The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.
The lead coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the other coordinators aid the lead coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.
The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group.
The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.
Practical information on coordinating may be found here and here.
Nomination period: starts 00:01 (UTC) Monday 1 March to 23:59 (UTC) Monday 15 March.
Voting period: starts 00:01 (UTC) Tuesday 16 March to 23:59 (UTC) Sunday 28 March.
Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Candidates" section below by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:
=== Name ===
{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...
==== Comments and questions for Name ====
*''What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?''
**
*''What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?''
**
==== Votes in support of Name ====
#
The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the lead coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the remaining candidates with twenty or more endorsements will be appointed as coordinators to a maximum of fourteen appointments. The number of coordinators may be increased or reduced if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.
Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.
Due to the currently small number of candidates standing for election, I am offering myself as a candidate. I was encouraged to do so earlier by TomStar81 but had declined due to increased workload in real life. However, as someone who has gotten a lot out of my Wikipedia experience, I feel that it would be a bit selfish of me not to offer my services in the circumstances. I currently try to help out with some (not all) of the tasks that co-ordinators are required to do, so I feel that I would be able to quickly learn how to do the other tasks. My work load in real life is quite high (I have recently gone back to university following my discharge from the Army), so I will not be able to contribute to my previous levels (around 1,000 edits most months), but I think that with some time management skills I will be able to support the project in a meaningful way. If need be, I will focus on my co-ordinator tasks above writing articles.
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
I came to the project a bit over a year ago, when I was recovering from an injury I received in the Army. I was bored at the time as I had a lot of time on my hands and a mate suggested writing some articles to keep my mind off other things. Since then I have worked on many articles (please see my User page for a list of some that I have worked on, if you are interested), mainly related to Australian military history (particularly histories of Australian infantry battalions and engineer units as that is where most of my knowledge is). I usually focus on getting articles to B class, however, I have taken one article to A class (No. 3 Commando) and two articles to GA (Military history of Australia during World War I and Australian Army Reserve)—although I hasten to add I had a considerable amount of help with those—I have also contributed to a few DYKs and am a regular contributor to peer reviews and ACRs. I have also contributed a few templates and uploaded quite a few images to Commons (mainly from the AWM, but also some unit colour patches that I have created myself).
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I believe that I have a decent level of editing experience and know what our standards should be. Also, I am not adverse to doing the less visible administration type work and am at heart a bit of a Wikignome. I frequently spend hours just tagging and assessing articles, adding endashes, checking grammar, reverting vandalism (I have around 400 articles watchlisted), contributing to ACRs and peer reviews, listing prods and AFDs in the discussion list, and doing some new page patrolling. In terms of my personality, I believe that I am a reasonable and approachable person and I prefer to try to build consensus when it comes to wide reaching change. Finally, I am a team player. It is who I am and what I do!
This is a good question, Tom, and one that is difficult to answer. I have found myself at times expressing opinions that could be considered both (I try very hard to base my AFD arguments on precedent and concensus, but apply them sensibly on a case by case basis). Having said that, I do not like to see articles get deleted, so if I feel an article is notable and can be saved I will try to help out or provide advice to the editors involved. Where the subject is not notable, however, I have no qualms about deletion. As such, I guess I would characterise myself as an inclusionist with deletionist leanings! — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert already does a lot of behind the scenes tasks, works very cooperatively with other editors and will make an outstanding coordinator. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I am continually impressed with AustralianRupert's contributions, knowledge, civility and helpfulness. Will make an excellent coord. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't been considering running or even being involved with all aspects of MILHIST; I was content working on battleships, but Ed alerted me that there may not be enough coordinators this election cycle to get the job done, and he asked me to run. Ed knows what he's doing, so here I am. I've been all over the wiki doing various jobs at various times, including reviewing, assessment, copyediting, lots of policy work (including the Signpost columns on policy), deletion, blocking, promotion discussions, and occasional discussion of the "big issues". I haven't really given the question "What have you done on Wikipedia?" much thought ... if you need more, I'll dig in and do a better job answering this.
