Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Contents

Overview[edit]

This election is to appoint the project coordinator team for one year, from 29 September 2012 to 28 September 2013. Coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. All of the coordinators, and especially the lead coordinator, serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and focus on specific areas requiring special attention. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.

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?
Adamdaley Coordinator
No
Dank Lead Coord
Yes
EyeSerene Coordinator
No
Hawkeye7 Coordinator
Yes
HJ Mitchell Coordinator
Yes
Ian Rose Coordinator
Yes
MisterBee1966 Coordinator
Yes
Nick-D Coordinator
Yes
Nikkimaria Coordinator
Yes
Sp33dyphil Coordinator
No
Sturmvogel 66 Coordinator
No
The ed17 Coordinator
Yes

Election process[edit]

  • Nomination period: 4 September to 23:59 (UTC) 14 September.
  • Voting period: 00:01 (UTC) 15 September to 23:59 (UTC) 28 September.
  • Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Candidates" section below by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:
=== Name ===

{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...

==== Comments and questions for Name ====

*''What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?''
**
*''What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?''
**

==== Votes in support of Name ====

#
  • The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the lead coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the remaining candidates with twenty or more endorsements will be appointed as coordinators to a maximum of fourteen appointments. The number of coordinators may be increased or reduced if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.
  • Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.

Candidates[edit]

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 13:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


Anotherclown[edit]

Anotherclown (talk · contribs)

I first became interested in military history in my youth, and my interest has continued as I've got older for mainly professional reasons. I have been a member of the Military history project since December 2008 and have resisted becoming a coordinator until now, but following a fairly intense offline lobbying campaign (you know who you are) have decided to offer my services if others feel I can assist.

Comments and questions for Anotherclown[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • In a word, nothing. I guess what is really required here though is for me to list my contributions. From the point of view of content I have contributed a number of articles associated with Australian involvement in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, many of which are GA or A class. I have also contributed a few biographies and unit histories and even a seemingly random article on a minor battle during the First World War. Other than articles I have enjoyed assisting improve other articles by participating in GA and A class reviews and tagging and assessing articles for MILHIST. I've also been guilty of quite a bit of wikignoming to tidy articles that cross my path and have regularly been involved in commenting on articles for deletion (although this seems to draw the crabs quite a bit).
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I've been around for a while and participated in many of MILHISTs processes so I have broad understanding of what is required and can probably pick up the more involved aspects of being a co-ordinator fairly quickly. I also have a good working knowledge of WP policies and standards, including WP:MOS, WP:MILMOS and WP:GNG, and as a co-ordinator would continue to work to ensure our articles are compliant with our key policies. I also intend to continue to write articles, although my work rate is largely dictated by work in real life which often prevents me from contributing to Wikipedia for long periods and may impact on my ability to fulfil the duties of a co-ordinator as well (you have been warned).
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • Wikipedia is very bad at enforcing its own rules and standards and those that attempt to do so usually don't get the support they require, mostly due to other well meaning editors being too timid. Whilst equally well meaning, the priorities of many of our administrators also seem to be esoteric, while the entire project seems to have been increasingly hijacked for political purposes. To me the problem is choice – we have tried to be too inclusive, but this will be our downfall. Anonymous IP editing is destructive and adds little, and rather than being more inclusive we have probably driven away many good contributors. But just as vandalism threatens to undermine the entire project so too do low academic standards and a lack of attention to detail. Ultimately there is unlikely to be a solution, and whether I am a co-ordinator or not won't make a shred of difference. I fear Wikipedia is probably doomed but while it's still around I will likely continue to contribute in some form. So I have no strategy, and no exit plan. The vultures are circling... Anotherclown (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes in support of Anotherclown[edit]

  1. Despite the very gloomy prognosis in his third answer, I've laways been impressed when I've seen Anotherclown around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Aside from his excellent articles, Anotherclown does lots of behind the scenes type work, and will make a great coordinator Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Yes will be an asset to the project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. +1. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support: excellent contributions at ACR and very experienced. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support; we wouldn't have a viable A-class process without you. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support -- reckon I was one of the active lobbyists referred to above, so glad AC has decided to run; his long experience in writing and reviewing, plus sound knowledge of MilHist processes, will make him a great asset to the coord team. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support - Kierzek (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - Intothatdarkness 18:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Rather dark future predictions, but he's quite right up to a line; just take a look at the vitrolic editing enviroment surrounding the current US presidential candidates. Given our project's topic area, though, I have hopes that we can survive and florish, especially when we can attract high-quality writers through the upcoming visual editor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support: Great reviewer and has contributed alot.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support - per much of the above, I've always been impressed with AC's work. Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support - The futurist predictions aside (I work on Balkans articles and that is the day-to-day) I admire the commitment and leadership by example within the project. Would be a good coordinator. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support, mainly what Ian said, his long experience in content development and his knowledge of the project will be a huge asset. Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Arius1998[edit]

Arius1998 (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of this project since March 2012. And I first joined the project's contest in May of 2012. My major area of interest lies in Philippine military history, but I also conducted some work in some Asian topics, particularly that of Southeast and East Asia. Articles concerning European and American colonialism are also included in my interests. I would try tagging and assessing articles covered in this project, since I believed that I am in no position yet to do so, at least tagging en masse. But I did assessment on a few couple of articles in the past.

Comments and questions for Arius1998[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I'm particularly humble when it comes to bragging a few achievements to many people. So far I do it only on my profile, and barely any Wikipedian see it. I'd just state a few, since they are really few in number. So far, I have nominated as good article two: Mariano Ricafort Palacin y Abarca and Antonio Luna. Well, the former failed and is currently C-class in this project. The latter achieved B-class and is still under the process of being a GA or not. I have successfully put three articles under this project to be featured in the DYK. I did create Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippine History though it had yet nothing accomplished except tagging and assessing around a hundred articles, including the few I had in the Military History project. I'm currently immersing myself in driving a campaign to complete articles of battles in Luzon during the Philippine-American War from Manila to Tirad Pass, hoping to get them all to C or B-class. I currently finished six, increasing the number of articles concerning battles in Luzon during the said war by more than 80 percent.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • For me, my few positive qualities, including being hardworking and trying my best to cite references well, I could contribute in this project. I'm not saying my negatives outweigh my positives, and if it did, I could have been away from Wikipedia for good. However, what I'm trying to say is that I always do my best to get the job done, and that I believe is enough.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • When I was in high school, our teacher, when it comes to research, always warn us not to use Wikipedia as a major source for any research we must conduct. My college teacher also stresses that way, saying that the few good articles may be fine to use, but never use it as the major resource. I believe that good articles here in Wikipedia, as well as the project, must be increased. Two issues can be seen here: lack of good reviewers and lack of industrious editors. The continuance of the project's contest is a good idea to arouse industry among editors as well as that of the reviewers. It should be maintained. Maybe also an increase in incentives like more awards could strike a good pose among those editors and reviewers. Also, I believe that regionalism, despite being an issue in the project as a dividing force, can be utilized for the better. Driving editors to work on articles concerning their certain regions is a good way to go.
  • Your contribs and created articles in the area of Philippine history is certainly impressive. How do you feel you would act, if asked to review a [minor] dispute between a couple of editors, as an uninvolved coordinator, in another area of military history, e.g. WWI, WWII, American Civil War?
    • For me, what's going to settle the score is a bunch of trustworthy references. Also, as a historian at heart, I have a background on major world conflicts like WWI and WWII. I think that I could handle a dispute between editors concerning such topics, besides from looking at the references, by looking through reason and rationale of each side. Naturally, I settle for what is true and what both sides could agree on.
  • I see that the article with the highest contributions is the article Filipino nationalism, and as stated above I see that other articles you have created and worked on trend to be towards Philippine-centric topics. How do you feel you would act when other articles may follow neutrality but may properly weighted statements that are critical of the Philippines or Filipino nationalism?

