User talk:Stephen B Streater/Archive 3

Admin Noticeboard incident

JzG has posted a note about my recent personal attack (as he calls it). You have been recently involved in the debate so I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to respond. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see how I can help out there and in the article. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Typo

Sure, feel free to fix anything on my page or do whatever. I am not one of those admins that moan and groan when someone edits their user page. And my user page isn't locked, so... fell free! Iolakana|^(talk) 19:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Sorry for my bias about NYC...I'll fix the typo...I've not been to London, surely, it is equal at least to NYC...best wishes.--MONGO 09:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been to NYC, and it's pretty good too :-) Stephen B Streater 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PRT and Terrorism

Stephen, I just wanted elaborate on the PRT/terrorism point briefly. JzG is an admirer of Road Kill Bill and Ken Avidor. He suggested the cartoon would be good, we all objected, and he put it in anyway. It was only after we repeated our objections that he finally relented. I believe that JzG's affection for RKB and Avidor has severely affected his judgement in this case.

Now, for why we objected. The terrorism claim about PRT is nothing more than a vicious smear and blatant scare tactic. PRT designers long ago answered the "guided missle" claim (which basically claims that PRT cars could be sent across town with a cargo of explosives) -- proponents responded by suggesting a button inside the vehicle that must be pushed to move. No unattended cargo possibilities, therefore no guided missles.

And beyond that, it's just common sense that PRT would be less susceptible to terrorism than other transit modes. Why? Because it spreads people out! No huge station filled with people waiting, no packed trains in tunnels -- the very topology of a PRT system makes a less attractive terrorism target than light rail or buses!

The cartoon is a smear, plain and simple. But even beyond that... it's tasteless! In this era of terrorist paranoia, where real people are dying in real terrorist attacks on real transit systems, how sick is it to show terrorists attacking a transit system just to advance your political agenda? How about a political campaign against air travel employing a cartoon showing the planes hitting the towers? Would that be "light-hearted" too?

Now given all this, JzG still supports the cartoon. Is this a reasonable position? A Transportation Enthusiast 08:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Important things should be said even if they are tasteless. But you arguments here are valid reasons not to include this particular cartoon, which no one is fighting over now. JzG is much more concerned that the article doesn't blindly and uncritically repeat the assumptions which are implicit in the marketing material. I've concentrated on Unimodal and ULTra so far - perhaps I should have a look at the PRT article in detail. I'd be interested to know what you think has to happen before PRT can take off. Stephen B Streater 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, it doesn't matter what I think, I'm nobody. :-)

But seriously, I honestly don't know what has to happen for PRT to take off, I'm not a marketing type so those kinds of topics generally don't interest me. And I freely admit it may never happen for PRT. But regardless of whether it takes off or not, the engineering and science that has gone into it is real. That's indisputable. It's not just a bunch of marketing fluff from salesmen, as some would have you believe. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe ATE is still obsessed with this cartoon - that issue was done and dusted weeks (possibly months) ago. It's ancient history. As far as I was concerned it was a lighthearted way of saying something; the PRT-lovers were vehemently opposed to it so it was removed, and that's an end to it. Unfortunately there seems to be a belief that uncritical support for PRT is the only neutral point of view, and that anybody who opposes addition of marketing speculation is part of the Vast Corporate Conspiracy which has kept PRT form being implemented for 40 years. Not that I'm opposed on principle to being part of the Vast Corporate Conspiracy, but the buggers have not sent me the money yet. Seems to me that the forces lined up against it are the light rail engineers, the motor manufacturers, the libertarian right (who don't like spending money on any public project), realists who demand that there be a working one they can touch before spending money, the heritage mob and probably a few other assorted groups as well. Wuith that kind of opposition it's hard to see it getting off the ground any time soon. But that's just my personal opinion. What is absurd is the idea that I am in some way anti-PRT; as a cyclist and an electrical engineer I love the concept! I just don't see it as very likely. I do find it somewhat offensive that my liking for the RKB cartoons should be taken as acceptance of Ken Avidor's POV. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff for a case where I show that I am pefectly capable of separating the quality of an editor's work from my perrsonal feelings about their politics. Just zis Guy you know? 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw that nomination. It's pleasing to see you supporting someone who comes from a different viewpoint. Stephen B Streater 10:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm "obsessed" with this cartoon is because you give the impression that you made some grand concession to the "PRT lovers" when you allowed it to be removed, when in fact the reason it was removed was that it was wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I can't think of any reason why someone would want to include it except to push Avidor's POV. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Different people come from different angles. We are not here to judge other people. Life is easier when you accept this. The non-inclusion of the cartoon is agreed now - the Transport Enthusiast view has prevailed on that point. People are allowed to be convinced by arguments where they are strong. Just accept that you won the argument and got your way, and move on. There are still a few unresolved article issues to work on. Stephen B Streater 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where?

