Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Contents

Overview[edit]

This election is to appoint the project coordinator team for one year, from 29 September 2010 to 28 September 2011. 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 requiring special attention.

Responsibilities[edit]

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators:

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.

The current coordinators are:

Name Position Standing for re-election?
AustralianRupert Coordinator Yes
Dank Coordinator Yes
EyeSerene Coordinator Yes
Ian Rose Coordinator Yes
Joe N Coordinator Yes
MBK004 Coordinator Yes
MisterBee1966 Coordinator No
NativeForeigner Coordinator Yes
Parsecboy Coordinator Yes
Patar knight Coordinator Yes
Ranger Steve Coordinator Yes
The ed17 Coordinator Yes
TomStar81 Lead Coordinator Yes
Woody Coordinator Yes

Election process[edit]

  • Nomination period: starts 00:01 (UTC) Tuesday 7 September to 23:59 (UTC) Monday 13 September.
  • Voting period: starts 00:01 (UTC) Tuesday 14 September to 23:59 (UTC) Tuesday 28 September.
  • 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.

Candidates[edit]

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


AustralianRupert[edit]

AustralianRupert (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of the Military History project since January 2009. My main area of editing interest lies in Australian military history, but I am happy helping out with pretty much any topic in whatever capacity I can. I served as a co-ordinator in the March – September 2010 tranche.

Comments and questions for AustralianRupert[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • In terms of content creation, I have contributed to a number of A class and GA class articles and created one list that has achieved FL status (although in all honesty most of the credit for that should go to other editors). Nevertheless, I think the contributions of which I am most satisfied have come in the Review area. Between July 2009 and June 2010, I contributed to about 140 A class and peer reviews and believe that I am able to provide useful feedback that helps our content writers improve their articles. I also help out with reviewing DYKs and GANs when I can and am active in reviewing articles at B class level. In my role as co-ordinator I have also worked to encourage new editors through identifying common areas of skill, interest and need (although, to be honest, I don't feel that these efforts have been entirely successful), and helped facilitate the recent discussion that resulted in the project expanding its notability guidelines WRT the notability of military units and formations.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I believe that I can contribute a number of qualities to the project as a Milhist co-ordinator. Firstly, I am a Wikiholic, so (unfortunately for my other half) I'm online whenever I get a chance, which means that I usually have the time required to fulfill my duties as co-ord. Secondly, I believe I am fairly experienced at how the project runs and am able to perform the functions that would be required of me. Thirdly, I believe that I have a good working relationship with most, if not all, of the members of the project that I have come into contact with and finally, I am willing to do the behind-the-scenes work that is necessary to keep the project going.
  • What tasks would you focus on as a co-ordinator?
    • The tasks that I would mainly focus upon are: A class and peer reviews; B class assessments; providing advice; tagging new articles; adding task force parameters; helping out with managing the contest, responding to questions on the main project, co-ordinators and STT talk pages; recruiting (and encouraging new recruits); managing (and hopefully re-envigorating) the task forces; and working with the other co-ords and project members to further develop the project's notability guidelines.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • A number of options have been suggested in the past regarding this issue, particularly the idea about a reviewers contest. I think this idea has merit, although the exact shape and substance of this contest would need careful consideration IMO because if it is conceived to be overly rule-oriented and subjective, then I think it will just scare potential reviewers away. Another possible solution is to require those that submit articles for review to also review. This participation could be tied to a successful outcome in each ACR (although we couldn't really institute changes to GAN without project wide consensus and at peer review it would probably just be a matter of "courtesy" or Wiki-etiquette more than a requirement), however, once again there are many drawbacks to this: for instance, some editors talents clearly lie in article writing, while others lie in reviewing and as a project we may harm ourselves more by compelling editors to undertake tasks they ultimately don't want to do. As such, while it doesn't seem to provide a quick fix solution, ultimately I think the best solution is one of education and encouragement. I got into doing review work because I was encouraged to do so by other editors, and the early mistakes (and probably the current ones) were tolerated as part of the learning process. Likewise, co-ordinators and other editors offered advice on how to review and gave feedback. Recognising the efforts of reviewers is also an important part of the process. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • One area in which I feel the project needs to improve on is the assessment and article improvement process. Currently there are a large number of unassessed articles in the project's scope (about 400 odd), but also over 25,000 articles which haven't been assessed against the B class criteria (or more correctly, haven't had the checklists filled out). These checklists are important for sorting articles that need improvement and therefore help act as a "pathway" to article improvement. I think that this issue could be resolved through the use of automated assessment (bots), user education and asssessment drives. This could be part of a drive to increase the number of B-class articles the project hosts (as per the discussion on the co-ord's talk page) and could possibly be tied back into an attempt to revitalise the task forces. Of course, all this would need considerable thought and discussion prior to implementing anything. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the role that co-ordinators should play in content disputes is to act as mediators, to ensure that project wide concerns are discussed and that changes are discussed in the correct forum. As not all co-ords are admins, though, I don't think that the role is one of "policing" the situation, but rather to act as a neutral party and be the voice of reason, gently prodding towards concensus and resolution. If this does not work, then a co-ord who is an admin (if not involved in the dispute) could exercise their admin responsibilities within the requisite guidelines, or if involved seek out an uninvolved admin for action/advice. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of AustralianRupert[edit]

  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. See User:AustralianRupert/Medal_card: amazing output at A-class (and peer reviews, I understand), and once he's weighed in, I don't have to think about the stuff he's covered, he's that competent and reliable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. One of the most conscientious reviewers around, and a great contributor elsewhere as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Per Dan and Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Great contributor, always level-headed and ever helpful. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. -MBK004 06:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. Sadads (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Ehistory 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. Doug (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. Farawayman (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Antimatter--talk-- 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. GregJackP Boomer! 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. Buistr (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. An intelligent, thoughtful and collaborative coord. EyeSerenetalk 08:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. An outstanding editor and coordinator Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. Has really helped me out. Has added text, references and images to articles I start or work on. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. MFIreland (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. Kierzek (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. Newm30 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. sonia 07:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. Kebeta (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. Has been a great help. RoslynSKP--Rskp (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  35. Openskye (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  36. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  37. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  38. Tristan benedict (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  39. An excellent reviewer and coordinator. – Joe N 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  40. Dapi89 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  41. Great Candidate! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  42. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  43. Big Roger (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  44. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  45. Rosiestep (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  46. auntieruth (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Buggie111[edit]

Buggie111 (talk · contribs)

I first joined Milhist back in December of '09. Since then, I've been working on project related articles for about 6 months. When I first saw User:Rin tin tin's statement back in the March elections, I started to contemplate the idea of running. This was however, after the nom period ended. So I'm here again. I hate to be the first one to add my nom (people thinking I'm waaay too excited), but I've decided to give it a shot. Buggie111 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Buggie111[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I have 5 GA's, all Austro-Hungarian battleships for WP:OMT, and have many DYK's, although I have to admit that most of those were quick, get them done now for the contest DYK's that Sturm had to go back and trim. I have won the chevrons for my involvement in the May contest, but again, I don't think I actually earned them. Besides that, I've reviewed some A and peer class reviews and want to do more.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I'd add myself as a tint of "new blood" to the project, figuratively put. I'd mostly work on updating specific lists (Articles created, Showcase, etc...), fixing any problems in the assessment log and removing old notices from the main talk, along with verifying contribs at the end of the month for the contest. I'd also sometimes vist the awards talkpage. I kind of want to persuade others to join the project, but for some reason some part of my body tells me that's not the right thing to do. (I'm sorry, most of this was written when I was asleep, thinking that it also talked about things I would do)
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why?
    • (Long moment of silence).......If there is any answer that enters my mind, it's the idea of task forces and their slow depretiation in active members. I support the idea of them, but some of them are abandoned (or maybe I'm thiking more about workgroups) and need some rejuvination. Buggie111 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm... I agree with TomStar's first sentance, about there being a lack of incentive. I know that I, and most of the new good faith users of Wikipedia ahve cases of Barnstaritis that deviate in acuteness. I for one, have a small case, but others may have biggers. Overall, I think everyone has that small hankering inside them to get an award. My mind had started to think about somthing akin to our current contest to fix this problem. The current system just re-implemented by TomStar (The reviewer Service Awards that we all recieved) also made me think of this. An intiative could be thought up, say the Article Review Contest (ARC), which rates contributors as to how many Peer, GA, A and FA reviews they have given. A judge would look over the reviews by the end of the month, and rate each contributor on what info they missed that was picked up by the next reviewer, and deduct this from a set base score of 1 by incraments of 0.1. Thus, if someone spotted nine incorrect things and wrote a review, when he could have spotted ten (i.e., the next reviewer or judge found another one), he would get 0.9 points. Whoever got 1st, 2nd or 3rd would get an award. This could be run in tandem with our current contest so as to decrease the amount of unreviewed submissions at the end of the month. (i.e. Articles clearly ready for GA that have not been reviewed by the end of the month and are thus counted as B's or whatever they were before). That's about it. Buggie111 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • That is of course, if they had poper education regarding x-class reviews. Although the current Academy classes are ok, I'm formulating for some self test course, simiar to Tony1's eatured article writing courses. Buggie111 (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe that they should act as somewhat of a dispute resolution team when called upon, as I think happened at Troy War. I think they should be called upon if the normal dispute resolution admin fails (which won't usually happen) or if either or all of the people in the dispute prefer a person who knkows the subject to someone who doesn't. Buggie111 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of Buggie111[edit]

  1. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. A relative newcomer, but one with potential. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. per AustralianRupert EyeSerenetalk 08:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Openskye (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Good Potential! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cam[edit]

Climie.ca (talk · contribs)

After a six-month hiatus from MilHist Coordinator work, I've decided that it's time to throw my hat into the ring again. Began editing in March 2007, First Featured Article June 2008, appointed Administrator January 2009. I previously served as a coordinator of the Military History Project from September 2008-March 2010, when I stepped down to focus on the final months of high-school.