Votes in support of Arius1998[edit]

  1. Dedicated contributor, I found the response to TomStar's question one of the best with regards to Wiki being a resource, that "wider-world" vision is something a lot of editors seem to lack. Would like to see some fresh blood in the coord team. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Impressive contributions, and would provide a fresh perspective to the coordinator team; the project would benefit greatly from having more coordinators with expertise in non-Anglo American/European/Australian fields. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support - both of the above !voters make good points, best of luck, Arius. Parsecboy (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support -- having now had time during my current travels to familiarise myself with Arius' contributions, happy to add my vote for more fresh blood on the coord team. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. Those who work hard cannot go wrong. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support: I've reviewed a couple of Arius's articles of late and he shows excellent potential. If he is keen to get involved in the behind-the-scenes work of being a co-ord, I'm sure he will be an asset to the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support, I think the key to any organisation surviving and developing is the constant introduction of new blood, I think he will be a strong asset. Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Not somebody I'm as familiar with as many of the other candidates, but he seems like a trustworthy, good-faith editor, and new blood is always good. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. Intothatdarkness 18:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 28 September 2012 (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 and frequently find myself getting involved in copy editing or reviewing articles well beyond this area. I have previously served as a co-ordinator in the March – September 2010 and September 2010 – September 2011 tranches. I took a break last year to focus on working on articles, but I am keen to get involved as a co-ordinator again if the project wants me to. If I was to be elected, I would look to work in the following areas: closing A-class reviews; helping to run the monthly contest; providing advice; tagging new articles; adding task force parameters; responding to questions on the main project and co-ordinators talk pages; working on the monthly newsletter and recruiting (and encouraging new recruits).

Comments and questions for AustralianRupert[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • "Proud" is not really a word that I'm comfortable using when describing myself (I once got scolded by a nun for that...), nevertheless there are a number of achievements that I think have been of benefit to the project. In terms of content creation, over the past year, I have worked with both Hawkeye and Ian Rose to successfully take two articles through FAC (via GAN and ACR): Battle of Milne Bay and Reg Saunders. I have also taken 2/18th Battalion (Australia) to A-class via GAN and nine other articles to GA. I have also been slowly working through writing articles on the battles of the Huon Peninsula and Bougainville campaigns. Next year, I will probably look to work on the Gallipoli campaign, having already made a start on the Battle of Lone Pine. In terms of project work, I have continued to be involved in reviewing project-related articles at peer review, B-class, GAN, ACR and FAC.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I believe that I am experienced enough to understand how the projects runs, and am able to undertake the tasks required of a co-ord. Also, I am committed to mucking in and am willing to do the behind-the-scenes work that is necessary to keep the project going.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • There are no doubt a few and it probably depends upon one's interests and focus. I'd say probably editor recruitment/retention, a lack of reviewers at ACR (and also at other levels, even though they are not technically part of Milhist), and possibly our declining sense of community. In many regards, I see these as linked. As such, plans to address these should be integrated and include both individual and collective efforts. On an individual level, I intend to increase my efforts to welcome, engage, mentor new users/reviewers, promote compromise and encourage members to get involved in all aspects of the project. Collectively, as a project I'd like to see us work to reinvigorate some of the social aspects of Milhist involvement. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes in support of AustralianRupert[edit]

  1. Absolutely. Rupert was an excellent coord before he took his break, and I have no doubt he will be an excellent coord now that he's willing to return to the coord team. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support. Have recently had two ACRs to which AustralianRupert contributed, and have found him firm and fair, taking the time to develop newer editors (like me) by pointing the way re: editing tips, and leading by example as far as his personal contribution is concerned. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Old hand, dedicated to the project. I think we need to retain that experience if the project is to remain strong this year. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Great work as a coordinator previously, as well as his excellent work developing high quality articles and contributing to reviews and other project-level tasks Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Always helpful would be missed if not around. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Excellent record, no doubts he will continue in this way. Constantine 17:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support. Excellent "all-rounder". Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support Bidgee (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support - Kierzek (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support. We wouldn't have a viable A-class process without you. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support -- great to see Rupert returning; there is no-one more dedicated to article review or project housekeeping, to say nothing of his talents as an editor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support - Intothatdarkness 19:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Yeah, per Dank. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good to have him back in the saddle again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. No-brainer, Ian hit it right on the head. Keep up the great work. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support. Buistr (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support Farawayman (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support. Arius1998 (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support — AWHS 08:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  30. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  31. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  32. Support --MOLEY (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  33. Support Cambalachero (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  34. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  35. Support! He understands that we must encourage new editors on the project or there will be very little participation outside of the coordinators themselves in the future. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  36. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Cplakidas[edit]

Cplakidas (talk · contribs)

Hello to all. I've been editing in Wikipedia, mostly on MILHIST-related articles, since 2005. My main fields of interest are Byzantine and Greek history, but I've branched out to the Ottoman and early Muslim periods as well, and I am always ready to fix an error, revert vandalism, or add an image or a category anywhere.

