Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 9

• Archive One
• Archive Two
• Archive Three
• Archive Four
• Archive Five
• Archive Six
• Archive Seven
• Archive Eight

Esperanza Userboxes

To prevent a lot of redirects, could I change this and this so that they link directly to Wikipedia:Esperanza instead of WP:EA? Jfingers88 21:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Andrewjuren(talk) 22:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. --Tone 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What about all of the other pages and people's sigs that link to WP:EA? I had thought that WP:ESP was the shortcut agreed upon at one of the Adv Council meetings. There are over 25000 links to WP:EA strewn around Wikipedia [1]. It would take a lot of work, preferrably with the AutoWikiBrowser, to fix all of them, if such a conclusion is reached. Jfingers88 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think that you meant for these changes to be made retroactively. To start, we can change the userbox templates so that all articles (user and user talk pages) with these will point directly to the Esperanza project. Also, I'd look through the joining instructions and make sure they give a direct link. Personally, I find these shortcuts are good for your fingers, but they should otherwise be avoided when not being actually typed. That said, as long as the redirects work (they are not double-redirects, etc.) then I'm okay with leaving the articles as-is for now. Others may disagree. If we want everyone to change their signatures, that will need to be sent out as a notice, I would suspect (i.e. would need backing by Advisory Council and voluntary change by every member.) Andrewjuren(talk) 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what's wrong with redirects? From what I've heard, redirects are easy and cheap; however, I'm always seeing people "bypassing redirects." Do they take up more resources than others have implied to me in the past? Or do people just not like seeing that "redirected from" in the top left hand corner? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One problem is double redirects, as "Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not follow the second redirect, in order to prevent infinite loops." However, Wikipedia:Redirect points out that: "Some editors are under the mistaken impression that fixing such links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers. But because editing a page is thousands of times more expensive for the servers than following a redirect, the opposite is actually true." Andrewjuren(talk) 00:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that then. I thought that since the Adv Council made the official shortcut WP:ESP, it should be changed. I guess it's not really necessary, though. Jfingers88 03:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Leadership section.

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Advisory Council actually exists. Why not just edit the timeline there and transclude that? It would make more sense, in my opinion. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 23:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In the name of Esperanza...

Esperanza has grown tremendously over the last couple of months: we have over 300 members now. However, I'm getting some signals from various parts of the Wikipedia community that they see the kind of behaviour from people with a 'green e' in their name that is quite the opposite of the things Esperanza stands for (see, for instance, the charter and the philosophy of Esperanza). I think we need to start thinking about how far we tolerate this, and what we should do in such instances. Do we just leave them a note, do we remove them from the membership list and tell them they're not longer a member? I have some thoughts about this, and the other AC members do too (the Code of Conduct is an example of what we're working on in that area), but I'd really like to see some community input about this, especially about the concrete aspects of implementing such a Code of Conduct and about warning or removing members. I know the latter measure may sound a bit extreme, but the behaviour of some Esperanza members of late has been such that other people's view of Esperanza as a community is affected by it in a very negative way, which may hinder us in the goals that we're striving for. --JoanneB 19:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am tending to agree with JoanneB, we do need to come up with some means of "dealing" (for want of a better word) with incivility within our ranks. It is bad PR for Esperanza. Members should be expected to always act within the project's spirit. That said, we need to be able to distinguish between a heat of the moment flare-up of a good editor under stress, and ongoing incivility. Also, a user apologising should be taken into account. -- Banez 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As the Administrator General of Esperanza, I feel I must comment. Firstly, I would like to say that Esperanza so far has made some pretty good advances in stressbusting and establishing a sense of community, amongst its members at least. Secondly, I would like to make it clear that, as an organisation, we denounce incivility and personal attacks totally. They are unacceptable. In terms of the issue of being an Easperanzian meaning something, there is currently a proposal in the pipeline to deal with situations when they arise. The code of conduct looks to establish a standard of behaviour amongst all members and, we are currently working on getting consensus for this. In the meantime, please bring any untoward behavior to the attention of the Advisory Committee. --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, any incivility that uses Esperanza as a justification (e.g. "Your ideas are not following the spirit of Esperanza, and I know because I'm a member, you stupid dumbshit") should merit not only an angry response, but outright removal of membership, and if it continues, referral to ArbCom. Again, that's just my opinion, but incivility is utterly unacceptable here. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if there are notable un-spirited actions from Esperanza members, they should be adressed by the Esperanza community. If Esperanza members are repeatedly acting in ways not befitting a member, I think it is our duty to address it - we want to create that better sense of community, but we can't if members are working against it. That being said, I don't think we should immediately remove from membership (or anything that drastic) anyone who is particpating in things un-Esperanzial. Bringing it up with them and reminding them of what Esperanza stands for and that they are a member will hopefully, for the most part, correct the situation. -- Natalya 17:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming template

I know it's a minor issue, but aren't there any ways to subst the {{PAGENAME}} in {{EA-welcome}}? Fetofs ^Hello! 01:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It gets really, really messy when doing so. I think it can be done, but then any additional edit to the welcome template messes it up. Ral315 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you show me an example of that? Fetofs ^Hello! 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I've done it! Can you guys test it? Fetofs ^Hello! 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

test, one, two....

It seems to only work when the template is subst: in, but thats not a problem. Ansell 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Fetofs ^Hello! 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey, I was wondering how involved the coaches typically are with their coachees? I'm considering possibly joining as a coach, but I may be busy a lot until summer (specifically second week of June) so I want to know if I can safely sign up now or should I wait? — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know this isn't a vote (heh), but I think Ilyanep would make a great coach. Besides, who else (other than pschemp) would I give all my chocolate to?

