Open main menu

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2018

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Coordinators
The election is now closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OverviewEdit

This election is to appoint the project coordinator team for one year, from 30 September 2018 to 29 September 2019. A total of ten coordinators will be elected, including the lead coordinator(s), with scope to vary the total number of coordinators if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position. 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(s), 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.

ResponsibilitiesEdit

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators:

The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group.

The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.

Practical information on coordinating may be found here and here.

The current coordinators are:

Name Position Standing for re-election?
AustralianRupert Lead Co-ordinator No
Auntieruth55 Co-ordinator yes
Biblioworm Co-ordinator No
Cinderella157 Co-ordinator Yes
HJ Mitchell Co-ordinator No
KCVelaga Co-ordinator No
Ian Rose Co-ordinator Yes
Iazyges Co-ordinator Yes
Parsecboy Co-ordinator Yes
Peacemaker67 Co-ordinator Yes
The ed17 Co-ordinator No
TomStar81 Co-ordinator Nominated for Coordinator Emeritus
Zawed Co-ordinator (co-opted) Yes

Election processEdit

  • Nomination period: 00:01 UTC, 01 September to 23:59 UTC, 14 September 2018.
  • Voting period: 00:01 UTC, 15 September to 23:59 UTC, 28 September 2018.
  • 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 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. Membership of the project is broadly construed as any editor currently involved in the project's work. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the lead coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); this position may be shared in the event that multiple candidates receive the highest number of endorsements. The remaining candidates will be appointed as coordinators to a maximum of ten appointments (including the lead coordinator), although 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.

CandidatesEdit

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 20:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


AdamdaleyEdit

Adamdaley (talk · contribs)

Being a coordinator in the past in 2011–2012 and 2014–2015. Would like to finally stand for a term. Adamdaley (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments and questions for AdamaleyEdit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Firstly, it has been the Rudolf Abel article and been able to serve for 2 terms of Coordinator
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • Trying to get the backlog down.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Germany went to war. They had to sustain the war effort by having some factory-related sites throughout Europe, until they were defeated in 1945. Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not following you. Could you clarify your opinion on the case decision? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Germany, declared war on several countries in 1939. "They" (...Germany), had to sustain their war effort with factories until their defeat in 1945. Adamdaley (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Adamdaley, this question is about the Arbitration Committee case called "German war effort" which closed recently. The link to the decision is in the question if you're not familiar with it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly, that's too academic for me. So it goes over my head unfortunately. Adamdaley (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Adamdaley, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
  • For a consensus, I define it by using not only by other Wikipedia users, but also with the sources available for that article. For example, Rudolf Abel, there were two spelling varieties for Rudolf or Rudolph. Rudolf was widely used more than Rudolph within the sources I had. Adamdaley (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of AdamdaleyEdit

  1. Support Adam does a lot of work behind the scenes working on the backlog and assessing new articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the project's hardest-working members. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support-- Eddie891 Talk Work 11:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Asiaticus (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Supportusernamekiran(talk) 18:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support KCVelaga (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support Djmaschek (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. SupportMojoworker (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Arius1998Edit

Arius1998 (talk · contribs)

This project has been one of the first since I began working in Wikipedia. In 2012, I am one of the recipients of the Military History Newcomer Award, a testament to my work for the project. In the same year, I also ran for the coordinator election. While failing to secure the position, I garnered the most support votes for any newcomer then. This year, I believe I am in a better standing for the coordinator election for being a more experienced candidate. Since 2013, I have been heading a task force in another project. Hard work and passion for the discipline is my strong point, and I am confident that if this carried me six years ago, it will again do so today. My educational background in history, political science, and public administration can also be of help for the project.

Comments and questions for Arius1998Edit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • I believe my few positive qualities, including industry and dedication, could contribute in this project. While many of the my contributions are confined in the Filipino context, I am also working on expanding my work to Asian military histories, particularly those related to the colonial periods. In my personal observation, the project is lacking in active editors with expertise in areas beyond American and European spheres. It would be a great boost for the project to have editors who can also work with such lesser known areas. As a historian at heart and in practice, I make it a guiding principle that bias ought to be minimized if we are to hope that what we write contributes to the discipline. At best, conclusions in history are tentative. This dynamic nature of our field is the very reason why we continually work even if these are already part of our past.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • There is no contest with the general principles of Wikipedia invoked in the case. These are mere reiteration of principles which have been already existing within and beyond the project. However, I have reservations with the specifics as exhibited in the findings of fact and the remedies. The aim of any editor is to improve this fountain of free knowledge, and considering the sheer number of people accessing this platform, the significance of the work we do is more pronounced than ever. Even as coordinators, there are limitations to what we can do, but I believe that we have to do so in cooperation with the editors who have similar ideals and desires, albeit there are differences with the methods being used. We live in a shared world, and sharing of knowledge is what built Wikipedia in the first place. Let us continue sharing this one world with everyone who believe in the power of our ideals. Arius1998 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Arius1998, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
    • I believe consensus means general agreement, not only between editors, but also with the sources available. In history, conclusions are at best tentative. Therefore, if any consensus is reached today, we must also be prepared for changes tomorrow. Meanwhile, I think that key to achieving consensus is having the mindset to agree on something. When editors have differing views and have no intention to give ground in the first place, there is not much to be accomplished. Since there are as many views as there are heads, I believe that we must first strive to agree on the most acceptable outcome for all involved sides. Arius1998 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please provide your views on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Inappropriate_exclusivity and comment on what you do and will do to help MILHIST remain vigilant against walled garden assumptions and behaviors. This is something that all WikiProjects are at risk for; a very human thing but harmful to the project itself and the wider project. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This is indeed a risk that is faced by Wikipedia in general. I think that prudence in editing must prevail. When in doubt, read more, ask more. While we are only people, editors working together can help build bridges than walls. Arius1998 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of Arius1998Edit

  1. Support always good to have some new blood in the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. Alex Shih (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Clikity (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support Why not? NetrualEditor (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support --Rosiestep (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support KCVelaga (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. One of the primary roles of the coordinator team is to maintain the content review processes, for which you seem well qualified. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support --Molestash (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support scope_creep (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

AuntieruthEdit

Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of the project since 2009, and previously have served as a coordinator since 2014. I have master's degrees in communications, in US History and another in European history, and a PhD in European history. My fields of study were war and society, nationalism, cultural history, and Central Europe (which includes Germany, Switzerland, Austria, northern Italy, parts of France, etc.) I have edited or contributed to featured articles on the Napoleonic wars, French Revolutionary wars, Seven Years war, Cologne War, etc. I've also been drafted to help with copyediting some of WWII biographies. This summer, I've slogged through about 100 of the MH backlog at Good Articles.