Probably the best places to look to get a sense of my deletion philosophy are my RFA (although I hadn't done a lot of deletion work at that time), comments I've made in other people's RFAs (I provide links), and especially my edits to WT:CSD, most of which are from last spring and summer. I used to do a wide variety of deletion work, but over time I narrowed it down to just the relatively easy calls involving attack pages, promotional pages and misuse of userspace ... I've found that simply reducing the size of the workload by doing things I'm comfortable with is the most efficient way to contribute, so that other people who want to argue borderline cases aren't overwhelmed with the workload. Executive summary: if it's possible to look at my work and decide that I'm some kind of "-ist", that I'm all about deleting articles or keeping them or deleting one kind and keeping another kind, then either I'm not respecting consensus or I'm being sloppy (although I do respect "principled inclusionists" such as DGG). – Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dank is a thoughtful and experienced user, and always has new ideas to share. While he hasn't been particularly active in MILHIST up to now, I'm confident he can make just as much of an impact as the new coordinator. –Juliancolton | Talk03:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Dank cooks up thoughtful proposals and utilizes reasoned arguments in all areas of his editing; it would be nice to have him in a coord role. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)15:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dank is a well qualified editor who'll be an asset to the coordinator team. I note in particular that two of Dank's three FAs are not military history-related, so they'll have a good perspective on the issues that come up here. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eurocopter (talk·contribs)
I have been a member of the Military history project since March 2007 and a coordinator of it since August 2007, with more than 99% of my contributions on Wikipedia being made within this project. My major achievement during the last term as a coordinator would be putting in place and running the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. Although due to my limited wiki-available time I was considering several times to step out and not to candidate anymore, I concluded that I still can find a window of time to dedicate myself in the scope of this wonderful comunity and simply can't leave the team yet (refering to my old fellow coords who I'm working with in the past three years). Thank you all for giving me this opportunity! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
Considering my experience as a coordinator, I can easily continue to perform any coordinator tasks and duties, as well as managing certain departments of our project. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with nearly three years of coord experience and high-level article contribs behind him, this support is a bit of a no-brainer. Cam(Chat)03:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eurocopter's efforts in the WWI Contest alone are enough to advocate support, but he is additionally well experienced and helpful. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per successful previous terms and his fine work with the First World War contest; the resulting article improvements are truly impressive. EyeSerenetalk09:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's that time again. I'm offering myself for consideration for a fourth (really three-and-a-halfth) term serving Milhist. I've been here a while now – I started dabbling with Wikipedia in late 2006, got hooked by early 2007, was nominated for adminship in April 2008, and was drafted to Milhist in November the same year. Although Milhist is the focus of most of my efforts and the place I regard as 'home' on Wikipedia, I also spread my editing wider and can be found copyediting articles on anything from Japanese manga series to biographies, commenting at WP:RfA and WP:ANI, dealing with WP:AIV reports, and generally poking my nose into anything that catches my interest :) My view of the Milhist coordinator role is perhaps best summed up by Kirill Lokshin's advice to new coordinators here: "to help article writers where possible, and to avoid hindering them otherwise".
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
Article-wise I tend to work on improving rather than creating content, and have been honoured to help some of our editors prepare their articles for WP:FAC. I have, however, been a significant contributor to a number of articles relating to the Battle of Normandy, where I'm working with some superb editors with the (ambitious!) goal of getting a Featured topic by the 70th anniversary in 2014. As a coordinator, I think the largest single task I undertook during this term was to help facilitate the Task force housekeeping project discussion and then implement the results.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I think mainly experience in building content, assisting contributors, and dealing with Wikipedia itself. I also know my way around the project and the coordinator functions pretty well, although I'm forever finding out that I don't actually know as much as I think I do (I spent nearly an hour the other day trying to find an 'official' invitation to join the project, to leave on a editor's talk page, only to come to the realisation that we don't seem to have one ...so I stole one from the_ed17 instead :)).
Good question! I'll try to answer it in two parts: the articles that come under our umbrella, and the project itself. Taking the first, like most other areas on Wikipedia I think we suffer from systemic bias. Our Showcase of featured content reveals that the majority of our top-quality content is related to Anglophone and European topics (which is in line with this analysis from the Countering systemic bias WikiProject). While we have some superb editors working in areas like Africa, India, South America and the Far East, their numbers are few compared to those working in other areas. One hope is that we'll see a gradual rise in coverage and, more importantly, quality, in articles relating to the Indian subcontinent (as the major English-speaking area that I feel is under-represented on WIkipedia), but especially for non English-speaking countries I think our coverage may ultimately depend on attracting more subject experts to the 'pedia.
Looking at the project itself, I believe we have been and still are remarkably successful at providing a supportive environment for content builders to just get on and do their thing. However, it never hurts to remind ourselves that Milhist doesn't own articles themselves (or the editors working on them!) and doesn't exist in isolation to the rest of Wikipedia, so we need to remain responsive and accommodating to concerns of members and non-members alike. As far as project infrastructure goes, I'd like to see the Academy knocked into shape – we have lots of good content but it needs organising... and yes, I said this at the last election, and no, I still haven't got round to doing anything about it :)
Support for having done good work here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. (I remember having worked with him a little way back before he joined the project.) Cromdog (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a part of Wikipedia for over four years now, and began contributing to military history articles about three years ago. I've been a MILHIST coordinator for the past year, i.e. two terms. Article-wise, MILHIST is easily my prime focus at WP, mainly in the field of Australian military flying biography, though my edits have ranged across many related areas. At the moment my significant contributions here include 15 FA-Class, 5 A-Class, and 12 GA-Class articles, as well as a long list of DYKs. I always enter the monthly writing contest (usually helping tally points and award prizes as well), spend a fair amount of time reverting vandalism and fixing other dubious edits, do a great deal of reviewing, assessing and copyediting of articles at all levels, perform housekeeping tasks like announcing/closing reviews and updating open tasks, and try to offer helpful advice wherever appropriate.