If I wasn't opposed to wanting to be an admin, I'd ask him to coach me. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha thanks :D I'd definately like to become one, but depending on the answer it's a matter of when. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Ilyanep is asking whether it is time-intensive or not. It depends; some admin coaches like to go over every single little thing with their coachees, give them lessons over IRC, etc.; while others like to check what the coachees know, then try to polish their rough edges by giving lessons to them. It is truly a matter of style; however, there's a few candidates that are just hopeless. Above there was a discussion about how to weed out bad candidates that was never finished, and I'd like to ask the general Esperanza membership what do they consider is appropriate. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what we should do with "hopeless" candidates, but I do know that its quite frequent for coachees to become inactive in Wikipedia or for coaches/coachees to have little to no interaction for extended periods of time. I think we should at least have some kind of proviso that if coaching goes inactive for a certain period of time (e.g. 15-30 days, with the exception of declared Wikibreaks), they can be dropped from the coaching list and the coaches can be reassigned if they so choose. We could always leave the option to re-open coaching if it is deemed necessary. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what he was asking, but I commented anyway. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 09:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Code of Conduct

The proposed Code of Conduct has been up for a week or two now and discussion seems to have dried up. Can we discuss here whether we think this should be implemented or not and if implemented, should it be in its current form?

Another issue that we need to think about is the implementation of this idea. Are we going to remove everyone from the membership list and ask them to re-post, hereby accepting the Code of Conduct also go to removing any inactive members... What does everyone think? --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It still has that horribly vague wording about not making other Wikipedians feel uncomfortable; aside from that, it needs some copyediting, but generally looks fine.

As far as purging everyone from the membership list and having them rejoin would probably be the only effective approach here (even if it does lead to a temporary decrease in membership). Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I keep on meaning to comment properly on this, but short answer is I support the principle, but I think a few details (such as above suggestion) needs some more work. Petros471 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How do I?

Get my birthday on your calender? Please reply via ip chat as well if you can so I notice, ta 84.9.132.66 23:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's how:

• Create an account for yourself, and continue to make edits under that account.
• Maintain that account for at least 150 edits and two weeks (which is the requirement)
• Join Esperanza then you can go and edit the calendar to add your birthday yourself.

— nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

A lot of people have submitted themselves to be reviewed. Including some Esperanzians like me. Please don't hold back. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

I'd do it too if I wasn't scared of some of the replies. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Adjective form

I was curious; how did you guys decide on Esperanzian as the adjective form for Esperanza? Don't you think it sounds a bit...awkward? In my opinion, Esperanzan sounds much better. Every place that I can think of that ends in -a has the adjective form ending with -an, such as states like Alaska → Alaskan & Nevada → Nevadan, and countries like Andorra → Andorran and Moldova → Moldovan. And especially seeing as Esperanza is Spanish, other Spanish-speaking countries like Guatemala → Guatemalan, Nicaragua → Nicaraguan, Venezuela → Venezuelan. Was there a reason that Esperanzian was thought to be superior? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I in no part know of how the word was chosen (so perhaps I shouldn't even post!), but to me "Esperanzian" has a kind of zing to it, appropriate for Esperanza. -- Natalya 11:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because Esperanzan sounds too much like Esther Rantzen? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Knowledge Seeker that I like Esperanzan much better. (I actually always thought it was Esperanzan, until a week or two ago when I noticed otherwise.) Esperanzian has one too many syllables for me. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New comment thing

I've started a subpage at User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve where you can comment on me as a user. It was originally suggested by User:Fang Aili over the IRC, and she has since helped me impliment the idea. Unlike Editor Review or RFC, this is not a one-time thing. I plan on having this page until I die or some other horrible thing happens where I have to stop contributing ^_^. So please visit it and give me some advice on how to improve myself, I'll value any advice or commentary. Thanq!--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. I hope you don't mind that I steal it. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to.--The ikiroid (talk )^{(Help Me Improve)} 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza is not Esperanto

I've seen the word Esperanza appear on Wikipedia from time to time, but always assumed that it was some kind of Esperanto interest group... so I never bothered checking until now... and find myself pleasantly surprised (no offense to Esperanto fans!) that it's nothing of the sort. I wonder how many other people made a similar assumption about the name and still haven't looked for themselves? Perhaps there should be a userbox saying "Esperanza is not Esperanto".  :) -- noosphere 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, maybe it's because I speak Spanish, but that got me laughing for a good while. I wonder if it's caused that question very often. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they both have to do with hope--uhhhhhh.......that's all I got.--The ikiroid (talk )^{(Help Me Improve)} 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The bot (again)

I've just now tried to update the channel stats on the bot and found out that on April 20th (that's almost a week ago), someone opped themselves and told it to leave. (something to do with the /me likes Esperanza message annoying them, I'm not sure). From skimming through the log, I get the general impression that most people in the channel were only wanting to get rid of the bot ("how can we make it leave? !DIE! !quit etc!"), and telling me was the last thing on their minds. That makes me sad. (If you want it to leave so badly, I can accomodate that request very easily. "rm -rf *" Problem solved.)

I'm not sure if people are following my user page and the esp.nathanr.com site but it says in both pages "I am not on IRC due to router problems a bad line so please bring bot problems to me." There's a big notice on my userpage in green that explains this and I feel that people aren't even reading it or bearing this in mind when it comes to the bot. I even mentioned this in the channel last week. I don't know how I can possibly make that message any clearer. I made every reasonable attempt (short of changing the topic) to let people know where to direct problems.

(Look at it this way: If I was on IRC despite the router bad line problems, you and I both would be annoyed at the constant connect/reconnect messages every 10 or so minutes and someone would have just banned me)

I haven't been told anything. Nobody commented on my talk page, nobody e-mailed me, nobody posted a message here, etc. For days, the bot hasn't been on the channel and I (or Where - as Where would've told me) haven't been notified of any problem with the bot.