Comments and questions for AuntieruthEdit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • the advancement of articles by "newbies" through GA and A class.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • Copy editing. Regular monitoring of GA and assessment backlog. Through my university connections, I have access to a variety of academic sources and databases, and do some fact-checking/source checking.
  • To anticipate PeterTheFourth's question: Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? I echo Hawkeye7's response:
    I had no concern with the principles stated in the finding, but I did not agree with the findings of fact. These misrepresented the larger picture because of the limitations of their own rules. ArbCom's own rules prohibit FoF based on material not on the evidence page, and a considerable amount of "fact" was either omitted from the evidence page, disqualified from the page, or misrepresented. Like Hawkeye7, though, I will abide by the remedies presented and register my disagreement with the process at the upcoming ArbCom elections. auntieruth (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Auntieruth, you say "ArbCom's own rules prohibit FoF based on material not on the evidence page." Where are those rules? I don't see them in the Arbitration policy. Under "Admissibility of evidence", it says:
"In all proceedings, admissible evidence includes:
  1. All Wikipedia edits and log entries, including deleted or otherwise hidden edits and log entries;
  2. Edits and log entries from Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia, where appropriate; and
  3. Posts to official mailing lists."[1]
Note "All Wikipedia edits and log entries". There's nothing there AFAICS about evidence needing to appear on the evidence page for it to be admissible. Is that rule somewhere else? I'm asking the same question of Hawkeye7, since you do indeed echo his response in this respect. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC).
Hmm yes--I spent some time on ArbCom. This "rule" is new to me as well. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the confusion here relates to this requirement for community members posting in Aritration Workshops - from WP:ARBGUIDE: Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page. You are expected to link to the applicable sections of the /Evidence page, and to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Auntieruth55, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
  • Hi Ruth. I've long admired your article work and I've supported you in previous coordinator elections but I'm concerned that ArbCom specifically singled out your conduct for criticism in the German War Effort case. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on that. For example, do you think their criticisms were fair? Would you do anything differently if you could start over? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of Auntieruth55Edit

  1. Support Ruth has done a prodigious amount of reviewing in the last year, especially at GAN, on top of her content creation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Tremendous work on German military history articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. Alex Shih (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support --Eddie891 Talk Work 11:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. SupportERcheck (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. SupportAsiaticus (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support -- YuriNikolai (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support --Rosiestep (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. A stalwart of the project -- thanks for standing again, Ruth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support A ceaseless backroom worker. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support Regardless of what ARBCOM thinks, I know you to be a good hearted, level headed contributor whose always acted fairly in support of editors, articles, and the project as a whole. You have my full faith and confidence, Antiruth55. Carry on, and never lose that heart of yours ;-) TomStar81 (Talk)
  20. SupportThales Rodrigues de Miranda (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support --Pudeo (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support Djmaschek (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  30. Support--Molestash (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  31. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support-- Cuprum17 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  33. Support-- Murat (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  34. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  35. Support Cinderella157 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella157Edit

Cinderella157 (talk · contribs)

A first term coord last year, I am throwing my hat in the ring again. I have contributed to the operation of the project through the year though not as much in the latter part for RW reasons. I have learnt a lot about the procedures that keep the project ticking over but also have more to learn. Part of my contribution has been to improve documentation of project procedures and preserve the project's corporate knowledge. I believe that I can continue to contribute to the project, including the more mundane routine aspects.