Where was that discussed? I have never seen this discussed anywhere. ackoz 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Falklands talk page. This debate comes up very often. Stephen B Streater 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is always the same. WP:SOAP means that Wikipedia reports significant views and does not aim to influence opinions. The view here is that the Argentine (Spanish) name for the islands should be included as a secondary definition. I haven't seen hundreds of foreign names for modern towns - I wouldn't have thought anyone actually used these so they would be non-notable. Stephen B Streater 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go back to the RfC page and check. I was not talking about the Falklands. ackoz 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll check again - your link went there. Stephen B Streater 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I was confused by your flag. I'm English so don't speak foreign. Stephen B Streater 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Secularization of Christmas

Regarding your very recent comments there — please see Talk:Spring holiday and the bottom section for comment, thank you. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've replied there. I think your merge ideas are worth a go. Ironically, England has an established Church but is largely a secular country - unlike the US which the article mostly applies to. Stephen B Streater 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate

Thank you for your edits to Chocolate - I'd made some changes, but missed a lot of the little details. I was amused by your change of "climate" to "weather" regarding drying of beans - I once read a definition which said "climate is what you expect, weather is what you get". Argyriou 21:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel possessive about any of the edits - I've done them one at a time in case anyone feels the need to revert any. I'm learning a lot as I go, too :-) Stephen B Streater 21:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank you

Thank you! Thank you, Stephen, for your support in my RfA. I am happy to be able to say that it has acheived a consenus of wikipedians, and that I will be assuming my new responsibilities immediately. I appreciate your trust and support, especially in that you took the time to investigate my record, as opposed to making a snap decision, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 01:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

May be worth a moment of your time....

KingsleyIdehen (talk · contribs) is CEO of a software company; he has created articles on his software. I think you know where this is headed... Perhaps you could have a word with him? Just zis Guy you know? 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll have a look... Stephen B Streater 17:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stephen

Dear Stephen, it is always a pleasure to contact those users whose names are familiar to me, and even more if such names also belong to evidently good people like you are. I wished, however, that the circumstances were more favorable. Regarding you comment about Encyclopedist's request, I am familiar with his disruptive activities in the past. By the time I made that post at WP:ANI, I wholeheartedly hoped he would listen to me before making any controversial steps; I saw him as a great contributor once, and the perspective of regaining his positive side made me believe he was worth my offer. In the short time that followed tho, and in my absence, he has already made such a controversial move by submitting a RfA. While this is not comparable to vandalism in any way, it shows a worrying lack of good judgement, and I am rather saddened and disappointed in him. Next time, I'll have to remember this before being so trusting. I sincerely hope our dealings in the future catch me in a better mood, dear Stephen. Please take good care, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When I first joined, I quickly noticed that you are are a beacon of goodness on Wikipedia. This is my chance to welcome you back, too :-) I learned long ago not to judge people by my own standards, but to appreciate them for their own beauty. His judgement may have been criticised, but it showed a lot of character for Encyclopaedist to submit to an RfA in such an open way so soon. Perhaps he needs support now more than ever. I'm actually a very unsympathetic person, but can see he's put a lot into Wikipedia, and respect him for that. Also WP:AGF is a wonder. Stephen B Streater 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are so right, dear Stephen - please forgive me for my weakness and my hasty words. Juan needs now, more than ever, all the strength and love we can possibly give, and despite he may have tripped over the first stone he has found upon his return, it is quite easy to make swift judgements; the hard, yet most productive way is to show him the way. I wholeheartedly hope he realizes that, right now, he needs to gain the community's trust by returning to his old ways. We are on the verge of losing him again, and this time, I'm afraid there will be no turning backs if we do. In whole truth, and after the first shock, I am completely sure that all he wanted to do by submitting that RfA was to show he does care for the best of WP, albeit it was definitely the wrong way to show it. Again, thanks for your wise words, dear Stephen. It always makes me very happy to find people like you. A big hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are completely forgiven :-) May you bring the gift of hope to our newly returned editor. Stephen B Streater 21:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me so much