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
From the writing perspective, I think I've been able to produce work that's well sourced and illustrated, written in a style that's objective but engaging, and focusses on the human element, the impact that personalities have on historical events. Creating half a dozen or so MilHist articles from scratch and taking them to FA level has been satisfying, as was recently coming second in Eurocopter's Henry Allingham World War I Contest. It was nice to be able to generate a groundswell of support among colleagues to have Milhist coordinator's terms increased to 12 months from 6, leading to a referendum on the question being tabled during this election. Finally, being told that someone's found my advice/copyedits/reviews useful still makes my day.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I was fortunate enough to be awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves a while back, which cited not just editing achievements but stuff about being civil, collaborative, and happy to offer advice and assistance. This still covers a lot of what I expect to provide as a coordinator: experience, evenhandedness, and enthusiasm, plus the housekeeping that's part-and-parcel of this role, sound knowledge of the review/assessment process, and willingness/ability to contribute to project policy and discussion.
I've been involved with Wikipedia since January 2008, and spent almost all my time and energy involved with the Military History Project. I have served as a coordinator since March 2009, and would appreciate the chance to continue this service. I have done some article writing trying to improve our underdeveloped coverage of the Eastern Front of World War II, but spend the majority of my time working on A-Class reviews and participating in discussions. Although I have become busier recently and have not had as much time as I wish to work on Wikipedia, I believe that I will still be able to carry out the responsibilities expected of me as a coordinator. – JoeN21:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
While I generally don't do too much article writing, I have added nearly all of the current entries in the list of battles by casualties. After sourcing disputes it was reduced to only having about 10 entries, but I was able to find several sources that, between them, provided casualty figures for over 150 battles. Sadly, given its scope, I doubt the list can ever rise above start class, but it is certainly much better now than it was previously. I am also proud of my work in the A-Class review process, where I have reviewed scores, if not hundreds of articles, and received several of the project's awards.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I have experience reviewing articles, and work with nominators of potential A-Class articles to make sure that their articles are ready for promotion. I normally offer my comments on improving readability and flow.
Wikipedian since July 2007, Administrator since January 2008, MILHIST coordinator since September 2008, and since January 2010 a Trainee Arbitration Committee clerk. I have an edit count of 59,000+, I am listed as a Highly Active User, and I have been recognized as an Awesome Wikipedian. I am a recipient of the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, our project's highest award (awarded prior to my becoming a coordinator), and I have also been recognized many times throughout my wiki career, as seen here. It would be an honor to be given the opportunity to continue my tenure as a coordinator of this project. -MBK00415:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
Of course I am proud of my contributions to the FL/FA/A/GA articles that I have contributed to, of which the ones I had either primary role in either the sole authorship or collaborative editing are listed on my userpage. I have moved away from article writing as of late and have been primarily focused upon keeping the project's review department running, which is a sense of pride when one considers the numbers of reviews that pass through that system each month. I am also heavily involved with Operation Majestic Titan, largely in a logistical/support role.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I am fairly comfortable performing all of the traditional tasks of a coordinator and also make an effort to stay involved with our review department. My usual involvement is primarily in the closing of ongoing A-Class Reviews, of which I have closed approximately 40+ during this past term as a coordinator (log). I am a certified WikiGnome and have been asked to put those skills to use many times for the benefit of the project from both coordinators and ordinary members.
While arguably not the weakest point we have, the most glaring area is in the review department. Article reviews are languishing far longer without multiple reviewers. In this past term I have noticed an increase in A-Class reviews that are not receiving proper participation which in turn leads to them being closed as no consensus for promotion for going over the time-limit of 28 days. The peer reviews we host also could use more participation since most reviews usually only garner one or two reviews. As to what can be done about this, I am open to suggestions since this is a perennial problem we have had for a number of years, only the problem is now more pronounced since the throughput of the review department has seen great increases in the past year. -MBK00421:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good luck on a new term! Thanks for all of the help you have given me during my time in the WP! Thanks especially for the help you have given me lately :) Have a Great Day! Lord OliverThe Olive Branch01:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes think this project would fall apart without MBK's ever-reliable contribution, and that's no slight on anyone - keep it up! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we don't need no gnomes. (...as the project falls apart.) Thanks for all your work in the last term; the project and the coord role itself would be much more difficult for us without you around. —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 15:26, 16 March 2010
Full Support - without you, the ACRs from back in December would likely still be open. One of the best wikignomes around. Cam(Chat)03:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll take you improvement information to heart in the next term and see what we can do about improving this. I agree this is an area we are weak in, and we do need to address this. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice contributions, active editor. Thanks for your long, guiding hand that manuevers me into the correct position. Buggie111 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. I've been a member of the Military history community for a little more than three years now and I would like to take an attempt at being a coordinator myself. Those of you who may have followed me around may have noticed that my primary interest lies with the recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross during World War II and here especially those that served in the German Luftwaffe.