Comments and questions for Cplakidas[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I've got a handful of FA pieces and A-class articles, among which the Byzantine navy article definitely takes pride of place for the sheer amount of effort it took. It was also one of the most enjoyable and fruitful collaborative experiences I have had during a FA review. Other than that, I take some pride in covering some of the under-represented areas of the world: the Balkans, Middle East and Central Asia. Subjects like the Fourth Fitna, the Siege of Constantinople (717–718) or the Cretan War (1645–1669) are of major importance yet very much neglected. It is indicative, I think, that I began covering Muslim topics when I encountered them in Byzantine articles but couldn't get enough information about the subjects from the articles at hand.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • Aside from performing the more routine housekeeping duties, I think I can contribute most effectively in helping counter systemic bias and provide knowledge in the areas I mentioned above. I also have somehow managed to navigate the shoals of Balkan topics without blocks or bans and have good relations with many users from the region regardless of country of origin, so I can help in disputes arising in this volatile area.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • On WP in general, I think it is commonplace that the top issue of attracting new users and retaining the old ones, as new ones are intimidated by the complex structure and many guidelines while old ones are tired of the constant bickering. Solutions to these can only be system-wide, as editor retention is not just our problem. MILHIST however should definitely aim to get more new users in and "hooked" early on through friendly welcoming and recognition, as well as encourage interaction and collaboration among established editors.
    • Linked to the above is a declining participation in the project structures. At least in my experience, part of the reason is that the projects (not just MILHIST) are perceived as too "formal" fora and many people tend to avoid them and prefer direct user-to-user contact on an issue that troubles or interests them. For instance, the task forces were once intended to serve as places for collaboration, in effect as mini-projects, but by now they have become reduced to almost nothing. It is easier to go to another user, or to a more relevant WikiProject page, rather than seek out a project task-force buried somewhere amidst a couple of dozen others. That much structure is, in the end, redundant, and perhaps counter-productive: the first contact with the MILHIST project can be daunting, when one sees dozens and dozens of links to essays, task forces and guidelines, which one presumably has to master. Many of the essays etc are great work, but most people can manage without them. In all my time here, I cannot truthfully claim to have visited even a fifth of the project's sub-pages. A simpler "front page", reduced to the bare essentials (what this is about, who to contact for questions), might be better. The project is first and foremost a meeting-place for people with a common interest, and should do everything to facilitate this and help them get their answers and find resources and people who can help them. Everything else, with the exception of the excellent ACR process (which however is also intended for more experienced users), should be of secondary importance. Constantine 20:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What impact do you think being a co-ordinator would have on your valuable content creation work?
    • Good question, and frankly, that's one reason I had held back for so long. The answer is, I don't know. The time I have available to spend on WP will be apportioned differently, so I expect my article creation to slow down, but I cannot make any definite statements yet. I certainly intend to maintain a high level of article work, as this is what I enjoy most on WP. Constantine 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes in support of Cplakidas[edit]

  1. A dedicated editor with some excellent content contributions. No reason to think he wouldn't make a fine coord. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Don't know him... but seems dedicated to high-quality. Can't argue with that. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Because I know his work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Excellent track record of contributions, and an great answer to the third question above. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Great work on milhistory on DYK, and elsewhere. Secretlondon (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support; high quality contributions. dci | TALK 22:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Rskp (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. Have been impressed by his articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support. Your difficult work with Balkans topics has been invaluable, and you give great coverage of places and periods that we direly need coverage of. For some reason, I always smile when I see one of your articles come up at A-class or FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support -- great article writer, thoughtful and courteous in discussion; should make a fine coord. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support: good record, but I'm still a bit concerned about the last question (which I asked). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support - Kierzek (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. I'm extremely glad that you've decided to run, and the excellent answer to question three enhances that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support. Always nice to see an experienced contributor step up behind the scenes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support - new blood is always good, and Constantine has written some pretty impressive articles. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support. Has readily tackled some interesting and difficult topics, works well with others. auntieruth (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

Dank (talk · contribs)

Hi, I'm Dan, a long-time Milhist coordinator and admin. I earn my keep around here mostly by copyediting and reviewing almost all our articles at FAC, A-class Review and Peer Review. I'm also a part-time Metapedian, and that's been useful for bringing new people into the project and deflecting problems, so that article writers don't have to deal with too many surprises. I've stayed pretty busy on Wikipedia for almost five years; you can find out about my opinions and activities by wandering around my userspace, or searching for my username at our main talk page and archives or the coordinators' talk page and archives. I'm very happy to see all the candidates who are returning and coming on board for the first time; we'll have a fine team this year. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Dank[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • See above.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • See above. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • It depends on who you hang out with. I hang out with people who want help with and recognition for their articles, so that's what I spend most of my wiki-time working on. I'm also encouraging discussion on Pending Changes. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes in support of Dank[edit]

  1. Without hesitation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support. Have been the beneficiary of Dank's work on reviews of articles I've brought to ACR and FAC, and have found him to be meticulous and helpful. IMO great attributes for a coord. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. +1, though if you're Lead again, I want to see more whipping to get butts moving! :D Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Great work as a coordinator, as well as contributions to the FA process. I agree that more active lead coordinator-ship would be good if you get the extra gold braid again. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Another fine editor. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Definitely yes. Fine editor, especially in reviews, an asset to this project. Constantine 17:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support: has been tireless in his involvement in reviewing project articles, discussing ideas and encouraging editors. I have learnt a lot about copy editing from Dank, as I know many others have too. He is also very sensible and provides a calming influence. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. dci | TALK 22:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. --Rskp (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support. Has put an awful lot into this project, and is a calm/steadying voice across the wiki as a whole. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support -- quite simply, be hard-pressed to find someone who cares more about MilHist, and WP in general, than Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support - Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support - Intothatdarkness 19:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Too many positives to list here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. What Ed17 said.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Ditto. Best of luck in the coming year. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support. Of course. TBrandley 01:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support - Buistr (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
  24. Support - TheSpecialUser TSU 12:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support Farawayman (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support - --Lecen (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  30. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  31. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  32. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  33. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  34. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  35. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  36. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Grandiose[edit]

Grandiose (talk · contribs)

I've been a member of the project since April 2011, working in the topic area slightly before then. I've been a contributor on the Spanish Civil War, Henry VIII and the Livonian War, with one featured article and two (other) A-class articles. But I may be most familiar through my work in the A-class review system, normally image reviews – sometimes with a few other comments chucked in for good measure. As a university student my time for content creation is limited about half the year, but I'll still be able comfortably to take on co-ordinator responsibilities if elected.

Comments and questions for Grandiose[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • For me, the Project's most under-rated aspect is A-Class review. The Featured Article process has very high standards, as well it might: if it didn't, we'd invent a process with higher standards. But that does mean that it falls outside the range of many of our contributors. A-Class, on the other hand, is merely a polish away. It's also shiny and I think it does a lot to enthuse editors. So I'm most proud for the achievements of other editors in that sphere, and in part those I've made in continuing that process – something I'd look to do in the future (co-ordinator or not, although I'd play a role in the admin for them if elected). I have my Featured Article which I'm pleased with (very shiny) on the Nyon Conference, which is niche; I have a Good Article on the Spanish Civil War, which is not (although it's constantly under pressure).
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • Well I'm fairly well organised and my time well-apportioned, so I should be able to take my weight of the bureaucracy – particularly the A-Class process but potentially in others. I'd also like to play a role in the strategy department, implementing changes to ensure the future of the project (the catch-word is "streamlining"). I've managed to be almost entirely uncontroversial on Wikipedia, save for a few disagreements over the Spanish Civil War which have kept low-key. I think this is a useful attribute to the strategy department in particular, because there are going to be disagreements about the right way forward and its important that everyone feels that the decision was justified, even if they disagree with the points or priorities raised. I like to keep things tidy, clean, and justified.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • Editor retention – in general I think the community at large has identified most if not all facets of this problem (although I think underestimated the bureaucracy point, below). This is similar for the project. Getting the project noticed by new editors (or editors new to the topic area) is something which the project is pretty good at; that doesn't mean it can be forgotten. I'd like to see most of our editors get more involved, however. In line with my comments about A class, I would like to get more GA writers to consider A class: the pool for GA is fairly wide whilst A-class is narrow.
    • Relations between editors and the Foundation and chapters – definitely an overlooked problem. I follow the technological goings on of Jarry1250 and community-developer-Foundation relations are constantly strained. I think that the system could work considerably better: things like GLAM, and indeed other real-life events, attract a considerably differently following from online activities. There's definitely a role for the project in these sorts of areas; however, I'm not the man to take those forward in the main. However when these events come up there is always a need for the project to look at how it advertising them, that sort of thing, and I could definitely play an active role there.
    • Bureaucracy – definitely a bête noire of mine and one that affects both Wikipedia and the project. For me, the phrase "Perfection is achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away" is instructive. People always disagree about what you can safely remove; that is the name of the game. Thus mine, if it is any platform at all (and I would rather it not), is not one of destruction, but rather one of healthy scepticism and questioning what we have and how we use it, so we can make the most of it. Wikipedia has always succeeded when it has been able to drop old rules quickly and find new pastures. So, for example, I've questioned the nature of our showcase: whether we can use it better, or whether it should be retained only historically. There isn't a forgone conclusion to that debate in my mind, I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I do not have the answers, but I would very much like to ask the right questions.