Comments and questions for Cam[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Because of the nature of Wikipedia, the work of which I am proudest is my contribution to mainspace articles. I am the author of 5 Featured Articles, 13 A-Class Articles, and numerous Good Articles on topics ranging from the Imperial Japanese Navy to the Battle of Normandy. I am also proud of my work as a Milhist Project Coordinator from September 2008-March 2010.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • First and foremost, I bring a thorough understanding and background in the process of coordinating MilHist, and an understanding of its systems, departments and inner workings. I am a skilled writer and negotiator, and I would like to think that I'm good at bringing opposing parties to consensus. I am a skilled reviewer, and have a strong grasp of MilHist's reviewing system. I have an ardent hatred of trolls, detractors, and agenda-pushers, and try to keep debate and the formulating of ideas and policy moving forward as much as possible. I am also an administrator, and as such am capable of performing coordinator tasks related to the abilities of the sysops.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • First off, I would not characterize this as a problem that is unique to our project; this is an issue that has been facing Wikipedia as a whole. It's been noted by project directors across the encyclopedia as a whole (notably by the FAC team; SandyGeorgia mentioned it on our talk page several weeks back). Ultimately, I think the approach has to be twofold: Incentivization and Education. The first approach has been tried - on its own - in the past. That's the concept behind content-reviewer awards that are given out on a quarterly basis. That said, the effect of these awards on their own is often difficult to get solid, tangible data on. This doesn't mean I think we should discontinue reviewer awards, yet I think it needs to be combined with something more. One of the biggest problems facing potential A-Class and FAC Reviewers is the sheer daunting spectre that often lies before them. To someone who has never participated in the process before, ACRs look as horrifying as a public inquisition or the defence of a doctoral thesis (I know it did to me when I first joined the project, and that was before the process was as well-oiled as it is now!). There's complex Wikipedia jargon, there's prose and fact-checking flying across the pages (usually courtesy of Dank), there's talk about disambig links and alt-text and external links and all sorts of confusing things like that. To a newcomer, the process looks way too complex, and they likely begin to believe that that way is the only way. That's simply not the case (and those of us more experienced in the process know that), but we need to be much better in getting that point across to new reviewers. This can take the form of academy pages, instructional essays, reviewer-mentor programs (along similar lines to what Adopt-a-User does, except geared towards reviewing articles), exhibitions of the different methods of reviewing articles in the monthly newsletters. Whatever the method, we need to eliminate the horror that enters the eyes of newcomers when they hear the words "A-Class Review" or "FAC Commentary". I think the twofold approach of incentivizing the process and improving our in-project education on the department can go a long way in doing that. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 01:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the greatest need for improvement has to be the instruction and mentoring of newer users. The greatest problem currently facing Wikipedia is editor-drop, where many of our highly experienced content contributors simply retire from the project. It's a similar problem that's facing a great deal of the North American workforce today: lots of long-time content contributors, and lots of newbies, but very few people in between. I think if we want to be capable of sustaining our article output into the next half-decade (I tend to think very long-term), we need to improve upon things such as editor coaching, continue to build upon and strengthen the logistics and organization of the Academy, and the groundwork of our user support system.
    • I think the other area we have to improve on is obscurer branches of military history. If you look at task-force assessment numbers, there's a great deal of contribution in a few national regions (North America, Western/Central Europe) and a few time-periods (mostly from the Napoleonic Wars forward). However, there are large swathes of territory (Africa, Latin America, Australasia, South Asia) and time (early warfare) that have very little in the way of strong article-work being done. I think if we want to continue to be a leading project in Wikipedia, we have to diversify our article output to those areas as well. I'm not entirely sure how to do that, but we have to find a way. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the role of the coordinators is a unique one. As Kirill point out in his essay on the subject, they have very little real power. What they wield, however, is an enormous amount of influence and the ability to sway the project towards one consensus or another. I think the role of the coordinators in this capacity is to provide - for lack of a better term - an enlightened perspective on disputes. Coordinators understand the creation/expansion process; many have been involved in content disputes before. The job of coordinators is to ground one side or the other firmly in policy, fact, reason. I envision the coordinators as taking a sort of "wise consultant" role in the early stages of content disputes. Ultimately, "policeman" is not in the job-description, and is unlikely to be. We aren't formal rulers, simply primus inter pares. It is our influence, not our tools, that we have to wield in situations involving content-disputes. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of Cam[edit]

  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. See User:Climie.ca and skim down to "awards". Lots of A-class and FAs, long-time devoted coord, always friendly, easy to work with. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Welcome back, Cam. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. A competent co-ordinator with proven experience who is aware of the issues facing the project. If the project genuinely wants to get more A-class and peer reviewers, a drive is not the way to do it. It might have some short term success, but as Cam said, editors need to be educated in how to review. This realisation is disappointingly not as common amongst the candidates as it should be. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. One of the most thoughtful editors I know, along with being a brainstormer, writer, and friend. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per Dan, Nev, and Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. An excellent coord. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. -MBK004 06:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. Plenty of experience. Would do well as a co-ord. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. Doug (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. Captain panda 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Welcome back, but you're not having your parking space back as well. EyeSerenetalk 08:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    Speaking of parking spaces, are coords ever going to get those cars that Roger promised awhile back? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    They're in the post.  Roger Davies talk 08:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    So that's what the Maserati-shaped package in "oversize mail" was for! The Residence Commons people looked at me kinda funny about that one... Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    And don't worry about it EyeSerene. I parked in yours today anyways ;) Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. WB Exit2DOS CtrlAltDel 14:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 18:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. Yoenit (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Kierzek (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. Openskye (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. John Smith's (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. Tristan benedict (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Not only an experienced and excellent article writer and coordinator, but also has some very good answers to the questions posed above. – Joe N 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. Thanks for all that you have done! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. Rosiestep (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. auntieruth (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dana Boomer[edit]

Dana boomer (talk · contribs)

Hi everyone! I've been active on WP since creating my account in December 2007 and have been a member of MILHIST since September 2008. I was named a FAR delegate in March 2010 and passed an RfA in August 2010. Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Dana Boomer[edit]

  • 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?
    • I can continue reviewing content nominations in the various areas, as well as helping to close nominations in the A-class and peer reviews. I can also help with daily housekeeping across MILHIST and assist in disputes. I am on WP at least briefly every day, and so can serve as a contact point for new or inexperienced editors and can assist in maintaining various facets of the project. This is especially true in areas that revolve around reviewed-content areas, due to my experience as a nominator, reviewer and FAR delegate. As an administrator, I can help with any areas that need a combination of coordinator and mop-wielder. Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The reviewing awards recently handed out by MILHIST are a good step in the right direction. A combination of more acknowledgement for reviewers and more knowledge among nominators (especially new ones) of how many reviewers it takes for an article to go from start class to FA is still needed. Some sort of a reviewer contest (run alongside or as part of the current MILHIST contest) might work, but would need "judges" watching closely to make sure that improper reviews were kept to a minimum. With FAC or A-class this isn't as much of a problem, because of the number of reviewers needed, and the same with peer review, because the article is not being judged, but bad reviews could be damaging to GAN. I don't think that forcing nominators to review a certain number of articles for each one they nominate is the solution, because this will inevitably lead to quick, poor reviews, but something more along the lines of greater education for nominators and greater recognition (through more barnstars or contests) for reviewers is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably getting more editors interested in the reviewing processes. The military history/warfare category at GAN is one of the most backlogged, internal project peer reviews and A-class are commonly backlogged and one of the FAC delegates recently posted to both MILHIST and SHIPS about the number of military (especially ships) articles at FAC that were not getting reviewed by anyone other than editors within that narrow sphere. By getting more editors into all of the reviewing processes, these backlogs could be reduced, which would help many of the other areas of the project, including the featured/good content goals of both the project as a whole and the special taskforces such as OMT. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Although any editor can help to resolve long-running content disputes, coordinators, due to their inherant experience and trust from the community (shown by their being elected) may have better luck. All of the coordinators that I've come into contact with have been editors in good standing in the community, with many other editors coming to them for advice and listening to their input. This may make it easier for a coordinator (as opposed to a newbie or wild-card editor) to get various parties in a dispute to sit down at the negotiating table and actually talk through the problems - hopefully eventually coming to a compromise that all of the editors can at least live with. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of Dana Boomer[edit]

  1. Dana's vast experience in other areas of the wiki will translate well to coordinating, especially if the other coordinators lose sight of the forest for the trees. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I've bumped into Dana in every corner of the wiki; she knows everything and everyone. She will class up this joint, and her advice on how to improve our A-class and FAC processes alone will be worth the price of admission. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Per Ed and Dank -- welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Openskye (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Dana's experience in the FA and FAR process will be invaluable to the project. An exemplary record of helping others. Also understands that reviewers need to be educated to deal with long term backlogs. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Certainly. Parsecboy (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. An experienced editor who is always friendly and helpful. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. -MBK004 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Sadads (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. I'm really glad you decided to run :) EyeSerenetalk 08:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. Exit2DOS CtrlAltDel 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. Miyagawa (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. sonia 07:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм Champagne? 12:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. Petebutt (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. Openskye (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. John Smith's (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Joe N 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. Good Candidate Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. Kierzek (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. Rosiestep (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  35. auntieruth (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

Dank (talk · contribs)

I was hoping this would be an opportunity to talk about all the stuff I've done on Wikipedia, but I see a lot of candidates saying very little about all the great things they've done, so I'm going to have to dig deep and find some modesty. I've been one of the more active admins going on 2 years and a MILHIST coordinator for 6 months. See my userpage for what I've been up to. I gave a talk at last month's New York Wikiconference on the clerking initiative at WT:UAA. I've been active in discussions all over the wiki, especially concerning policy and style guidelines, since I started on Wikipedia.
P.S. I'm going to register just a few votes, for just those candidates who I see or have seen all over the place, so that I can report from personal experience, although it pains me not to vote for candidates who I know have been or will be good coords. I have some mild reservations about voting when I'm running, but it's not a big deal, coordship doesn't matter much. This looks like a celebration, and I'm totally in favor of people finding excuses to say saying nice things about each other. Best of luck, and I'm sorry we can only elect 15, these are great candidates. tweaked - Dank (push to talk) 05:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Dank[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I've copyedited and reviewed 90% of other people's A-class reviews and FACs for WP:SHIPS since I became a coord, I've been active in various coord tasks, and I've participated at the coords page and WT:SHIPS.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • More of the same. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • By de-scarifying the review process, giving out appropriate awards, and doing nice things for the helpers. There are many important jobs that need doing and don't require a Ph.D. in history or MOSology, for instance:
      • A pile of excellent, well-known reviewers who I associate more with FAC than with MILHIST, including User:John, User:WereSpielChequers and User:Finetooth, are looking at our articles currently at FAC. To keep them coming back, we need one or two more people in addition to the people we've got already to make some routine compliance checks at the A-class review and again just before or at the beginning of FAC.
      • It's a relatively mechanical task to check our articles at GAN for compliance with WP:LAYOUT and WP:WORDS, and the citation and image requirements are not as hard at GAN as at FAC. (See in particular the essay WP:GACN.) It will help both writers and the GAN reviewer if someone would check for those things either before or during the review and note the results on the talk page. I'll start doing this for WP:LEAD compliance (which is harder). - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • See above. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Content disputes are sometimes easier to handle during review processes (such as WP:GAN, WP:MHRA and WP:FAC) because people are more willing to compromise to move things along. Even if an article isn't at a review process, framing the argument in terms of what's likely to happen during review can be helpful. So, here again, see above ... we should be doing things to make the review processes less scary and reduce the backlogs, so that more people think of GAN at least as a reasonable goal for their articles. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of Dank[edit]