Comments and questions for Cinderella157Edit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I have collaborated closely with a number of other editors on articles related to the Southwest Pacific in WW2.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • I am an analytical person. In the past year, I have collaborated with others to identify opportunities for improving the operation of the project.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    The principles are sound; however, the balance of the decision generally lacks credibility. It is compromised by a failing to address and reconcile a number of matters transparently and in accordance with the policy governing ArbCom. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    PeterTheFourth, I do not presume to answer your recent question to Hawkeye7 for them but this would be my own response. Fairness is a stated objective of ArbCom (see the open paragraph of an active evidence page). Transparency is a matter of ArbCom policy. My understanding is that fairness is achieved by objectively weighing [all of the] evidence. Transparency is achieved by sufficiently indicating how evidence has been weighed to reach a fair decision. It serves to demonstrate that a decision is free from bias and well founded. Per WP:5P5, I believe it reflects that the principles and spirit of natural justice should be abided. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Hi Euryalus, please see immediately above. Your recent comment here, raises for me as many questions as it resolves. To me, your response seems to suggest that private evidence is more the norm than the exception and that such evidence dissolves the requirement for transparency. The ArbGuide you linked indicates that private evidence (in public cases) is generally limited to preserving RW privacy. Substantive reasons for private evidence are not inconsistent with transparency to the extent and limitation that the reasons for private evidence (eg privacy) are not compromised. If the reasons for an ArbCom decision are well founded and transparent, there is little if any reasonable reason to question it. Yet, a substantial majority of nominees have some degree of reservation about the GWE decision. I believe that the basis for this lies in the perception of fairness and [the lack of] transparency per my above? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    Cinderella157, sorry for the delayed response I was away a few days. Genuine private evidence is rare, though plenty of people send things via email and get redirected to case pages. I think the Committees I've been on have been pretty good with the way they review private evidence. Where they might have done better (me included) is in discussing public evidence on-wiki more often, rather than on mailing lists. For example case workshops, which are still under-used but are a great opportunity for the Committee to engage with the case parties on the allegations and evidence presented in the case. But I reckon we're a bit off topic on this - if there's interest in this issue it might more usefully be raised in the Q&A of the upcoming Arbcom elections. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Cinderella157, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
    Consensus is what one can reasonably live with. In general, it should be consistent with policy and in articles, it should be consistent with sources. It requires two conditions: that the differing positions can be defined objectively and that the proponents are open to building consensus. To your hypothetical, my actions in any such case would depend on the particulars of the case. Generally, I would consider the strengths and weaknesses of each position objectively. Often, this will suggest a possible solution which can be refined through discussion. If the process stalls, neutrally seeking further input (such as posting to MilHist TP) is probably the next step. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    47thPennVols, if your hypoyhetical refers to a review close, please see the guidance for closing and Peacemaker67's response, which reflects this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please provide your views on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Inappropriate_exclusivity and comment on what you do and will do to help MILHIST remain vigilant against walled garden assumptions and behaviors. This is something that all WikiProjects are at risk for; a very human thing but harmful to the project itself and the wider project. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    Jytdog, looking at your link (exclusivity), I see two threads: exclusion from voting for Co-ord positions and exclusion from discussion (comments, questiions or suggestions). To the first, I donot see anybody checking that voters here are "card carrying members" and actively being exclusive. I have taken onboard the link to more subtle exclusion and edited the voting eligibility accordingly. I trust that the principle of my edit will be carried forward into the future. To the second: I see nothing in project material that "assumes" a restriction to membership (broadly construed), and particularly at MilHist TP. Does your question refer to a response to "behaviors" I might become aware of in my potential future role as a Co-ord? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    It is a general question. It includes what you asked about, including your own behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    Jytdog, I am sorry but your reply is perfectly unclear to me. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    This is not the forum in which to explain this fundamental guidance for all WikiProjects; the section has existed since 2009. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    Jytdog, I am not asking for an explanation of "this fundamental guidance" which is quite clear, but for clarification of the scope of your question, which is less than clear to me. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    I am sorry it is unclear to you. I asked it as clearly as I can. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    To be fair to Cinderella, I'd never read that section before and I've been doing this for years. The principle of it is basis but it reads like it was written by someone with an axe to grind and it needs a serious copy edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    It looks incomplete to me, as if it were a part of a project that was abandoned in 2010. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Cinderella, same question as with Ruth above. Your conduct was criticised by ArbCom to the point that you received a topic ban. What do you think went wrong? Do you think the judgement was fair? Would you do things differently if you could start over? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Hi HJ Mitchell, per the GWE question above, I believe that generally, there are serious and significant deficiencies in the decision regarding transparency and at least the appearance of fairness. The responses by other nominees here, indicate I am not alone in my concerns. In the course of the PD, I raised a number of concerns. Explicitly, it was not to question the validity of the decisions but with the expectation of making them transparent IAW policy. My greatest mistake. This is the short version. There are always things one might do differently in hind sight. I have largely owned these in the course of the case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    From what I can gather about this case in the time I can allocate, you were a participant in good faith discussions, although I saw reference to WP:SPIDERMAN at some point. The issues under discussion in the comments themselves, specifically driveby tagging with OD (?!) as justification for subsequent revision are substantial and I trust are not taken to be affected by the decision - good to see the consensus building on this important issue. Policy is a double-edged sword. Regardless, good to see editors and coordinators willing to pick up a few scars. Doug (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of Cinderella157Edit

  1. Support Cinderella has been been excellent with newer members of the project, patient and tolerant. Also an excellent content creator. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support A great content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Vermont (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Carptrash (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Asiaticus (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Endlessly patient with newcomers to the project. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support Given that you have not been dismayed by the ARBCOM decision and have instead elected to stand again for coodinatorship I salute your courage and resolve by adding my support. Take care not to lose your lion heart or your integrity, and good luck both here and out in the article space. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support Thales Rodrigues de Miranda (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support --Pudeo (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support per TomStar. Doug (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye7Edit

Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of the project since 2006, and previously served as a coordinator from 2011 to 2016. I have a master's degree and a PhD in military history. I have written or contributed to 66 Featured articles, mostly on military topics. Lately most of my attention has been on articles about the UK nuclear weapons programme.

Comments and questions for Hawkeye7Edit

In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains,
On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows,
In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame,
The good deeds a man has done before defend him.

