Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2008

Candidate statement from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

So why the hell am I running? Good, question, thanks for asking.

• Firstly, I'm running because I think this project needs a full-time lead coordinator, and I'm willing and able to fill that role, at least for the next six months. Our esteemed incumbent has done an amazing job, but he is still only human and there are still only 24 hours in a day. The increasing role he has chosen to play in the Arbcom and at other high levels of Wiki-politics, has limited the amount of time and effort he can devote to keeping our Military History project on course (and perhaps charting new courses, as per below). We are not only large and important enough to need a full-time lead but we deserve and should demand one as well. Since I am happily unencumbered by any additional on-Wiki political duties, I think I can be better able to place the interests and concerns of our members at the forefront, where they belong.

• Secondly, I can offer a new kind of leadership. Our esteemed incumbent has demonstrated incredible energies and abilities as an Executor and Policy wonk, but he has proved somewhat lacking in the inspirational and visionary leadership areas. He is a nuts & bolts, by the numbers kinda guy...these are his strengths but also his weaknesses. By contrast, as is demonstrated in my shorter candidate statement, I am an Idea person. I come up with ideas and suggestions then leave it to others to refine, improve and implement them (You ask questions - we make suggestions, That's what we're heroes for. [1]:). I know how to delegate, so fear not all you assistant Coords, you will have plenty to do on my watch, in fact I will probably lean on you even more heavily (The same goes for Kirill, who will continue to play an important and prominent role in the project:). I also know how to motivate; being of Scots-Irish and Cherokee extraction, I can make heap good pow wow, and some of my colleagues have accused me of having an infectious enthusiasm, both of which have served me well in various leadership and educational positions online and off.

• Thirdly, I can keep us on course yet also offer new directions. Thanks largely to the Task force structure, our project has done an admirable job of avoiding becoming a bloated organization, unlike so many other Wiki-institutions, despite its growing size (though there are some less active Task Forces which could be safely merged or disband). This, along with the talents, knowledge and dedication of its membership, has been one of the keys to its success. We are, however, starting to suffer from a daunting and growing amount of Instruction creep. When this project was first founded, it said at the top of the page not to let what followed discourage or confuse you, we basically just want you to write good articles!. This should be one of our core principles, one that must not be allowed to be lost, archived or refactored. I want to see this emphasis restored. Most everything else we do is simply a means to this end of writing and collaborating on good articles on Military history. Yet more and more of our efforts seem to be expended on Manuel of Style minutia, and playing Musical chairs with categories and templates. Much of this, I believe, is a symptom of a larger contagion infecting Wikipedia. We can resist it, but in the long run we must take drastic action to keep it from causing us to decline.

Fortunately, we have also proven highly adaptable. For instance, when WP's moribund peer-review proved lacking, we created one of our own which has served us well. It has also been suggested we create our own means of mediation and dispute resolution, which I also believe is a good idea worth trying. However, these sorts of adaptations will inevitably come into conflict with Wiki's larger power-structure. This is the ugly reality of Wikipedia...and eventually these poisonous political fumes will penetrate even our bastions. Our efficiency and excellence will come up against the larger dysfunction and mediocrity...and dysfunction and mediocrity will win because they have become too deeply entrenched. We are growing beyond the limitations of Wikipedia. We must, therefore, seriously consider exercising our right to fork the project. By this I do not mean we seceded. This would be a Friendly fork more along the lines of Wikinfo or Veropedia. We would still maintain our strong presence here on Wikipedia, and we might even arrange free hosting from Wikia.

