Stewards/Confirm/2013/Pundit

The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.

Pundit edit

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: pl, en-4, ru-1.5, de-1
Personal info: Personal info: This is my first confirmation, as I was elected last year. I definitely am not the most active steward among the Team. Besides the normal steward tasks, I participated in the en-wiki ArbCom elections. I believe there is a learning curve in handling steward duties and I am grateful for my more experienced colleagues who take their time in helping me learn them. If the community is willing, I would like to serve yet another year as a Wikimedia Steward.

español:

Idiomas: pl, en-4, ru-1.5, de-1
Información personal: translation needed

русский:

Языки: pl, en-4, ru-1.5, de-1
Личная информация: translation needed

Deutsch:

Sprachen: pl, en-4, ru-1.5, de-1
Informationen zur Person: Persönliche Information: Dies ist meine erste Bestätigung, da ich letztes Jahr gewählt wurde. Ich bin sicher nicht der aktivste Steward im Team. Neben den normalen Stewardaufgaben habe ich an den Schiedsgerichtswahlen im en-Wiki teilgenommen. Ich glaube, dass es beim Umgang mit Steward-Pflichten eine Lernkurve gibt, und ich bin dankbar für meine erfahreneren Kollegen, die sich Zeit nehmen, um mir beim Lernen zu helfen. Sofern die Community es möchte, würde ich gerne ein weiteres Jahr als Wikimedia-Steward dienen.

Comments about Pundit edit

I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Rs chen 7754 01:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and no, this is not a Polish mafia vote. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm, no issues here. -Barras talk 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I particularly loved what you've done recently to improve the life of stewards. Regards, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Quentinv57. Trijnstel_talk 22:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lonio17 (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 16:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Höstblomma (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trzymać --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 05:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pushing good initiatives — billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC) handles his double-burden with the FDC very well[reply]
Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I didn't mean to but I've voted against in other cases and I must do the same here for consistency because I now see he's the least active current steward and he basically did nothing but some checkusering. ~~We therefore don't have any way to confirm our trust in his job as a steward.~~ From the responses below we have a clear indication that he has some TRUTH problems: he can't stand criticism and opinions different from his and masks his opinions and arguments as facts; extremely worrying for a steward. And no, other tasks do not change this fact; moreover I've always considered each responsibility (like flags) as an additional "debt of trusts" (to the community and the movement). --Nemo 06:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC) – addition/correction 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity: the following comment was a reply to the original vote, without comments about "truth problems" (which, frankly, sound a bit like a personal attack to me, so I'm going to do this, rather than reply :):Sounds fair (although I am surprised that you've discovered me as the least active, at least according to this tool it would not appear so, as both in 2012 and in 2013 there were 9 stewards less active than me, also in 2012 two were ahead of me just by one action - although my activity is definitely far from desired). Pundit (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking of this, which counts 88 actions (second least active axpde with 124; I've opposed his confirmation before opening this page or placing the comment above): is the count wrong? As I said in the case of Andre Engels, I don't care about recent activity if previous activity in the "job" can be used to the purpose of confirming suitability to the flag, but we don't have even that here. I also looked closer and it seems that 46 actions out of 88 are checkusering; we knew that you can be trusted with the CU tool as you were an ombudsman, but 40 non-CU actions only in the first year as steward means, to me, that we surely don't have enough "material" to confirm you, even without looking into those actions (sure, nobody will have anything to complain about; chi non fa non sbaglia, an Italian proverb says). Moreover, with such a low activity in the first year (when one is usually most interested in the job one has just run for), I doubt you'll ever recover in the future, but this is a minor point compared to the previous one. Sorry for bothering you all with so many words to explain what's just my opinion, but you claimed that my comment was based on "false premises" so I felt obliged to elaborate more than I first considered needed. --Nemo 12:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that Jyothis' tool is rather inaccurate, Pundit has been rather active behind the scenes. But regardless, I don't think that comparing absolute numbers is very helpful, at least compare actions since the last confirmations or actions per day. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've said above myself that the count shouldn't be fully relied upon, that's why I added other reasons (and it still gives a useful general picture, not falsified yet). I disagree that absolute numbers don't matter at all and I've explained why above; of course they are not useful to make a complete "ranking" of all stewards but that's not something I tried or I'm interested in. --Nemo 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I believe it is rather unfair to compare absolute numbers, since I've been a steward for just a year, and the majority of the pack - longer. If any sensible comparison can be made, it is for the same period, be it just the raw last year (where I'm ahead of ~ 1/4 of stewards) or some averaged calculation. So, indeed, I believe that your count is quite wrong in the sense of not having much meaning, as it does not make any sense to compare the absolute total number of actions for one year in the case of a new steward with, say, 5 years of another. Pundit (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just one stat of relevance I've gathered from this: 20 of current stewards (the majority, that is) in some year of their tenure had an action count lower than I had in 2012 (which was my first and only year of being a steward). Pundit (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on absolute numbers and I've no interest in judging the people's dedication: activity can be reduced by many good reasons and as I said above can't be compared just by log counts; I'm only interested in knowing whether I can actually trust this confirmation process to review and confirm your ability to do the steward's job.