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
I am very happy that over the past year or so people have stated helping me and improve my awkward writing skills, that people ask me for my opinion and that I was asked by the coordinators to run for coordinator.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
Good question since this may be my first time around. However, I believe that I can learn the mechanics of being a coordinator quickly.
Are you an deletionist or an inclusionist? This doesn't effect my !vote either way, I am just curious as to where you stand on the issue.TomStar81 (Talk) 01:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Outstanding contributor, with a reputation for reviewing articles within our scope. You should have been in this occupation months ago :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm NativeForeigner, and have been a member of Wikipedia for almost four years now. I have been a member of WP:MILHIST for quite a while now, and have always taken an interest in military history. I've started specializing my content work towards Korea and Milhist, and feel I would be an asset as a director. I was not planning on running for coordinator, but TomStar said it would be reasonable for me to run in the comments sections below, and so I did.
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
Currently I am participating in WP:OMT and have been restoring images (have done two William Simpson (artist) lithographs and am currently working on a picture of a Renault tank. I'm currently working on USS Washington (BB-56) with the ed17 and Dank, and have justs checked out more books to help. All in all though, I would have to say my featured pictures (one completed, one passing as of current) are my best achievement.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I have a fairly wide knowledge of WP:AFD, and know the assessment criteria quite well, although I have not dealt with it much as of recent. I also am a decent copyeditor, although this is not an administrative role per se. Mostly I feel I have somewhat of a clue and a willingness to learn my role and take on the responsibilities associated with it. I can contribute my time, (hopefully) my WP:CLUE, my knowledge of AfD, and knowledge of DYK to help MILHIST grow and flourish. I also have a fair bit of restoration knowledge, and am working into writing more GAs, areas I can help other users with. I'm certainly willing to expand into more areas that Milhist is working in, such as ACR and FAN. NativeForeignerTalk/Contribs/Vote!20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a long-time member of MILHIST, during which time I've written nearly 2 dozen articles that have passed A-class review, 13 of which went on to pass their FACs. I served as a coordinator here in the last term, and helped out where I could with closing A-class reviews, reviewing articles for B-class, and other regular coordinator tasks. I am also an administrator, which will allow me to help take care of incidents that require the extra buttons. I'm in my second-to-last quarter at OSU, so I might not have as much time as I'd like to work on en.wiki, but I'll do the best I can.
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
I'd say the 22 articles mentioned above that have passed A-class reviews, and specifically the 13 article FT I created. I'm also a participant in WP:OMT, which is where most of my article writing is focused.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I have extensive experience with the A-class review system, as a submitter, reviewer, and as a closer. Like I mentioned above, I am also an admin, which will surely be useful, even if just to move a page over a redirect.
Strong support. His nominations at FAC show that he can write, and we need to lift the standards of prose in MilHist articles. 23:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I was originally not going to run but decided to throw my hat in the ring when I saw the dearth of candidates. Now for my candidate spiel. I've been on Wikipedia since late 2006, or for about three and a half years, during which I've racked up a not-so-impressive edit count of over 8000. Around that time, I joined the MILHIST project, so I feel that I know the ins and outs of being a project coordinator and/or could learn the ropes quickly. Around the Wiki, I've mainly done Gnomishminor edits mixed with a decent bit of content work, and for MILHIST-specific areas, I've been involved with all the Tag&Assess and B-class Assessment Drives and done a fair bit of peer reviews. Though this past June, I had a successful RfA; consequentially, I drifted away from the MILHIST sphere, and since I have been faced with heavier workloads from school, my edit counts have recently dropped. Still, I feel that every little bit of coordinator work I do will be of benefit to this project, so for that reason, I'm in for the long haul.