With all due respect, I can't possibly know about any problems with the bot if nobody is willing to make the effort to tell me. I'm not a mindreader. I can't see anything the bot is or is not doing if I'm not online to see it. If I hadn't checked the bot, it would've remained off the channel for another week (until my Internet access was fixed so that I could go in and fix it without my router line issues booting me out every 5 minutes).

It's making me feel frustrated that things are going on behind my back when it comes to the bot, and I don't know a thing about it. I'm the owner, I should be told if the bot's doing something that's annoying someone. Right? Right.

It's just common sense. Yet again, nobody bothers to tell me anything and I have to find out some other way. This isn't the first time and I have asked and asked (to be told when there's a problem) and was later even assured by several AC members - "We'll be sure to tell you if there's a problem regarding the bot". There's a problem now, and nobody's told me a thing.

Here's an explanation of what !quit does (as I don't think we're all on the same page here): !quit will inform me of a problem if I am on IRC to get the message. If I am not on IRC, there's no scripting function (that I'm aware of) that will automatically make it e-mail me, so I won't know. Bot scripts are quite limited - they can't e-mail me, phone me, text me, page me, etc if there's a problem. If you want the bot to e-mail me when there's a problem, you can bring that to Where's attention - as there might be a way to do it by writing a Perl script and calling that.

This could all be a misunderstanding on how !quit works and maybe it's my fault for not explaining it clearly. If that's the case, I've just explained it.

I think it's important that you bear this in mind: I am not trying to be incivil, period (just so we are all on the same page and I don't get in trouble for speaking my mind). I don't know how to reword the above into neutrally worded 'you need to talk to me when you make the bot leave, otherwise I won't know' type language. Please feel free to rephrase it yourself if it offends you. Thanks.

— nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 06:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it's a misunderstanding on how !quit works. A day or two after the bot left, I asked someone if you were notified of the problem. Someone from the AC said yes, so I didn't bother any further. I (and others probably as well) assumed that the bot e-mails you or something. And by the way, TINC. :) --Misza13 ^{T C} 09:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You know how I feel on TINC already so I don't have to repeat it here. Anyway, no, nobody told me a thing. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As of why the bot was made to leave... I don't recall that exactly right now, but I think we were talking about Esperanza and ESB_Bar_Keep kept cutting in with his /me likes Esperanza. It was funny for a moment, but has grown tiresome, so CP made him leave. What I remember is that he apparently ignored the !quiet commands given to him. He was just saying "Okay." and continued on his merry way. A bug? Misza13 ^{T C} 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes; that is a bug. The quiet command currently only applies to the random interjections. I will probably want to fix that after my wikibreak. Nathan, I'm sure you are going to be peaved about this, but I actually did go on IRC for a couple minutes a few days ago and ILovePlankton told me about the problem. I don't know why I didn't tell you; my only excuses are that 1) I may have assumed that you were already told somehow 2) my life is really hectic right now so I may have not been thinking clearly. Sorry about that! I'll be sure to tell you about any problems that I find out about in the future. As for fixing this bug, if you want to do that, it should be a trivial matter of removing the Esperanza line from keywords.list and running the command "perl keywords.pl" (in the scripts directory). I can also do it for you after my wikibreak ends. Where ^(talk) 11:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Nathan, I honestly assumed that you knew about it (I thought that was the whole reason behind the '!quit + reason' thing, I didn't know that you wouldn't see that if you weren't in the channel under your own nick), and I also thought, that it didn't come back online because of the router problems you had, so I left it. Others probably thought the same. As for the bot not being around for days (apart from what I just said: I didn't think you would be able to make it come online if you weren't able to be online yourself). Again, nothing personal against you or the bot, just misunderstandings. --JoanneB 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The bot is not hosted on my Windows XP-based PC. It would be very very unstable if it was (as the Windows platform itself is unstable enough without factoring in the router issues), and it would suffer the same connection issues as I am right now. Not to mention that the Windows version of the software that the bot uses (Eggdrop is its name, and the Windows version is called Windrop is very limited. Its hostname (if it wasn't cloaked) is xytra.net (which is the Linux shell I'm running it on), my PC's hostname ends in *.tor.primus.ca. I would never host a bot on Windows and would recommend that others don't as well. That is why most people host bots on the UNIX/Linux platform, and there are shell providers for people to do just that.

As for me making it come back, I have to connect to it (either by going to IRC and DCC chatting it, or telnetting to it from the shell) and tell it to come back which yes, does require that I'm online too. At the moment, my router will let me do whatever it is I want to do online, but it will break the connection every 5 minutes or so. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Bot is back and trigger "Esperanza" has been removed. Please comment with any further errors/annoyances on my talk. Thanks. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Even further update: I've discovered that it's not router problems, it's line problems (so that falls to the phone company to fix it). — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 07:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note

Wikipedia:esperanza/Newsletter (WP:ESP/N) and Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Slimline (WP:ESP/NS) have been created to keep track of the newsletter. Please see them and use if you feel that you would like to. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We will still be getting the spammage of the newsletter though, right? -- Natalya 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course - there's no escaping the newsletter! --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Waaaagh! I was about to propose it myself. I just kept forgetting or couldn't get you on IRC. Now you create it and get all the glory! Aaaargh! joking! :) Misza13 ^{T C} 21:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Don't credit me for WP:ESP/N, that was Wiki alf. I did think of the Slimline version though, per the signpost :P. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a $14.95/day charge for stealing our boxes. I'll be sending you a bill shortly. Ral315 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How about an opt-out list for the newsletter? At first I wanted the newsletter delivered to my talk page, but now I see that it's an interruption of the discussion on my talk page, so I've manually moved it off to another page in my userspace.

