's one I had already filmed. The quality reflects the old phone (two generations old), not necessarily the Ogg codec: [[Image:Test Balloon.ogv]]. Stephen B Streater 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply link to one of our many articles with videos? .. Oh right, because letting people see the help link might take the wind out of your argument... --Gmaxwell 19:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to have forgotten official policy WP:AGF. The reason I uploaded this video was to demonstrate that FORscene Ogg publishing actually worked, which it does. I don't know which articles have Ogg video. I am not familar with the Apollo 11 article - it is not an area which interests me. Stephen B Streater 20:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oddball indenting on the Meta Video page caused me to believe you'd previously linked to the list of videos, and since I'd previously written to you about our media help , and since you've actually edited the media help talk page ... I had assumed that you were aware of the media help page and how useful it can be to most users (who are not at kiosks, as you observed it doesn't help them) who wish to watch videos. I find it deeply humorous that you accuse me of a failure to assume good faith here when just previously you accused me of unethical behavior. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I can't accept reponsibiity for other people's formatting! I accept this was an honest mistake on your part. Stephen B Streater 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I made these edits to the media help talk page after linking from your (I thought rather aggressive) comment here - that's how I found the article! I explained here, in response to your assistance, that I hadn't gone to your help page, as it was so easy to install I didn't need to. It's good that there's a record as otherwise there might be a misundersanding ;-) Stephen B Streater 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When you mentioned you were involved with Xiph, it did made me a bit worried about conflict of interest. I didn't assume this, but just pointed out that you had said you were at Xiph and this needed explanation. I put the message on your talk page so you could respond immediately (you made a false allegation somewhere else instead). I couldn't see a mention of Xiph on your user page. I'll look at your replies above in more detail tomorrow - and I'll put a moderating answer next to the question. I do think that you are emotionally involved in Ogg and the people who work there, and this may be colouring your judgement against other codecs. Ultimately though, this may not matter, as Ogg is a good format and I can see that your actions are not malicious. Ogg people do good and valuable work, and it was certainly a relief when I came here and didn't find all the normal non-free codecs. I hope you can see that this open format is completely to Forbidden's advantage too. We develop on Linux, and sell Linux boxes. We support Ogg format publishing. We do not support Window formats, and even Apple have been sued over alleged MPEG-4 patent violations for the iPod. Open formats allow a level playing field, which helps small innovative companies. We have often considered making one of our codecs free, with the particular emphasis on the Java player aspect of it. I still think the negative reaction to this proposal was uncalled for, BTW. Stephen B Streater 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On another point, I repect your long unpaid support of these people. I have been unpaid for seven years, so I know what it's like! Stephen B Streater 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One day you won't see me as the enemy. Stephen B Streater 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see you as the enemy, but I am opposed to some of your ideas as I understand them. Once I'm confident that we agree on the fundamentals, and that you aren't simply shifting your position to avoid opposition, I will gladly stand beside you. Why don't we give the argument a break, think about things for a few days... and have a nice discussion? --Gmaxwell 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * RfA is a consensus building exercise - I've changed my position in a number of places here. Despite my criticisms of some of your comments here, I appreciate your willingness to engage, which has been very helpful,  and would be happy to work with you further down the line. I'm planning to add a refactor to the bottom when I get a chance - you might like to cast an eye over it for accuracy. Stephen B Streater 07:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Simplification of debate by Stephen B Streater This is a brief summary of the major points made. Feel free to correct your own name if you disagree (or someone elses with their permission).

Main reasons on the plus side


 * Good contributions helping in conflict situations
 * Skybum 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * David D. (Talk) 07:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A Transportation Enthusiast 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- danntm T C 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Haukur
 * ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Nataly a 03:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tenacity
 * Skybum 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not afraid to jump in
 * David D. (Talk) 07:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wider video issues are important and need addressing
 * David D. (Talk) 03:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Civil
 * SynergeticMaggot 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Works hard
 * SynergeticMaggot 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Contributing to multiple areas
 * SynergeticMaggot 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good admin material
 *  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   08:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --kingboyk 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A Transportation Enthusiast 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * AdamBiswanger1 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- danntm T C 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Samir  धर्म 04:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Brownlee 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good interactions with other editors
 *  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   08:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just zis Guy you know? 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A Transportation Enthusiast 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Impressed with answers
 * abakharev 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Nataly a 03:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Interested in how Stephen could benefit the project
 * --Ligulem 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim Bruning 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Would like to help Stephen benefit the project
 * Kim Bruning 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thinks Stephen is not pushing company
 * --Ligulem 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --kingboyk 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good personal experiences
 * Skybum 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * David D. (Talk) 07:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A Transportation Enthusiast 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great understanding of Wikipedia goals
 * A Transportation Enthusiast 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * High edits per page good - depth is lacking in Wikipedia Admins
 * Skybum 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Consistent with own guidlines
 * Joe 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good guy / great bloke
 * ShortJason 02:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thumbelina 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK with trust
 * --Guinnog 08:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool under fire
 * Haukur
 * Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * External video linking not a disaster
 * Haukur
 * Skybum 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy that issues have been addressed
 * Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Foundation issues overblown
 * A Transportation Enthusiast 02:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Skybum 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Need people with these credentials
 * -- Samir  धर्म 04:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good editor
 * Zapptastic (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Penetrating and perceptive researcher
 * Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unerring commitment to Wikipedia
 * Vickystreater 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support / on balance / per all above
 * Rama's arrow 17:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dryman 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ter e nce Ong (T 14:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Holdenhurst 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FellowWikip e dian 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Main reasons on the minus side