I am deeply sorry for the sins I have commited here. I hope my reëntry here will be sincerely welcomed. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar :-) Someone nearby once advised me to be patient on Wikipedia. It's better to let things fall into place at the right time than to try and force them too soon. Stephen B Streater 20:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like good advice to me. Which is why I'm waiting for the right moment before I visit WP:RFA... Just zis Guy you know? 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

PRT and ULTra/UniModal

Stephen, just to clarify: my concerns are not really with ULTra or UniModal, but with PRT in general. For a long time, the PRT article was much more skeptical than was warranted (many of the battles concerned indisputable facts about PRT, such as the fact that offline stops were inherent to the PRT concept -- JzG was adamant about saying they "may" be offline). Things have improved lately. JzG seems to be less dictatorial in his article edits, and the article has improved as a result. If it stays this way, then I anticipate the fighting will die down.

But, you know, it's quite improper to imply that our content is irrelevant just because he thinks we're "barrow pushers". Such statements are inexcusable, and the only reason he gets away with them is people are afraid or unwilling to cross him. Very infuriating. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When I get time, I'll get more involved with PRT. This may improve things :-) I don't know what emails JzG gets, but the various places this debate have surfaced have helped give a better overall picture, which in turn is helping the article. You may find that JzG has relaxed on things where outsiders have suggested there is nothing to worry about, but strengthened his stance when the outside consensus was that he was right. He is under no obligation to reveal his sources, though he did hint that he had had feedback from various neutral observers. Stephen B Streater 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If JzG has outside sources for content he is pushing in the article, then he needs to reveal them. What are their credentials? Do they have biases? Or, if he cannot reveal the source, then he should at least reveal the evidence and/or arguments. We should be able to examine this evidence in order to come to a consensus as to its validity.

Take Java as an example. In the late 1990s, many computer professionals scoffed at Java as a toy language. Back then, if you had asked a "respected neutral source" about Java, they'd have probably laughed at you, because C and C++ were everything in those days. A high level, bytecode-based, garbage collected language was considered a joke by many "experts" of the day, becuase Java was pretty far away from their idea of what a programming language should be. Indeed, many experts predicted that Java would never be able to handle the heavy demands of high-capacity server applications.

Yet today, Java is firmly entrenched as one of the top two or three programming languages in use, even for heavy-duty web server applications. Maybe JzG's "neutral" consultants are the equivalent of a computer programmer in 1995: very biased in favor of the established, and against the unfamiliar. Such is the case with Vuchic, who is by all accounts a brilliant engineer, but who has occasionally gotten some basic facts wrong about PRT.

So if JzG has behind-the-scenes sources on which he bases article decisions, he absolutely should reveal them, or at least reveal their evidence and arguments. Who knows... maybe that will help us to close the gap in our positions? But as it stands, he keeps saying the same thing ("there's no public system in existence") which gets us nowhere because that proves nothing about the underlying applicability or feasibility.

I do appreciate your assistance in this matter (and apparently the others do too). You seem to have a more accepting approach to our concerns. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation :-) I think JzG's feedback has been on interpretation of policy rather than PRT itself. Stephen B Streater 06:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

PS When I started Forbidden, very few people believed you could have a Java video player. Now we have FORscene. People still don't believe it, mind you, even though it is there and TV programmes are being made on it every day. PRT may also have to go through this stage after it is built. Stephen B Streater 06:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never been dictatorial except when people refuse to listen to what I am saying :-) They don't have to agree, they just have to listen. Repeating stale old arguments which do not address the issues does not look to me like evidence of listening... I have taken a lot of trouble to explain exactly what my view is, at every stage, and how this relates to policy and guidelines. I am rather tired of being portrayed as a POV-pusher simply because I keep returning to the fundamental and indisputable point that PRT as described in the PRT article does not exist and never has, and every single cited source is essentially promoting the technology, not reviewing dispassionately. My biggest concern for some time has been the consistent failure to cite any reputable secondary sources such as engineering journals; all the quotes and figures come from proponents, and few if any have had the benefit of any kind of peer-review. I finally found this [1] which comes from an international conference on people movers, an audience hardly likely to be biased against PRT, and it says exactly the same thing: that the bulk of the published material comes from proponents and is uncritical in its approach. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We've heard what you've said, JzG, and we disagree! And not only that, we have much evidence to support our position! Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? I've still yet to see verifiable evidence of real skepticism of PRT technology. Where is it? The fact that it doesn't exist commercially is the only piece of verifiable skeptical evidence you've provided, and it proves nothing. We don't judge science by the level of commercial success it achieves.