  1. Support Excellent candidate. Fits the bill nicely :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Phenomenal work-ethic; excellent copyedit; better coord. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Copyeditor extraordinaire, and good value everywhere else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. A great guy who comes up with off-the-wall ideas. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Ian said it all. Dan has been extremely helpful pretty much everywhere since he came on board, and I look forward to continue working with him. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per all of the above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. -MBK004 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. Sadads (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Doug (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. Another 'per all the above' vote I'm afraid :) You're a great asset to the project and I look forward to working with you again. EyeSerenetalk 08:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. --John (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Yoenit (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. sonia 07:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм Champagne? 12:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. Openskye (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. Perseus71   Perseus 71 talk 02:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. Joe N 14:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. auntieruth (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene[edit]

EyeSerene (talk · contribs)

I'm standing for a fifth term as a project coordinator in these elections; I've been on Wikipedia since late 2006, an admin since April 2008, and a milhist coord since November the same year. I don't really have a regular niche at milhist and usually drift around the project trying to chip in where I can. For those who aren't already bored and want to know more, my user page is reasonably informative, and of course please feel free to leave additional questions for me in the section below :)

Comments and questions for EyeSerene[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Article-wise, I suppose these would be my contributions to the Operation Normandy special project where I've been fortunate enough to be able to help in a small way with some of the articles there.

      Project coordination-wise, as mentioned I just assist where I can; generally in closing reviews, preparing the newsletter and contributing to project discussions. I don't take any particular pride in this though, it's just part of the job I volunteered for.

  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • Experience mainly, in most areas of project administration as well as across Wikipedia as a whole.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think our recent reinstatement (thanks to Roger's hard work) of awards for reviewers is a good first step. Beyond that, I wish I knew... this is a site-wide issue and one that is regularly discussed at various venues around Wikipedia. Judging by the various backlogs, review submissions are as popular as ever, so perhaps finding ways to more strongly encourage the "nominate one, review one" approach would be the way to go. Under this approach GA—with its single-reviewer system—is the most scalable, but the other review processes would benefit too. I believe this is a pending topic for discussion at the STT and there are certainly a number of things we could try (many of which are suggested by others on this page). My thoughts at the moment include awarding extra points in our contest for editors that review as well as write articles, and closer collaboration with the GA and FA WikiProjects (perhaps in the form of review drives). I'd be reluctant to penalise article nominators for not also reviewing, but we should be able to find ways to motivate and reward those that do.
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • From a purely administrative point of view, at present I think the area most in need of attention is our Academy, which has the makings of a fantastic resource... if only we can find the time required to organise the excellent raw material there. However, our ultimate purpose is to build an encyclopedia and from that point of view I'd like to see more participation and subject coverage from areas outside the US, Europe and Australasia. How we actually achieve that I'm not sure, other than providing as welcoming and supportive an editing environment as possible for editors that arrive from outside Wikipedia's "traditional" recruiting zones. Obviously language barriers make our editorship self-selecting, but perhaps collaborations with other language Wikipedias on, say, article translations in areas where we're deficient would be something to consider.
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Good question :) Coordinators aren't policemen for the project and nor do I believe they should be, but they certainly have a role to play in maintaining and promoting the spirit of collegial working that the project has become known for. My personal belief is that as long as coordinators can act neutrally, there's no reason why they shouldn't assist in dispute resolution (in a consensus forming rather than content adjudication capacity). As with one recent case, there may also be times when disputes need to be passed up the line, and coords as experienced editors may have a role to play there in advising on the various technical processes.

      For those coords that are also admins I see no particular conflict with policy-based use of the admin tools within milhist. Extra care should be taken to avoid any impression of WP:COI, but members often post their concerns to WT:MILHIST rather than ANI and it makes sense to deal with such issues, where possible, in the venue where they're likely to be best understood. My only reservation about handling administrative matters in-house is that we are careful to avoid giving the (false) impression that we believe milhist is a law unto itself.


Votes in support of EyeSerene[edit]

  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Fantastic admin, excellent mentor, spectacular coordinator. One of the best. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. In the Blind men and an elephant story, EyeSerene is the elephant ... he's got so many sides to him that most people haven't seen them all. People at WP:GAN think of him as devoted to every aspect of the Good Article process. But he's also been an active admin, he's a prolific writer and reviewer, and of course a long-time and devoted coord here. Do yourself a favor and browse User:EyeSerene. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. One of the best. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Can't do much more than echo Cam Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Yup. Nuff said. Parsecboy (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. An excellent coordinator, editor, admin and copyeditor. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. -MBK004 06:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Sadads (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. Tirronan (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Farawayman (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Doug (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. Antimatter--talk-- 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. EyeSerene is an excellent coordinator and one of the most civil and sensible editors and admins around Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Miyagawa (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. MFIreland (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. Kierzek (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. sonia 07:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Kebeta (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм Champagne? 12:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. Diannaa (Talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. Openskye (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. John Smith's (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. La Pianista
  35. Tristan benedict (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  36. Joe N 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  37. Thanks for all that you have done! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  38. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  39. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  40. --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  41. Rosiestep (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  42. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  43. auntieruth (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Ian Rose (talk · contribs)

I've been a part of Wikipedia for almost five years now, began contributing to military history articles over three years ago, and have been elected a MILHIST coordinator for three consecutive terms. Article-wise, MILHIST has easily been my prime focus at WP, mainly in the field of Australian military flying biography, though my edits have ranged across many related areas. I 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, updating open tasks, and administering the monthly article-writing contest, and try to offer helpful advice wherever possible.

Comments and questions for Ian Rose[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Ultimately, good articles are the goal, so having largely written or collaborated upon 19 FA-Class pages, along with a similar number of GAs and half a dozen A-Class pages, is a source of pride, as is 50+ DYKs. I'm honoured to have been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in 2009, come 2nd in the Henry Allingham World War I International Contest this year, and to have been a coordinator on the project for the past 18 months. Having consistently been among the top group of article reviewers was also important. On the coordination side, I'm proud of having taken a large chunk of the responsibility for administering the monthly writing contest, having helped kick off the MILHIST's latest special project (Operation Brothers at War), and seeing a referendum I strongly championed (increasing coordinator terms to one year in order to cut back on the admin overhead of 6-monthly elections) gain acceptance.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • As in the past, 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 cut back on article-writing since returning from Europe recently, so will probably spend most of my time on coordination tasks for the forseeable future.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST.'
    • I think earlier suggestions of a) requiring people submitting articles for review to review other articles in return, and/or b) making article reviewing another monthly contest, both have some merit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Not a simple question. Coordinators will not always be subject-matter experts in the areas of dispute. However coordinators should be experienced editors who know their way around content disputes and you'd hope that their voices carry some weight in discussions (remembering that they have no special exec powers). Obviously if they've had a part in working on the article in question, they should be discussing content issues as an editor, not as a cooordinator, but in general I think coordinators should be involved in resolving ongoing content disputes, as problems in that area don't help the project. This involvement could be in terms of subject-matter expertise where that applies, or mediation where it does not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of Ian Rose[edit]

  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I'm bumping into Ian constantly ... even though we tend to work on and review different articles. He must be incredibly active in writing, reviewing and coord duties. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. One of the few editors who has explicitly declared they have experience in dispute resolution. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Always has good ideas Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. One of the best. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. An absolutely fantastic editor and coordinator. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. -MBK004 06:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. Sadads (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. Antimatter--talk-- 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. DrStrangelove64
  20. Of course - your fantastic track record speaks for itself. EyeSerenetalk 08:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. Ian is an excellent article writer and coordinator and goes out of his way to help other editors. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. Miyagawa (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. Kierzek (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. Kebeta (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Openskye (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. Great contributions to our WikiProject!Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. Joe N 01:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Triple-A rated! (An Assisting Aussie). So helpful, he even offers to do my work for me. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. Rosiestep (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. auntieruth (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Joe N[edit]

Joe_N (talk · contribs)

I wasn't originally planning to run, but after seeing how few candidates had signed up and consulting with other current coordinators I decided to stand for another term. I have served three six month terms already as a coordinator and, while I haven't been as active as I wish I had, I believe that, even if I do not contribute as much as I wish, I can have a positive impact on the project if I am entrusted with another term. I have been involved with the project the entire several years that I have been on Wikipedia, and have done the most with article reviewing, where I have participated in scores, if not hundreds, of A-Class reviews and numerous peer reviews and B-Class and other assessments. I have also done some article writing, primarily working with articles on the Eastern Front of World War II, which I have found to be a very underdeveloped area. Many of the articles on important actions and people are short and, at times, full of the ethnic and regional bias frequently found in articles relating to Eastern Europe. While I am eager to continue my service as a coordinator, I must caution that I will be busy applying to college for the next couple of months, although I hope that at the end of this year and throughout next year I will have more time to contribute to the project. – Joe N 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Joe N[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
I would probably cite my reviewing work as my greatest accomplishment. I have received multiple content review medals of merit, WikiChevrons, and other awards for my work at many levels of the project's review process. While I have not done as much article writing as many people, I have worked on the list of battles by casualties article, which, after falling down to a very few entries over sourcing and verifiability concerns, I have built back up by adding literally hundreds of entries to a popular and frequently viewed article. When discussing my work on Wikipedia with a friend of mine who isn't involved with it I mentioned that I had worked on that article and was very pleased when he responded by saying that he had used the article several times, both for research and for pleasure fact-gathering. – Joe N 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
I have been involved with the project for nearly three years now, so I have quite a bit of experience. In my time, and especially relating to my work relating to Eastern Europe, I have been involved in a number of disputes, not all of which have been settled in the best way possible and some of which have led to unfortunate actions on the part of participants in them. I believe that this makes me well-suited for the very important coordinator role of mediating and helping to settle disputes. I also have gained insight into the article development and promotion process from my work in reviews, and believe that this makes me well-able to contribute to reviews and provide suggestions on articles which are put up for review. – Joe N 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of Joe N[edit]