 * Low edit count
 * abakharev 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * AdamBiswanger1 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- danntm T C 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Specific video content issues need resolution
 * --Ligulem 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose because of wording "Adding videos to Wikipedia" referring to externally hosted non-free videos
 * Phr (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose because of offer to make video format "freely available within Wikipedia"
 * Phr (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concern about possible conflict of interest with Forbidden Technologies
 * Phr (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kimchi.sg 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Gmaxwell 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Ligulem 07:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Ageo020 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Outriggr 05:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- nae'blis 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Zapptastic (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concern over risk of Forbidden providing non-free formats for use in Wikipedia
 * Phr (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concern over linking to external content / formats
 * Phr (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Gmaxwell 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Ageo020 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concern over understanding of Foundation Issues
 * Kimchi.sg 11:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * :) Dlohcierekim 03:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * TomTheHand 17:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim Bruning 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Free is not a long term aspiration, required now
 * Kimchi.sg 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Non Admin tasks described in Admin section
 *  Voice -of- All  04:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concern on policy issues
 *  Voice -of- All  04:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * DS 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not enough time on project
 * --T-rex 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Gmaxwell et al
 * - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Dakota 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dionyseus 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * *drew 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Tawker 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Peta 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Edits per page too high
 * — freak([ talk]) 16:29, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Big  top  21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Ageo020 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concern on Java accessibility
 * DS 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Phr (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sort out video issues first
 * -- Nataly a 03:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Λυδ α  cιτγ  17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concern about issues raised in the debate
 * Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong time
 * Stifle (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rules cannot be relaxed to assist research and development work
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose / per some or all of above
 *  Voice -of- All  04:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --SB | T 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * talk ) 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Baseball,Baby!  balls  •  strikes  22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous issues


 * Video issues should be addressed elsewhere
 * David D. (Talk) 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination
 * --Ligulem 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * --ZsinjTalk 13:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Village Pump (Technical), Village Pump (Policy) and Meta Video policy talk page the wrong places to talk about Video policy
 * --Gmaxwell 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Block / Ban
 * --Gmaxwell 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't block
 * --Ligulem 07:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What we ultimately want is for your Mom to ditch her Mac and run a GNU/Linux system
 * Phr (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion by Stephen B Streater


 * General info on Forbidden Technologies plc
 * Develops on Linux
 * Contributes to Linux from time to time under free licences
 * Supports free software (where appropriate)
 * Has almost no content and would benefit from free video content for use in Clesh
 * Has an interest in ensuring video is successful on Wikipedia (not a conflict of interest in fact, but a shared interest)
 * Free formats are in Forbidden's interest
 * FORscene aims to support every significant input and output format, and this is much easier to do for free formats
 * Forbidden is constrained by people's ability to play back video at all, not the format they use. We have our own format only as an enabler for our service


 * Stephen B Streater movement during RfA
 * has stopped editing FORscene
 * has arranged the addition of Ogg output format to FORscene
 * has started converting external linked videos to free formats
 * has given away some videos under Wikipedia free licences
 * has uploaded some videos to Wikipedia Commons
 * (possibly all videos uploaded this year are from FORscene, though I can't be sure on this)

Straw poll on Ogg plug-in access - insufficient data for definitive answer, but plug-ins are not the best solution

I appreciate the significant time and willingness to engage put in by everyone here, but particularly
 * JzG for getting me started here at Wikipedia
 * Lethe for his support in nominating me
 * Phr (even though he had to leave near the start, we had already resolved some issues)
 * Gmaxwell (has spent a huge time discussing the video issues)
 * A Transportation Enthusiast
 * Skybum
 * David D.
 * Ligulem
 * Kim Bruning (mostly off RfA)
 * VickyStreater


 * Everyone who changed their expressed opinion, or didn't change it after following the discussion

I'm not very good at names, so I reserve the right to add to this list (or add yourself!)

I am pleased that everyone I have worked with closely supported my nomination. Also, I'd like to thank in advance the Bureaucrat who closes this. I just hope you are interested in video ;-)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.