Votes in support of Grandiose[edit]

  1. Experienced editor with good content work and knows his way around MilHist. I'm sure he'd make a very good coord. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Excellent answer to the third question, and a fine track record of contributions to the project Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Yes will be an asset to the project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support: good contributions in reviewing and has the experience to be a good co-ord. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. A solid editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support. Grandiose has been putting in a lot of time on article reviewing tasks, and judging from the reactions, he's been doing a great job with that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support -- excellent coord material. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Experience will be a big asset to the coordinating team. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support. What Rupert said.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support - Kierzek (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support - per the above comments. Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. +1. Sorry Grandiose, I did not realise I had passed you over.. clearly a fine editor. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 13:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7[edit]

Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs)

I've been part of the MilHist Project since 2006, but have only been a coordinator for the past year.

Comments and questions for Hawkeye7[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I have written 20 featured articles, 27 A class articles, and 52 good articles. I had been concentrating on World War II in the South West Pacific, bur occasionally wrote on something else. lately, I have been improving articles about the Manhattan Project, which has resulted in a number of articles on mad scientists.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I have a doctorate in military history. I know my way around the primary source, and have a personal acquaintance with many of the people working in the field.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?

Votes in support of Hawkeye7[edit]

  1. Definitely. One of our most dedicated coords and a fantastic content writer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support. Leads by example on the content front and works hard on the reviews. Helpful and consistent. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Excellent work as a coordinator in the last term (I suspect that you closed the most A-class reviews) as well as continued great work developing articles Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Does well for a newcomer. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Another excellent editor. Constantine 17:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Lots of high-quality article work, plans ahead on what needs working on. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 18:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support: a very dominate content writer, with a massive amount of experience. Also very willing to do housework type co-ord duties. It would be great to have Hawkeye on board for another stint as co-ord. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support Bidgee (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support - Kierzek (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. Rupert said it best: massive experience. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support -- quite possibly the bravest article writer we have, as well as a fine coord. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Clear and different perspective as a professional military historian. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support Good contributor and always willing to help out with the behind-the-scenes work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support, --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support Farawayman (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Of course. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  30. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  31. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell[edit]

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Hi, I'm Harry! I've had the honour of serving the MilHist project as a coordinator for the last year, and I hope the project will allow me to continue to serve. I returned about a month ago from a three- or four-month wikibreak. Before I took the extended wikibreak and since returning form it, my main focus as a coordinator has been the A-class review process. I've been less active in reviewing lately, and that's something I will get back into when I have a permanent Internet connection, but I have been keeping an eye on the process, and I have, on and off, been one of the more prolific closers of ACRs. Within MilHist but not strictly in my role as coordinator, I've written several high-quality articles (including three FAs, with more hopefully on the way, courtesy of a WMUK microgrant), and participate in discussions on the project talk page. Outside MilHist, I do things in real life for Wikimedia UK (and attended their WWI Editathon to represent MilHist), I write about historic buildings, and I do some work on Commons.

Thank you for your consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments and question for HJ Mitchell[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Of course I'm very proud of my three featured articles and handful of GAs and A-Class articles. I'm also proud of my reviews at ACR, though I'm slightly ashamed that I haven't been able to be as active there recently as much as I would like, and I'm proud of my work in closing ACRs—there's always a buzz in promoting an editor's pride and joy to A-Class.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • A knowledge of the MilHist project, its processes, and its membership; empathy, respect, and admiration for its writers, reviewers, and everyone else who helps to make this project a success. I'm also an admin and OTRS agent, and can help with anything in those areas.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • Number one would be a lack of editors. This is an issues that affects both MilHist and Wikipedia as a whole. We do have a smaller pool of highly active editors than we did a few years ago, and whatever the cause, it means there are fewer people available to perform tasks that need to be performed. However the perception of a lack of editors, especially when it's reported by the media, risks putting off potential new recruits. MilHist is fortunate in that its scope is broad enough, and military history is a topic of interest to sufficient Wikipedians, that it still thrives, but there are places where a small pool of editors is stretched very thin. As to what I can do to address the issue, I'm involved in some of Wikimedia UK's outreach work, aimed at recruiting new editors, and we can continue to raise the profile of MilHist within Wikipedia.
    • The second issue that comes to mind is the lack of reviewers at ACR. We have a small base of editors who spend a great deal of their volunteer time on reviewing other people's work, often in preparation for FAC. I think ACR is a fantastic process, and possibly the only process with similar rigour to FAC but gentler than the real thing. I will certainly get back to reviewing there when I have an Internet connection, and I'll continue to try to close successful ACRs promptly when I can (assuming I'm re-elected). I will also continue to advocate that we should open up our ACR process to articles not strictly within the scope of MilHist but likely to be of interest to MilHist members, provided the nominator reviews another article. There is probably more the coord team can do to rise the profile of ACRs within the project, which is worthy for discussion on WT:MHC.
    • Third, similar to Grandiose, an overly literal interpretation of the rules and an inflexibility or unwillingness to compromise. This is a small thing in individual cases, but I think it becomes a bigger issue when ArbCom and others in positions of 'authority' start taking this overly literal approach. This leads to instruction creep and increased bureaucracy, and this more than anything (in my relatively humble opinion) demoralises and demotivates editors. I'm not sure what can be done other than to try to persuade people to take a less black-and-white view of the project, and I will certainly do what I can as a coord to take a flexible approach when I can. There are many other criticisms that could be levelled, but you only asked for three so I'll stop. However, taken as a whole, I still think Wikipedia is a wonderful project that, while not perfect, is doing a good thing in the world, and MilHist is a very successful (and of course also imperfect) part of that, and we should have a sense of pride in that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes in support of HJ Mitchell[edit]

  1. Good first year as coord, given a second year to improve on, should be a valued member. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Very good contributions as a coordinator in the previous term, as well as a great track record with developing articles Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Been impressed with what I have seen. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support: Even with a break, Harry contributed at a very good level to the co-ord tranche. He will be an asset to the team next term, also. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. Does some good work. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support - Kierzek (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. Harry's work with UK GLAMs is important for our project and will probably become more important, and he's a fantastic admin. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support -- keep up the good work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Great editor. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support: particularly the third question. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support - Intothatdarkness 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Brings something different to the table. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support - per AR and Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Ian Rose (talk · contribs)

I've been involved at Wikipedia for about seven years now, began contributing to military history articles five years ago, and have been elected a MilHist coordinator for (I think!) five consecutive terms. Article-wise, my main focus has been Australian military flying biography, though my edits have ranged across many related areas. I spend a good deal of time reverting vandalism and fixing formatting issues, reviewing and copyediting articles at all levels, performing coordination tasks like closing reviews, updating open tasks, and administering the monthly article-writing contest, and try to offer helpful advice wherever possible. I'm also co-editor of The Bugle monthly newsletter, and a FAC delegate.