I still want to be kept informed of when the new newsletter has come out, though. So perhaps a compromise would be to just spam a link to the newsletter rather than the whole thing. That way it won't take up much room on my userpage, and I could still read it at my leisure without having to manually move it off my userpage myself. Thanks. -- noosphere 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Where do I register to get just a link posted to the newsletter rather than the whole thing? --evrik 16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More admin coaching

All right, the queue at Admin coaching is starting to be too long, and it's time to do a little shake-up around that program. First, I want to thank EWS23 for his hard work and helping me out during these past few weeks; we've decided, based on discussions with other coaches and the perception of the program on WT:RFA, that it's time to make a few changes.

• First off, it is necessary to explain that Admin coaching will not give free adminships. You still need to be a good candidate, as well as to earn the community's trust.
• As well, it is necessary to make clear that Admin coaching is not an admin academy. I've gotten complaints from a few coaches that the pressure that some coachees are giving them is excessive; a few coachees are expecting that after admin coaching, they will pass RfA as if it were a walk in the park. It isn't, and it is not fair to hold coaches accountable in case of a failed Request for adminship.
• Also, some coaches wonder about the nature of the program, and have asked if it is just a clearing house for nominating admin candidates. Not necessarily; some coaches prefer to look at every single edit that the coachee has produced, while others prefer to be available to answer questions from the coachee, to help them understand Wikipedia and learn the unwritten rules of Wikipedia. Both methods are equally valid in my opinion, and they're just a matter of coaching style.
• Finally, I'm making one change. In order to speed up the process, any editor who has not made an edit within two weeks will have his/her coaching request archived and the coaches will be available to take new coachees. Also, I have one request for coaches: please make sure to contact either me or EWS23 if you think you are finished with your current coachee and want another. We'll still go around asking coaches if they're willing, but if you tell us it makes it much faster.
• I'm still considering whether it is necessary to put some sort of criteria to weed out users who wouldn't have a chance of passing RfA, and I'd like further input about the issue. I've been thinking of something like this:
  • 1 month editing
  • 500 edits
  • No blocks for incivility/vandalism/disruption/3RR
• These are not passing criteria by any means, but anyone who doesn't meet them will clearly have his/her nomination snowballed by a bureaucrat.

Comments? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think all the bullet points are very important and practical. Unreasonable expectations can put too much stress on both the coaches and coachees. As for the criteria, it's probably a necessary evil. The time/edits are about three times the amount needed to join Esperanza, which seems about right. Maybe we can relax this a bit if coaches/coachees becomes a 1:1 ratio, but unfortunately that isn't likely to be the case any time soon. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with all of the points - well organized, Titoxd and EWS23! These guidelines should make admin coaching much more defined, which I'm sure will be helpful. I also think the last two points are important; with all the discussions about what to do about uncoachable coachees, that should take care of most problems, while still allowing many people to take advantage of the program. -- Natalya 11:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, most (if not all) of the credit for the bullet points above goes to Titoxd; I just stood by and said "good idea" every once in a while. :o) After re-reading this a couple times, I think maybe we should loosen the third criteria bullet point a tad. All users make mistakes, especially early in their Wikipedia experiences. Perhaps it could read something like "No blocks for incivility/vandalism/disruption/3RR in the past three months." 3RR is an especially tricky one, as edit wars can get very emotional, and often new users don't know about 3RR until they violate it. (Note: Obviously I don't condone such activities, just recognizing that all users are human (except bots, of course :o) ), and that a black spot on a user's record three (six, nine, twelve) months ago can and should be forgiven by the community. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'm on the coachee list, and have a different perspective, I'd think that those who are signed up as coaches should be allowed some personal bias on who they select... after all, they're the ones putting in the time, and presumably have experience, so they would reasonably be able to select those who they consider to be the most "promising candidates," if you will. After all, the idea of the program isn't to just mentor newer Wikipedians — although perhaps a future program can — but to prepare those who the coaches see as capable of taking on the responsibilities of adminship in the near future. Speaking for myself, I would prefer that an coach not pick me up unless they had faith in my potential ability (not that it hasn't been the case with the current coachees, from what I've seen). Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 13:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about this before, and while I do think it would be nice for coaches to be able to choose thier coachees, I'm afraid that this would lead to some users not being coached at all, or losing confidence in their abilities as a possible admin because no one picks them. Kind of like picking teams in gym class? -- Natalya 01:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What I do is that if a user requests coaching someone who is near the top of the list, and it would just mean changing around assignments I'm about to do, I do accomodate those kinds of requests. The keyword here is if the request is reasonable: if a user requests coaching someone who just signed up, I tell the coach that doing that would be fundamentally unfair, so I can't accept that. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise. On a different note, has anyone considered asking for an agreement from coachees that after they had "completed the process," however that is defined, and (hopefully) make admin, that they join on as coaches? Not for a mandatory term, exactly, but in an effort to give back and help others to do the same. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally support this proposal. I am slightly dubious about "No blocks for incivility/vandalism/disruption/3RR", with similar thoughts as EWS23. Making mistakes is part of the learning process, so we should not exclude people if they have made one (especially a one-off incident rather than a pattern of such problems). As for the above- I joined as a coach straight after being coached and becoming an admin. However I would totally understand a new admin wanting some experience as an admin before becoming a coach. So how about a suggestion (and not really a formal agreement) to 'graduates' of the program to consider returning as coaches. Petros471 09:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above points, I would happily sign up, since I'm already coaching a newb (and boy is that fun). I'm not saying that I couldn't do it, but apparently some people can't follow example when it comes to posting on talk pages. Eh, past caring. I need a coach sometime, I'd like to apply for RfA soonish, but I'd like to ask some questions about it, and I don't know anyone well enough who has the time to answer them. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At least a couple of people haven't editted since March in the active list. More haven't editted from April 17. At least we know where the coaches are going.... Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• After discussion here and in the last AC meeting, I'm now implementing the changes. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion on RFA stress

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfA-induced stress? might be of interest to anyone who hasn't seen it. the wub "?!" 17:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to join Esperanza?