  1. Keep on keeping on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. One of the few editors who has explicitly stated they have experience of dispute resolution. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per Ian. No worries about a period of low activity, we all have them from time to time. Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. An experienced coordinator and asset to Milhist. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Not worried about inactivity, his presence will be a net benefit even if he is active for only a day. -MBK004 06:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. per MBK and your superb review record. EyeSerenetalk 08:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. Kierzek (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. Openskye (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Fantastic brainstormer, high level of clue and experience. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. Great member of our WikiProject! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. auntieruth (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

MBK004[edit]

MBK004 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedian since July 2007, Administrator since January 2008, MILHIST coordinator since September 2008. I have an edit count of 70,000+, 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. -MBK004 03:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions for MBK004[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • The usual answer to this question is to list out the article(s) that you have worked on that have achieved FA/FL/A/GA status. I am not going to do that here. Yes I am proud of "my" articles, but that is not the whole story. My usual article contributions are in collaboration with other editors and without their help the articles I work on would not have achieved their respective high assessments. If you must know the articles I am proud of, they are listed on my userpage.
    • The achievements I am most proud of within this project is my work on the administrative side of this project with regards to the review and awards departments. The amount of work involved is immense when one considers how many articles pass through our review system each year (as an example, since January of this calendar year there has been over 100 successful A-Class reviews, and this figure does not even take into account those which were unsuccessful and A-class articles which were nominated for a reappraisal review [and I've closed over 70 ACRs this calendar year]).
  • 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 and awards departments. 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). Because of how prolific I am in closing these reviews, I am also usually the coordinator to nominate editors for our A-Class Medals. 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.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST.'
    • The shortage of reviewers is not something new, nor is it limited just to our project. The issue with improving participation is that we do not want to condone or encourage in any way block voting or canvassing. The quarterly reviewer awards is about the best type of recognition (in my opinion) that can be given without encouraging anything untoward. Competitions or quid pro quo's on reviewing can lead to many problems including poor reviews in order to win a competition and the fact that some editors are better suited to content production opposed to reviewing content. Imposing such ideas would end up hurting more than helping in my opinion. -MBK004 03:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not see why coordinators should not act as concerned editors in the dispute resolution process as other editors would already. Coordinators however, do not have any special powers in this regard, which is codified in the discussion of what our role is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators: "They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct." Our role is not to be the police force of the project, and the Arbitration Committee, Meditation, RFC processes exist for a reason and those existing processes should be used to resolve disputes where appropriate. -MBK004 03:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of MBK004[edit]

  1. Support Absolutely. MILHIST could not function smoothly without your assistance to it :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. What would we do without you? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. In answer to Tom, let 6 months of ACRs back up lol. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Of course. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely essential.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Nothing to add. Thanks for all of it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Ditto all above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Can't imagine the project being able to run without MBK's work. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Propose rename to User:Milhistbot ... oh wait, wrong queue. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. I second Ed's proposal. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. Per all of the above. MBK plays a significant role in the running of Milhist, and is a great asset to Wikipedia in general. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Sadads (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. Ehistory 15:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Doug (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Major support... if we didn't have our OMTBot, all would be for naught. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. MBK's work rate and attention to detail puts the rest of us to shame :) EyeSerenetalk 08:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. MBK is an excellent and hard wording coordinator and editor Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. Exit2DOS CtrlAltDel 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Miyagawa (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. Tirronan (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. Yoenit (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. Kierzek (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. Kebeta (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. FitzColinGerald (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. Diannaa (Talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. John Smith's (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. La Pianista 02:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  35. Derild4921 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  36. Thanks for all that you have done! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  37. Per Ed and Parsec. – Joe N 01:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  38. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  39. SHG (Superior Help Given)Big Roger (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  40. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  41. Rosiestep (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  42. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  43. auntieruth (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner[edit]

NativeForeigner (talk · contribs)

Currently I am a milhist coord, so I suppose I’m standing for re-election. In any case, I haven’t done as much as I would have liked for milhist. After becoming coord I did a fair bit of reviews/assessment early on, but after getting the bit in my RfA, more of my time has been spent on janitorial things, as can to a certain degree be expected. I feel fairly guilty for being a coord, and not doing as much as I probably could have. However, recently I’ve started to become more involved with content, and with a few more people over at WP:SPI much more of my time will be spent on content, and milhist, and I think I would be an asset as a coordinator.

Comments and questions for NativeForeigner[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • My largest achievements are my two featured pictures, with another on the way. Also, I believe ed and I hold the record for the longest trek towards a FA of all time. (Still not there)
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I’m a fairly decent hand with image restoration, and would like to get that media aspect of Milhist more organized. I take my time, which is always an important attribute for my coord, and I have always been fairly cool headed in disputes, having done quite a number of WP:3O requests.
  • Self Question: Why So long?
    • Because I felt bad about not doing enough. Then I looked and realized that most coordinators didn’t do everything I thought that I should do. So I reconsidered.

Votes in support of NativeForeigner[edit]

  1. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. We're definitely approaching the record for the longest trek toward FA! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Always very helpful, and a hard worker. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. At least you're honest. Try Harder this time! Antimatter--talk-- 22:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Openskye (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Inactivity is solvable through having a lot of people, and image stuff is probably a part of the project that not enough people pay attention to. – Joe N 01:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. auntieruth (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy[edit]

Parsecboy (talk · contribs)

I joined Wikipedia in late July 2006; I've been a member of MILHIST for quite some time, and a coordinator for the past two terms. I mostly edit German warship articles, though I have been known to branch out into other areas.

Comments and questions for Parsecboy[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Mainly that I have been able to take this and make the current version filled with a lot more blue and green. As one can see, I'm about 2/3 of the way done with a 62-article Featured Topic. Along the way, I managed to earn the second A-class Medal with Swords yet awarded by the project.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I have experience closing A-class reviews (though MBK usually beats me to them), and am familiar with many of the other coordinator tasks as well. I am also an administrator, so I can use the tools in situations where their use is required (i.e., edit disputes, heavy vandalism, etc.).
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There are a number of options to address this issue. For example, there's a discussion on the coordinator talk page right now about introducing a milhist-specific award for GA reviewers. A few months ago I proposed a monthly review contest structured along the same lines as our article contest (see here), though nothing came of it. The main thing is to provide a incentives for people to review articles at every level. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of Parsecboy[edit]

  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Best. Damn. Content. Contributor. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Dido.Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Basically the same things come to mind for Parsecboy and Sturm, so I'll repeat myself: his output is astonishing, but what you won't see on his userpage is how many people rely on him, how much time he spends answering questions for people and looking things up in his extensive library, how easy he is to talk with and how easygoing he is when people who know a lot less than he does are pawing over his articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Farawayman (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Wot Ed sed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    I said something? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    Oops, I meant wot Cam sed... (sheepish grin) -- well you do seem like two sides of the same entity sometimes...! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    It's all Ventriloquism. You'll notice that I don't actually type anything... ;) Cam (Chat)(Prof) 01:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Our trick has been discovered! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    WP:SSP is thataway → EyeSerenetalk 18:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Vastly experienced and actually understands the role of co-ordinators in the review process. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Farawayman (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. A 62-article FT is nothing to sneeze at! Parsec, you already know why I think you're one of the greatest, so I'm not going to type it all out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. A great editor and coordinator, what else is there to say? :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. How can you not support him?--White Shadows <fontstyle="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 01:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. -MBK004 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. Sadads (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. Ehistory 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Doug (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. Big fan of your work! Antimatter--talk-- 22:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. DagosNavy --Darius (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. Highly competent in both content development and coordination duties, and a damn fine chap to boot. EyeSerenetalk 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Tirronan (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. Yoenit (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. Kierzek (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. sonia 07:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. Kebeta (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  35. Helps around a lot, has a lot of featured and A-class articles on German dreadnoughts, predreadnoughts and battlecruisers. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  36. Diannaa (Talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  37. Openskye (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  38. Extremely hard-working contributor. John Smith's (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  39. Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  40. Derild4921 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  41. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  42. I learned more about German battleships than I ever wanted to know for his ACRs. – Joe N 01:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  43. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  44. From my reading on German vehicles, this guy contributes a lot! AloDuranium (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  45. Rosiestep (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  46. the BDCC -- auntieruth (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

Patar knight (talk · contribs) I've started editing Wikipedia in 2006, and joined MILHIST around that time. A couple thousand edits later, I became an administrator in June 2009. I decided to run for coordinator in the March - September 2010 tranche, after seeing the lack of candidates around that time. Unfortunately that correlated with the end of exams for me, and an unexpectedly busy summer (with minimal internet access). So now, with more time on my hands (surprisingly because of several courses and extra-curriculars I have on my plate), I'll hopefully be able to contribute more fully as a coordinator.

Comments and questions for Patar knight[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Probably my proudest achievements have been my numerous citations for giving reviews in the project's review department, and for my work on the Academy in 2009. I'm also pleased at my work in the two Tag & Assess drives, and the B-class assessment drives, from a couple years back. (see: here) Generally most of my MILHIST work is gnomish in nature, making little improvements to a wide variety of articles, and doing a fair bit of tagging and assessing (outside of the drives) when patrolling newpages.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I'll be up for a bunch of various gnomish MILHIST admin. tasks such as closing reviews (both peer reviews and a-class reviews) and posting notices (if I can beat MBK004), since I now have more time on my hands. I also have the administrator bit, so can deal with any actions which will require admin tools, and help deal with disputes within the project scope. I also frequently lounge around in the MILHIST IRC channel on freenode whenever I'm online (which will be a long time in the next year), where I'm available for any project members who use that channel to ping me with questions. I would also be able to participate in discussions on both the coord talk page, main project talk page, and the Strategy Think Tank page.

Votes in support of Patar knight[edit]

  1. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Yoenit (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Openskye (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Joe N 01:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Steve[edit]

Ranger Steve (talk · contribs)

My election as a new co-ordinator last year coincided (by a totally unexpected but welcome fluke) with me suddenly getting a job that involved a lot of military history research and writing. At just the same time as I was taking on more responsibility with my volunteering I had to actually cut it a little; both online and in ‘real life’ (where I edit newsletters and actually am a Ranger), a decision that vexed me greatly. However, as new projects come and go and I settle down with some security now, I am steadily freeing up more time to write, review and assist in articles and the Milhist project in general. I enjoy being a co-ord and since I believe I can still offer some useful advice and opinions to our members I have decided to stand again. I admit that I will be busy for the next month or two as a new project begins at work, but this will settle and take up far less time pretty quickly.