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
As I stated above, I've done a decent bit of peer review work on this project, and was involved in both of the Tag & Assess Drives, as well as the B-class Assessment Drive. I also wrote several courses for the Academy. (See some evidence here on my User Page). Besides these, most of my other significant contributions to this project were assessing articles (not during the drives), especially during my New Page Patrol runs, and sourcing various unsourced articles in our scope.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
Well, I'm not adverse to performing gnomish edits, so there's lots of grunt-work that I could do,: closing reviews, posting notices, giving out confirmed awards, etc. I also think that my experience both with Wikipedia and MILHIST, as well as the adminship powers which I bring to the table, would be of benefit to the project. Furthermore, I could give objective opinions at the Coordinator talk page over project-wide issues, but overall, and most importantly, I can do any odd-job tasks that come my way.
A great history of contributions within the project (and especially if you're interested in further improving the Academy!). Full support. EyeSerenetalk09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t have any intention of running in this election, but after EyeSerene (whose opinion I hold in high regard) suggested it, and seeing how lean the nominations are this term, I thought I should offer to help. I’ve learnt a lot from wiki and benefited greatly from officially joining Milhist a year ago, so it seems fair to return the favours. I started editing back in 2007 (but had been reading wiki for almost 2 years before that) and originally started on Ancient History articles. In this project I’m mostly found around Airborne Warfare related pages, but I have a very broad interest in military history generally (growing up with armoured cars behind the playground will do that for you) so I like to edit on other issues where I can. That said, one of the real pleasures of editing here is that there are dozens of well qualified editors who already make a lot of articles incredibly good anyway, so I often don’t need to do anything!
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
I don’t know about proud, but the ones that have been most satisfying are the GA Arnhem biographies I’ve done, specifically John Waddy, Jack Grayburn, John Baskeyfield and most of Robert Henry Cain. When I have the time I intend to finish off the Arnhem VC articles on my little pet project and then keep plugging away at the rest. I try to write new articles to GA standard where possible (which I think is a nice level to achieve for an online encyclopaedia), so any article I get there is something to be pleased with.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
As in real life, something I’m quite good at is seeing both sides of any situation, and while I may not always agree with an opinion I can usually understand it. I often hang around the main project discussion page and I’m quite happy to spend more time there and lend my thoughts and opinions to any discussions, reviews or other matters. I’ve been very lucky to learn a great deal from some other far wiser editors, and I hope that can continue and I’ll be able to contribute to other administrative matters in the future.
I guess I'd have to describe myself as a realist. Some wiki policies can contradict each other, but I think what it comes down to is a healthy dose of common sense. For example, there has been a lot of recent media coverage of individuals in Iraq or Afghanistan. All of them are notable in their own way and this is often cited as a reason for an article, but ultimately a lot of them just aren't justified. In that particular example I would say it is a question of whether or not those individuals will still be notable characters in years to come, or was their notability in the wider world just a flash in the pan? As an example, I would say that Lt Colonel Rupert Thorneloe is a suitable article for wiki, his death was a notable event that will likely be recorded/reported some time from now. PFC Todd Blackburn (not Iraq or Afghanistan I know) on the other hand is only really notable for being played by Orlando Bloom for 5 minutes in a movie once, and should probably be deleted. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Experience of ready cooperation on the entirely-coincidental simultaneous John Waddy articles a while back is enough to get my support - good coordinator material! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alliterative support; RS is a clueful, civil, collaborative content-contributor and constitutes a capital choice for coordinator. Thanks for standing :) EyeSerenetalk09:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm "The ed17", but most people call me Ed. I've been an active editor of Wikipedia since March 2008. I was one of the co-opted coordinators back in November 2008, and was elected in March 2009. Once upon a time I used to be very active in A-class reviews, but with less on-wiki time, I focused on article writing. With the beginning of 2010, I've found myself with an even smaller amount of on-wiki time, so I was hesitant about standing again for this tranche ([1]). On further thought, however, I believe that I can still execute the coordinator role effectively enough to be a net positive. Comments and questions are welcomed from anyone. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)08:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
The articles I have written (User:The_ed17#contribs). One of the more interesting articles was Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes; I wrote it after Le Deluge (talk·contribs) commented in this TL;DR discussion that it was a redlink. At the time, I said that it hadn't been created because it probably wasn't very interesting—but I was very wrong. The ship took part in three different mutinies in her career, once on the side of rebels (the Revolta da Chibata) and twice deploying for the government against rebels. In addition, she was the most powerful warship in the world when commissioned, which started a South American naval arms race that was only ended by the First World War, and single-handedly changed the United States' foreign policy to begin courting Brazil as an ally.
In a related vein is Brazilian cruiser Bahia. She took part in the Revolta da Chibata and was sent to Africa in the latter half of the First World War. While there, a majority of her crew caught the Spanish flu. Bahia also served in the Second World War and blew up after V-E Day amid conspiracy theories that a rouge German submarine sank her.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I'll continue adding input to discussions at WT:MHCOORD and roaming around the project, doing any task that strikes my fancy. I am also hoping to write more editorials for the project newsletter, though I need more ideas for what to write on.