Random the Scrambled 23:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you meet the minimum requirements that are listed on the membership page, feel free to list yourself on the list of members! --JoanneB 07:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

General notice re IRC channel stats

(I'm not complaining this time, isn't that nice?)

Just a general notice to everyone that you can have a small picture beside your name in the stats, if you'd like.

Take a look at the stats - ILovePlankton and I already have them, so this will give you an idea of what the images will look like.

If you want one, either comment here (and tell me where the image is) or e-mail me (of course, you know what to do to make that a real e-mail address instead of a munged one).

Also, if you want to be exempt from the stats for any reason, let me know here too. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Incivility.

I have to say that I am getting pretty damn sick of all of you. For the last week or so, just about the only stuff that has come up on this Talk Page has been "Incivility". You guys want to talk about man's incivility to man? Go do it somewhere else.

If this is all that Esperanza has to offer, I am ready to leave. It doesn't help that the only other thing I've seen from Esperanza is a stupid election. It's sad if the only substantive discussion is an election and the only other thing is some stupid food fight over a bot and incivility on IRC.

I would propose that all of you take an immediate and permanent break from discussing "Incivility". If that doesn't work for you, consider taking a one week break from Esperanza.

While you're at it, maybe you should read the purpose of Esperanza again. I haven't seen much of that lately.

--Richard 21:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, on reflection, this whole bit is so at odds with the spirit of Esperanza that I have decided to "archive" the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Incivility. You guys can continue your argument over there.

Just reading through that dreck is enough to turn anyone off from joining Esperanza. I've got one foot out the door as it is.

Sheesh.

--69.236.189.158 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So Esperanza has problems. Hiding them under the rug isn't going to solve them. And if people join partly because these problems have been hidden from them then they're being misled. Therefore, I favor restoring the discussion back to this talk page. -- noosphere 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I found the apologies, now archived, to be entirely within the spirit of Esperanza. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was a bit extreme in not making distinctions about the apologies. I just really want this discussion to move elsewhere. It's not furthering the goals of Esperanza. I'm OK if you want to keep the section here and reference the archive page but this Talk Page is getting long and the "Incivility" section was getting to be a major part of it. It's just ironic to have an association called Esperanza and have "Incivility" be something like 25% of the Talk Page.

--Richard 01:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some nice coffee for everyone!

I think we're all just a little tightly strung with all the disagreements going on. No one should be blamed for anything - this is Esperanza! I'd say we should all just sit back with a lovely cup of Esperanza coffee and relax. -- Natalya 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe I made my point too strongly but there are other ways to resolve disputes than having a public brawl in a forum dedicated to hope. It's just that I was wondering why nothing much seemed to be happening on Esperanza other than the Advisory Board election when along comes this food fight over something that I still can't quite figure out what the point of all of it was. I figured somebody ought to say "STOP!" so I did.

--Richard 01:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Having read the exchange, I must say I agree with your decision. Esperanza is not RfC. I think that seeing such a discussion here would be more misleading to new users — it gives the impression that Esperanza is a place to pursue community justice. Feezo (Talk) 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• If I'm the kind of person that makes people "pretty damn sick" of me, based on my previous contributions, then maybe I shouldn't be in Esperanza. No, scratch that -- I took that as a request for me to leave, so I've left. --Elkman - ^(talk) 02:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I'm going to say this here: Template:Civil1 You are preaching about being civil but are not civil yourself.

Your words (and past actions of some members of this organisation) are causing some good people (including myself, and some others within the last couple of hours of this comment) to leave. I urge you to consider the implications of what you're doing and the effect it is having on the community. You could easily have phrased what you needed to say in another way without resorting to incivility. In accusing others of being incivil in an incivil way - two wrongs don't make a right. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooh boy, apparently I've stepped on some toes. Hmmm, should I apologize? Nah, not my style.

I will say to (talk) that I didn't mean that you or anybody should leave Esperanza. To be honest, I can't remember what you contributed to the dialogue. Mostly I remember JCarriker and Nathanrdotcom. I just wanted to say that you guys were spending way too much time on this debate and in a forum that I thought was inappropriate. There are other places you can slug this stuff out (like on your User Talk pages). You could also consider this alternative... "Get a life"

Now, as for Nathanrdotcom's comment. Yes, perhaps I was a bit intemperate. So would it change anything if I said "Would you guys consider having your dispute elsewhere? Pretty please?"

I don't think I was that uncivil but everybody has different standards. I can be a lot less civil than I was. But then again this is Esperanza and even if it wasn't, it's Wikpedia.

--Richard 06:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes, POV & sense of community

Hi - I've been thinking about the issue of POV userboxes (e.g. identifying a political or religious view). These have been discouraged, and in a discussion, a majority voted to ban them - but it didn't reach consensus, so they are still in use.

It seems that some people value the ability to express and identify themselves through these userboxes, and perhaps this is valuable to Wikipedia's sense of community. Though arguably our sense of community shouldn't depend on knowing each others point of view on a particular issue, and if they highlight differing opinions, maybe it's a negative impact.