• Fourthly and finally, I believe the members of this project deserve a clear choice for lead coordinator. Even if I do not win, at least I can bring certain ideas and issues to the table for discussion. This is a Good Thing for our project and community. As opposed to our esteemed incumbent running unopposed yet again, which is the sort of thing that leads to complacency, stagnation and decline if continued for too long. However, in the unlikely event I do win, as stated above, I intend to make full use of Brother Kirill's abilities and experience should he allow it. Otherwise he can take a much deserved, if not needed, 6 months vacation.:) Ultimately, of course, it is for you to decide whether he gets his vacation or I get returned to my retirement. Yes, my userpage says retired, and indeed I am from Wikipedia, because I've come to the sad conclusion that, on the whole as it is currently run, WP cannot live up to its promise or potential nor even it's basic principles anymore. But I do still believe this Military History project and care strongly for it. In the end, that is why I have rejoined it and the ultimate reason why I'm offering you my service and asking you for the opportunity to serve. You are free to question my qualifications, but please do not question my dedication to nor my passion for both our project and our subject.

Thank you for your time and consideration,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead coordinator

This has been raised several times in the last couple of months and has suddenly become pertinant again. With Kirill retiring, does the project actually need a lead coordinator? I'm thinking that much of what he did to hold the project together (templates, updates, advice, MOS etc) isn't actually part of the lead's job description. Having looked at the very high quality and extraordinary experience of the candidates, I think it's doing the project a disservice to have a leader and eight subordinates. I'd rather see nine coordinators, moving forward based on consensus, and prefer the idea for devolving power/influence rather than centralising it. I've posted this also on the coordinators talk page--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is useful to have a coordinator who serves as a rallying point for the others. Our system of making the candidate with most votes the leader is questionable, but in my opinion the only fair way.Wandalstouring (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are three options here: (1) Presidential/chief executive lead; (2) Titular/chief of staff lead; (3) all equal. For avoidance of doubt, Kirill always seemed to me to fit into (2). Given the choice of (1) or (3), I'd back (3). Of the current candidates, blnguyen seems closest to the (2) chief of staff role. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that without a lead coordinator we would be completely lost and disorganised. In my opinion, the lead coordinator has to be much more active than the assistants. During August 2007 - February 2008 term, Kirill was two-three times more active than the assistants, and took care of about 70% of project's maintainance. My opinion is that we should continue with a lead coordinator which would have bigger responsabilities and duties than assistants. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I'm basically exploring options here. To clarify, the choices seem to be:

1. Presidential/chief executive style lead coordinator, with eight assistants to whom tasks are allocated. This would be a change from the current position.
2. Titular/chief of staff lead coordinator, developing and implementing consensus with eight coordinators. This is how it is at the moment. Kirill also combined this with a huge amount of routine project administration.
3. Nine coordinators of equal standing, developing and implementing consensus together. This has been discussed plenty but never tried.

Kirill coordinated the project: he had the balance right and, to be honest, I think it prospered as a result. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the third choice would be exactly the same as the first one without the lead coordinator. :)) --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that whether we pick (2) or (3), one or two coordinators who are more active, more organized, more motivated, will rise to the top and end up unofficially serving in a leadership role anyway. Isn't that basically what happened with Kirill too before we had this formal "Coordinator" arrangement? (Just for the record, I don't like (1). We're all here on our free time, and should be free to do whichever tasks we want to.) LordAmeth (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideally I'd favour 3, but accepting that humans are humans and not perfect little monkeys (Curse your lack of simian perfection!), I think 2 is the most reasonable option....it ain't broke, don't fix it :) Though, if we didn't discuss things that arn't broken and don't need fixing...I fear wikipedia would be a sad and quiet place. :) Narson (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is an interesting question and I have a mixed opinion about it. I think that if an editor is willing to put as much time and effort into this project as Kirill did as lead coordinator tehn by all means they should be the lead coordinator. However, if a majoirty or all the coordinators are willing to put in the near the same effort then I think that all the coordinators should have an equal standing. Kyriakos (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I observed ("lurked") on the Military History project for three years before joining in January 2007. So I have seen some of the development of this project. Kirill has been a great elemental force of good. This project has prospered due to his gentle guidance and hard work. Now the change must be made. I suggest a "titular/chief of staff lead coordinator" as Kirill was. For this I believe either bInguyen or LordAmeth would be best although Kyriakos and Wandalstouring would also be good.