I've been a milhist member for a number of years now, a Coordinator since the time when Kirill was in charge, and the Lead Coordinator since September of last year. In my time with this project I have suggested a number of different things to improve our project, some of which have been adopted and some of which have been turned down. Since assume the position of Lead Coordinator I've learned a few new things, and I suspect at this point that most have formed some sort of opinion on my actions over the past few years.
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
To be brutally honest, I couldn't really single out one particular thing, but I am proud of the work I have done for Operation Majestic Titan, and proud of the time I have spent working to review the A-class articles that go through the ACR process.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
By and large, I think. Its this thinking that leads to the suggestiosn I make, which as I noted are sometimes adopted and sometimes not. I also attempt to contribute to the ACR processes and the FAR/FAC processes when our articles there are in need of review; in the case of the former, I am usually the guy who runs the automated scripts.
Question from bahamut0013: You previous had to resign as coordinator mid-term due to Real Life™ commitments; though this has not been an issue with your tenure as lead coordinator. Do you forsee any likely demands on your time that might take away your attention from the project?
Not in the upcoming term; its going to be mostly studying for the GRE and completing the applications process for re-enrollment at UTEP for a Masters. Assuming I get in, and I should get in, then I will reevaluate my ability to continue as the lead. For now though it should be smooth sailing through calm seas, or at the very least mild seas. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectively: "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?" Moreover, the letter of the proverb is not as important as the spirit of the proverb; the conservation of the idea as is handed down is what is important there, as long the point is clear then it is not misquoted, merely presented in a different light.
Support - Solid contributor. You've handled various issues that would sideline most of us with the greatest of ease. Nothing but praise. Cam(Chat)03:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I have once again decided to put myself up for re-election. I have been serving the MILHIST project for a several years now and I have been a member almost since I joined Wikipedia. Whilst my editing patterns and the rate of editing are not once they once were, I still think I can offer something to the MILHIST community. I am always around to answer questions or keep an eye on my burgeoning watchlist. I think that once again, I can offer something to the project and so I offer my services.
What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
I suppose I am most proud of my contributions to articles surrounding the Victoria Cross. I have a couple of related featured topics which I am proud of. A full list of my "article credits" can be found on my userpage. I have quite a few featured lists, a few featured articles and some featured topics. In the past I have always had the ultimate aim of turning any articles I start on into a wider topic of good or featured articles. In general, I am proud of any article that has been improved as a result of my editing.
What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
In general I hope that I provide help in a wide range of activities across the project. I have previously been heavily involved in the contest, but I have stepped back from that in the most recent term as a coordinator. As a member of the MILHIST project I try to get involved in all aspects of the backstage work such as assessing articles, emptying backlogs and maintenance categories etc. Generally I just work in the background responding to questions, requests for advice and the like and then getting involved in the more meta aspects of the position when I feel I have something to offer. I have experience with almost all of the featured content review processes and I review articles as and when I feel I can offer something to the review. I will get back into the swing of reviewing in the next few months or so as I have time freed up in real life.
Well, that is a difficult one. I do think that the MILHIST project is one of the most well organised projects on Wikipedia, but it is not without its flaws. I think one of the current problems that we face is a bad-press coming our way that portrays us as bureaucratic and over-officious. I think there is some truth in that but not to the extent that some people see it. The coordinators talk page is a good example of this, there are a lot of people who seem to think they are not allowed to post there or even offer their opinions there as they see it as some kind of closed door. I think we have to continue to try and be as open and inviting as possible to all and be clear that that is what we as a project want. Woody (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the current six-month election cycles coming and going very quickly, the current coordinators propose that the terms for coordinators be lengthened to twelve months. The change would begin not in this election, but in the September 2010 elections. The discussions leading to this proposal are located here, here and here.
Oppose There have been many cases in which coordinators became inactive during their term and few even resigned. During a one year coordinator term there are bigger chances that the number of coordinators would get dwindled and personally I do not support co-opting as a method of filling out vacant places. The 6 month-term proved to be an efficient coordinating system throughout the project history and I can't figure out any serious reason why we should change it. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has the option of staggering the terms (much like ArbCom does) been explored? This would ensure continuity of coordinatorship, especially if interest remains low. bahamut0013wordsdeeds15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From memory, that was discussed, but the concern was that it would require that six monthly elections still be held (which eat up a lot of coordinators' time). Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed, but there were two issues with it: The first was that the project members would still need to conduct elections 2-4 times a year. The other problem was that in the project we have instituted a position of the lead coordinator, and their was an issue of how the lead coordinator would take effect in all of this (ie would it be switched every time we had an election, would the lead be elected in just one tranche vote, if only once then would anyone else vote in the other elections, etc). Ultimately the idea was abandoned, and little has been said of it since. If the referendum passes I expect that this option and others will be suggested/revisited to come up with a way in which we keep our coordinators here longer. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues re 12 month terms. While I appreciate the problems of the 6 month terms, and the bi-annual election, I also see a couple of problems with the 12 month term that in my mind outweigh them. First, 12 months is a difficult commitment for many people to make. Even if we could resign, I'd still not do it, because a commitment is a commitment, etc. Second, coordinatorship could absorb someone's time to the point that they cannot contribute content, or as much content as they would like, and content is what the project is about.