Comments and questions for Ian Rose[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Having largely written many FA-Class, A-Class and GA-Class pages is a source of pride, as is successfully collaborating with other editors to produce quality articles. I'm honoured to have been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in 2009, and to have been a project coordinator for the past 3½ years. Consistently being among the top group of article reviewers is also important for me. I'm glad to have been able to co-edit our monthly newsletter with Ed, and to have (I hope) had useful input to various significant MilHist discussions. If through my contributions and sense of cooperation I've been able to assist or encourage other editors, new or old, then that's the icing on the cake.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • Experience, evenhandedness, and enthusiasm, plus being prepared to perform 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. My involvement in the FAC process as a delegate also gives me another perspective on MilHist that I think is useful to the project.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • WP as a whole has managed to shoot itself in the foot lately with the loss of some great editors, by failing to maintain respectful and collegial discussion on contentious points. We've never been brilliant at attracting good new editors but in the past year I've felt a few have come to the fore in MilHist and WP as a whole. Unfortunately the net gain hasn't been positive through the loss of others who have just had enough. Beyond trying to repair that situation, I believe we need to: continue to encourage new members; review, review, review; and always guard against complacency within our great wikiproject by keeping watch on the evolution of processes and projects outside MilHist. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes in support of Ian Rose[edit]

  1. Great reviewer, great writer, great coord. What more could you ask for? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. +1. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support. Have a had a bit of interaction with Ian as a FAC delegate and more with recent ACRs. Leads by example as a contributor. Responsive and dedicated, great work on the Signpost and generally a major contributor. All the experience needed and more. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Excellent work as a coordinator in the previous term, as well as many other contributions to developing high quality articles and keeping the FA process running well Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Yes will be an asset to the project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Definitely support. Constantine 17:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support: again, one of our more prolific contributors. If I was important enough to warrant a wiki article (I'm not, and hope never to be!), I would want Ian to write it. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. Great editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support Bidgee (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Strong support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support - Kierzek (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. Professional, courteous, self-effacing, talented at writing and reviewing. A huge asset. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support. dci | TALK 22:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. For his work on the Bugle. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support - Intothatdarkness 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Has single-handedly kept the Bugle afloat, excellent writer, and on, and on, and on ... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support as per Nick-D--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support - glad to see you coming back for another year. Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support, as per Dank. Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  30. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  31. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Johnsc12[edit]

Johnsc12 (talk · contribs)

I want to be a candidate.
I have been a member since April 2012.

Comments and question for Johnsc12[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?
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • vandalism.
  • I noticed that your talk page contains a number of messages concerning edit warring and other content dispute issues. Can you explain in your own words why you received these messages and what they were for?
  • Can you describe your military history interests, and how you plan to be involved in contributing towards such articles over the next 12 months?
    • us military history.

Votes in support of Johnsc12[edit]

Knight of Gloucestershire[edit]

Knight of Gloucestershire (talk · contribs)

I would like to be part of the coordinator team.

Comments and questions for Knight of Gloucestershire[edit]

Thanks to whoever helped me re-organize and put this post into the right format.

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I like military history. It's so fascinating and there's just so much to read and learn about. It's also nice to see how the past shapes the future world and poeple.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I could help out a lot if i'm needed. I do generally edit a variety of pages, and I like the tanks used in the WWII. I do know quite a lot of their history and it would be awesome if i could be part of the team.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?

-We need to let more people know us and what this project is all about.

-We need more people to contribute with their vast amount of knowledge.

-We need to raise awareness of the importance of military history. They shape the future world and the stories behind them are often fascinating.

  • Looking over your contributions, I see a lot of Hong Kong related edits, a lot of animal edits, but nothing relating to military history articles. Can you describe your interests in the subject, and how intend to contribute to this area of Wikipedia over the next year?

Over the next year i'll try and contribute as much as i possibly can to help the team. I'll do a lot of research and reading to enhance my knowledge. I'll edit mainly WWII Tanks-related articles.

Votes in support of Knight of Gloucestershire[edit]

  1. Support - I'm a little concerned about the short answers to the above questions, but you seem eager to help so I will assume good faith. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. I'd suggest diving into the editing and reviewing process a bit more, to get the full impact of the program and its projects. Like Tom, I'm concerned about the short answers and the apparent lack of experience and depth of knowledge. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish[edit]

MarcusBritish (talk · contribs)

Not sure what to say.. if you don't already know me already, or have not seen how I work within the project, there's not much I can say, other than by answering the questions below, and any more posed. I prefer to answer any direct questions than make a statement to qualify myself. "Would I make a good coord?" seems about the only question that should matter. Last year I chose not to be a candidate, having only been on Wikipedia for about 6–8 months,and I barely knew the ropes. Now it is about 18 months, with a lot more experience under my belt. I am involved in 3 WikiProjects, but do have other wider interests, however I feel they are already sufficiently populated by editors, and agree with the "too many cooks..." adage. I believe quality is represented in a professional approach. Sometimes an editor has what it takes to write GA/FA quality articles solo, whilst some efforts require a team of 2 or 3 editors to push it to the top. I think being a coord involves recognising the same processes. Sometimes a coord has to go it alone to get things done to their satisfaction, sometimes they need to rely on the team to achieve a greater result. Like real life.