After thinking about this, I've written some of my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes - See heading Boxes for political parties and other groups, currently at the bottom. Input welcome. (Best to comment on that page unless specifically Esperanza-related). Thanks. --Singkong2005 11:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New bot

I figure this would be a good place to discuss what should be done about the bot now. After nathanrdotcom left, Misza13 put up Bob_the_Barman. The question is, would the Esperanza community like to stick with the status quo or replace it with BotOfDoom (which is basically ESP_Bar_Keep without a couple features that are never used like !ip2c, although that could be added back in by adding a line to a config file). As I am somewhat biased, I will not state a preference :) Where ^(talk) 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked the URL function (Solar eclipse to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse). If that function exists, I don't really care which bot occupies the chatroom. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I figure I might as well add more details so people are more informed. Feel free to add anything if I leave anything out. Please note that I may be biased due to the fact that I did some work on BotOfDoom (nathanrdotcom, Whopper,ILovePlankton, the eggdrop team, and several non-wiki Internet people) Here is a general overview:

• Both bots welcome users. Bob_the_Barman welcomes users, but currently only says "Hello, user." BotOfDoom gives people a variety of drinks upon their arrival. Bob now greets in multiple languages
• BotOfDoom can interject randomly into conversations with irrelevant comments, although this "functionality" can be disabled with the !quit command. Bob_the_Barman does not.
• Bob_the_Barman will say or do anything that any users tells it to do via PM, allowing a wide variety of actions, but also giving a potential abuse. BotOfDoom only says things based on keywords (ie if someone says the word "bed", it will speak up) or based on commands (ex. !cookie, !candy, !drink, !beverage, etc).
• BotOfDoom does wikilink expansion; Bob_the_Barman does not Both now do wikilink expansion
• The following has no effect on functionality but is interesting: BotOfDoom is written in C and TCL, which gets kind of ugly if you are reading the source code (especially since neither language has OOP). Bob_the_Barman is written in beatiful modular perl.

In both bots, features can be easily removed if needed. Where ^(talk) 20:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll add some bias towards the other side then. Most of the functions mentioned above (!cookies, WikiLinks, more hello lines) could quite easily be included into Bob_the_Barman, provided that I'm given enough time. (BTW, Bob is currently undergoing a major rewrite.) The thing with making the bot do arbitrary commands has of course to be decided upon. It hasn't been abused yet, but that's not a problem now, since I'm "at the console" all the time. What if the bot was hosted externally and 24/7? This is up for discussion. I also will not push Bob's candidacy too strong, since BotOfDoom is based on a tested Eggdrop framework, while Bob is written entirely from scratch by me, with no warranty of stability/security (which of course doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing). :) Misza13 ^{T C} 20:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it would be nice if the bot could be up 24/7. It would add a sense of friendliness and familiarity to the channel, no matter what time zone you're in. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really mind. I like Bob but until it has WikiLink expansion, I think we have to go with BotOfDoom. With the making Bob say things, could we make it that people with really high access can see who made them, in case of abuse? Would that help? --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bob now seems to have wikilink expansion. Fetofs ^Hello! 16:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

...and welcomes in multiple languages. Misza13 ^{T C} 20:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is of any use to you, I can offer UNIX/BSD hosting to put this thing on, I am more than happy to help (and I won't even stop it slapping me!). :) Ian13/talk 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But does bob play uno? BotOfDoom can. ILovEPlankton ^(T—C—L) 13:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Chat link

When I click on the chat link I get a message saying "irc is not a registered protocol". SCHZMO ✍ 12:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you probably don't have ChatZilla installed (properly). (Assuming you use Mozilla.) Misza13 ^{T C} 12:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change in templates

I suggest that we change all usages of {{guideline}} on Esperanza pages to {{Esp-guideline}} which is something I whipped up specifically for use on Esperanza pages. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although I wouldn't mind if all editors would obey Esperanza guidelines :-) --Tone 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone could always make use of {{Esp-policy}} though splitting them up might be going a little too far. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Code of Conduct Item #5 (uh oh)

Gee... maybe I shoulda read that Code of Conduct more closely while it was still being discussed. It was right around the time that I joined Esperanza and so I wasn't paying close attention.

Anyway, I now find that I have problems with Code of Conduct item #5. I understand that it's not good to "pack the ballot box". Nonetheless, I have done this in the past and can easily imagine that I would do it again.

Here's the situation I created an article which was titled Adaptation to global warming based upon a suggestion on the Talk Page for Mitigation of global warming that the topic deserved an article unto itself. So I was bold and did it. Within minutes, it was tagged for deletion. I rallied the global warming gang to support keeping it (and also improved the article to address various concerns). The result was a unanimous vote to keep the article. Would it have gone that way if I hadn't lobbied for support? Perhaps. However, I see nothing wrong with what I did and I'd do it again in a similar situation.

I'd like to hear some thoughts about why item #5 is important. Of course, the worst thing that could happen if I violate the rule is I could get thrown out of Esperanza. So, I could either refuse to accept the Code of Conduct now or wait until such time as I feel I need to violate item #5 and then get thrown out then.

Thoughts?

--Richard 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether the above is violated by listing things on WikiProjects or Noticeboards or Deletion Sorting lists. I have regularly done this in the past, for the reason that it gets experts on a subject into a discussion that would possibly otherwise be lacking in their POV's. If this is actually against the policy of this community building organisation then I will have to think again, as I rather like my (sometimes small) wikiproject communities right now. Ansell 07:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that there is a difference between letting people know that there is a vote they may be interested in, and actively saying 'vote this way'. Whlst there is that difference then clearly the people that you notify may or may not vote a particular way. My own view is that spreading the word of the vote is acceptable and indeed supports the policy of seeking consensus by maximising the numbers expressing a view whereas touting for a particular vote seeks to undermine consensus.ALR 08:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The last AC Meeting

I'm posting this after seeing a rash of people who have formed opinions about what transpired without checking their facts or reading the meeting log carefully.