I've no idea why you, on the contrary, are being so fixated with editcountitis, which is not the only point in my argument, but if you want we can also play this game. Using the same numbers as you are, we can see that only two stewards in history had a lower activity track than yours at any given confirmation (Jusjih and Millosh, ~83; surprise surprise, I didn't vote for them either at the time); perhaps also axpde, but mismatched terms don't allow a good comparison with such low numbers (and I've opposed his confirmation too). Dorgan had 88 like you and didn't ask confirmation; Zirland had 83 and failed reconfirmation. Of course data is very lacking for the ancient stewards, but a comparison to Angela, Anthere & Co. wouldn't make sense anyway. --Nemo 09:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of editcountitis neither. But while all of your qualitative judgments are blackboxed and thus cannot be disputed (they are more like opinions, than facts), the argument about numbers is simply ostensibly flawed. Interestingly, I have no idea how you came up with the idea that only two stewards in history had lower activity track, which is obviously counterfactual, since, as mentioned before, even this year I was "more active" (in the empty terms of mere counts) than roughly 1/4 of all stewards on duty in 2012. Also, I'm not sure how you even came up with this number for the date of confirmation (usually not done on 31 December of any given year). Here you can count thirty seven instances of activity counts lower than 78 in a year, from the stewards currently on duty (so quite likely 7837 instances of successful reconfirmations). If you want to play with numbers, at least do it right :) You can believe that this activity count is disqualifying for whatever reason, but at least be fair and say that 1/4 of all stewards in 2012 have been too inactive to meet your standards. Pundit (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said a dozen times, I'm considering total activity to have an impression of the steward's experience etc. etc. You disagree that this is a valid point, we got it; there's no need to continue repeating your opinion selling it as a fact, it's rather annoying. Perhaps as odder highlighted below you have some problem accepting that opinions different from yours can be valid? At least we managed to have some open peer review of your endeavours on this confirmation, previously impossible due to lack of material: thank you for this possibility you gave us, I've changed my comment accordingly.

As I also said above, terms are not all matching, however counting is generally very easy because most stewards in history passed your activity in their first year and there's no need to check the following ones; the only dubious cases have been listed above with names, some of which obviously appeared below to oppose my vote, of course; but I wanted to make my count easily verifiable, unlike yours... --Nemo 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I annoyed you. I read your comments about me being inactive as being phrased as something close to statements of "facts", rather than obvious opinions based on the total activity count (which you have not emphasized strongly each time you made the observation about alleged inactivity). I don't believe I have problems with different opinions, I do, however, find statements illogical in my own eyes as problematic, and if they are coming from people I consider logical and sensible (like you) I try to understand their point of view and perception. Such revealing of assumptions and reasons for one's stance usually help present the argument better, so I did not consider this as a potential annoyance to you personally. I have not intended at any point to be a cause of any emotional reaction from you, and again - I apologize, I have not been aware it may be read this way. Let's end this particular part of the thread here and agree, that whoever shares your argument that stewards (including new ones) should be evaluated by the total count of all actions (in the case of other stewards, covering many years), rather than the count in any given year, they should definitely vote for removal. Pundit (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Nemo --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hi Pundit, you mention above that your activity is far from that which is desired. Could you give a brief rundown of why you think your activity isn't as much as desired; i.e. is there something keeping you from activity as a steward? Cheers, Russavia (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over the last year I've been writing a book for my full professorship review. I've been working under a lot of pressure, this definitely influenced my activity (not relevant, but I finished and submitted, yay! :). Also, I would LIKE to be more active, and intend to be around IRC more often. Yet, quite a number of times, as fellow stewards can confirm, I've been grumbling on IRC that some other steward performed a request quicker - so, yeah, I would DESIRE also a faster net connection for example :) All in all, as I've just written to Nemo above, I disagree with labeling my activity as low. I was active in organizing steward work and lobbying for tools, which is not reflected in the action counter, but took time, too. Also, even by the action counter, in 2012 I was more active than 1/4 of stewards, and more than half of all current stewards at least once in their tenure had a year, when their action count was lower than mine in the freshman year. Pundit (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fixated on editcounteritis, as edits don't always indicate activity. But just so that I have it straight in my mind, activity to obtain full professorship (good luck with that) is essentially the reason for low activity, and you will becoming more active as a steward in the future? Also, I know that you have several flags on Polish Wikipedia; do you foresee activities for those flags being an impediment to more steward activity? Cheers, Russavia (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! My activity as steward has not been low (and as mentioned, even by the crude activity counter it was higher than for the majority of the current stewards in at least one year of their tenure). But I believe it will be higher. On pl-wiki I am an admin and a bureaucrat, I don't expect these roles will be distracting. Also, when unified rename hits the gates, bureaucrats will have less work, while stewards - significantly more. Pundit (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In light of answers above, support. Russavia (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per Nemo, and also seeing that I voted against Pundit's appointment as a steward in the first place. Also, being stalked for about a week on IRC to change my vote was not an enjoyable experience. odder (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Zyephyrus (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some activity is not visible from outside. Ruslik (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Alan ffm (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yarl (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rzuwig^► 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as not really inactive, he can help Wikimedia projects with the ammount of activity he wants to provide. Stewards are also volunteers. I mean, if stewards are paid, somebody is taking what is mine. Also per Quentin.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{@ L C S}˲» 08:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Ruslik0. LeinaD (t) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep πr² (t • c) 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]