Against this lone piece of skeptical evidence, there are hundreds of academic papers and several books that describe, in detail, the technology and science. Furthermore, there are fully functioning prototypes that demonstrate the technology in action. These are all reliable sources, not promotional literature.

JzG, I've asked you repeatedly: rather than continuing to make vague statements like "every single cited source is essentially promoting the technology" (which is blatantly false), why don't you enumerate specifically the sources you feel to be lacking? Perhaps if you were more specific in your concerns, we could address them properly and this endless debate can cease.

As for the paper you mentioned, once again, it does not dispute the technology, only the literature! If PRT is so deserving of skepticism, why hasn't it been debunked by now? Why aren't the Vuchics of the world rolling up their sleeves and attacking the engineering flaws in PRT designs, rather than writing high level fluff pieces that rely on dubious assumptions? Why are all the attacks on PRT based on political and/or subjective concerns? Where is the real skepticism, JzG? If it's not out there, then maybe you shouldn't be manufacturing it based solely on the lack of skeptical evidence. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What, you disagree that there is no PRT installation like that described anywhere in the world? Great! I'm sure you can tell me where to find one. Or is it that you disagree that teh sources appear to be uncritical? In which case the cited analysis stating otherwise is a bit inconvenient for you... You say there are "hundreds" of papers: why don't you cite some from the engineering journals, as I've asked in the past? Whene every link comes from Jerry Schneider's website that does weaken your position a bit.

You can be as uncritical as you like on Wikinfo, here we have to be a bit more balanced. Which means reflecting the real-world situation: there is no urban PRT, there are no plans for any, and there are massive barriers to overcome before any is built. Your agenda is clear, mine is that we should keep our feet on the ground rather than relying on information from "Doug" and "Jerry", to quote some names dropped in past Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Doug and Jerry"? I have no idea who "Doug" is. By "Jerry" I assume you mean Jerry Schneider, the respected researcher who has compiled previously published academic papers on his website, a fact repeatedly pointed out to you but which you choose to ignore. Once again I implore you, please identify the specific points and/or sources you believe to be unsupportable, and maybe this debate will get beyond the stage of baseless accusations. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point. Both are PRT proponents, both names have been dropped in Talk. Meanwhile the lack of any citations from engineering journals continues. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, JzG once again is conspicuously vague in his criticism of the article sources, even though I've asked him repeatedly to enumerate the sources he finds lacking. This feels so familiar. Any day now I'm guessing he will start calling PRT a fraud and a stalking horse. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to criticise JzG for something he might start doing, unless he is actually doing it. As far as I can see, there might be PRT discussions in engineering publications - or at least discussions of the components. If someone can find these good sources, it would improve the article. Stephen B Streater 08:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, I would say that almost every point in the article is supported by reputable sources, from Irving's text (which was based on 8 years of gov't-sponsored research) to several journal articles that describe the concepts. There seems to be a large concentration of articles in the Journal of Advanced Transportation, but some are by the "off-limits" Anderson and Schneider, so I'm not going to bother going through all the trouble adding sources everywhere, only to have JzG revert them all because we have "too much from Anderson and Schneider".

Furthermore, we've already been through the cycle of {add sources}==>{"too many sources listed"}==>{remove sources}==>{"where is the source for X?"}. The former editor (who will not be named) demanded sources, we inserted them, then JzG came and removed almost all of them, and now he's saying the article is unsourced. It's a vicious cycle that I no longer wish to participate in unless I get a firm committment that JzG will not go in and revert all my edits (based on some arbitrary justification like "too many Anderson citations").

Now, you seem to have a more open-minded view on these pages, so perhaps with your involvement we can get it right.

