Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Stephen B Streater

I'm disappointed that admins here are choosen by their opinions and not by their capabilities. And I would like to point out the even if a candidate's opinion is not in line with the voters, why is everybody so scared and assuming that an admin position would give a candidate any more weight in achieving something on this wiki compared to those humble souls without the sysop bits? I just don't understand you guys here. Those that are not admins here will one day sure learn that the admin bit doesn't increase their weight here in any way. --Ligulem 19:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's like this. Let's say you're hiring for a security guard position. One of the applicants is a gentleman who does not accept the idea of private property, but otherwise is a good fellow. Do you hire him with expectation that he will change his views over time? Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that comparison applies here? What makes the opposers think that Stephen intends to violate the foundation issues? Did he show such behaviour? Does he say he would do so? I'm not an expert in copyright issues, but I don't think that Steven would ignore neither consensus nor policies. For me Wikipedia really sometimes looks like the most anal place. AGF is just an empty phrase that everyone abuses here for his own agenda, driven by some sort of misguided paranoia. We have here a successful CEO from industry with a very good attitude and what are we doing here? We do have nothing better to do than arguing in his good faith RFA with him about copyright stuff, most likely this will piss him off. Nothing else. Congratulations. --Ligulem 22:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The process error shown here is once again: wasting resources. --Ligulem 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean besides pushing unfree content? What part of "The Free Encyclopedia" is unclear? You state you're not an expert in copyright issues; Gmaxwell is, and you might want to listen him. Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm able to distinguish copyright of software and copyright of content. Do you? What has this to do with this RFA? You are completely exaggerating here. How is "The Free Encyclopedia" affected by Stephens actions here? You are on a witch hunt here. --Ligulem 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA is a consensus building exercise. If everyone agreed before we started, we wouldn't get seven days. And yes, a witch hunt is not appropriate here. Stephen B Streater 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ligulem, 'free content' which is trapped inside non-free software, or in formats that can only be legally read with non-free software is non-free. This is a long established principle at Wikimedia and is not going to change soon, especially with the biggest of the usability issues associated with our commitment to truly so close to being solved. I agree that the player discussion is offtopic for Stephen's RFA, but my complaint wasn't purely centered around that: The external linking of media is something we routinely reject and have occasionally blocked people for, a user engaging in that behavior is demonstrating a level of inexperience which makes them currently unsuitable for adminship. That there also appears to be some fundamental misunderstandings about Free Content and the need for Free Software are just frosting. --Gmaxwell 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen you refer to content "trapped inside" FORscene a couple of times. You may misunderstood what an offline editing tool is - by definition, the content is always exported from the system for use elsewhere. It is doesn't make sense to talk about video being "trapped inside" FORscene. I can explain further if you need me, but either way I'd appreciate it if you would strike out this false assertion every time it occurs. Stephen B Streater 12:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of the security guard's position on private property, if they say they will discharge the duties expected of them in that role then what evidence have you to doubt them? It's hypothetical evidence to say the least, if it exists at all. Perhaps it's the security guards that aren't so honest when they write their job application that you should be more concerned about. How many such security guards have been hired whose other beliefs have not had such a public airing? If the security guard in your example then chooses to pursue their beliefs outside of their job (e.g. by voting one way or another in a political election or belong to some society that promotes those beliefs) then that is their business. I wonder if there is such a thing as a directory of 'admin members interests' on WP. By the strength of the discussion on SBS's nomination it sounds like there should be. Or perhaps there are too many skeletons already lurking in that particular WP cupboard! mk 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Put simply, if you want to be an admin, you'd damn well better be willing to take a good healthy swig of the open content KoolAid. Streater isn't. End of discussion. No soup for you. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not uncommon (or undesirable) to relax constraints during Work in Progress. Some of the assertions about my understanding are inaccurate. See [1]. Stephen B Streater 07:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking, if you think that we can relax open content as a principle for the purpose of a "work in progress". The more I see of you, the more and more convinced I am that you should be banned. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did he mention open content? i thought your problem was to do with proprietry issues? And as I read it, he says the softaware can be free. David D. (Talk) 07:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He's offering "free as in beer", not "free as in speech". Free content is not wrapped up in restrictive codecs. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No - I was offering free as in speech in fact. We have many codecs, and could easily make one available free. Stephen B Streater 12:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, for example. Stephen B Streater 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would propose a more communicative approach to this issue. At the moment, I do not endorse a ban. Stephen did not readd the links to the videos which were removed by Gregory. As such his behaviour does not qualify for a ban. So I don't see evidence for consensus for a block or a ban. --Ligulem 08:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't revert genuine edits without a discussion. And there's plenty of that here. The solution here is: add the videos in Ogg format. One of the features of FORscene web publishing is that the publisher can unpublish content if it turns out to infringe some law (and there are many of these). But once a video is uploaded here, it can be copied mercilessly off-Wiki and is impossible to retract. As videos can never be removed, I'll have to get written permission of all the people involved - this could take some time and effort. This chilling effect is one of the negative aspects of the Wikipedia licences. Stephen B Streater 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in ideas on how people can see the videos while we wait for the Theora Java player to come out. I've never met anyone in real life who has said they can play back the free format Wikipedia videos, and I usually give the new viable working solution before removing the politically-incorrect-but-working-solution. As I see it, we provide a service, and a good service is preferable. Stephen B Streater 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the above statement "The more I see of you, the more and more convinced I am that you should be banned". I imagine it's quite rare to read somebody espousing free speech on the one hand then talk of silencing somebody else's right to the same thing on the other - all within a couple of sentences of one another. Perhaps it's what you might call "Free as in speech but with a caveat". Surely "free speech" is just an idea and is never ever a practical reality. mk 19:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about an external video link

Question for my understanding: Franz Reichelt has a defunct external link to a video of his deadly jump from the Eiffel Tower in wmf. My question: Is such a link allowed or not in Wikipedia? The link is defunct but I digged around in the vicinity and found the video. (In order not to risk getting blocked I didn't fix the link and won't post it here). --Ligulem 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Germans also do have a link in de:Franz Reichelt --Ligulem 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As no one else is answering this, I will. The removal of imperfect content is not a fanatical "now" thing (see the amount of fair use non-free images for clear proof of this). However, the official thrust is to disapprove of addition of non-free content in order to encourage people to make the effort to find (or make) free alternatives. This policy encouraged me to offer a free Java player some months ago (possibly unecessarily as it happens), and to donate some free content which I may not have done otherwise. Adding the link is not the best solution, as its presence will hinder the ultimate aim of Wikipedia which is not simply to build a great encyclopaedia, but also to create a resource of truly free and unrestricted knowledge. This is why I made it clear my experiments were a means to an end to finding a free solution: [2] says '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. I am more interested in getting the sytems in place for successful video here than a handful of individual videos in 2006. And one of the systems is to have blanks to encourage people to fill them. Stephen B Streater 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And what is the answer to my question? Is such a link allowed or not? As I understand it, the video is not in a free format. Can we link that or not? --Ligulem 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If you link it... it will be removed, although it might take a while before someone notices. Please avoid doing that if you can. I decided to go ahead and activate a crude audio only java player for our Ogg/Vorbis files, because some people seem to be arguing that such a player isn't possible. You can see the player on any article with audio. --Gmaxwell 05:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. This answer is what I feared (that video is a historic document, presumably not created by a wikipedian). But at least I now know what I'm supposed not to do, thanks. I do find this external link censoring position odd. But as it seems, there is no consensus for having this kind of link. I don't edit against consensus. BTW I just did a typofix on Franz Reichelt and I do not have any video to upload anywhere. And I've never done so anywhere on the internet. --Ligulem 09:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is no alternative and it's historical footage, it may be OK. But you could try to contact the people who own the video rights, and ask them to convert it to Ogg format, license it, at upload it to Wikipedia. Or leave a request for someone else to do this. The Wikipedia way is very patient. But patience is not the same as stagnation and inactivity. Stephen B Streater 12:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the longest journey has a first step. Stephen B Streater 08:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't catch that angle, Stephen is right.. If you didn't create the video, and there is copyright related reason that it can't be in Wikipedia, and it can legally be on the site you're linking to as best as you can tell (we don't link to other people's copyvio), *and* the video is source material for the article (i.e. it's not just a general illustration)... Then yes, we all allow external linking to approiate source material although rich media is not prefered as a source if it can easily be avoided. --Gmaxwell 16:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)