  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • I have an academic background in military history and access to academic libraries and databases. I also maintain the MilHistBot, which performs many of our administrative chores.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    I have no concern with the principles. I cannot agree with the findings of fact (FoF). ArbCom's own rules prohibit FoF based on material not on the evidence page, but not all the FoF here are so supported, which is not surprising because they are wrong. In another case, it was pointed out that a FoF was factually incorrect, but they voted for it anyway. ArbCom believes that it is entitled to its own facts. FoF in ArbCom cases therefore have no credibility whatsoever. However, we must pay attention to the remedies. And we have our opportunity to register our displeasure as a bloc at the upcoming ArbCom elections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hawkeye7, you say "ArbCom's own rules prohibit FoF based on material not on the evidence page." Where are those rules? I don't see them in the Arbitration policy. Under "Admissibility of evidence", it says:
"In all proceedings, admissible evidence includes:
  1. All Wikipedia edits and log entries, including deleted or otherwise hidden edits and log entries;
  2. Edits and log entries from Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia, where appropriate; and
  3. Posts to official mailing lists."[2]
Note "All Wikipedia edits and log entries". There's nothing there AFAICS about evidence needing to appear on the evidence page for it to be admissible. Is that rule somewhere else? I'm asking the same question of Auntieruth, since she echoes your response in this respect. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC).
That refers to what may be placed on the evidence page. the Committee normally expects evidence to be posted publicly unless there are compelling reasons not to do Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
So, a non sequitur? Drmies (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Can you tell me where the rule you referred to is, please, Hawkeye? Another candidate, Auntieruth55, has copypasted your mention of it to her own reply, presumably because she trusted that you knew what you were talking about. Bishonen | talk 00:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC).
From the Arbcom policy page: Evidence may be submitted privately, but the Committee normally expects evidence to be posted publicly unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. The Committee will decide whether to admit each submission of private evidence on its own merits and, if admitted, the evidence will be considered at a private hearing. To my knowledge Arbcom has not explained what "compelling reasons" apply in this case. This is not technically a rule, but it is on their policy page and as such would, I assume, be considered policy, and it follows logically that they ought to adhere to their own policies. Furthermore, Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances. Kges1901 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Is that it? FGS. How does that say ArbCom is obliged (obliges itself) to base FoFs on submitted evidence only, and are prohibited from doing their own research? From using their own eyes to read "all Wikipedia edits and log entries"? It seems absurd to me to draw such a conclusion from what their policy details about how evidence can be submitted. Not to mention that such a rule would be bureaucracy gone mad. If it existed, don't you think it would be spelled out? Bishonen | talk 07:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC).
It is absolutely required in order for the process to have fairness, transparency and accountability. Evidence obtained otherwise is not subject to scrutiny or challenge, and the reasoning behind resulting findings cannot be followed or subsequently reproduced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Is this a rule that ArbCom have about FoFs, or a personal conviction? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we've established that it's not just my personal conviction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I have yet to see this established. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
PeterTheFourth, it is certainly not a rule, but established practice. There are some contradictions in regards to what is being written, what is being perceived and what is being done on regular basis. I will probably raise some of these points in the upcoming AC election. Alex Shih (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Posted this in a section above, but ift fits here as well. Perhaps the confusion here relates to this requirement for community members posting in Arbitration Workshops - from WP:ARBGUIDE: Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page. You are expected to link to the applicable sections of the /Evidence page, and to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact. There's a logical reason for this distinction - the community-based workshop proposals ideally draw on the available dataset on-wiki and don't contain unsupported claims, while the arbs might have access to private info that supports a PD finding but which can't be spelled out on the case pages. This puts an additional onus on arbitrators to be rigorous in assessing private material, because the community will be asked to accept case outcomes where the basis for them is not completely open to review. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Thanks for clarifying, Euryalus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, Hawkeye7, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
    Consensus is a decision-making process that seeks to establish as broad an agreement among group members as possible. On Wikipedia, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments, which are based upon our mission, pillars, policies and procedures, and not by numbers or the strength of convictions. It does not require that all editors have the same points of view, and in fact works best when they do not. I am always willing to change my mind based upon well-reasoned arguments. My personal approach is to ascertain if the differing points of view can still be accommodated in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please provide your views on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Inappropriate_exclusivity and comment on what you do and will do to help MILHIST remain vigilant against walled garden assumptions and behaviors. This is something that all WikiProjects are at risk for; a very human thing but harmful to the project itself and the wider project. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    There is no "dramatically increasing bureaucratic overhead to maintain current lists", despite the fact that we have one of the largest member lists, because we assigned the task of maintaining the list to our MilHistBot. A monthly run checks whether the current members are still active, and moves the inactive ones to the inactive list. It also checks whether any inactive members have become active again. The list enables members to contact others working in certain areas and thereby facilitates collaboration. We should get someone to redraft that section to remove the muddled and contradictory first two paragraphs to emphasise the sentiments expressed in the third. As far as I am aware, the only place where membership is a factor is in the election of our coordinators. All editors that approach the project with comments, questions, or suggestions are welcome and treated with courtesy. We have always worked closely with other projects, as our subject area is quite broad. I have encountered nothing but collegiality in collaboration with other project on books (Smyth Report), court cases (Kinsella v. Krueger, United States v. The Progressive), films (The Beginning or the End), astronauts (Alan Shepard) and more. For many years, we have had a coordinator on ArbCom. The upcoming ArbCom election may provide an opportunity to re-establish this bond with the broader editor community. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hawkeye7, I apologise in advance at the length of this post. It is my intent both to make clear my concerns and to provide you with an open field to address them as you sees fit – and that, of course, includes declining to respond in some parts if you see the topic as unconnected to your prospective coordinator role. I thank you in advance for your consideration and responses. EdChem (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

    I interpreted Jytdog's question as referring to groups within Wikipedia which seem to perceive themselves as sovereign in their domain, and where actions are taken at times that are inconsistent with WP norms. Without presuming to speak for him, I saw the question as being about avoiding problems like ownership of articles, empowerment of coordinators with authority inconsistent with policy, uniformity of views amongst members for inappropriate reasons (like groupthink or shared opinions inconsistent with neutral writing based on reliable sources), and similar problems. My observations of the GWE ArbCom case was that there were concerns about coordinators having unjustified authority, and that it was possible that content was influenced as a result. There was also concerns expressed by some professional historians that GWE content was not reflective of current views in reliable sources in some areas. It is important that this WikiProject moves forward following the ArbCom case by accepting and acting on those criticisms levelled that are justified, and the incoming coordinator team will need to take on this task, I believe. MILHIST is far from unique in having issues raised that may be painful or difficult to address, but engaging with them is desirable both for the MILHIST and for Wikipedia.

    Now, I am not suggesting that every criticism was justified, nor am I knowledgeable enough to debate the details of content. I am also one who has been highly critical of ArbCom at times and I have seen situations where your statement from above that "ArbCom believes that it is entitled to its own facts" appeared true. (In that sense, ArbCom is also a group where the issues that Jytdog has raised have been a problem, and we have had groups (like in the EEML case) that posed vastly more dangerous and insidious a threat to WP content and policies as they did not share the core values and philosophy of Wikipedia.) However, I have concerns about how the GWE case appears to be seen and about some statements that you have made, and I would like to ask that you comment.