Comments and questions for Ranger Steve[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I consider myself lucky that wikipedia has given me an outlet to create useable articles about so many subjects that interest me. As such I’m fairly proud of most of the articles that I have created (but mainly those that I created a few months after I started, by which time I learnt about footnoting!). In particular though I’m proud of the work that I’m slowly expanding around my pet project: Project Arnhem. Its definitely a slow burner but I am proud of the work I’m doing to each article in the list and its slowly spilling into other aspects of my offline life.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I’ll be perfectly honest, I don’t expect to be able to do many admin tasks in the next few months, but as work settles down I expect to have more time for tasks such as closing A Class reviews, article assessments and such like. In the meantime however, I always have time to help members who come to me with queries and I pitch in wherever I feel I can be of help on the Milhist talk page. I like to think I provide a balance, neutral view of matters being discussed there, and I hope that editors I have worked with have found that to be the case.

      I also enjoy reviewing articles for GA, ACR and FA, as well as lower level assessments. My greatest enjoyment from wikipedia comes from reading it, and I’m always more than happy to give my opinions on where an article can be improved. I hope again that editors have found my comments and opinions of use (although as it often requires more work to be done on an article I realise that may not always be the case!).

      However I do appreciate that many editors will expect the project’s co-ordinators to be working from the off on the many backroom tasks that need doing for the project. I’m standing because I believe that what I can contribute now (reviews and assistance) will make me of use before I have more time on my hands for these tasks.

  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope?
    • In an ideal world, co-ordinators would only need to point involved parties to the relevant wiki-guidelines and any content dispute would be solved by the interested parties. However it rarely works out that way (some disputes really don’t have any easy answers) and I do strongly think that balanced, un-opinionated ideas are valuable to any such circumstance. Anyone can contribute such wisdom to a dispute, and I strongly believe that it would be unhealthy if only the co-ordinators were to get involved in such a way. In reality such disputes can only be resolved by a good range of opinions from those familiar with the problem and I would actively encourage anyone familiar with the topic to try and provide balanced advice.

      However, I do believe that the co-ordinators I’ve worked with (both now and before I became a co-ordinator) have represented some of the best editors on the project (although there are many others that haven’t stood for the role). I value any opinion that they bring and I would encourage any editor to respect such opinions as well. I believe that this has a great deal to do with why we’re elected – I understand that many editors want to see co-ordinators as neutral, respectable points of reference. I certainly see being neutral, balanced and as aware of as many points of view and policies as possible as a major part of what I do as a co-ordinator and one of the more useful things I can bring to the role.

      That said, everyone is individual and will have a different view on disputes. We can’t expect anyone to always agree with our own way of thinking, and many content disputes arise exactly because some editors don’t understand or attach the same weight to another editor’s perspective (but this is just as true in life as online). This has to apply to co-ordinators as well as other editors – co-ordinators don’t pretend to be bosses or demi-gods and need to be afforded the same deference as everyone else. As long as everyone is aware of and respects that… well, the world would be a better place!

  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST?
    • An organized system that recognizes reviewing in the same way as the A-class awards that we currently have ensures that everyone’s contribution is recorded and appropriately rewarded with the usual barnstars and the like. Such a system is currently working thanks to Roger, and other options are possible. Occasional contests and further encouragement for editors not currently involved in the project, or new editors who would benefit from being involved in reviewing when it comes to producing their own articles will always be an advantage.

      However, I think its important for us to look deep within ourselves and realize that this might not be a problem of quite the level of seriousness that many of us attach to it. Lack of reviewers is by no means a milhist specific problem, and some people just don’t see barnstars or other such awards as an incentive. There is occasionally a tendency within wikipedia to concentrate too much on relatively small problems within the project and not celebrate the successes that we have (I expand on this below).

  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why?
    • We could, if we wanted, identify a dozen or more areas that we could improve on, but I really don’t believe any of them are major problems that need fixing. Milhist is one of the more successful projects on wiki, with one of the highest number of active editors and collection of GAs and FAs. Our A-Class criteria is already one of the tightest around and we still have one of the highest amounts of such articles. I’m really serious when I say that we need to stop once in a while, look back and enjoy such a successful project that so many people have been part of. As it is I think Milhist is a shining example of how wikipedia can work, and I don’t really want to see us identifying issues for the sake of it, unless they really are likely to become an actual problem. Lack of reviewers in one such an example and we’re exploring ways to deal with it, so that would be my one area for improvement, but as I said above, this isn’t a milhist specific problem and like many other issues might not be something that we can actually do anything about.

      If anything I would look the other way and say that we need to stop seeking to improve when we’re already doing so well. Otherwise we could drive editors away with excessive procedures and bureaucracy.

Votes in support of Ranger Steve[edit]

  1. Even-handed, thoughtful contributor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. A friendly and approachable editor who would be well suited to the co-ordinator role of acting as a point of contact. Intelligent person who understands that barnstars are not always a successful way to motivate people, which many candidates could learn from. I'm surprised not to see more votes here already. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Very disappointed in the lack of supports. Ranger brings some very good ideas to the table. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I too am surprised to not see more signatures here—Ranger Steve is an excellent editor and experienced with coordinator duties. Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support - gifted coordinator, thoroughly competent dispute-resolver. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Excellent editor, helpful, experienced coord. I have seen nothing but good things come from Ranger Steve. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. -MBK004 06:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pop the bubbly when WWII goes to FA. Doug (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Antimatter--talk-- 22:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. GregJackP Boomer! 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. A fine asset to the project per all the above - I'm very pleased you decided to step forward once again :) EyeSerenetalk 08:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Tirronan (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. Diannaa (Talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. Openskye (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. Joe N 01:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. auntieruth (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Shimgray[edit]

Shimgray (talk · contribs)

I've been working on Wikipedia since late 2004, as an admin since late 2005; barring a month or two of break, I've been more or less active throughout that period, working in a wide variety of areas. Outside of normal content work, I've run a few short research projects using Wikipedia content, and I've worked on OTRS, the Foundation's email-response service, since early 2006.
I have not been a coordinator before, but I've been involved with the milhist project for sufficiently long I can't actually remember when I began, and I've plenty of experience of ad-hoc organisational work on-wiki, which should help in getting to grips with it. It would be good to do some work that's directly focused on supporting content production, which is the real point of the coordinator role - it's very easy to drift into excessively "meta" roles after a while - and hopefully coming with a broad base of experience I'll be able to complement the rest of the coordinator group.

Comments and questions for Shimgray[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I suppose I should mention an article here; the work I'm most pleased with, in a way, is the material I've assembled for Wikipedia that simply isn't available elsewhere. Ernest Brooks and Battle of San Marino are two examples; small footnotes to history that would otherwise be lost to our readers without extensive digging. I've contributed a long run of decent if not remarkable biographies of moderately-obscure historical figures, and linked sets of articles, including a sizeable fraction of our articles on British Army regiments. The bulk of my content writing dates from earlier years, when my standards were generally lower; my article-production rate has dropped off of late, but the average quality has, I hope, increased commensurately!
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • As mentioned earlier, I've a pretty wide-ranging background in terms of on-wiki experience, and I think that the experience would be useful to bring to the role. Specifically, I've done a fair amount of dispute resolution, and whilst that's not a formal part, I think it's virtually inescapable in a large project. My OTRS work has involved a lot of de facto public outreach, and it's given me a feel for what works for readers as well as for us the editors; they're often not quite the same thing, with what we feel is essential and what they feel is essential being subtly different. I've also done a good bit of statistical work, which I suspect would come in handy for monitoring the overall quality of the project, and hopefully also for giving us some insights into what fields we're covering significantly better or worse than others.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST?
    • It's safe to say that some people like reviewing, some people don't; the problem is that over and above that, most aren't comfortable with the thought of reviewing, and so we end up with a small number that both a) are comfortable doing it, and b) like doing it. We can't really alter whether or not people enjoy it, but we can - I think - make it easier for them to get comfortable with it. Consider B-class reviews, which have a very simple learning curve; five tickboxes, which don't take much time. They do, however, mean that you get the habit of going through an article looking for the key elements, deciding what does and doesn't satisfy the criteria; once you're comfortable doing them, it's only a small step up to the level of reviewing needed at GA. From the perspective of someone who would like to review but is daunted by where to begin - which is most people, at some point! - getting them to work on B ratings is perfect.
    • Quite how we work this in practice is an open question, but there's a good chance that more emphasis on lower-level assessment will naturally produce more people who're comfortable assessing - and indeed writing - at a higher level. (There's the related advantage that because B is more "accessible", and well within the reach of most users once they've figured out referencing, we can make more people, at an earlier stage, aware of the process; hopefully this will pay off in similar ways. We can but try!)
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why?
    • This ties into the above question, I think; we focus very strongly on the "higher ratings"; GA, A, FA, and we're great at producing these types of articles, but there is a lot more encompassed by the project. We have about 5,000 B-class articles and almost 100,000 "sub-B", stubs and starts, compared to just under 2,000 of the higher rated articles. I'd like to see us looking more closely at this vast tail, aiming to pull a sizable fraction up to B-class; there's an awful lot of low-hanging fruit here, especially with biographies, which could be drastically improved for the same amount of effort it would take to drive a much smaller number of articles through the higher review processes. If we can tie this in to the sets of "popular but low-quality" articles, there's the promise of great rewards here.
    • From a more content-specific perspective, we've a systemic bias problem (much the same as the rest of Wikipedia); we're heavily western and Anglocentric. It's not simply a matter of coverage, though that's immediately apparent, but because we're inevitably writing about conflict it's very easy for unintentional bias or partisanship to turn up in articles. There's no quick and easy answers to this one, but it's something we always need to bear in mind.