Also, Stephen, I happened to notice you discuss a hypothetical "request for de-adminship" below in a separate conversation. This is something I would very much like to see, because I believe that we have compelling evidence of an admin who has broken just about every rule, from assuming bad faith (repeatedly) to edit-warring to personal attacks to POV pushing. I've seriously considered taking formal action, but I'm not familiar enough with the process, and frankly I'm quite skeptical that my case would be considered objectively, since I'm an outsider and the admin in question is well known. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes iteration is needed to get things right. The Journal of Advanced Transportation claims it is a fully peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts in the field of transportation - do we have any external evidence for this. If so, it could be a useful source. If not, then it may be an unreliable source and we need to continue looking. It looks like no one has really had the time to dig up the definitive independent sources, and this is a cause of friction. Stephen B Streater 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you consider Irving's book, which documents the 8 years of US government research, to be reliable? Much of the uncited material is documented there. This, in addition to several journal and conference papers that document later developments. Unfortunately, Irving's book is difficult to obtain (it's out of print). A Transportation Enthusiast 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of Irving's book. The important questions for me are: Was it published by a reputable publisher? and Is Irving reporting on other people's work or his own? - or more specifically Is Irving independent?. Stephen B Streater 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The publisher is Lexington Books: D.C. Heath and Company. Irving reports on the work of The Aerospace Company, which was (I believe) a government sponsored non-profit that spent 8 years studying PRT. I believe they built a fully-functional 1/12th scale prototype of their design.

Is Irving independent? I don't know, is any researcher "independent"? He was one of the principal investigators working on a large scale research project for non-profit company sponsored by the government. His role was almost purely research; as a government sponsored project, I don't think he even owned any of intellectual property resulting from his work. It's as close as you can get to "independence" for a researcher. Furthermore, the work of later researchers (Anderson et al) has validated much of Irving's work.

I mean, really, how much more reliable can a source be? A Transportation Enthusiast 03:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone who was reporting on the merits of someone else's work will be more reliable than someone reporting on the merits of his own work. Stephen B Streater 16:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us to Anderson. :-) Anderson's work is largely based on Irving's, and as such qualifies as a third party validation of Irving's results. But Anderson has been vetoed as a source, so that's why I was pursuing Irving as a source. A Transportation Enthusiast 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So if Irving is a primary source, Anderson is a secondary source, and Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I thought the problems with Anderson was that he was over-represented as a source and that his neutrality can't be relied on unquestioningly. PRT is much bigger than one man, with a history back to the mid 1960s. Stephen B Streater 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So do you agree that we should not be artificially limiting Anderson as a source? A Transportation Enthusiast 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I said we should aim for a spread of sources and not rely too heavily on people who may not be neutral. Concentrating our sources unnecessarily detracts from the article as it may give a biased view of the subject. The sources I have found add more diversity. If you can find more sources, particularly sceptical ones, we can add more Anderson in without disturbing the balance. Stephen B Streater 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really agree with the policy of looking for negative references just in the name of balance? It's ridiculous. The skeptical sources are just not there. JzG dug hard and found a single insignificant conference paper that seemed to question PRT literature, and it's automatically included in the article because of this supposed balance. We are artificially limiting Anderson and promoting people like Cotrell in the name of this supposed skepticism that has no verifiable basis. This is about science, not politics.

I've seen no reliable source that questions Anderson's "neutrality". He has published textbooks on his transportation research, as well as several papers in referreed journals (mainly JAT). On what basis can we question his neutrality? Just because he was involved with Taxi2000? His involvement with a commercial endeavor automatically calls into question the neutrality of his peer-reviewed research, some of which was published before his involvement with Taxi2000? JzG's assertion that Anderson et al are "non-neutral" is unsupported -- it is original research. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also seen no reliable source which questions Anderson's neutrality. However, the closer someone is to a project, the less neutral one can expect him to be. What sort of things do you want to quote from him? The peer review is good BTW. I think JzG was asking whether there were other independent people we could include as this would strengthen the article. Stephen B Streater 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

<=== reset indent <====

You can classify any prominent scientist as being "close" to his project. Einstein was close to relativity; Darwin was "close" to evolution. Do we throw away their contributions just because we assume they are "too close to their projects to be neutral"? Every time I've added something attributed to Anderson, JzG has objected vigorously. It's happened on at least 2 or 3 separate occasions.

I can't speak to JzG's motivations, but I've seen no evidence that he's trying to find other sources to "strengthen the article". In fact, some of the sources he's fought for (e.g. Light Rail Now and the Cotrell conference paper) are actually quite dubious in their reliability, especially when compared to the reliability of published textbooks and peer reviewed journal articles. In almost every case, JzG is perfectly willing to accept such less-than-reliable sources if they are skeptical in nature, even as he rejects content from Anderson.