Comments and questions for MarcusBritish[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Promoting and pushing for the introduction of the new List-class grading system, I suppose, was a fairly useful achievement. Took a while, but it seems to have finally got there, which helps give more articles in our scope a sense of what quality-standard they're at, rather than a generic "List" tag, and sets them apart from more prosey articles. I'm not going to take credit for the setup, only for voicing the idea until it was realised and is now part of the projects assessment scale.
    • Worked on a couple of Featured Portals related to two task-forces: American Civil War (updated it) and Napoleonic Wars (created from scratch).
    • I started to organise an effort to develop a whole range of low-quality American Civil War regiment articles, at personal expense, but was disappointed when other editors stopped showing interest in participating, very early in the process. Unfortunately, there is too much work involved for one editor to hope to achieve alone, and so I had to put it on the back seat for future consideration. (NB: This is by no means supposed to cast any doubt on those editors, more to indicate that I sometimes take a little pride in setting goals, rather than just attaining them.)
    • Wrote a couple of GA class articles, and working on other articles. Have an extensive "to do" list.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I am generally candid, resourceful, helpful, determined, forward-thinking and capable of achieving anything I set my mind to. I have a strong sense of NPOV/unbiased history, and common sense approach to describing difficult areas of history.
    • I like to prowl and gnome for lots of little tweaks and mends. I love the MOS, converting lists to tables (or vice versa), using templates that improve layout, adding/removing categories, tagging uncited/unref'd articles to promote development, adding the MILHIST banner where appropriate and/or regrading an article's class as required. Copy-editing is a relatively easy and rapid process, that can benefit a lot of articles in a short time, and the editor doesn't really need to be "interested" in the article to perform a few beneficial corrections. I use HotCat and Twinkle to aid me.
    • I have been approved for AWB but have still not learned how to use it for bulk tasks. Maybe as a coord I might make an excuse to learn, although sometimes I think I faster, and more cautious, when doing it myself with a standard browser. As far as AWB goes, I'd rather be taught how to use it as a tool, than learn from examples.. I didn't find the handbook very inspiring to teach me the software.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • Topmost, being the most obvious, is the lack of dedicated editors these days, and the numbers seem to be going in the wrong direction. I don't think I can personally do anything about that. What is important is to encourage current members in order to retain input, and hopefully stimulate less-active editors to get involved. I also want to promote growth by appraising more editors on a regular basis.. there is too much focus on the "regulars" and things that only interest coords. If we don't appeal to the wider community, and more of the topics this Milhist project is supposed to cover, we lose members. At the moment, it feels more like a WW2/battleships project. What of Napoleon? American Independence and Civil War? WWI? - I can't believe the special op. for that is grounded. The long and culturally-important medieval periods and Middle Ages, also barely acknowledged. Classical Greek, Roman periods, also barely get a mention. I feel the imbalance is harmful in some ways and wish editors could be found to broaden the project scope more actively.
    • Second, I think vandalism is a pressing issue. I don't support anonymous IP editing, and am pro-registration. Given that every motion to enforce registration has failed so far, again, little I can actually do except support it when the vote comes around. One of these days they're going to realise that anons-IPs, constituting >90% of vandalism, are a major waste of time, server space/bandwidth and resources, and we're better off just getting people to use accounts and taking responsibility for their actions. The counter-arguments are just not convincing enough. Yes, vandals could use free email accounts and sock, but registering over and over, finding unblocked IPs to register with also, is going to tire them out in the end. I think it's one of the reasons we lose a lot of dedicated members also.. because so many people work so hard to create GA/FA class material, and anon trolls vandalise them without punishment. If a registered troll did that they would be punished. It's like 2 people throwing stones at you – one has a balaclava, the other does not. It's easier to retaliate against the known offender and hold it against them indefinitely. In relation to Milhist, a lot of history is open to controversy – take the recent spurt of pro-Nazi edits, which were by anon-IPs. How much time should we have to waste against people like that? Is it fair? IMHO, no.
    • Lastly.. I think the MilHist project is loosing focus. Task forces are all but dead, Special ops are also pretty much dead apart from OMT. I feel that too many resources are being wasted having so many sub-pages in Milhist if they're barely used. We either need to stimulate attention for task forces, or call it quits and refocus our resources, combine them, or whatever needs to be done to encourage Milhist to find stronger footing, as it seems to me that along with most of wiki, it is loosing ground as interest falls away. I will try to offer ideas and lobby for structural changes to help shape Milhist into a stronger project rather than the disjointed effort it feels like, at present. I will stress that these weaknesses are no ones fault in particular, just a result of poor growth and not enough campaigning for new members or topic development beyond those I mentioned earlier.. but I don't want nothing to be done this year, and have it all pile up in a "too little, too late" effort later down the line when interest may be even lower.

Votes in support of MarcusBritish[edit]

  1. A Wikipedian career I've followed with interest. I was slightly disappointed that Marcus didn't stand last year and I'm very glad to see him standing this year—he has the requisite understanding of the project, he's written some impressive articles, and he contributes sensible ideas in discussions. In effect, he is already a coord, just without the title. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support. Haven't had a huge amount of interaction, but all good, and he is responsive and helpful. Good contributor who leads by example. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Well qualified, and has recently made some excellent suggestions for improvements to the project's administration on the coordinators' talk page (which, as a reminder, all editors are very welcome to post on). Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Yes always seems sensible and we can always use someone with interests outside of WWI, WWII & OMT. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support: Marcus has been very active in discussing ideas this past year and is very quickly developing his content skills. I think he would make a great new addition to the co-ord team. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. He's had a good year. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support - Kierzek (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. Has really come on strong in the past year. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support -- per Harry and Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - Intothatdarkness 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. A reformer at a time when Milhist, and possibly WP in general, needs reforming. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support, always willing to ask provocative questions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support - If what Sturmvogel 66 said is true then you would definetly be a welcome addition to the coordinator's circle. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support -Buistr (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC) .
  17. Support - per much of the above. Best of luck in the year to come. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

Nick-D (talk · contribs)

I've been a member of this project for about six years, and have served as one of the coordinators from September 2008 to March 2010, and again since last October. I've also contributed to the project by reviewing articles, responding to queries/requests for input, commenting on deletion discussions, contributing to the development of guidelines and essays as well as writing articles for the project's newsletter (including establishing the book review section). I've also written and contributed to a very large number of military history articles. I've enjoyed being 'back in the saddle' as a coordinator over the last year, and think (and hope!) that I've done my fair share of tasks. I think that the main priority for the project over the next year will continue to be encouraging editor retention (including through supporting new editors and helping experienced editors remain motivated). Other priorities include revitalizing the A and B class review processes and trying to figure out a solution to the perennial problem of how to keep special projects going.

Comments and questions for Nick-D[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I'm particularly proud of the articles I've developed to GA and higher status (my current tally is 19 FAs, 6 A class and 13 GAs), as well as my smaller contributions to other high-class articles and the many B class articles I've contributed towards. I also think that I've made a significant contribution towards the project's review processes (especially A class reviews and the reviews of FA nominations), and that my previous periods as a coordinator were successful.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I'm very experienced in this project and Wikipedia more generally and am pretty knowledgeable about military history (especially from 1914 onwards), and think that I'm well placed to provide advice and make useful interventions. I'm also highly familiar with the responsibilities of the project's coordinators, as well as the history of how these have evolved. While it is in no way a requirement for coordinators, I am also an administrator and can help out with tasks which require the admin tools (though I'd obviously also continue to do so if this nomination isn't successful!).
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • Good question! I identified three issues above, and my suggested solutions to them are:
      • 1) (editor retention) The most effective measure to keep established editors engaged is to continue to encourage a collegial and positive editing environment; ways this could be improved include better recognition of achievements (for instance, congratulatory messages for successful A-class and FA nominations) as well as assistance in dealing with Randy in Boise and his ilk. New editors should be supported through the provision of welcoming messages and polite advice (especially advice which takes into account the fact that they're on a steep learning curve!) as well as congratulatory messages for successful nominations.
      • 2) (revitalizing the A and B class review processes) This one is a bit tricky; I might pass the buck a bit by noting the discussion at WT:MHCOORD#More reviewers which Dank recently started and where a number of good suggestions have been raised. Part of the solution will be some form of stronger encouragement for people who nominate articles for review to also post some reviews of other articles - I'm not sure if requiring quid-pro-quo type reviews is the best option, but messages from coordinators to encourage nominators to post reviews (as is done at WP:GAN) seems uncontroversial
      • 3) (keeping special projects going) The key lesson from the very successful (WP:OMT was that a critical mass of highly motivated editors is needed to get a project going, and these editors then need to support and encourage one another. While it's natural for all projects to eventually fade away, and some to never take off, coordinators could play a greater role in encouraging participants to plan and bounce ideas off each other via the project's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes in support of Nick-D[edit]