Votes in support of Shimgray[edit]

  1. I'm very excited that you decided to run. After seeing some of your posts at WT:MILHIST over the last few months, I am convinced that you will make an excellent coordinator. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Only seen and heard good things of this editor -- welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Experience of dispute resolution. Experience of interacting with the public through OTRS will provide a good platform for interacting with new editors. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Per Ed and Ian, I also think you're onto something with the "gateway drug theory" for getting more reviewers involved. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. -MBK004 06:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. " it's given me a feel for what works for readers". Instant vote. Doug (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. I have found interaction with this user extremely helpful in a number of appropriate topics. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. Absolutely. EyeSerenetalk 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. Openskye (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. auntieruth (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66[edit]

Sturmvogel_66 (talk · contribs)

I previously served as a coordinator in the tranche before this past one, but had to decline to run again when I thought that I might be making a visit to Afghanistan, but that is no longer a concern. I spend a lot of time reviewing and assessing articles, figuring that I need to contribute as much as I ask for in reviews, etc. I'd like to figure out how we can encourage others to contribute reviews and assessments in addition to their regular writing. Acknowledgement of your writing ability and knowledge of the topic by an assessment of B-class or as a Good Article is very satisfying, practically addictive, and I'd like to get editors to review articles in addition to contributing one for review.

Comments and questions for Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • My six FA-class articles are my proudest accomplishment, but I got a lot of help getting them there from people during the review process. You can see my full tally of Good Articles, etc. on my userpage.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I know a little bit about a lot of different areas of MilHist so I can bring some knowledge to bear when reviewing articles ranging from Byzantine generals, Napoleonic battles and aircraft. I spend a fair amount of time of reviewing already and see no reason why that would change if I was elected. I've already made one suggestion on the coordinator's page about an incentive to encourage people to review our project's articles at WP:GAN where we're chronically backlogged by 30-40 articles.

Votes in support of Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. One of the best. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Basically the same things come to mind for Parsecboy and Sturm, so I'll repeat myself: his output is astonishing, but what you won't see on his userpage is how many people rely on him, how much time he spends answering questions for people and looking things up in his extensive library, how easy he is to talk with and how easygoing he is when people who know a lot less than he does are pawing over his articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Phenomenal contributor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Over-active editor who makes excellent content in a huge variety of Milhist areas. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. This is a no-brainer. Parsecboy (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Farawayman (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. A fantastic editor and experienced coord who always has some good ideas. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. A fantastic writer in the last round of the CUP, and I believe he was once a coord. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 03:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. -MBK004 06:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. Ehistory 15:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Antimatter--talk-- 22:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Support. Incidentally, I had no idea you were a red leg before. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. Dank and Parsecboy have put it better than I could have. EyeSerenetalk 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. Miyagawa (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Marcus Qwertyus 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. Mark Sublette 20:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. Tirronan (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. Yoenit (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Kierzek (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. --John (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. sonia 07:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. Kebeta (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. Diannaa (Talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. Openskye (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  35. Derild4921 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  36. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  37. John Smith's (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  38. Perseus71   Perseus 71 talk 02:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  39. Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  40. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  41. Big Roger (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  42. Joe N 15:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  43. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  44. Rosiestep (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  45. auntieruth (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The ed17[edit]

The_ed17 (talk · contribs)

Hello, my username is "The ed17", but most call me Ed. I've been an active editor of Wikipedia since March 2008. I was one of the co-opted coordinators in November 2008, and was elected in my own right in March 2009. Other significant points in my wiki-history include my first FA in October 2008, becoming an administrator in September 2009, getting involved with the Online Ambassadors initiative last month. The vast majority of my time here has been spent writing content; I have authored or co-authored thirteen featured articles and thirteen A-class or good articles in the last two years.
If you have any further questions, concerns, or comments, please leave them below, leave a message on my talk page, or email me. I'll be happy to answer just about anything! Ed [talk] [majestic titan]

Comments and questions for The ed17[edit]

  • 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?
    • Having been a coordinator for nearly two years, I have an understanding of the normal processes here, and I have the memories of what we have discussed or decided in the past. If elected, I'll continue on with my normal activities: giving input at the coordinator talk page and randomly roaming about the project. I'm also hoping to get more involved with reviewing (probably at our A-class process), something I haven't done on a normal basis in quite some time.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • This is an excellent question, but I'm not sure of what we can do. Some of the other coordinators handed out the Reviewer Awards after compiling and sorting all the names, but as far as I know, that's the only active incentive we have. I think part of the problem is the way Wikipedia is structured; no one is forced to review articles, and I suspect many editors enjoy writing content more than reviewing it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • To add to this, I think the first step in increasing our participation would be diagnosing why editors don't review in the first place. Above, I speculated that "many editors enjoy writing content more than reviewing it", but that's just an idea – none of us really know why participation in reviews tends to be low. Perhaps we could have an RfC or something similar to get why there are so few reviewers and what can be done to address it, but in that order (we figure out what's wrong, then go and fix it). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The first thing that comes to mind is usability for new users or visitors, but we're in the process of doing that (kudos to Kirill). Otherwise, we need to continue to provide a good base of support for our content builders and keep distracting drama to a minimum. From what I can see, Milhist is running quite well, but we have to make sure that there are no derailments. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Coordinators, by definition, are not imbued with any special authority to unilaterally resolve conflict disputes. Having said that, in our capacity as highly respected members of the project and community, I think we should take leading roles in attempting to come to a suitable compromise or escalate the matter as quickly as possible to lessen the drain and burnout on members of the project. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of The ed17[edit]

  1. You've got my vote :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Excellent writer, harder worker, fantastic coordinator, great friend. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. I wouldn't have become a coord without his help and encouragement, and I rely on his help and advice regularly. Thanks, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Ever reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. But of course. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. Ever kind, helpful and reliable. One of the best coords and editors Milhist has to offer. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. -MBK004 06:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Sadads (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. Ehistory 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Farawayman (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Much love for the Ed man. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. Simply an all round good ed egg and a pleasure to work with. EyeSerenetalk 08:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. Ed is an excellent and highly collaborative editor and coordinator Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Doug (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. Tirronan (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. Yoenit (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. Kierzek (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Always a pleasure. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. sonia 07:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. Kebeta (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. FitzColinGerald (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. Diannaa (Talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. Openskye (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  35. John Smith's (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  36. La Pianista 02:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  37. Tristan benedict (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  38. Thanks for all that you do!Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  39. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  40. noclador (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  41. Absolutely. – Joe N 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  42. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  43. Rosiestep (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  44. auntieruth (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TomStar81[edit]

TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

I've been a coordinator for what seems like forever, going back all the way to days when Kirill was the head man and the 5-stars were assistant coordinators. I've been the head man for the project since about this time last year, and as such I assume most of the members have formed an opinion on the job that I have been doing.

Comments and questions for TomStar81[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • It would be hard to single out any one particular thing, but I am proud of the work I have done for OMT and proud of the many ideas I have suggested to help the project, even those that were not adopted. I like to think that each time we have an election I done my part to make sure that milhist is a little better off now than it was six (soon to be 12) months ago.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I can't spell, so I try to and stick to areas where people do not have to stand behind me with dictionary and fix all the little errors I add to the things I type :) Usually, I suggest things to the project for consideration and adoption, those things I suggest are usually related to blind spots or loopholes that I think need to be looked at, although some are aimed at rewarding hard workers or streamlining processes. I also make an honest effort to donate time to the reviews that come up within the project, as of late I have been working on the FAC process reviews but I have a long history of working A-class reviews as well. In times gone by I was usually the guy who ran the auto scripts, but these days I usually read the articles up for A-class consideration and suggest areas for improvement or things that should be done to better the odds of passing an FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What do you view as being the greatest challenge facing WP:MILHIST in the next year?
    • There are a few choices I could give for answers here, but I think the biggest concern facing our project would be the shrinking number of people participating in milhist activities outside the article improvement area. Its no secret that assessment and review related departments are typically crewed by a dedicated few, but this is also true of people who hand out awards, welcome and adopt new members, and general participate in other activities of this nature. In this respect the coordinator system is both a helping hand and a hindrance; helpful in that a few people are trusted with the task, a hindrance in that since coordinators handle this almost exclusively. I think more effort needs to be placed into rewarding users and encouraging them to stay and try new things like assessments and reviews. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In my opinion this is due to a misunderstand of how hard it actually is to review and a lack of incentive to review. We recently reinstated the reviewer awards to help spur interest in the area, though it remains to be seen how well this measure will work. I've been thinking about this problem for some time; its wikipedia wide, so there is no shortage of angles to look at. One radical and unconventional approach would be to require editors looking for an article assessment or reassessment to first review an article and show proof that suggestions were made in a PR, GA, A, or FAC before the article in question is assessed or reassessed; a similar scheme could be put in place to require those filing a review to first review an article before their review is listed. Another unconventional idea would be to create a dedicated reviewing wikiproject and transfer all reviewing rights and privileges to this new group; this would strip milhist of final authority for reviewing related matters in exchange for gathering all wikipedia wide reviewers in one place to handle reviews. This approach could help alleviate wikipedia's reviewer backlog, however I suspect it would likely compound the problem more than relieve the problem. Another option would be merge the assessment and review departments into the logistics department, this could increase reviewers and interest in the reviews i general since both processes would be under one roof, though I suspect that those arriving for assessment work will likely not bother with reviewer work, so that still leaves us back at square one. Its a problem that does need addressing, but method by which we address it will need to take several factors into account. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Its something of a fine line to walk. We are called to keep the order in the article namespace, yet we are not a formal dispute resolution unit and as such are concern is not so much to permanently solve problems as it is to broker a ceasefire between disagreeing parties. I think we should move to a somewhat more active role here by fully protecting pages subject to dispute until the parties agree to a compromise on the matter, and I also think that we need to take a more active role in getting disagreeing parties to mediation and if need be arbitration. How we handle this should be taken to some extent on a case by case basis, but I think in general we should try and work more closely with the dispute process people to help quell content disputes before they expand to the point where no one wants to edit the page(s) in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of TomStar81[edit]

  1. Juliancolton (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. The Best. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Lead coord for foerever. Yes, of course. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I can't imagine anyone else as lead coord. And it's not just gnomish work, discussion and leadership ... not only is he reviewing most of the A-class and FAC articles I see, he's constantly finding things that everyone else is missing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. An original thinker, and one who really cares about the project. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Indernaeth teh freqeunt speiling erors, Tom comes up with many ideas. Many aren't perfect, but the subsequent discussion frequently comes up with the best way to improve or fix the issue. However, we wouldn't be on that topic without him. Basically, a great brainstormer. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Ian and Ed said it all. Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Echo Parsec: Ian and Ed could not have explained it better. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Without a doubt.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. -MBK004 06:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. Sadads (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. Ehistory 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. Farawayman (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Outstanding lead coord, and a man I'm proud to follow. That said, you are kind of a spaz when it comes to your beloved Iowas. ;P bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. Captain panda 00:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. A great editor and coordinator, and utterly committed to making milhist as good as it can be. EyeSerenetalk 08:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. Tom is highly dedicated and is a great coordinator, but I think that it's time for a hand-over of the lead coordinator role (assuming someone else wants it, of course). I don't think that it's possible to split my vote but would suggest that it be taken into account by the elected coordinators after this election. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Doug (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. MoRsE (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC) That's just me
  27. Yoenit (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  30. Kierzek (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  31. Kebeta (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  32. Openskye (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  33. La Pianista 02:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  34. Tristan benedict (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  35. Amazing part of this WikiProject! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  36. Derild4921 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  37. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  38. An excellent coordinator; he has done a praiseworthy job as lead. – Joe N 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  39. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  40. Rosiestep (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  41. Absolutely. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  42. auntieruth (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCopter[edit]

WikiCopter (talk · contribs)

I am a semi-active editor that has been on the project since December 18, 2009, (incidentally my first WikiProject).