But now that you're actively involved, perhaps (hopefully) these problems are behind us, since JzG seems to accept changes from you that he'd reject from us. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to helping resolve things here. Ultimately, everyone here has to be reasonable because the whole world can get involved. You have seen the recent much more negative view on Unimodal; JzG is relatively accommodating. Be careful not to mistake scepticism for belief in the negative. I will of course work to find a solution which everyone agrees is an improvement. Stephen B Streater 15:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As for de-sysop, when you have a look at WP:RfDA, you'll see it's very rare and not generally related to detailed content disputes but to prevent significant damage to the encyclopaedia. The best way to get a good article is to bring in additional reputable editors. They will, of course, always agree with me ;-) Stephen B Streater 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll start working on the PRT article actively from tomorrow. I've been following the discussion on and off and think there is a possibility my contributions will help to forge a consensus. Stephen B Streater 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hacek

The reason that the czech term is used is supposedly because the diacritic mark was created in Bohemia, i.e. what is now part of the Czech republic, and originally intended for use in the Czech language. That is why it is so Czech-centric :) Check the etymology of robot, maybe you could propose something less Czech-centric too. 85.70.5.66 08:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

English is happy to adopt foreign words and phrases, sometimes with accents eg rôle. Háček has some unusual accents, but I'm not too concerned about that, particularly as it refers to a foreign concept. I'll think about your Czech origin point. It's interesting that the other languages which use this mark don't use the Czeck term. Stephen B Streater 08:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind from weak oppose to weak support. Stephen B Streater 09:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's RfA

Believe me, the "angst" in question surprises and confuses me. I'm considering filing an RfC about myself to see what it is that inspires so much of it. I also plan to ask the people who voted against my RfA to offer explanations as many of the comments seem opaque to me. In any case, thanks for your support. We'll see what the future holds. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing too, as I haven't seen many of your edits, but here are my thoughts. Some people may object to your scientific approach - POV was mentioned. Your name itself may exacerbate the problem. If you came across an active editor called AstrologerApologist or CreationistApologist who was standing for Admin, they might find they had something to prove to you - more than the average editor. Also, you seem to have an implicit assumption is that any worthy person would have a logical reason for their objections, whereas they may be basing their decision on a feeling or hunch. Some people may find this implied assumption offensive. I haven't seen many of your edits, but I'll probably end up on an article you frequent before long, so I'll be able to gauge your style first hand. Some very thoughtful and scientific minded editors have opposed - lethe for example. I'd listen to them in particular. Anyway, good luck until we meet again. Stephen B Streater 20:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you, Stephen, what you think the flaws of the RfA process are? Not that I disagree with you, but I'd just like to hear your opinion on the matter. For the record, I don't think there was anything unusual about the vituperation at this RfA. Unsuccessful RfAs usually contain harsh criticisms, which is jarring against the normally cordial atmosphere in article space, but I think it's probably necessary.

As far as advice for ScienceApologist goes, I'd be happy to offer some comments here, in addition to whatever he might be able to glean from my vote on his nomination. The self-nom was poorly conceived. These days, you have to make a very good case for adminship, and you didn't. There is some evidence of thin-skinnedness. This was mentioned in the RfA discussion, and it has been born out by my own interactions with you; after being reverted and hearing critical words about your edits, you responded with accusations of condescension. Whether or not I had actually been condescending towards you (and in my opinion, I had not), I would very much like to see thicker skin from an admin. If people don't like your edits, this is different from people not liking you. Assume good faith and don't devolve the consensus-building process by slinging insults (condescension is indeed an insult). Furthermore, I would like to see much more experience with all Wikipedia process. If you were familiar with RfA, you would know what information is expected in a nomination. If you were familiar with editing Wikipedia policy pages, you would know what sorts of edits are appropriate. If you were familiar with Wikipedia policy, you would probably refrain from actions which could be seen as being a conflict of interest, such as editing RfA policy while your own RfA is underway. All of these things are learned in time, and I was encouraged by your subsequent interactions regarding your edits. I would consider you again at a future date. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few ideas on RfAs:

• Admins engage in controversial and difficult situations, where playing safe may not be ideal. But prior disagreements often lead to RfA opposition, leading to a playing safe bias in appointments