1. The COC is still a proposal. The AC voted to make some changes and resubmit. That is all. This doesn't mean that all of the individual members totally agree with it, nor is it yet binding. If you don't like the COC, then a far more useful thing to do would be to comment and make your feelings known, rahter than leaving Esperanza in a huff. If you don't like it, do something about it or stop whining.
2. The ban on publishing IRC logs publically is a Wikimedia Foundation rule. As our channel has Wikipedia in the name, we are bound to it, and have been, however, assuming good faith and that people didn't know this, we are making it clear that this rule does apply, yet not punishing anyone for a previous infraction. Logs can still be used to regulate should someone do something terrible, but should be emailed privately to the AC rather than publically posted.
3. If a person decides to leave, rather than communicate and makes assumptions rather than asking people, they have forfited their right to complain about Esperanza. We are not mind readers. We do not know exactly what the problem is unless it is communicated and refusal to do so is a grandly dramatic, but ultimatley useless gesture if you want to see things changed.

And now, onto my personal feelings.

1. I know that all the AC members have done what they think is best for the group. Often, this requires putting personal feelings aside and looking objectively at what needs to be done. However, since many people reading the meeting log obviously don't realize that there is difference between personal feeling and group decisions, and have not even bothered to ask me, but made assumptions, I am posting my personal thoughts here. Unlike some others, I think Esperanza can work, and am willing to put the effort into making that happen.
2. I don't think we should have a Code of Conduct at all. My voting to put this back up for discusssion again was in the hopes people would speak up, instead they took their toys and went home. This saddens me, but as I have said over and over, if you aren't willing to communicate, you can't expect anything will change. So I'm communicating here. I think that Wikipedia has community standards of behavior that are well established by consensus and that no further rules should be placed upon that by Esperanza. If a person's behaviour is offensive enough for a block by the community, then that is all that is needed. If not, then we need not be the judge and jury. People need act maturely enough to police their own actions, Esperanza is not their babysitter. If their actions are bad enough, the community will take care of it. If they aren't, then we don't need to interfere. We are not here to settle disputes between users. It says that right on the front page under General Philosophy. Yes, we are humans, we will make mistakes, we will behave badly. No one can stop that, and trying to force perfect behavior is useless and futile. Sure its appealing to think we can wave a magic wand/COC and everyone will behave. However, that isn't reality and we have more important things to do than to police squabbles about who was incivil. Wikipedia as a whole is set up to take care of that, it is not our job to judge, only to love and give hope. This COC while good intentioned, is the beginning of what will be an Esperanza judge and jury in my opinion. It is a dangerous road to go down, and we shouldn't do it.
3. As such, the whining and complaining and nit-picking about others behaviour needs to stop. Be mature, fix it yourself, otherwise, let the greater Wikipedia community deal with it. That is their job. Not ours.
4. Initially the COC was written to govern behavior on IRC the same as on wiki. I suggested this be removed. I don't think the COC has a place in Esperanza and is certainly way off base for the channel. IRC needs its own rules. Unfortunately, if people could self police themselves like they do on many other channels, no rules would have to be stated. But over and over this channel has shown that it cannot. A quote from a friend of mine that explains things, "IRC is an interesting medium. The opporuntity for instant communication produces the opportunity for instant conflict. Also, the ability to sign off and end a conflict in mid stream, without resolution, isn't the same as on WP. People forget themselves. And it's easier to offend people, because instant communication generally takes place as though it was spoken (as opposed to on-wiki communication, which is more easily recognized as "written"), but IRC doesn't convey the same signs and signals as spoken communication. Finally, it's a unique medium; Wikipedia policies don't apply, and there isn't a clear procedure for dealing with conflict and bad behavior. Things that would be frowned upon on wiki aren't frowned upon on IRC. So, it becomes important to make things clear for IRC; it doesn't have to be long and drawn out, but people should know what to expect. Users are expected to respect others, and to avoid making other users uncomfortable. The Esperanza IRC channel is run by channel ops, who's decisions are appealable to other ops, and to the Wikimedia Group Contacts. Users may not post logs, per Wikimedia IRC channel policy. There are few strict channel rules; common sense is the general rule. Users are also cautioned to remember that IRC, while similar to spoken conversation, lacks non-verbal cues, and misunderstandings may occur; users should offer others the benefit of the doubt and ask when unclear." So we need a simple set of rules there, like Play Nice with Others and Don't Post Logs. People not doing this will be kicked. The reason I am in favor of rules on IRC but not the COC is that while Wikipedia already has community standards, IRC has none, as stated above.
5. Once again, this is an organization of people. People aren't perfect, and joining Esperanza doesn't instantly make you perfect. So assume good faith with your fellow members rather than judging them. If people just did this one thing, so many issues would disappear. It is too bad that of all things, this seems to be the one thing people don't try to do. pschemp | talk 12:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A comment about the Code of Conduct issue