(a) Above, you wrote that "ArbCom believes that it is entitled to its own facts. FoF in ArbCom cases therefore have no credibility whatsoever. However, we must pay attention to the remedies." Would you please expand on how you see MILHIST (or any other WikiProject) as influenced or bound by decisions / findings of ArbCom? To what extent, if any, does perceiving ArbCom as resistant to accepting facts presented to them (whether this occurs rarely, occasionally, routinely, or at whatever frequency you believe) justify declaring all findings as lacking credibility? How does a WikiProject pay attention to remedies when some / many / most participants see the findings on which they are based as inaccurate, flawed, or even totally lacking in credibility? EdChem (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom has the power to issue blocks and bans, so all Wikipedians must be respectful in any dealing with them. Precisely what is meant by some of the remedies in the GWE case remains to be agreed upon. My advice for people who feel angered, slighted or aggrieved by findings of fact is to take them as lightly as ArbCom evidently does, put them behind you, and move on. I do sympathise, and I do know how hard it is; but I truly believe it is the best course in the long run. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
(b) You went on to say that "we have our opportunity to register our displeasure as a bloc at the upcoming ArbCom elections." I am inferring that your "we" in this statement is referring to members of the MILHIST WikiProject as opposed to Wikipedians in general. Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but this sort of "acting as a block" is the sort of situation that Jytdog's question and associated link are addressing. Would you please expand on or clarify your views / apparent suggestion that MILHIST members form a bloc and act together in relation to ArbCom elections? When is it acceptable / reasonable / appropriate for a group of Wikipedians such as the members of a WikiProject to organise and act collectively, as opposed to acting individually in similar ways in response to a situation? If MILHIST members are acting as a bloc in some situation, what role do you see for the elected coordinators? EdChem (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom has always encouraged Wikipedians such as the members of WikiProjects to organise and act collectively. I was not referring to members of the MILHIST WikiProject as opposed to Wikipedians in general; concerns clearly run much broader and deeper than that or you wouldn't be here. Whether MILHIST members can form a bloc and act collectively remains to be seen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
(c) To whatever extent you see as desirable and recognising that some (much? all?) may have already been covered in your answers above, what do you see as the way forward for Wikipedia in general and the MILHIST project in particular following the GWE case? What do you intend to do as a MILHIST coordinator in this area? Will there be complications in taking further steps following the GWE case given the likely inclusion in the coordinator team of editors criticised in the ArbCom decision, and if so, how do you see these as being handled? EdChem (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I was approached to run for coordinator again; I did not spontaneously volunteer. I've never wholeheartedly believed in the volunteer ethos; my parents were always strongly opposed. But I've always had the attitude that if something needs to be done, then I'll step up and do it. I believe that the coordinators are a vital part of the MILHIST project, and our most important bulwark against the decay engulfing Wikipedia. You have a PhD in chemistry; mine is in military history. I know what I'm talking about, I know what current state of scholarship is, and I can deal with the professional historians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Working on the Apollo 11 article, you cannot fail to notice that the WP:WikiProject Spaceflight community has established a consensus (discussed here) that spaceflight articles use UTC. Many projects have these kind of rules. MilHist is not as prescriptive as most, although like most we do have our own style guide. I have in the past suggested that people take their arguments to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history where they are likely to find editors who are interested in the subject and be able to establish consensus. I never meant to imply that we are the final arbiters; anyone can take their case to the Wikipedia:Village pump if they wish. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of Hawkeye7Edit

  1. Support Hawkeye is a stalwart of the project. His content creation work is outstanding, and we need his experience in the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I find the communication style of Hawkeye7 to be occasionally eccentric outside of MILHIST, but their experience, content creation and coordination work is among the top. Alex Shih (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 11:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support--Yulun5566 (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Tons of content creation work. Clikity (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support Carptrash (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support Asiaticus (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support The magnitude of his contributions and the time and efforts contributed says it all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support --Rosiestep (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. What can I say -- tireless contributor, insightful reviewer, and a magician when it comes to the bots that make our lives as coords that much easier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support --Pudeo (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support Djmaschek (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support -Indy beetle (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support L293D ( • ) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  30. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  31. I cannot but supporta fellow Swifty! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  33. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  34. Support Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  35. Support ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  36. Support --Molestash (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  37. Support scope_creep (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  38. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  39. Support-- Cuprum17 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  40. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  41. Support--Doug (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  42. Support--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  43. MBlaze Lightning 03:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  44. SupportMojoworker (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  45. Support Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian RoseEdit

Ian Rose (talk · contribs)

I've been editing for over ten years now, been a member of MilHist almost since I started, and a project coordinator for quite a while too. I'm primarily a content editor, specialising in Australian military aviation, mainly biographies and unit histories, but I think I can contribute to articles or discussion on other subjects as well. Along with my MilHist coord duties, I'm active in the monthly article writing contest, edit The Bugle newsletter with Nick-D, and am one of WP's FAC coordinators.

Comments and questions for Ian RoseEdit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I think one of WP's strengths is providing depth of coverage on subjects that you wouldn't find in a typical encyclopedia, and I believe I can say I've contributed extensively to that end with many of my A-Class and Featured Articles. I'm pleased to have collaborated with other editors on some of those. I'm also proud of never having missed despatching an issue of The Bugle, initially with ed17 and over the past several years with Nick.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • Experience in the role and in a similar position outside the project, i.e. FAC coord, and I like to think I've still got the enthusiasm, good humour, and level head I've always prided myself on.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Ian Rose, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?

Votes in support of Ian RoseEdit

  1. Support Of course not going to object. Happy to see another term of Ian Rose. Alex Shih (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support of course. Ian is another old hand who is always chipping in to help out with coord tasks, and has a very strong content creation record as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Definitely, one of the best and most helpful people around Wikipedia. Constantine 08:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Lexysexy (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support Vermont (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support Asiaticus (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Supportusernamekiran(talk) 18:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support a no brainer. Clikity (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support For his long track record of contributions and years of involvement here at Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support Zawed (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support --Rosiestep (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support - Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. SupportThales Rodrigues de Miranda (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support Djmaschek (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  30. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  31. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support A 10 fireplane Imform me 22:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  33. Support L293D ( • ) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  34. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  35. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  36. For more reasons than I have time to type. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  37. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  38. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  39. Support Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  40. Support ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  41. Support --Molestash (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  42. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  43. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  44. Support Lourdes 06:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

IazygesEdit

Iazyges (talk · contribs)

Hello all. I've been a member of the wiki for almost four years now, but only joined the project in 2016. Since then I've focused largely upon German destroyers and Roman emperors, but have done some work on the sides.