• Admins are largely unaccountable and permanent, making the community risk averse. A reverse admin RfA (with strong consensus required for de-sysop) would allow more movement - to and from admin

• People's conflicting requirements make the process a lottery. Some candidates have false expectations and are upset by negative responses. Perhaps reading this should be encouraged

• Often people don't know the candidates, are unfamiliar with their edits, and go along with unverified comments in the debate, leading to a pile-on mentality. The first few days could have secret votes/comments to ensure more independence, followed by consensus forming when those knowledgeable have expressed their views

• Lack of consistency is my biggest issue with the current process. Considering several candidates together would help ensure consistency. This could be by putting up the whole week's candidates at the same time or, alternatively, asking people to look at five consecutive RfAs. This would also help ensure some poor admins don't slip in when attention is concentrated elsewhere

• Allow people to change their opinion at any time, and new people to join in. With some hysteresis, admin would then be a dynamic vote rather than such a high stakes event, and people could add or amend their opinions as they got to know the editor. This automatically alows de-sysopping and reduces the criticality of the RfA. Stephen B Streater 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Admin status can help a good editor improve the encyclopaedia even if he doesn't ever use the tools because it gives extra weight to good opinions in debates

I'm sure I'll think of some more things too. Stephen B Streater 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your second point very strongly; I think it is a very bad flaw of the current system, and would very much like to see a resolution. Of course, this isn't a problem with RfA, strictly speaking, but rather with requests for de-adminship, which is mostly non-existent. For most of your other points, while I would agree that they are thorny problems, I have so far not seen evidence that the system is broken because of e.g. editors having made enemies in controversial edits or unfamiliarity with candidates. RfA seems to work well enough for those people. I like your idea about voting in blocks; it actually reflects how I use RfA myself. But I guess it's easy to point out the flaws in the RfA system. Much harder to come up with a feasible solution. Anyway, thanks for sharing. Your comment to ScienceApologist suggested that you had strong views on the process, and I appreciate hearing what those are. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree that changing something this important has to be done with care. I haven't come across any abuse bad enough for me to put up someone to be de-sysopped, but some active admins would not be upgraded in the current environment if they had to stand again. Stephen B Streater 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you not? Wait a while, you surely will. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have never thought to do this but...

Wow, you really beaned me with your comment about canvassing for support being perceived as unpopular. Not being a politician nor having the inclination to "canvass" I have no intention of doing this, but can you explain why such an action would be considered "unpopular"? After all, since the standard is 75% of the votes in support, is it really that outrageous for an enterprising Wikipedian to drum up support? Just asking because I'm not aware of any statements that discourage such actions either in people's standards or in other places. Of course sockpuppetry and outside fora canvassing is discussed, but internal Wikipedia support requests are really that problematic? Should we include this proscription somewhere on the RfA pages? --ScienceApologist 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re

Yes, but I am beginning to think that the very purpose was to stop me from adminship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HRE (talk • contribs) 11:40, 14 July 2006

Perhaps it's part of Wikipedia's defence against controversial editors - like Gaia. Stephen B Streater 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nigelj

Thank you for your comments. However, Nigelj has recently engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies. In his comments on Talk:Vulva, the statement "about which he apparently knows so little" is clearly a personal attack. After I placed a legitimate npa-2 warning on his talk page, Nigelj removed the warning without comment, then proceeded to make a personal attack on Reisio in an edit summary. When Paul Cyr restored the initial npa-2 warning, Nigelj removed it without comment again. Nigelj's removals of legitimate warnings from his talk page constitute talk page vandalism. Given the fact that Nigelj has recently engaged in two personal attacks, and two acts of vandalism, I believe that it is of vital importance that he avoid such misconduct in the future. John254 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. I'll see if I can do anything helpful. Stephen B Streater 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stephen - Thank you for your kind words on John254's talk page. I only just found out that all this row has been going on all over the place. I'm trying to make to contact with John254 to see what I can do to help. --Nigelj 07:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for making the effort. Stephen B Streater 19:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence in me during my recent RfA, I am trying to take both my strong and weak points into consideration while both editing and performing any admin duties. If it's okay with you, would you mind if I cribbed notes from your talkpage? I notice many suggestions up there that I haven't seen yet and think they'd be of help. Thanks again! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest :-) Stephen B Streater 11:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

my RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)