I've given this a lot of thought over the last view days, especially in the light of people leaving. Since I was the one who proposed the Code of Conduct in the first place, I feel the need to explain myself a bit here. A while ago, there some signals from different corners of the community that they were seeing Esperanza members having a 'green e' in their sigs while signing a personal attack. Around the same time, some other worrisome incidents occurred, involving Esperanza members harrrassing others, on IRC and WP. Both these things struck me as ironic, seeing what Esperanza is supposed to be. That's why I proposed the principle of a Code of Conduct, a sign to the community that 'this is what we stand for', and a proposal for the way we could operationalise our mission. As things have progressed, and reading Pschemp's comments above, I'm not sure if that's the way it is interpreted right now. It has never been about policing the community, never to play judge and jury and run around after Esperanzians who 'misbehave' anywhere, but to emphasise our identity as a community. And yes, there can be disagreement about the way the Code of Conduct links to the charter ('is this what we want to stand for?'), but that's exactly why it was put up for discussion weeks ago. I am sad that people left because of the recent events, and I hope that it will not be the beginning of a new trend, people leaving because they're not happy with what Esperanza is these days. I know people feel that way, I have the same feelings myself, and I'm now curious and wondering what we can do about this. All feedback is appreciated. My personal focus in the time ahead will be supporting and strengthening the programs we have that are closest to our charter, to get back to the aim of Esperanza as closely as we can. --JoanneB 14:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the basic issue underlying all of this is that we've lost track of what exactly Esperanza is supposed to be. If the idea is to have an informal brotherhood of people working to spread love and hope and all that, then we're too bureaucratic now. There's no need to have councils and programs and proposals and elaborate election and by-election and referendum processes; all we need is some common symbol to use for spreading the message and perhaps some discussion areas to use.

If, on the other hand, we are to be a structured organization—if we are to do things as a group, and presumably in the name of every member—then there is a natural desire to have some way of preventing the worst of Wikipedia's trolls and malcontents from hijacking the group to their own ends. Hence the Code of Conduct and the attempts to police the membership.

What we cannot do is to have both a completely open membership and the idea of things being done in its name. If membership is to mean anything, it must be possible to eject those working counter to our goals; conversely, if we wish to welcome everyone, then let's dispense with the idea of the members acting as some sort of pseudo-electorate. Kirill Lokshin 14:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(Posted at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Code of Conduct also) The most important thing is that members of Esperanza carry on the Esperanza spirit. If a user is participating in things contrary to our feelings, someone should be able to say "Hey, remember you're part of Esperanza. By its ideals, what should you be doing in this situation?"

One suggestion I have, that is perhaps less drastic then the Code of Conduct is to add something to the Membership Requirements stating that members will uphold the values of Esperanza (or to just uphold the mission of Esperanza, which is the section above). By doing that, I think we'd be communicating to members that they are expected to act Esperanzial in all their actions. Of course, if there was any support for it, that would require a modification of the charter, which takes process. -- Natalya 15:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like a good suggestion, Natalya. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, my earlier comments about the possibility of my leaving Esperanza due to COC item #5 was made without any understanding that there were other people who had left Esperanza. I didn't realize that other people had left and that my comment might have been taken in the context of those departures.

I would like Esperanza to succeed and I would like to be a member. However, if you're going to insist that I sign up to follow the COC, then I would prefer that the COC be rules that I can live by. The only rule that I had any issues with was item #5 and then only because it was so broadly worded as to encompass stuff that I thought was perfectly valid behavior.

I agree with what Nataly proposed.

As for what Kirill Lokshin said, to wit, "What we cannot do is to have both a completely open membership and the idea of things being done in its name." He's right. We can't. I would favor the completely open membership and dispensing with the idea of things being done in the name of Esperanza.

Continuing along that line of thinking, I agree that Esperanza shouldn't have a mandatory COC. It IS too bureaucratic. I do believe there should be a COC which we ask all members to agree to and that agreement should give us the right to admonish those who violate it. But, it is better to keep people as members that we can advise and admonish than to throw them out. If they want to be members of Esperanza, they must feel that Esperanza is a good thing. That gives us an opening to convince them that what they did or are doing is not in keeping with Esperanza.

I'm not sure the green E thing symbolizing Esperanza in people's signatures is a good thing given the incidents of people behaving in a non-Esperanza way while having that green E thing on their signature. It seems the idea of making the COC thing mandatory was to have the ability to revoke the right to use the green E thing. Is it really important to have it?

Why not just say "Esperanza isn't a set of rules, it's a way of life, a way of thinking and behaving. People will know you are Esperanzan by the way you act." Wouldn't it be great if there was Esperanza members were asked NOT to self-identify as Esperanzan and yet non-Esperanzans would say "He/she must be an Esperanzan because he/she is so supportive and mellow compared to some of the WikiLunatics in this asylum." Yes, this idea is borrowed from Christianity "You will know them by their love." Still, it's an idea worth considering.

--Richard 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JoanneB: I did not leave because of the Code of Conduct. I left because I signed up with esperanza to help people, not to fix Esperanza's problems. I get so busy trying to fix Esperanza that I don't have time for helping people and that's what I got into this for. Since I have joined Esperanza, I have been busier and busier trying to make Esperanza better, and frankly I'm tired of trying. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A crazy idea?

So, now that we're hemorrhaging members, we might want to consider doing something differently:

Remove the bureaucracy

1. Get rid of the leadership positions and accompanying elections.
2. Get rid of the charter.
3. Get rid of the Code of Conduct.
4. Get rid of the membership list. If people want to advertise via userboxes or signatures, fine, but word the messages as supporting Esperanza, rather than being a member of it.

Remove the program-cruft

1. Kill the proposals page, as there will be nobody left to approve them.
2. Cut down existing programs and subpages to a bare minimum, preferably just to those that don't require any oversight (off the top of my head, the calendar, and perhaps the alerts page, would be the things to leave).

What's left?

1. Rather than being an organization, Esperanza will be an idea: that, to borrow Jimbo's words (I think they're Jimbo's, anyway), Wikipedians ought to be kind, thoughtful, and loving.
2. Functionally, Esperanza would be trimmed to a single page outlining this idea (and maybe a few subpages like the calendar and image list?); the discussion page would be open to any Wikipedian dealing with a difficult issue, and would be a place where people could offer words of advice and comfort.

Comments? Am I completely insane even for suggesting this? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes you are ;). Well if the Admin Gen is booted, we're all screwed. I called Titox "a pain", so I'll give up my membership now since I can't last 30 seconds without being an arse to someone. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)