Comments and questions for WikiCopter[edit]

  • 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?
    • I would most likely post at the project's talkpage for new reviews, as well as help around new members.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, especially at the places I am familiar with (Peer, GA and A). I've waited a month already for Arado Ar E.381 to pass A-class review and 4477th TES to pass peer! According to the Bugle, we have brought back reviewing awards, and I think this incentive is enough for now. If it proves not to be enough, we can consider another option. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 00:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, MILHIST is actually one of the better-organized and -run WikiProjects that I've seen. Also, we have quite a few editors that are constantly improving our articles, especially Sturmvogel 66. I think however, that we can increase our project goals (we're almost to 500 FAs. What next?) and get some sort of incentive for editors to work at the list of open tasks. Personally, I think we also should to Tag and Assess again. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 00:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe that coordinators should act as arbitrators, to impartially resolve conflicts. If there is a conflict among the coordinators, there should be a vote. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 00:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Follow up: why do you feel that the coordinators should vote? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, what I meant was, if the coordinators to not agree on a particular solution, they should vote and use the one with the most votes. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 23:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of WikiCopter[edit]

  1. Surprised there were not more votes here even at this early stage. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Perhaps seeing the task forces from our side of the reflecting pool help you gain a greater appreciation of what goes into maintaining one. In any case, I would be happy to have you on the team. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Lots of enthusiasm and not afraid to make a suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support. I like his style. --EH101 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Farawayman (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Tirronan (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Diannaa (Talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Openskye (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

White Shadows[edit]

White Shadows (talk · contribs)

Well here I am! I've only recently decided to throw my hat into the ring after seeing the backlogs that have been occurring. Many of you may be surprised and possibly even shocked to see me here but I think that I can bring something new to the table. I'm a very energetic, dedicated and hard working member of this project. I joined MILHIST either sometime late last year or January of this year (I cannot remember as I was not a productive editor back then) Since then, I have gone on to join the WWII task force and OMT.

Comments and questions for White Shadows[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • My greatest achievements in the Military history WikiProject have got to be my numerous GA-class U-boat related articles as well as my efforts in getting World War II to GA-class as well as List of battleships of Austria-Hungary to FL status. In the past, I has taken some flak for the quality of several of my articles and I have made several attempts to fix this issue and even when as far as spending 67$ out of my own pocket (I'm still a student so that's liek a year's worth of getting cash here and there for me) to obtain a book on the Austro-Hungarian Navy to work on the battleships of that nation as well as getting their list of Battleships to FL status. This is an ideal example of my dedication to getting a task done if I set my mind to it. Behind the scenes, I try to help out here and there in reviewing class assessments (I must admit that I have not been as active in that section as I hope to be)
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • First and foremost, I would do my best to contribute a lage sum of my time here on Wikipedia with assisting in the elimination of backlogs in our system such as class assessments, reviewing FACs, ACRs. My biggest goal as a coordinator would be to "recruit" more editors for this WikiProject. As the current list of editors slowly retire, we need to find people to fill their shoes so to speak.
  • In your opinion, what is the one thing that milhist needs to improve on, and why? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well the biggest thing that I think our Project needs to work on is focusing on articles that are in dire need of work or need to be written as well as articles that need to be updated based on the current GA and FA standards. Things like Battle of West Ukraine (1941) come to mind as well as Atlantic Wall and Battle of Moscow. We've made great strives in the past few years and have grown into one of the largest WikiProjects on Wikipedia. however, with great size comes many articles to maintain and write and we still have many articles that are FFAs, and GAs as well as ones that simply need some love and attention.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST.'
    • One interesting Idea that I have to solve this issue as well as similar ones in other Wikiprojects involves the greatest content "game" on this site and a major source of our backlogs, the WikiCup. There is a proposal to give points for doing through reviews next year and such a move would almsot certainly remove a large portion of our content related backlogs. Inside of MILHIST, we could continue to give out the reviewer awards (As Tom stated) or even hold another reviewing backlog drive much like the GAN drives. The only disadvantage in doing so if the possibility that the reviews could be lack-less and lead to lower quality articles. Once again, more specific rules would need to be out into place if we decided to go ahead with this plan. There are a few obstacles to these ideas but they remain good proposals nonetheless.
  • What role, if any, do you think that coordinators should take in helping to resolve long-running content disputes in articles within the project's scope? Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is my belief that Coordinators should not be acting as the official "policemen"-as another candidate put it-of this project. Nonetheless, I understand that at times, people can and will come to Coordinators for their input in content disputes. With that said, I think that Coordinators should be active participants in long-running content disputes as long as they take a neutral point of view of the issue and enter the discussion with an open mind. If it is an issue about the article (whether it be the sources, tone, number involved in battles ect..) the Coordinator's first and foremost task in settling the issue is to not lay down the law as it they see fit but to help establish a consensus about what issues (if any that involve the article) need to be addressed and how to address them. Every content dispute case is different and there is no clear cut way to to settle issues of that nature other than by following the path to establishing a consensus.
  • Your block log shows that you've received three short blocks in the last year (two of 24 hours duration, and one for only 15 minutes and the most recent of these was in February 2010). Could you please explain the circumstances of these blocks and what you've learned from them? Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well I was under the impression that most of you knew about them from that ill-fated RFA of mine a few months ago. You see, I was not always the guy that I currently am on Wikipedia. I wasted my time here myspacing and picking fights than writing. I was only blocked in September 09' in a horrible attempt to help a friend that was blocked for using socks to attack someone. The next block came in January of this year for me lashing out at Malleus due to a long running dispute with him over my usefulness to this site. Lastly, I was blocked in February due to an "edit war" on a user talk page over a comment that was directed at my bad spelling skills. All of there blocks were due to my immature behavior in the past and I've learned from them that there is no reason to get angry over volunteer work on a website. After all, we are all here as volunteers, not employees and the atmosphere that I was creating was hostile and negative.
      • Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the blocks until I saw them as part of looking at all the candidates block logs. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of White Shadows[edit]

  1. One from me ditto above --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I am impressed by this editor's openess and honesty about past indiscretions and feel that should they receive enough votes that they would continue to prove an asset to the project. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Antimatter--talk-- 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I've noticed the quality of White Saddow's editing increase greatly over the last year or so and the thoughtful responses to the various questions above speak for themselves. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. --John (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Good editor and hard worker. I think he'll be an asset.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Kebeta (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Derild4921 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Diannaa (Talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Openskye (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. Joe N 21:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Woody[edit]

Woody (talk · contribs)

So, once again I have once again decided to put myself up for re-election. I have been serving the MILHIST project for several years now and I have been a member for pretty much my whole time on 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 I continue to offer something to the project and so I offer my services once again.

Comments and questions for Woody[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I am most proud of my contributions to articles surrounding the Victoria Cross. I have a couple of featured topics surrounding the Victoria Cross which I am proud of, but it is still not finished yet. There is still more work to be done in fully rounding off the topic. 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. 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 to the discussion. 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.
  • For some time now there has been a shortage of reviewers at Peer, GA, A, and FA Class. How would you improve participation from MILHIST.'--Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That is a difficult question and one I have also asked recently on the Coord's talk page. I think a lot of this boils down to incentives, what incentive is there for anyone to review an article? I think the three-monthly content review awards are an excellent incentive for our own review processes and they should continue to be issued. Personally I have an issue with us getting too involved in parachuting reviewers into external processes, particularly FAC. We don't want to be seen as bulk-voting or simply supporting MILHIST articles. If we encourage reviews by our members of articles from other projects then they may reciprocate. I think we really need to encourage a reciprocal arrangement amongst our own reviews as well, encouraging those who submit work to get stuck in with other reviews though of course, this is all down to personal preference and time. There is no easy and quick solution that fits all personal circumstances but we have to do the best we can to encourage participation. Woody (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes in support of Woody[edit]

  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. One of the best. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Steady and reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Always very helpful, and a hard worker. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. A fantastic editor with loads of knowledge and experience as a coord. Always willing to lend a helping hand. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. -MBK004 06:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. Yup; I've especially appreciated your thoughtful input to many important issues over the years. EyeSerenetalk 08:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. Woody is an outstanding editor and coordinator Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. Agreed with reciprocal reviews in other wikiproject scopes. Perhaps some reviews of interest in other projects added to WPMILHIST Announcements? Doug (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    We do have our arrangement with video games on our review page: WP:MHR#Partner peer review. It used to be linked in our announcements but it got shunted off some time ago due to space issues I think. Woody (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  17. I don't have as much experience with Woody as with some of the other candidates, but after skimming his recent contribs, I think that's because I'm overly focused, not because he is :) Echoing the above, his comments are always thoughtful and helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  18. Kierzek (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  19. Openskye (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  20. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  21. Tristan benedict (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  22. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  23. Thanks for all that you do! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  24. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  25. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  26. A great editor who has been around a long time and done good work while here. – Joe N 21:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  27. --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  28. Rosiestep (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  29. auntieruth (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

General comments, questions, etc.[edit]

