Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia:Esperanza is now inactive. Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This page is an archive. Discussion of the essay describing Wikipedia:Esperanza should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. To discuss any issues found in this archive, please direct any additional comments to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/sandbox|2005-09-19|Esperanza group|New group aims to promote Wiki-Love}}


Esperanza Userboxes[edit]

To prevent a lot of redirects, could I change this and this so that they link directly to Wikipedia:Esperanza instead of Wikipedia:Esperanza? 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 Wikipedia:Esperanza? 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.[edit]

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Advisory Council actually exists. Why not just edit the timeline there and transclude that? It would make more sense, in my opinion. — Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 23:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In the name of Esperanza...[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. — Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 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. — Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 09:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Code of Conduct[edit]

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?[edit]

Get my birthday on your calender? Please reply via ip chat as well if you can so I notice, ta 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.
Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review[edit]

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. — Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Adjective form[edit]

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 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[edit]

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. — Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 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[edit]

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)[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia Talk:Esperanza/The bot

Just a note[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

(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. — Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 03:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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.


-- 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: It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that preventive administrative action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! 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. — Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 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 (TCL) 13:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Chat link[edit]

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[edit]

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. Pegasus1138Talk | 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Code of Conduct Item #5 (uh oh)[edit]

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.


--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[edit]

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[edit]

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. --Siva1979Talk 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 (TCUL) 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A crazy idea?[edit]

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)
Kirill, I like your brand of insanity. Yes, yes, yes to just about everything you wrote. I would keep the Proposals page, though. However, all proposals should be adopted by consensus and enforced by "moral suasion". I.E. "The consensus of Esperanzans was that we should do X (or avoid doing Y). You seem to be behaving in contradiction to that consensus and therefore might be behaving counter to the spirit of Esperanza." No threats or anything like that. Just a "Be nice, please." from your friendly neighborhood Esperanzan. You don't get booted out of Esperanza for violating a guideline. You just get friendly admonishment. Leave it to the admins and the Arbitration Committee to use the big sticks.
--Richard 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Massive talk page spamming[edit]

For general discussion (I know this was discussed in the past). Tony Sidaway has left the following message on the talk page of MiszaBot:

Massive talk page spamming
Hi, I just noticed that yesterday this bot spammed hundreds of talk pages to deliver a newsletter. This is completely unnecessary. Please consider using a mailing list to deliver the newsletter to those who want an individual copy, and for on-wiki newsletters please follow the same procedure used by established publications such as The Signpost. Editors who are interested can pop the page onto their watchlists. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, am happy to receive this spam, and receiving it is a condition of membership, is it not? NoSeptember talk 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind receiving it. i wouldn't have read it if it hadn't been on my talk page.! Jayant,17 Years, Indiacontribs 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agreed to receive it as a condition of membership but I'd rather receive it via e-mail or via w Wiki page that I can watch. --Richard 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No one would object if a user immediately reverted it or archived it from their talk page. As for being bothered by the "New Messages" banner.... NoSeptember talk 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it show up for once a month? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the Wikiprojects (History or War or the like) has a 3-tier system. You can choose to be spammed with the newsletter, spammed with advice that the newsletter is now available, or watch the page and not be spammed at all. This sounds good; but it must be an administrative nightmare. I'm happy with the spamming myself (I'd never get around to reading it otherwise, I freely admit) and see no problem with it being a condition of membership to be spammable (it's one message a month, not 90 messages a day, after all). Admittedly, certain people at Wikipedia are currently making something of a fetish of applying rules to the letter and guidelines like they were rules, but they can be safely ignored in the full knowledge that Wikipedia is not now and will never be code-bound in a way like dmoz is as it would crush the creativity the 'pedia requires from us all. ➨ ЯΞDVΞRS 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a big improvement would be to make Talk Page newsletter delivery an option instead of a requirement. Those who want to get it on their Talk Page could sign up somewhere to get it delivered that way and those who want to read it on a Wiki page could watch a page like Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Newsletter. Administratively, it's not much harder than what is done now and you avoid cramming stuff down our throats that we don't want. What do you say in the newsletter that is so dad-blamed important that I gotta read it?
--Richard 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this isn't any old Wikiproject, it's an association of Wikipedians devoted to creating and maintaining a sense of community within Wikipedia, if someone is a member of Esperanza, one would expect a greater degree of community involvement to be required and that would include a message on your talk page once a month about what is happening at Esperanza. If someone doesn't want that level of involvement in the Esperanza community - one message! - then why are they in Esperanza in the first place?

I simply cannot see what hardship is caused by getting a newsletter from an organisation I have signed up for, especially when I can stop getting that newsletter by leaving the organisation. If I got no talk page messages other than from Esperanza, then it wouldn't be a problem. If I was getting 500 a month, a la Jimbo, then one more wouldn't make a difference. If, like most people, I was in the middle with an average of 5 or so a week, that one message a month would still not be the end of the world - if nothing else, a wiki makes it very easy to delete if I didn't want it cluttering up my talk page.