Comments and questions for IazygesEdit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • My Roman emperors project. I've amassed 26 Good Articles and three A-Class articles from my work on the topic and, with the help of many others, have helped improve the articles of many of the Roman emperors.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • I've served as coordinator for two years, and have quite a bit of knowledge within my field.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I partially agree with the decision. I don't believe Coordinators have any powers strictly given to them by way of their position, unless one considers the right to perform administrative work a power, however I do think MILHIST coordinators serve a somewhat unique role amongst Wikiprojects. In my opinion, MILHIST coordinators should act as first steps of resolution should a dispute arise among members of the project, and send it forward to WP:DR or another such resolution service if that does not work. That said, I don't believe coordinators should be able to give out binding decisions, only measure inter-project consensus and give suggestions, nor should they compel or prevent disputors to/from bringing the case up elsewhere. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Iazyges, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
    1. Consensus plays a central role in Wikipedia, given that it's one of the few true "rules" Wikipedia has, especially as Ignore All Rules is generally done by consensus to break a rule for good of Wiki. 2. I would define consensus as an agreement by all (or most) relevant editors. The number of those relevant may shift depending on the subject, i.e. may only be two people (or even one) for more obscure topics, but a much larger number for more prominent articles, such as China, or World War I, and more so for policy. 3. Assuming I am taking the position of a neutral editor, I would first determine if there is any hard policy which one is violating, and if so would suggest an RFC to determine if the community at large deems it allowable to break the rule; if not, I would recommend taking it to WP:DRN. If no compromises can be made, then take it to RFC for more community engagement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please provide your views on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Inappropriate_exclusivity and comment on what you do and will do to help MILHIST remain vigilant against walled garden assumptions and behaviors. This is something that all WikiProjects are at risk for; a very human thing but harmful to the project itself and the wider project. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    I must agree with it; while I think some subject experts are likely to have weightier opinions, I don't believe any position within a project, including membership, should grant any special privileges. I don't think it can actively be guarded against, so much as we can ensure we are not implementing procedures that would grant project participants or coordinators more power than any given editor. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of IazygesEdit

  1. Support Iazyges has a great content creation record and is always happy to jump in and help out with coord tasks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Non Omnia Possumus Omnes Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Very active with GA reviews, good coordinator work. Alex Shih (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Iazyges is very cooperative and has created a bunch of great articles. He's a good guy and as his adopted user, I would be happy to give him support. Clikity (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Asiaticus (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. 'Support L293D ( • ) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. You get more impressive year on year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Kges1901Edit

Kges1901 (talk · contribs)

I have been editing in Military history since I first created an account back in 2014, but I did not actually become truly active in the project until late 2015. Since then, I have mostly edited in project areas, and worked on content creation in the areas of Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history as well as that of the United States.

Comments and questions for KgesEdit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I am most proud of helping to improve the average quality of the Russian, Soviet, and CIS articles, my three FAs, eight A-class, and 24 GAs. Some of these are about relatively obscure units and I believe have helped to illuminate under-covered areas.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • Despite having been around for only three years, I believe I have picked up experience from watching the Coord and MILHIST talk pages, and have ample leisure time and a general interest in most MILHIST aspects. Although this is my first time running, I am extremely active in MILHIST and believe I can help to reduce specific coord backlogs, such as checking the MILHIST contest at the end of the month, which is a time intensive exercise, and closing A-class reviews.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with the general principles of the case, because they are reasonable restatements of longstanding policies. I disagreed with several of the FoFs and some of the remedies, but I do not intend to participate in relitigation of those as the Arbcom decision has settled the matter. Kges1901 (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Kges1901, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
    • I would define consensus as the general agreement between Wikipedia editors. In the hypothetical case of reviewing an article, I would go about achieving it by attempting to reconcile differing opinions based on the available reliable sources, and work out a compromise that accurately reflects reliable sources from there. Kges1901 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In discussions, I will make sure to weigh equally the views of project and non-project members, given that membership itself does not give special privileges and is a mere formality. Kges1901 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of KgesEdit

  1. Support great to see new faces nominating for the coord team. Kges1901 has been producing great work on the Soviet Union, an under-represented area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Impressed by his work on Soviet military articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Per Hawkeye7. Very knowledgeable of their stuff, seems level-headed enough to help out with the coordinator tasks. Alex Shih (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support (edit conflict) --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Very pleased to see Kges standing -- even when we've had disagreements in article reviews, they remain thoroughly collegial, which bodes well for the coord role. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Asiaticus (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support Zawed (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support --Rosiestep (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support KCVelaga (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support Djmaschek (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support A 10 fireplane Imform me 22:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support L293D ( • ) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support I'd say Kges made life in the Soviet Union's pages so that makes my decision alot more easier. CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. Expertise in an area not familiar to most coords could prove useful and plenty of content experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support, Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  30. Support-- Murat (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  31. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

ParsecboyEdit

Parsecboy (talk · contribs)

I've been an editor since 2006 and a member of MILHIST for most of that time; in that time, I've served as a coordinator from 2009 to 2011, and then from 2016 to the present. As many of you likely know, I write primarily on naval history topics, particularly German warships (among other countries' ships), and I occasionally dabble in biographies, battles, and other related topics.

Comments and questions for ParsecboyEdit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • I've been around a long time, so I have experience with a lot of areas of the project. I'm also an admin, so I can help with any tasks that require those extra buttons.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing that the 7th principle is the most relevant to this question, and I agree with the statement there - I don't think the idea that coordinators have any special power holds much water. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Parsecboy, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
    • Consensus is a rough agreement on a given issue - it need not be unanimous, but that helps. For those involved in a dispute, the dispute resolution process offers a number of solutions, including seeking a third opinion, soliciting comments from relevant wikiprojects, or filing a request for mediation if things have progressed that far. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please provide your views on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Inappropriate_exclusivity and comment on what you do and will do to help MILHIST remain vigilant against walled garden assumptions and behaviors. This is something that all WikiProjects are at risk for; a very human thing but harmful to the project itself and the wider project. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know that I've ever seen anyone behave like that at Milhist, but as you say, tribalist mindsets are easy to slip into. The main thing we can do is watch for discussions (either on the project talk page or on article talk pages in the project's scope) for this kind of behavior and actively discourage it if and when it presents itself. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of ParsecboyEdit