I would also suggest that the post of "deputy lead coordinator" should also be created. There should be two of these. These people would be able to serve in absence of the lead coordinator due to Wikibreak. Also all three should be administrators. This would enable them to resolve any dispute that may arise in a prompt and decisive manner. Finally we should not have all three from the same hemisphere. At least one from the Eastern Hemisphere and at least one from the Western Hemisphere. This would ensure that 24 hours a day the lead coordinator or a deputy would probably be available.

Also I am intrigued by R.D.H. (Ghost In the Machine). He is an idea person and we need people like that. We should make room for him somehow among the coordinators. That is my opinion and I would welcome any comments. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. But I shall respect whatever verdict our jury may come to. As I stated, this project is blessed by the presence of so many talented, knowledgeable and dedicated members. I'm confident they will chart the right course, whether or not that course should include me. Whomever they may choose to fill Kirill's big shoes will have my full support, for what it's worth.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

moving forward

Unless there are any objections, I would like to add the following to the bottom of the coordinator election page ASAP:

== Lead Coordinator Referandum == Recently, much discussion has taken place within the Military History Project regarding our coordinator scheme, which presently uses a lead/assisstant setup. After much discussion between the coordinators and other members of the project over the continued use of lead/assistant scheme vs an equal scheme or a president/cabinent scheme, we have decided to place the issue before the community and determine what our contributers would like to see. Your input on the following proposals is therefore requested:

1. Presidential/chief executive style lead coordinator, with eight assistants to whom tasks are allocated. This would be a change from the current position.
2. Titular/chief of staff lead coordinator, developing and implementing consensus with eight coordinators. This is how it is at the moment. Kirill also combined this with a huge amount of routine project administration.
3. Nine coordinators of equal standing, developing and implementing consensus together. This has been discussed plenty but never tried.

Any objections? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well thats all I need to here to go forward then. Tallyho... TomStar81 (Talk) 02:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object setting things in stone like this. It can certainly handicap the project massively as soon as the mix and activity of assistants changes. I would advise a different approach that makes them equal with a titular chief in case they are active, but give more power to the chief if they are not active. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then comment to that effect on the referndum page. All input we get will go toward reforming the coordinator scheme, so anything you wish to add over there would be of benifit in the long run. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I did this and I think you set up the referendum premature. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then please accept my apologies, as it was not my intention to rush in ahead of the rest of you on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why nine?

I'm not a member of this WikiProject, and perhaps it is necessary, but why are nine coordinators needed? That seems like a lot. I understand you have had one lead and eight assistant coordinators, but I just can't see the necessity of having so many people leading the project. Ral315 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we had nine full-time coordinators, that would be one thing; but it's expected that people will have other things they do as well, and there's a considerable amount of work to be done. Plus, this gives us some leeway for when people go on vacation and so forth.

(We do have more than 700 active members at this point; so nine leadership positions isn't really that much in any case, I think.) Kirill 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I thought it was based on the Nazgûl model :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They would need some nasty horses. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Or some Fell beast...the better to herd the cats with precioussss:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was something to do with the atomic number of Flourine...and Kiril was nodding at our constant fight against the evils of the Cavity Creeps. They make holes in teeth! Narson (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a thread which has started down the path to the dark side (which as I understand it, might forever darken your destiny, once down it you choose to go). BusterD (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should expand to twelve, then... Carom (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Or 13...for good luck:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer an even dozen, then the elected can be called the "Majestic Twelve". How's that for proof of the cabal? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are other military related uses of 12 :o)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

TOC

How about setting a limited TOClevel, so both questions and votes don't show up for each candidate? I feel it would simplify browsing the page. Am gonna do it. Anyone feel uncomfortable, just revert. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)