Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2008

message: So why the hell am I running? Good, question, thanks for asking.
* Firstly, I'm running because I think this project needs a full-time lead coordinator, and I'm willing and able to fill that role, at least for the next six months. Our esteemed incumbent has done an amazing job, but he is still only human and there are still only 24 hours in a day. The increasing role he has chosen to play in the Arbcom and at other high levels of Wiki-politics, has limited the amount of time and effort he can devote to keeping our Military History project on course (and perhaps charting new courses, as per below). We are not only large and important enough to need a full-time lead but we deserve and should demand one as well. Since I am happily unencumbered by any additional on-Wiki political duties, I think I can be better able to place the interests and concerns of our members at the forefront, where they belong.
*Secondly, I can offer a new kind of leadership. Our esteemed incumbent has demonstrated incredible energies and abilities as an Executor  and Policy wonk, but he has proved somewhat lacking in the inspirational and visionary leadership areas. He is a nuts & bolts, by the numbers kinda guy...these are his strengths but also his weaknesses. By contrast, as  is demonstrated in my  shorter candidate statement, I am an Idea person. I come up with ideas and suggestions then leave it to others to refine, improve and implement them (You ask questions - we make suggestions, That's what we're heroes for. :). I know how to delegate, so fear not all you assistant Coords, you will have plenty to do on my watch, in fact I will probably lean on you even more heavily (The same goes for Kirill, who will continue to play an important and prominent role in the project:). I also know how to motivate; being of Scots-Irish and Cherokee extraction, I can make heap good pow wow, and some of my colleagues have accused me of having an infectious enthusiasm, both of which have served me well in various leadership and educational positions online and off.
*Thirdly, I can keep us on course yet also offer new directions. Thanks largely to the Task force structure, our project has done an admirable job of avoiding becoming a bloated organization, unlike so many other Wiki-institutions, despite its growing size (though there are some less active Task Forces which could be safely merged or disband).  This, along with the talents, knowledge and dedication of its membership, has been one of the keys to its success. We are, however, starting to suffer from a daunting and growing amount of Instruction creep. When this project was first founded, it said at the top of the page not to let what followed discourage or confuse you, we basically just want you to write good articles!. This should be one of our core principles, one that must not be allowed to be lost, archived or refactored. I want to see this emphasis restored. Most everything else we do is simply a means to this end of writing and collaborating on good articles on Military history. Yet more and more of our efforts seem to be expended on Manuel of Style minutia, and playing Musical chairs with categories and templates. Much of this, I believe, is a symptom of a larger contagion infecting Wikipedia. We can resist it, but in the long run we must take drastic action to keep it from causing us to decline.
:Fortunately, we have also proven highly adaptable. For instance, when WP's moribund peer-review proved lacking, we created one of our own which has served us well. It has also been suggested we create our own means of mediation and dispute resolution, which I also believe is a good idea worth trying. However, these sorts of adaptations will inevitably come into conflict with Wiki's larger power-structure.  This is the ugly reality of Wikipedia...and eventually these poisonous political fumes will penetrate even our bastions. Our efficiency and excellence will come up against the larger dysfunction and mediocrity...and dysfunction and mediocrity will win because they have become too deeply entrenched. We are growing beyond the limitations of Wikipedia. We must, therefore, seriously consider exercising our right to fork the project. By this I do not mean we seceded. This would be a Friendly fork more along the lines of Wikinfo or Veropedia. We would still maintain our strong presence here on Wikipedia, and we might even arrange free hosting from Wikia.
*Fourthly and finally, I believe the members of this project deserve a clear choice for lead coordinator. Even if I do not win, at least I can bring certain ideas and issues to the table for discussion. This is a Good Thing for our project and community. As opposed to our esteemed incumbent running unopposed yet again, which is the sort of thing that leads to complacency, stagnation and decline if continued for too long. However, in the unlikely event I do win, as stated above, I intend to make full use of Brother Kirill's abilities and experience should he allow it. Otherwise he can take a much deserved, if not needed, 6 months vacation.:) Ultimately, of course, it is for you to decide whether he gets his vacation or I get returned to my retirement. Yes, my userpage says retired, and indeed I am from Wikipedia, because I've come to the sad conclusion that, on the whole as it is currently run, WP cannot live up to its promise or potential nor even it's basic principles anymore. But I do still believe this Military History project and care strongly for it. In the end, that is why I have rejoined it and the ultimate reason why I'm offering you my service and asking you for the opportunity to serve. You are free to question my qualifications, but please do not question my dedication to nor my passion for both our project and our subject.
Thank you for your time and consideration,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate statement from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

message: Unless there are any objections, I would like to add the following to the bottom of the coordinator election page ASAP:
== Lead Coordinator Referandum ==
Recently, much discussion has taken place within the Military History Project regarding our coordinator scheme, which presently uses a lead/assisstant setup. After much discussion between the coordinators and other members of the project over the continued use of lead/assistant scheme vs an equal scheme or a president/cabinent scheme, we have decided to place the issue before the community and determine what our contributers would like to see. Your input on the following proposals is therefore requested:
# Presidential/chief executive style lead coordinator, with eight assistants to whom tasks are allocated. This would be a change from the current position. 
# Titular/chief of staff lead coordinator, developing and implementing consensus with eight coordinators. This is how it is at the moment. Kirill also combined this with a huge amount of routine project administration. 
# Nine coordinators of equal standing, developing and implementing consensus together. This has been discussed plenty but never tried.
Any objections? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good to me. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thats all I need to here to go forward then. Tallyho... TomStar81 (Talk) 02:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object setting things in stone like this. It can certainly handicap the project massively as soon as the mix and activity of assistants changes. I would advise a different approach that makes them equal with a titular chief in case they are active, but give more power to the chief if they are not active. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Then comment to that effect on the referndum page. All input we get will go toward reforming the coordinator scheme, so anything you wish to add over there would be of benifit in the long run. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this and I think you set up the referendum premature. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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