  1. Support we need experienced coords like Parsecboy on the team. His work on ships is relentless, and he is always happy to pitch in on coord tasks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. Alex Shih (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support Without question or reservation. Parsec has been a tremendous asset to the project for years, and on a personal note, he's recently been very helpful in getting me back into editing after being away from Wikipedia for nearly 6 years. I can't think of anyone more dedicated to the success of what we do, and more qualified to serve in this capacity, than him. He has my full support.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 04:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Constantine 08:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support -- Alexf(talk) 08:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support -- Eddie891 Talk Work 11:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support -- The one who has always been there to answer my queries Lyndaship (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support GABgab 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support 60 FA's is all that I needed. Clikity (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support Asiaticus (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support --Edward Sandstig (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Supportusernamekiran(talk) 18:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support --Rosiestep (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. No brainer -- one of MilHist's most consistent contributors, who shows no signs of slowing down. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support - Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support --— Kralizec! (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  30. Support Always helpful A 10 fireplane Imform me 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  31. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support Djmaschek (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  33. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  34. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  35. Support -Indy beetle (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  36. Support L293D ( • ) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  37. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  38. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  39. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  40. Always good to see an experienced pair of hands volunteering to continue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  41. Support ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  42. Support --Molestash (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  43. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  44. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67Edit

Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)

I've been a member of the project since November 2011, and was part of the coord team from 2013–2016 and after a year break, for the last year as well. I have been pretty active in most areas of the running of the project, including reviewing at A-Class and at WP:MHAR, checking and tallying the monthly contest and the quarterly reviewing awards. I'm also an admin, which means I can help out project members with mundane tasks that require the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Peacemaker67Edit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • The 39 FAs I've contributed to, most of which are in the Yugoslavia in WWII subject area, which can be rather fraught at times. I'm especially proud of those FAs that I've developed in collaboration with other editors, like Kragujevac massacre. Also helping keep our assessment processes flowing through reviewing at FAC, ACR, GAN and MHAR.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • I'm a content creator above all else, but I know how to do pretty much everything that needs to be done to keep the project running. If I don't know something, I generally know who does. I'm semi-retired, so I have a fair amount of free time, which means I have eyes on the project pretty much every day.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the question, I think it is important that this is addressed in the immediate aftermath of the case. I wholeheartedly agree with all the principles, but have reservations about a couple of the FoF because they lacked sufficient evidence to support them. I raised these concerns during the case. I consequently have reservations about a couple of the remedies. I don't intend to discuss this further here as I participated actively in the case and my views are laid out there in considerable detail at each stage, and this isn't the forum for such discussion. If you would like to explore my answer further, I'd be happy to discuss it on my talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a member of this project, so I won't be voting, but I just want to personally express how much I appreciated Peacemaker67's contributions to WP:ARBGWE. He was easily one of the most constructive editors on the talk page and while I suspect we disagree on some aspects of the outcome of the case, I do think it is worth noting that his contributions were in my view very much a positive to that case and that I at least appreciated them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Peacemaker67, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
  • Consensus involves incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In a Milhist A-Class review of an article, which is what I assume you are referring to, consensus isn't always necessarily achieved between the different reviewers and the nominator, although it often is. It is the uninvolved closing coord that determines if there is consensus to promote an article, and they do that by weighing up the comments, including supports and opposes, along with the image and source review, to determine if the A-Class criteria are met. Sometimes a reviewer may be applying higher standards than are needed for the class in question, or making unreasonable demands, and sometimes a nominator may not be willing to adjust the article to meet a reviewer's concerns. The closing coord weighs all these things up to decide whether to promote or fail a review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I’ll admit I’ve been guilty of this, and think it is a good question. I think awareness of this is the first step in combating it. I think the key thing is to honestly and routinely examine your motives and actions, particularly when challenged and when dealing with contentious issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of Peacemaker67Edit

  1. Support Highly experienced in addition to being always helpful with the queries on MILHIST talk and reviewing. Also a superb content creator for Yugoslavia and Australia. Kges1901 (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Nothing further to add. When it comes to mediation, I think there is some further work to do, but the same applies to everyone else including myself really. I am planning to write some content this year and I am happy to support Peacemaker67 as coordinator for another term. Alex Shih (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Another great contributor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. PM is one of MilHist's strongest content creators and one of the most conscientious coords we've ever had. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support - Both an accomplished content creator and a helpful coordinator. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support --Constantine 08:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support-- Eddie891 Talk Work 11:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support -- noclador (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support GABgab 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support A ton of experience. Clikity (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support Asiaticus (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support Osian 2007 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Supportusernamekiran(talk) 18:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support Zawed (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support --Rosiestep (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support PM is so busy on the site that I sometimes wonder if they are twins. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. MBlaze Lightning 13:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support - Kierzek (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  30. Support KCVelaga (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  31. Support --Pudeo (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  33. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  34. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  35. Support Djmaschek (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  36. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  37. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  38. Support A 10 fireplane Imform me 22:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  39. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  40. Support--Factotem (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  41. Support--Randomness74 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  42. Support PM, you already earned my respect last year I'd love to see your future works. CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  43. I've long admired your cool head and your content work. You're precisely the sort of person who should be a coordinator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  44. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  45. Support♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  46. Support Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  47. Support ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  48. Support --Molestash (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  49. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  50. Support-- Cuprum17 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  51. Support. PM is always hard-working and conscientious, and always seen pushing the project to even greater standards. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  52. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  53. Support. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  54. Support. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  55. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66Edit

Sturmvogel_66 (talk · contribs)

I began editing in 2007, although I didn't get serious about it until a couple of years later. I've been a coordinator for most of this decade, although IRL issues prevented me from standing these last few years. I'm hopeful that all that's behind me now and I can participate as I used to.

Comments and questions for Sturmvogel_66Edit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • I am one of the primary contributors to the largest featured topic in Wikipedia, Battlecruisers of the world, I won the WikiCup back in 2010 and I was voted Military Historian of the Year that same year.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • I spend a lot of time assessing and reviewing articles, from B-class assessments to Featured Article Candidates, and everything in between. I've also been around for a while and I generally know who to ask for help in getting things done if I can't do it myself.
  • Hi, Sturmvogel_66, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?