Above Dank says " This looks like a celebration"; this is probably because there is nowhere to mention possible problems with a candidate, but I thought this section should be used to voice some concerns. In some cases, I am underwhelmed but the responses to the standard questions. Single sentence answers such as those given by Patar knight are inadequate; having seen Patar knight participate in a discussion at Talk:Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires I was inclined to support, however clarity of expression is important and that wasn't really shown here . Co-ordinators should be able to explain themselves clearly and candidates who couldn't muster a detailed answer don't really fit the bill. Also of concern were the answers regarding reviewing. Nowhere in the description of what co-ordinators does it say they must review articles. While experience is of course desirable, the role of co-ordinators in this area is "overseeing the assessment and review processes"; this involves closing reviews but not necessarily reviewing articles. On few occasions did candidates explicitly make the link between experience of reviewing and closing reviews. While the link may be implicit, this suggests that either people do not understand the role of a co-ordinator (particularly concerning was that a member of the current team made this mistake) or poor communication skills. The latter is a problem with regard to co-ordinators informal role in dispute resolution. On a related note, few people mention their experience in dispute resolution. While it may be implicit from article work such as FACs where compromise is necessary, few candidates explicitly said they had experience and no one gave a link to demonstrate how they actually performed. This is the first time I've voted in a Milhist election, and some of the candidates were disappointing. Nev1 (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You've also got to remember Nev that "elections" such as this are largely popularity contests. Perhaps on the job training will take place for many winning candidates? I have a feeling that every former coordinator will be re-elected and if that's the case there will one be one "newbie". Not the much cause for concern. Perhaps people are just not willing to take the time to write a very detailed set of replies?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you also have to remember that this is not an Arbcom election or an RFA or indeed a position with any power whatsoever. We are not putting ourselves forwards for high office and I think your comment above slightly misses the point about what it is exactly that coordinators do. A milhist coordinator is an incredibly fluid position these days. Whilst reviewing is not an explicit demand as laid out in COORD it has become one of the day to day things expected of a coordinator. When we are severely lacking in reviews eg. an ACR needs a couple more opinions to close, then coords will inevitably turn up and opine. I have been reviewing Milhist articles in almost all review processes for the vast majority of my time on Wikipedia. Another rather fluid expectation of coords is getting involved in disputes but it is not a neccessity. If you really want to know about people's dispute resolution skills then ask a question, invite to show their experience if that is one of your criteria that you judge the candidates on. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that someone said that co-ordinators are considered first among peers, perhaps you underestimate the role. I don't mind a departure from the form of RfA (hardly a good model), but an absence of criticism reflects the style of election rather than there being no critics. Considering an explanation of the role of co-ordinators is right at the top of the page, I would expect nominees to be cany enough to measure themselves against the requirements. If they don't consider it important to be adept at getting a result from debates, or didn't think of that, asking questions will probably not help. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I would have to disagree that there's absolutely no place for criticism. While it is unlike other !voting forums of Wikipedia, it still allows any users to ask any questions about a certain candidate. I see no rules or procedures that would bar a question that voiced the asker's uncertainty over the suitability of a candidate (obviously as long as falls within our civility policy). Just like the optional questions asked at RfAs, these additional questions would help not just the asker, but also other voters decide what their vote will be. So questions like "Can you explain your actions on article X's talk page, since they were Y and Z?" would be helpful, and perhaps give the candidate a chance to redeem themselves in the opinion of the asker. In a related note, an edit expanding my answers to the standard questions seems to have lagged out when I posted it last night, and was left incomplete, when I failed to recognize it among the sea of tabs I'm accustomed to keep open. That edit has now been readded. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a thought that should be debated somewhere else, but maybe we should reformat our the elections to allow a two-week nominating period, a one-week designated question period, and a two-week voting period?
I don't think we should have an oppose section, but I do wish people would leave comments. Elections are virtually the only formalized time coordinators can receive feedback on how they are doing individually and collectively, but it's rare for someone to take full advantage of the opportunity. I'm sure I could speak for most of the coordinators if I said we would appreciate and value suggestions, comments, concerns, and ideas on how to improve the project. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That's definitely a fair suggestion. A version similar to it was tried on RfA once (I think on one of Ironholds' RfAs), and it wasn't very popular, though that might've been the way it was tried. Also, if we use a 5 week election process, that's quite a long time. It's almost like a snap election, and would seem overly bureaucratic. Perhaps a better format might be to combine the nomination/question period and shave a week off?
A dedicated oppose section might be disheartening, but like you, I feel that more people should leave comments, whether that be in their votes, or just a bulleted Comment in the vote, or in the section proper, since feedback is definitely important. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'll add this to the list of things to be outlined for the X Tranche when the election ends (assuming of course that I retain the lead, other wise I'll outline it and suggest to the lead that we work on the issues :) If we are going to do the year long term that perhaps we should consider reformatting the election method, though I note that this method has served us well through the years. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's necessary to wait. We already have a "Comment and questions" section for each candidate. It's just that it's being used exclusively for questions. One route immediate might be simply to split the section into two:
  • "Questions for XXX"
  • "Comments about XXX"
 Roger Davies talk 05:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
My principal concern is that people only have a week to make comments and questions – less if the candidate runs at the last minute. Splitting the sections couldn't hurt though! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. While I too wouldn't want to move to a more adversarial electoral process, we should perhaps bear in mind that this election is the start of our one-year term and, in that sense, there's more at stake. It's obviously difficult to change the format this far into the process, but I'd support explicitly inviting constructive feedback and extending the elections by a week or so. EyeSerenetalk 09:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with breaking down the election process into distinct nomination and question/comment periods to ensure everyone has the same exposure to the latter. The potentially adversarial admin-style system with its opposes is not warranted IMO as the coord position doesn't have that power, only influence, but candidates should always welcome questions and comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The election process has reliably produced an excellent group of coordinators; there is a certain 'old boys club' feel to it, but good new candidates do come through. Regarding reviewing, the main disadvantage it has over article creation is that reviewers are required to cover all of the FA criteria in a tightly constrained timeframe. On the other hand, reviewers could explicitly address specific criteria to reduce the burden and this could be facilitated by splitting the review into (transcluded?) sections by criterion. This would make the criteria clearer for new reviewers and they could focus on areas of interest to them or where they have particular skills. Realistically, reviewers on 1a, 1d and 4 may have no clue about 1c, but we are supposed to be experts in all areas to deliver a valid vote. On another topic, recognition of contributions in reviewing are appreciated. Doug (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
What Doug said, on all counts. Of course, the main thing we do right is to have a rocking A-class review process, which effectively gives us more time than most other projects to work on FAC issues. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary Doug, at FAC SandyGeorgia has encouraged editors to review in whatever capacity they can. If that is just one criterion, it's a small matter to say "criterion 1a looks good" or "oppose on criterion 3". Some people do just image reviews, and others focus on sourcing; some examine an article to see if it complies with MOS. You don't have to measure an article against every criteria as long as you state which ones you have. It's a good route for inexperienced reviewers, or for people who specialise in a particular area. It would be a good approach to adopt in the "rocking" A-class reviews. Nev1 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Nev, out of curiosity, why did you not consider running? You are a very dedicated worker here and I'm sure that you would do a good job at such a task.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I did consider it, but have some reservations about the position that are explained on my talk page. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Nev, I was reading that quickly as "reviewers" (plural), but I see he talks about individual reviewers later. No, individual reviewers can do anything they want. I give a standard disclaimer when I support at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks Nev. On the other hand, quoting 1a at review is a perfect method to introduce jargon, steepen the learning curve and ensure the need for a mentoring process. Perhaps that is desirable, but it should be an explicit choice of the project. I don't see downsides of sectioning reviews with the criteria for that section made explicit. A 'General' section would permit experienced reviewers to continue with their preferred style. Doug (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how encouraging people to do something they're comfortable with rather than dive in at the deep end would intimidate people. It doesn't need to be bureaucratic, you don't need to create sections in reviews for people to compartmentalise their opinions, or anything else that's been over thought. All that a reviewer would have to do is state which criterion they checked the article against. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the main issue with reviewing only against selected criteria is that it complicates the promotion process. I don't see a problem with this when opposing, because a single unaddressed criteria-based oppose is enough to prevent promotion under the current system anyway, but when adjudicating supports the closing coord will need to distinguish support votes for the article as a whole from supports based on one criterion and weight them accordingly. EyeSerenetalk 08:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
If the choice is between a more approachable review system for the new and inexperienced and co-ordinators spending a little more time thinking about their decisions that's really no choice at all. Nev1 (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I take your point, but I don't think we can dismiss this issue quite that easily. Currently promotion requires three supports and no unaddressed criteria-based opposes; under the system you suggest, it's possible an article could have its three supports but all could could be based on a single (perhaps even the same) criterion. Can we then legitimately promote the article? It's calling on the coords to make a subjective judgement call rather than - as now - a largely objective one. For me that's a big change in the coord role and I'm not sure we have the mandate or desire to do that. It would only take a few controversial decisions to call our entire A-Class review process into question. I think your suggestion is a good one, but to be fully integrated into the process it will require some hard thinking about the way we manage reviews. Perhaps the STT would be a good venue to explore this further? EyeSerenetalk 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
You still don't understand. This is aimed at inexperienced editors; the old hands who are currently involved wouldn't change their habits while newer edits might feel more comfortable commenting on only one aspect of the article. The purpose it to generate more interest in reviews rather than compartmentalise them, making life difficult for reviewers and co-ordinators. Obviously if there are only supports on certain criteria rather than the article as a whole, you wait for more reviewers. It's not rocket science. Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) I can't help but feel we ought to be having this discussion somewhere more central, but why not :-)
Speaking as someone pretty uninvolved with the A-class system at the moment (shame, shame, I know) - it seems "compartmentalising" works well for the B or GA reviews, with an easy breakdown of what is and isn't good to go, and it might well be worth trialling the model. I'd go for something like Doug suggests above - criteria headers, and encourage notes underneath each on the basis of "support / object / comment / query" - passing would then still require three approvals for each point, either explicit or inferred from general comments, but people would be able to clearly express "I am happy with the structure of this article and the text and the pictures, I definitely think the citations are screwy, but I don't have the slightest idea if it's actually correct, so please don't hold me to that bit" without having to leave unduly complicated remarks. In many ways this would be similar to what we have now, but it'd - hopefully - be a little bit clearer, a good bit easier to check off and close, and I can certainly see how being able to say "well, I only need comment on this little bit" would help draw people into reviewing. Perhaps we could run a review or two this way as a trial, and see if it's unwieldy or not? Shimgray | talk | 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Since this has gone beyond the scope of discussing the election, would anyone have any objection to moving this discussion to the strategy think tank? EyeSerenetalk 08:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Taking silence as consent(!), I've copied what I believe is the relevant portion of the above discussion over to WT:MHSTT. Further exploration of the various ideas described above to improve our review process should take place here. However, please feel free to use this section to continue to discuss the elections, the election process and anything else relevant :) Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 09:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)