< Stewards‎ | Confirm‎ | 2014
The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.


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

  • Languages: pl, en-4, ru-1, de-1
  • Personal info: Hello, this year has been busy for me at work (I've finished my book on Wikipedia), and in wiki-life, too, as I've been very active on the Funds Dissemination Committee. I've made a minor increase in my activity as a steward, but it is far from desired. I hope to do better, definitely. My activities as a steward included also one more minor (but uncountable) item, that is a little bit of coordination of communication of stewards with the WMF (I've attempted to collect feedback and requests in February and in December, with a subsequent IRC conference of developers and stewards). In the future, I would like to do a bit more of that as well, if fellow stewards find it useful. Pundit (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Idiomas: pl, en-4, ru-1, de-1
  • Información personal: translation needed
  • Языки: pl, en-4, ru-1, de-1
  • Личная информация: translation needed
  • Sprachen: pl, en-4, ru-1, de-1
  • Informationen zur Person: Hallo, dieses Jahr ist ein sehr arbeitsreiches gewesen (ich habe mein Buch über Wikipedia abgeschlossen), auch im Wiki-Leben, da ich sehr aktiv im Funds Dissemination Committee war. Ich habe eine geringfügige Zunahme meiner Aktivität als Steward erreicht, allerdings ist sie noch weit entfernt vom Erwünschten. Ich hoffe definitiv das künftig zu verbessern. Meine Steward-Aktivitäten beinhalteten diesmal auch ein geringfügiges (aber unzählbares) Element mehr, nämlich ein kleines bisschen Kommunikationskoordination der Stewards mit der WMF (Ich habe im Februar und im Dezember versucht, Feedback und Anfragen, mit einer anschließenden IRC-Konferenz zwischen Entwicklern und Stewards, zu sammeln). Falls meine Steward-Kollegen dies nützlich finden, würde ich in der Zukunft auch davon gerne etwas mehr machen. Pundit (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments about PunditEdit

  •   Keep Vogone talk 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep Pundit's activity levels are never very high, and I would love to see him around more, but he is active enough and has done valuable work in coordination between the WMF and the Stewards. Snowolf How can I help? 18:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep Ptjackyll (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Rschen7754 19:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove Not very active and also from this "background work" I have never seen much effect. --MF-W 19:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   "Weak" keep Good but low activity level. --Alan (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove Not nearly active enough for my liking, and I trust MF-Warburg on the behind-the-scenes part of his activities. Trying to be consistent with my 2012 vote. odder (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict]   Remove mostly per MF-Warburg (and Snowolf). I appreciate he tried to be a bit more active after last year's confirm round but the experience accumulated is still not enough to be able to supersede the concerns about the inability to judge/confirm trust in his work as steward (please let's not have the same discussion again, one time is enough). I always stick to a principle of fair treatment of the stewards pool during confirmation, so I'll check the situation better towards the end of the commenting period to confirm my personal conclusion. --Nemo 23:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep   --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral it is meant to be working role, not a policy space  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep (weak) per others. --Glaisher [talk] 05:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral --Wiki13 talk 11:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove eh? --Goldenburg111 18:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep no harm, possible benefit --Abd (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep I trust him. --►Cekli829 19:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep Risker (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep – If he says he'll try to be more active, I trust him. No concerns otherwise. TCN7JM 03:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep Snow keep pile up? --Piotrus (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove inactive. I don't see what WMF, FDS and whatever stuff like this has to do to stew's service. --Base (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   "Weak" Keep Guycn2 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove. AGK [•] 19:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep--Jusjih (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral In my opinion, he hasn't been active enough at a technical point of view to keep the buttons. I'm not opposing because of the efforts to coordinate with the WMF staff, which I appreciate. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Whilst I respect Pundit and the work he does, the fact he clearly has acted when canvassed on English Wikipedia (as per this) turns my positive view on Pundit as a steward into a negative. Sorry mate, really, it was sloppy of you to respond to private canvassing by Piotrus. Russavia (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry mate, I respect your vote, but not its explanation - I also think you could ask first, and jump to conclusions later. I know Piotrus as a researcher (and value his works) and I met him in HKG. I hardly ever weigh in in RfAs at en-wiki, mainly because I do so only when I have an opinion or know the candidate, which is rare. But I do follow my watchlist daily. Piotrus has a snowball chance of success in his RfA (and I understand people who vote against him, as he does seem to have a dark past; although from years ago). But I seriously doubt if he would lower to votes canvassing (and he has not asked me to vote for him neither). Pundit (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I have spoken to Pundit about this, and he guarantees me he was not canvassed. Given other canvassing by Piotrus, and not being entirely active on en.wp, it is understandable why this was thought. Given Pundit's words to myself, I am "positive" about him, so no need to oppose on that basis at this time :) Russavia (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Snowolf Tar Lócesilion|queta! 12:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove Per MF-Warburg. Érico Wouters msg 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Snowolf Trijnsteltalk 22:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Snowolf. Armbrust (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Snowolf and AlanL. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep Reasonably active and friendly. Elfix 18:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep Jianhui67 talkcontribs 12:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Snowolf.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral --Midnight Gambler (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Snowolf. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I never thought of the main wings of Meta's technocracy as mutually exclusive and Pundit has not given me reason to change that view at this stage. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Holder (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Snowolf Ankry (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove Legoktm (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Remove Concerns with limited recent activity -FASTILY 09:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per sDrewth --Pratyya (Hello!) 07:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)