  1. For - NickD has given me advice on one of my projects which proved invaluable. I have seen him assist others on numerous occasions, always with the same helpful and friendly attitude. He also keeps a watchful eye on some of my projects and helps settle disputes, weighing in with his vast knowledge and experience. He for me embodies the spirit of helpfulness and working together that so many admins seem to have lost Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. +1. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Seconded. Nick is one of the small number of reviewers who keep the ACR process running, and one of our hardest-working coords. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support. Have had a bit to do with him via my tentative forays into helping out with ACRs and otherwise on MILHIST in general. Dedicated and helpful. No nonsense and firm, but positive and a major contributor. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Yes will be an asset to the project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support: Dominates many aspects of the project (that's a good thing!). As per my comment on Ian Rose, I'd want Nick to review Ian's article if I was Wikinotable! ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support. --Rskp (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. Good all rounder. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - Kierzek (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support. Immensely knowledgeable on 20th century military history topics. Fearless, patient and persistent. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. Helpful wonderful guy. -- Dianna (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support -- difficult to add to what's already been said; Nick is simply one of the best people around. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support. I hope Nick's contributions outside the project don't get overly controversial, but no sign of that recently that I know of. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    (They haven't been at all controversial so far :) - at least that I know of!) Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support - Intothatdarkness 19:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Yes please. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support, glad to see that he's running again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support, --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support Farawayman (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. No brainer. Keep up the great work, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  30. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  31. Support. Gavbadger (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  32. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  33. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  34. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  35. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  36. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria[edit]

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

Hello! I've been a member and coord for MilHist since last September, but have been reviewing and writing in the military history area for several years. My main area of interest is Canadian military history, although I review just about anything and have been trying to find quirky topics that haven't yet been covered.

Comments and questions for Nikkimaria[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Probably both writing and reviewing: I've a few FAs of my own and have reviewed pretty much every other MilHist FAC.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • Although my RL background isn't history-related, I do have experience with researching, writing, and reviewing. More broadly, I know my way around Wikipedia and am an administrator, so can help out with work in that area.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • Probably my top three choices would be editor retention, stagnation and other problems across various review processes, and perhaps some conflict between Foundation and community priorities. These are issues affecting Wikipedia as a whole, but for our part, we should strive to bring new editors into the project and into reviewing, bring issues that matter to our project (such as gaining access to research and image databases) to the attention of the community/WMF, and generally trying to be as open and transparent as possible.

Votes in support of Nikkimaria[edit]

  1. An excellent reviewer and very patient, sensible editor. Nikki's experience on Wikipedia is perhaps slightly different to that of most coords, which is a valuable asset to have on the coord team, and her FAC experience in particular is extremely useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Great work as a coordinator in the last term, as well as many other contributions to Wikipedia Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support: good work last term as a co-ord, and I'm sure Nikki will continue to be an asset to the co-ord team. Thanks for your efforts. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support. --Rskp (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. Nikki has done essential work on many more Featured Article candidates than anyone else; she's also a delegate at Featured Article Review, a prodigious military history writer, and a key player and a calm voice in so many other processes. Check out her talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support -- tireless contributor to A/FAC/FAR processes, and great to see her efforts as article writer recognised over the past year as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support - particularly the FA(C) experience. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Brings something different to the table. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support, greatly appreciate her attention to the tedious minutiae of footnote and reference formatting in my ACRs and FACs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - per Ed and Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. Buistr (talk)
  15. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

RoslynSKP[edit]

RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)

Hi, I've been editing the Sinai and Palestine campaign for a couple of years, have edited some articles up to GA and am working on more now.

Comments and questions for RoslynSKP[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Getting my first GA article and some barnstars recognising contributions I've made to the Sinai and Palestine campaign
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I am passionate about Wikipedia and its ability to educate. I want to help the Milhist project flourish, support and encourage quality discourse and quality edits. --Rskp (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • Improve the standard of articles to GA level, which I am continuing in the S & P area.
    • Be more welcoming and supportive to new editors, and those who are finding their feet, especially when getting used to all the layout conventions and the different quotes and tags etc. I don't know how all these work yet either, but am willing to help others when I can.
    • Reconsider decision-making within our project, to more amicably resolve arguments in polite scholarly discussion rather than by bullying. This may just need a closer watch on our project's discussion page, which I would be happy to contribute to. --Rskp (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you edited any other military history related pages besides those relating to the Sinai and Palestine campaign? If so, what were the pages, and what edits did you make?

Votes in support of RoslynSKP[edit]

  1. I quite like what Roslyn has done and am a bit shocked that you haven't received any support yet. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support - per Ed, you've done some good work so far, and I look forward to what you'll do in the future. Best of luck. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support, as I've said above, new blood from outside existing specialty topic areas is always a bonus. Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Ok, having poured through contributions the last few days I think that your the kind of person we do in fact need here on this panel. I am concerned about the limited answers to the above questions, but the contributions swayed me to through in on the support camp on this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support Arius1998 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. Some great work in a generally-neglected area. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The ed17[edit]

The ed17 (talk · contribs)

Hello everyone. 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 three co-opted coordinators in November 2008 before being elected in my own right in March 2009. Other significant points in my wiki-history include my first featured article in October 2008, becoming an administrator in September 2009, and becoming editor-in-chief of the Signpost in May 2012. I have also spent quite a bit of time writing articles; I have authored or co-authored twenty-one featured articles and ten A-class or good articles over the last three years. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments and questions for The ed17[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I'm most proud of the articles I've written, including the South American dreadnought race series with Sturmvogel. Getting to work with the members of Operation Majestic Titan over the last several years has been a major highlight as well. Otherwise, I'm very proud of my work on the Bugle over the last several years, although the newsletter has lagged in recent times.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • I've been a coordinator for quite some time (almost four years; has it really been that long already?), so I know my way around the project. I don't typically close reviews, but I do comment on the coordinator's talk page relatively often, and I occasionally adjudicate Milhist-related disputes as a coordinator.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues?
    • I'm going to take this question in a different direction. There's quite a few interrelated issues facing our project, some of which we have little control over (editor retention, for one). So, instead of listing three issues here, I'm going to point out what I think is the most beneficial thing we could do for the project – being the wiki-wide movement's front with military history-related institutions. I am not currently in a great position to be the frontperson, as time is a limiting factor, but I'd love to get a small group of coordinators together and get in contact with some of the leading institutions active military history to try and negotiate a Bundesarchiv-, NARA-, or State Library of Queensland-like donation of images. Out of the entire wiki movement, I believe we are in the best position to do this. The Milhist project has already seen some success through User:The Land, and I think we can build on this in the XI coordinator tranche.