All Esperanza asks of its members is that they receive a message once a month. Nobody is required to make any further investment in our little group in terms of time or typing. We don't even require that people read the newsletter - just that a member receives it. This is such a tiny, minor, wee thing to ask of people who have already self-selected as being community-minded and interested in supporting each other that I'm amazed that we as a group keep having to have this conversation. ➨ ЯΞDVΞRS 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. You don't see the problem, eh? I've read my newsletter. Please clean it off my Talk Page. If you find that too arduous a task, then you now see what my problem with it is. --Richard 20:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Just did. It took me 7 seconds, including the lag I've got at the moment because the person sharing my internet connection is using Bittorrent (I think). Hope this helps. ➨ ЯΞDVΞRS 21:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You couldn't have done that yourself? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Chuckle... Thanks for cleaning up my Talk Page, Redvers! Yes, of course, I could have done it myself. I do far more than that every day on Wikipedia. I just don't think I should have to do it. Can I get this "cleanup" service every month on request? Nah, I'm sure it'll get old real quick.
Anyway, why do you guys want to spend so much time and effort keep jawboning me about "what's the big deal?". Isn't it up to me to decide what I want and what I don't want? Why is Esperanza so bent on forcing me to read something? If it's worth reading, I'll read it. I read far worse dreck on my watchlist ranging from vandalism to long POV discussions of why something does or does not belong in a particular article. Is the point to make Esperanza membership enough of an annoyance that only the truly dedicated will remain members? Will Esperanza really suffer if I skip reading the newsletter for a month or two?
I seriously don't understand what the big deal is about making sure I read it. It's not like I've agreed to respond to specific assignments or anything like that.
P.S. All of this is really on point of principle. Of course, I plan to read the newsletter and of course, it's easy to delete when I'm done. It's just curious why you insist on delivering the newsletter to me the way you want to deliver it rather than the way I want it delivered. Is there an antonym for "customer service attitude"? Must be "Esperanza".
--Richard 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand what the big deal is with receiving one spam message per month. I also don't see what Tony Sidaway's problem is. Even 100+ messages is no big load on the servers. The message doesn't even have images in it. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Twice now I've suggested an opt-out list for the newsletter, and been completely ignored. How hard is this to do? At first I actually 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. Sure, doing this is not a huge deal, but I honestly have better things to do than move spam off my talk page. If there was a page I could put on my watchlist, or even if there was just a small link left on my talk page when the newsletter came out it wouldn't be so bad. But having the whole thing appear there is annoying.
I understand the passion about the newsletter some people may feel, and about Esperanza. I just don't think it should be forced on anyone. Anyway, for those people who don't appreciate being spammed, doing so is counterproductive if you want to generate enthusiasm rather than annoyance. -- noosphere 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a technical note: an opt-out list is easy to implement. A way to tell the bot where to put the spam should also be doable. Misza13 T C 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem of massive spam[edit]

I have stated the problem in my original message, reposted above. The posting of the same large message on hundreds of user talk pages is completely unnecessary. The wiki needs one copy of the newsletter, which everybody interested can pop on his watchlist. If this works okay for the Signpost, which covers business of interest to all Wikipedians, then it should be enough for the newsletter of a social group.

Another problem, which is more cosmetic than anything else, is the sheer ugliness of the thing. This is a massive multicolumn slab of stuff that even as an experienced Wikipedian I found confusing when I wanted to add a comment on someone's user talk page.

And underlying all this, of course, is the problem with our condoning this (relatively harmless) massive spam run, even if it's just once a month. Esperanza is a relatively harmless society; what do we say when the league of Wikipedian big-endians comes along and starts spamming hundreds of talk pages?

The effect of spam in any environment is to degrade the communication medium, cluttering it with redundant and largely unwanted, largely unread, identical copies of material that only needs to exist in one place.

We have watchlists. We have email. Let's use them. --Tony Sidaway 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem, although I had already read everything on Esperanza before it had been sent. Well I'm definitely not getting a coach for all too obvious reasons. And here comes another Oppose. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
So you oppose stopping the spamming of the newsletter even when people tell you point-blank that they don't want to be spammed? -- noosphere 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A little Taizé anyone?[edit]

To calm everyone down. --Celestianpower háblame 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it turns out I don't have a default .ogg player! I had to convert it to mp3 with WavePad and then listen to it in <gulps>Windows Media Player</gulps>.
And, you know what? It really wasn't worth it! ;o) Although I am now strangely calmer and feel the need to do good works all round the shop. Hmmm. ➨ ЯΞDVΞRS 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza wikibreak[edit]

Why are we closing Espy? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Because everything's a bit fracked up at the moment. This is a sort of cooling down period. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think that simply pretending that there aren't any problems for a few weeks will do anything other than causing more people to leave. Kirill Lokshin 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, there's no way that we'll be pretending that there are any problems. We'll be thinking and talking about various options to go on (such as your proposal, and others). However, people have real lifes as well, and they're human, and there's only so much stress people can take in the course of a few days. Discussion can go on in the mean time, it's just that no decisions will be taken, so that all involved have some time and space to focus on what's important. --JoanneB 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