Alternative 1 I'd prefer to see a 12 month appointment for the lead coordinator, and with rotations of the other coordinators. The possibility of a significant portion of the coordinators not wanting to run again after 12 months would be higher, I think, than if they have 6 month terms. While I don't see the need to stagger terms like in the Arb (that arena has specific obligations which would make staggering important), I do see the need for some continuity of leadership, if only for generating things like newsletters, closing reviews, and the maintenance of the project, not to mention its institutional memory. I really think this hasn't been argued through enough.
Alternative 2 Possibly it's possible to make some of the coordinators 12 month appointments, and some of them 6 month appointments, also. I think this depends on the work load, and who is available and willing to do it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. This is why I wanted to wait until after this election to bring this up so we could hammer out the details rather than approve the idea and then go from there. As it though we are going to have a long conversation about the details between now and then, so I expect you to make these same points when the discussion goes up in April. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really think this proposal is a minimilist change, 6 to 12-month terms/elections. Ruth, I believe a mix of 12- and 6-month terms will cause even more admin work than we already have with 6-month terms for everyone. Also, if the concern is with the regular coordinators sticking it out for 12 months, there's surely a similar risk with the Lead doing that as well. In any case, I don't see a major risk about people committing to 12-month terms when I look at the number of serving coordinators voting for this measure. I see a higher risk of them not standing because of the 6-monthly merry-go-round. The thing that prompted me to push for this is actually the same as one of your major concerns, Ruth, admin work taking up time that could be better spent on article writing - because that admin overhead is what I see with the existing 6-monthly elections (exactly what we're doing now, not to mention reassigning responsibility for all our task forces - once a year is more than enough for that)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been opposed to this referendum on grounds that no effort at all has been made to discuss any aspect of this change with the community. Unlike the task force merger proposals, the C-class referendum, and the preemptive dabbing this measure went straight to the referendum stage with no attempt what so ever to get feedback from the community, and I consider this inexcusable on grounds that no major shift of this nature should ever take place until the community has had a fair chance to weigh in on the matter, ask questions, get answers, and submit alternate proposals to ours. In this case, despite my objections, consensus among the coordinators was that this was uncontroversial enough to go forward in a referendum this time around. If the position of the lead had come with any kind of executive authority I would have exercised it here to keep this out of the polling until September at the earliest. Now that referendums is up for consideration I have a no problem to deal with as well: referendums we have held in the pass are typically viewed as binding to the project as a whole. Its for this reason that C-class was shot down and has not come up again even though it can not be denied that some of our members favor the inclusion of the class. To my why of thinking then then we now have forced ourselves into a situation where we have a choice between to options: we have already opened the door for the extension of the terms without fully discussing the issue(s) surrounding this change, so we can either close the door on the issue permanently now, or pass the measure now with the understanding that simply because it passes does not mean it should be implemented. Under the circumstances, with the absence of options for the implementation being discussed, it seemed to me that the best choice here would be to move to extend the tranche and then if we can get some productive discussions going as to what people want to see changed, settle on a format for the change, and then bring that back here for a final vote. That is why I am throwing my lot in with the supports. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting starts on 9 March. This is to give the editors a chance to get their nomination in and to ensure that thus no one editor gets an unfair advantage. Roger Daviestalk16:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about the low number of noms compared to 6 months ago. What will happen if no-one else is nominated before Sunday? Is there a minimum number of co-ordinators needed? Ranger Steve (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, we take 15 coordinators – 14 and the lead – however this years low turnout has prompted us to consider an emergency extension of the sign-up phase to get more people. If we need to, we can co-opt, but I would rather not do that unless its absolutely necessary. Additionally, the suggestions been made to extend the coordinator terms to one year rather than six months, but I held off on adding this as a referendum item because the coordinators and needed more time to debate the merits of this before pitching a proposal to the community to change the election phase setup. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I must've missed us determining not to pitch the 12-month term as a referendum item. No-one I recall had any serious objections to it so if we feel we need more debate before going to the wider community for a vote that won't even have an effect until the next election after this one (i.e. in October) then I think we're getting too bureaucratic. While I'm still planning to stand for re-election this round, I'm a lot less sure about going through another election process for a further 6-month term after the March–October one ends – we really should be giving ourselves and the community a chance to determine if this one should be the last 6-month term and we get into 12-month terms from October onwards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of nominations remains low, I will consider nominating myself. Although I don't see myself as the 'ideal candidate' per se, I'm fairly sure that I have enough of a clue and enough experience to be a net positive. What are your thoughts? NativeForeignerTalk/Contribs07:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to. We are always interested in seeing new blood on the board, and its fairly easy to pick up the extra work once you get use to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have twelve candidates right now. What should we do if we don't have enough candidates by the 15th? Will all the candidates become coordinators? Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, only candidates who receive twenty or more endorsements from project members are eligible to become coordinators; so it is, in theory, possible for a candidate to not be elected even if there are fewer total candidates than (potential) open seats. Kirill[talk][prof]04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's consensus-based. However, I'm not sure if we will need to co-opt anyone; it's not like we absolutely need 15. Heck, we probably only need a minimum of 9 or so. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when we coopt we look at a few good men and/or women who have been active in the project and their names are suggested on the coordinator talk page as people who could be trusted with closing reviews and answering questions. If the rest of the coordinators feel the suggested people would make good coordinators then we leave a simple message on the talk pages of the users in question and they either accept the offer or decline it. If they accept then we welcome them into the fold until the next election. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing. Real life and some sockpuppet issues are wreaking havoc with my Wikipedia time. Thanks to everyone who voted for me, and I think I will be back in six months. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks for putting yourself forward in the first place, and for your contributions in general. Keep it up, and hope to indeed see you again for the next election! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the election will be closed if Native Foreigner gets 20 votes. The election of the Lead Coordinator still continues whether or not everyone of the candidates does or does not have 20 votes. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord OliverThe Olive Branch23:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It won't close. The reality is that the number of coordinators isn't conditional on a set number anymore, but rather on who actually is voted by the community to meet the requirements. Frankly, the more qualified coordinators the better, as it means that there is less extreme workload for each coordinator. On a lighter note, we ultimately end up dumping most of the work on MBK004 anyways though, so I suppose it doesn't really matter :P Cam(Chat)05:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True that. I am rather ashamed to admit that a disproportionately large amount of the day to day coordinator work is handled by MBK, and worse there really isn't any good reason for our consistently dumping everything on him. We as a team (and that includes me as well) will have to get better about that, especially since we will not always have MBK with us. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thats about the size of it. I get a feeling when I retire MBK is going to be the next lead. We'll have to present MBK with Barnstar on behalf of the project as a whole for his dedication. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know the thing is I do not even do all that is suggested of coordinators in the handbook and I leave plenty of opportunities for others. Tom, as to your retirement, I hope it is just from coordinator and not the project as a whole, and lead might not happen since it seems as though my vote total has not come anywhere close, but a personal recommendation from a sitting lead might do the trick there ;). As to awards, I already have the Chevrons with Oak Leaves (from before becoming a coordinator). The next level up we have in recognition is coordinator emeritus (I could be the first non-lead coordinator to be nominated for the honor....) -MBK00405:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd close more ACR's if I had the instructions, but nothing seems to have been written about that. To my credit I have tried to be active in the ACR process, and have tried to take an interest in all aspects of the project. As to your request for emeritus, I'd be happy to put forward a motion that you should be awarded the position, although I must admit the day you are no longer a coordinator will be a sad day for all of us :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been meaning to write something out about that since it is so difficult, but have not had enough time to do so. Emeritus is still a coordinator, although Kirill and Roger have used the role more as a semi-retirement. As far as I am concerned they are still able to do everything you and I can, and if I were put forward for that position I would continue to perform the duties as I do now. I have no intention of retirement from editing or coordinator now or in the future (and will continue to stand for re-election until I am either not re-elected or elevated to emeritus where re-election is not necessary). I even accepted an additional position as an Arbitration Committee Clerk, and I am not one to up and leave after committing to doing something. My editing frequency, while still daily has drastically reduced recently due to the large amount of work I currently have in finishing up my degree (I am an inactive as a clerk at the moment due to those demands). -MBK00406:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that you would emeritus, you are one of the unsung heros of the project for your dedication in closing reviews and managing assessments, but for now I am content to allow you to be part of the elected tranche since you are one of handful of people that I think will be voted to the position of lead coordinator when I finally step down from the position, and I would hate to think that elevating you to emeritus would deprive you of a chance to our lead coordinator in the future. Also, as is evidenced by the message left by Rin tin tin 1966, we are still trying to put our finger on what it means to be an emeritus, so I sense that there is still some uncertainty for how the position should be employed within the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