Votes in support of The ed17[edit]

  1. Support. Just his work on the Signpost alone makes him a major contributor to this WikiProject, let alone all the other work he does, particulary on warship articles (not my area but I appreciate a contributor when I see one). Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Excellent work on warships and the Bugle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Ed has made a huge contribution as a coordinator, and also does great work developing articles Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Yes will be an asset to the project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. +1. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Another great user, both as a contributor and as a reviewer. Constantine 17:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support: excellent contributions and very experienced. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. Very experienced, great reviewer. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - Kierzek (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support. In addition to all the above, he's a long-time judge of the WikiCup and an Online Ambassador, and just generally seems to be everywhere and know everything about Wikipedia. Always has clueful comments at the coordinators' talk page and elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support -- definitely would not be the same project without Ed's contributions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. For his work on the Signpost and Bugle. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support - TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support -Buistr (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support Farawayman (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - seems like a hat collector: admin, editor for the Signpost, now coordinator, what next? Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support Woody (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support - --Lecen (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  30. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  31. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  32. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  33. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TomStar81[edit]

TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

Being as how it appears that we are still in need of a few good contributors, I will throw my name in the ring for the election. I've been a coordinator for the this project for what feels like forever, and served as its Lead Coordinator some years back. I've been something of an idea man for the project, making numerous recommendations for project improvements and overseeing a handful of influential experiments, arguably the most notable of which is being the one to introduce the special project concept to milhist with the founding of Operation Majestic Titan. I suspect that most of the vets have formed some opinion of my actions and contributions to this circle over the years, and if you are new to the project you'll find me to be helpful (if at times clueless) in making sure you get an answer to a question. Given that Wikipedia as a whole has been on a decline for a couple of years now I do not think we will too busy in this coordinator cycle, but in case anyone is curious my semi-retirement should not infringe on my ability to read, review, and otherwise assist here.

Comments and questions for TomStar81[edit]

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I'd be hard pressed to pick only a few things since there are a great many things I feel I have been involved in, but to single a few of the more well known examples out I was the one who suggested the two tier award system for our chevron with oak leaves award, I founded WP:OMT, and I have penned a number of essays in the academy section of our project. I take a quiet pride on the Iowa-class battleships Featured Topic, of which I was heavily involved, though I note that through a combination of apathy, shifting standards, and reduced free time the quality has slid somewhat over the last few years.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
    • Unless I am mistaken I hold the high score for years served in the coordinator field, going all the way back to the days when Kirill occupied our chair. As such, I have a good feel for the work that needs to be done both out on the stage and behind the scenes. As noted above, I am/was usually one of the guys to suggest ways by which the project may be improved through the implementation of new ideas. Both could be useful skills at the moment.
  • In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues facing either Wikipedia as a whole or our project specifically, and what do you plan to do to address these issues? ;-)
    • Ok, I had that coming :) The way I see it, the three most pressing issues are as follows:
      • Our editor retention across the site is in something of a free fall. Everyone is so busy conducting research and forming committees to look into the matter that they have completely missed the basics of keeping editors on site: welcome the newcomers - including the beneficial isp editors who do their part to contribute usefully by copy-editing and making useful suggestions for the articles - and the newly registered users with friendly messages, remembering that articles created without citations do not need be axed immediately since most of our decent articles started off as simple one or two liners, or with a handful of paragraphs with little to citations. We need to treat the elder editors with respect, reaching out to them with questions and comments, and remembering that rewards such as barnstars should be given for decent service and issued much more liberally than they are currently issued.
      • Lackluster-ness. Admittedly, we do not need fireworks and laser light shows for every occasion, but in the last few years we have nothing of special note to entice people to visit with: no article drives, no backlog clearing events, nothing of this nature. I can recall the last time we had either a tag and assess drive or a B-class assessment drive, and that was back in 2007 and 2008, respectively. In other words its been four and a half years - that's years - since we had anything abnormal to celebrate. Admittedly, not everything we try to help retain editors works - our working groups, for example, fell through do to being too narrow in focus, while the other three major special projects are short handed since there was apparently an insufficient number of editors to get the special projects up to critical mass. I disagree with the above comment that we are devolving into a battleship like group, yet it does seem that most of the major contributions are being worked up over at OMT. A push to reinvigorate the task forces with editors who would be interested in participating may help reignite the interest in the project.
      • Infrastructure: Our infrastructure is in need of some fine tuning; we need to prune out less active task forces and consolidate them into more active units. In a radical move, we may want to reevaluate the task forces in their entirety by making them exclusively fleets in being for the purpose of categorizing our articles into more manageable bites for inventory reasons, and leaving the editing formally done by the task forces in the hands of the special projects. To give an example, we can leave the military land vehicles task force intact as a fleet in being, with the editors encouraged to id themselves with the greater military history project, and if a group of 8-10 editors come together and decide they want to focus on tasks we can encourage them to create a special project to that end. Its just one idea, but it could help us shed some weight, which in turn may help us gain and retain editors.

Votes in support of TomStar81[edit]

  1. Would be good to have you back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. This is a no-brainer given your huge contributions as a coordinator over the years. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Another editor who would be missed if not around. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. +1. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Definitely yes. Constantine 17:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support: definately. Tom has a lot of experience, which will be of great benefit to the next co-ord tranche. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support. dci | TALK 22:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support. Has been devoted to this project for a very long time. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. -- Dianna (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support -- per Nick; be great to see Tom back as coord. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. No qualms. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support - Intothatdarkness 19:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Brings a different perspective than most of us. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support. I will note, however, that we've run a couple of GAN review drives and at least one backlog drive in the last couple of years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    Noted, but to me GAN doesn't exactly count only because its a Wikipedia-wide thing rather than a strictly milhist thing. That said, the backlog drive does count in my mind, so I'll give you that one :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Of course - glad to see you're still hanging in there. Keep it up. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. auntieruth (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support. —Ed!(talk) 13:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support. --MOLEY (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

General comments, questions, etc.[edit]

  • I don't intend to vote. I've had the pleasure to work with each of you at sometime or another and I think any of you will do fine as coordinator. Good luck!--v/r - TP 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The current set of coordinators have done a fine job over the years, however there is a geographical self-selected bias in that other regions are not well represented in the coordinator team. Due to recent actions in controversial topics, it is unlikely I will ever be able to become a coordinator (or an Admin for that matter), so maybe in a year or two I may self-nominate. If it is possible to nominate others, I have a couple ideas for this year though.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The more the merrier! Discuss your ideas with them on their talk pages. Note that we've put a lot of energy this year into collaborating with people working on all sorts of different things from all over the globe. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This year's team certainly had a lot of Aussies, though apart from in the Bugle, this didn't show too often. I expect the coord team is usually built up mostly of Americans, Brits, Aussies, and Canadians, but only because this is English Wikipedia. Other Wikis have their own military history projects, I'm sure the French and German versions, for example, exhibit less geographical representation than us, due to less people speaking their languages, or simply because they're smaller Wikis and most editors prefer to just work on this one? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to note that I have left a brief courtesy message with both Johnsc12 and Knight of Gloucestershire regarding answering questions, given that they are new faces to the project, it is probably more important for them to let us know more about themselves. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.