Votes in support of Sturmvogel_66Edit

  1. Support Sturm has an unparalleled record as a GAN reviewer (over 700 reviews), and gets stuck in to reviews at every other level as well. Always willing to lend a hand on checking the monthly contest too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. Alex Shih (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support Largely per nom and Peacemaker. Sturm is a prolific editor and reviewer. Bonus points for being so helpful regarding any questions or comments I've seen others have pop up from time to time. Strum has been a phenomenal help in getting me back into the swing of things after being away for so long. We need more editors with records like this.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 04:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support--Petebutt (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support --Constantine 08:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support -- Always ready to help Lyndaship (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support GABgab 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support Asiaticus (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support --Rosiestep (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Would be great to see you back on the coord team, Sturm -- tks for standing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support - Kierzek (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. SupportKralizec! (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support KCVelaga (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support A 10 fireplane Imform me 21:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support Djmaschek (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  30. Support -Indy beetle (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  31. Support L293D ( • ) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  33. Support In the last days, weeks and even months you earned my support and recpect in your many reviews from stub-class to A-class. CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  34. Helpful, clueful, and knowledgeable about content and reviewing at all levels. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  35. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  36. Support♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  37. Support ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  38. Support --Molestash (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  39. Support -- Alexf(talk) 10:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  40. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  41. Support without question. I struggle to think of any reviewer or editor I respect as much as Sturm, and given the calibre of people I have met here, that's really saying something. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  42. Support-- Murat (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  43. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ZawedEdit

Zawed (talk · contribs)

I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2010. My primary interest is military history, particularly that of New Zealand, but I do go off on tangents at times to work on other, history-related, topics. I have served a previous term as a Milhist co-ordinator over the 2016/2017 term and was co-opted onto the most recent tranche. Zawed (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments and questions for ZawedEdit

  • What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
    • Overall, it is the improvement in the coverage of New Zealand's military history in the First and Second World Wars. It was a neglected area when I first started editing in this space and, while there is still quite a bit of work to do, I like to think it is in better shape now; the article on the New Zealand Division is a particular highlight. A current project of mine is to get all the New Zealand VC recipients of the First World War to A-class.
  • What skills/qualities can you contribute as a coordinator?
    • Having served a previous term as co-ordinator a couple of years ago, I am familiar enough with the nuts and bolts of most of the internal processes that keep the project ticking over. I do some reviewing of articles for GA and A-Class and intend to keep up with that work.
  • Do you agree or disagree with the final decision on the German War Effort case, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It was an unusual case. Fundamentally, I agree with most aspects of the decision since it just reiterated existing policies. Some of the findings and remedies didn't seem to match the evidence presented, at least to my understanding. But the case is now closed and it doesn't seem productive to relitigate the subject. The time is better spent improving Wikipedia articles. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Zawed, this question is about the role consensus plays in editing on Wikipedia. How would you define consensus, and how do you go about achieving it during a review of an article in which two or more editors have differing points of view?
  • In terms of editing Wikipedia, I would define consensus as being an agreement/acceptance between editors on how particular information is to be expressed in an article/list etc... How it is ultimately achieved will depend on the situation. For example, in some cases it will be possible to incorporate differing views in an article, so long as each is appropriately sourced. Alternatively, it may be necessary to seek second opinions from other, non-involved, editors at an appropriate forum - probably the Milhist talk page in this context. To achieve consensus may involve compromise on the part of one or more editors. Zawed (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes in support of ZawedEdit

  1. Support I was very pleased Zawed agree to be co-opted this last tranche, because he is always on the lookout for coord tasks that need to be done. Also has a great content creation record. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Zawed is a helpful, steady contributor, and has been a great addition to the coord team. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Asiaticus (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. SupportKralizec! (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support KCVelaga (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support L293D ( • ) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support 47thPennVols (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support CPA-5 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Great to see you back on the team. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support --Molestash (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support-- Cuprum17 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support, Kierzek (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support Cinderella157 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for Coordinator EmeritusEdit

Except for a one year break, TomStar81 has been a coordinator of this project since August 2007, including a year as lead coordinator in 2009–2010. In that time, he has made significant contributions to the project in many areas. Highlights have included his founding of and work on Operation Majestic Titan (focussed on battleship articles), his recent work in expanding the geographical task forces to cover every country, and his outstanding World War I Timeline and regular op-eds in the Bugle. In recognition of his long-standing contributions to the project, on behalf of the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I'd like to nominate Tom to be appointed as Coordinator Emeritus. The objective of this nomination is that the project may continue to benefit from Tom's help and experience. The position has no special responsibilities and is held for as long as Tom wishes. If this nomination is successful, Tom would join Kirill Lokshin and Roger Davies, who have been Coordinators Emeritus since 2008 and 2009 respectively. The appointment would be in addition to the coordinators appointed via the above election. By tradition, all project members are asked to indicate their support or opposition to Tom's appointment below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

SupportEdit

  1. As nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. One of the easiest supports I've made on Wikipedia. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Experienced and well deserved. KCVelaga (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. This comes as a surprise, but is well deserved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Tks for this nom, PM. Tom's dedication to the project has never wavered; he's an institution and well deserves this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Per nom.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 05:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Yes Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  9. Tom has been a mainstay of the project for many years, and this is highly appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  10. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  11. - wolf 15:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  12. XyzSpaniel Talk Page 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  13. Yep, Per nom Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  14. Wholeheartedly support. Thank you, Tom, for all you've done over the years. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support, and well earned too for a highly respected contributor to the project. Zawed (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support. Many years of dedicated service to the project. Well deserved. Donner60 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  17. Happy to see you get this recognition, Tom. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support -Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support - Kierzek (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support - Arius1998 (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support - auntieruth (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support ... GELongstreet (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support - --Molestash (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  24. Certainly - Tom's been around as long as I can remember (and probably before that, too!) Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support, he deserves my support and my respect for his many years service, i'd say a well deserved support of mine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  26. Aye. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support: well deserved nomination. Thanks for your efforts over many years, Tom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  29. +1 100% — Marcus(talk) 14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  30. Me too. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  31. Don't always agree with Tom, but the dedication should be duly recognised. Alex Shih (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support. Asiaticus (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  33. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  34. Support. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  35. Support. No question! Clikity (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  36. Support —usernamekiran(talk) 18:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  37. Support. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  38. Support per nom. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  39. Support per nom. Otr500 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  40. Support. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  41. Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  42. Support - Pennsy22 (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  43. Support — Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  44. Support --Pudeo (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  45. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  46. Support L293D ( • ) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  47. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  48. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  49. Support per nom. Thank you for your work! ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  50. Support--Catlemur (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  51. Support - Easy decision. Kurtis (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  52. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  53. Support. Huzzah! Doug (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  54. Support Cinderella157 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

CommentsEdit


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.