She's leaving apparently, that lasted. Thoughts? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to help, did my best to do good, and was rewarded with a spate of people assuming crap about me, without even asking me what I really thought. Since that seems to be the mode of operation, the organization doesn't need me. However, I don't plan to stick around complaining, as I will follow my own advice. I TRIED to fix it, now its your turn (all of you). pschemp | talk 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I am very sorry to hear that you are leaving. Anyway, I wish you best of luck for the future. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Esperanza (edit:) Esperanza's Admin general and Advisory council are taking a short Wikibreak. After some recent events, it's time for some rest and some time to think about ways to continue. You're still more than welcome to continue with the programs, such as the admin coaching and keeping an eye on stressed users! The IRC channel won't be closed either, so feel free to drop by. Keep an eye on this page, we'll keep you posted on the updates. Kind regards, JoanneB 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that we discussed this and I am in support of the idea. --Celestianpower háblame 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
But what does it mean, in this context? A user taking a Wikibreak means they won't be editing for the duration; an organization taking a Wikibreak (but not halting any programs) means... what? Kirill Lokshin 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
My point, in what sense are on wikibreak? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
See my comment above. --JoanneB 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Noted. On another note, will User:Drini take over Pschemp's place? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This really does not make a lot of sense to me either. Does this mean the Barnstar Brigade is shutting down temporarily too? Kukini 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Does the Barnstar Brigade need Esperanza to work? I don't think so. I just needs your good will. And that's what it's all about: stop quarreling about what Esperanza should be and start being an Esperanzian. Misza13 T C 22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Admin Coaching will keep going, Barnstar Brigade will keep going, the corporate and officey side is taking a break for now. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this going to sound like I'm some sort of libertarian nutcase but who in the hell decided that Esperanza is on "wikibreak". How is it that this brotherhood wound up electing a bunch of hoity-toity muckety-mucks that can decide to put Esperanza on wikibreak? If they want to go on wikibreak, they should say something like "the Esperanza Advisory Council" is on wikibreak.

Does Esperanza being on wikibreak mean we're not Esperanzans for a few weeks? We get to revert to type and be our normally nasty selves?

Or did they really mean to say "Now that you've elected us to the Advisory Council, we're going to abscond with the Esperanza funds to an unnamed Caribbean island which doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S.?

--Richard 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the Advisory Council decide on policy and proposals and such, which is what is going on a Wikibreak. So, since we are closing the things that the Advisory Council control, it's their decision. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The Admin General and JoanneB decided, in conference with other Esperanzians in the IRC channel. Taking a confrontational tone accomplishes nothing, Richard. This is the last I'm going to post about this for a while. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, get a sense of humor. That was a joke, numbnuts. That bit about the Caribbean island and absconding with Esperanza funds was meant to signal that I was gently ribbing the AC. I just deliberately forgot to put on the obligatory smiley. ;^) I have a wry sense of humor. Maybe you guys take yourselves too seriously.
--Richard 05:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Humor and sarcasm don't always come across correctly over the internet. What you hear as funny is actually angry name-calling to another. (What exactly does "numbnuts" mean, anyway? No wait, don't answer that.) I just ask you to be aware of that in the future if or when misunderstandings arise. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For more clarity: this does not mean that the individuals holding those positions (except for Pschemp) are going anywhere, literally or figuratively speaking (not even to a Caribbean island, Richard). --JoanneB 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aw rats.... -)
Seriously, you guys don't fool me for a minute. I'm gonna get an injunction and freeze all Esperanza funds so nobody can secretly transfer them to offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands.
--Richard 05:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
And for even more clarity, the point of my original post was to point out the difference between Esperanza and the Esperanza AC. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip but the AC accidentally suggested that they were Esperanza and that they could therefore shut it down. They got the point after several people questioned this and the mistake was corrected. No biggie. We're all human.
Esperanza AC is on wikibreak. Probably a well-deserved one. Esperanza continues. All the rest of you are still bound by the Code of Conduct. I'm watching you... Sanctions will be imposed if you step out of line. Alright everybody, left face, forward harch!!!  ;^)
--Richard 05:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a really good idea, and I hope everyone can appreciate it. We are all still Esperanzians, we are just getting overworked and overstressed as problems pile on. I think the Advisory Council's break will let all of Esperanza take a nice deep breath and come back refreshed and ready to be awesome like we usually are. :D -- Natalya 00:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true, Natalya. Everone deserves a break and this is no exception. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • One serious question, to the entire membership: why do you need the Admin General or the Advisory Council to do anything? Why can't you be more proactive, but more importantly, be bold, as our encyclopedia-wide guideline states? The leadership of Esperanza doesn't have a bot flag set that I know of, so we're human and we need help sometimes. One criticism that has plagued Esperanza for the start is that it is too bureaucratic; leaving all the work for the AC/AG doesn't help us get rid of that reputation, you know... :) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being such a newbie. What are the things that you think Esperanza members should do that they leave for the Admin General or Advisory Council to do? --Richard 08:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Presumably because, being good Esperanzians, we don't really want to revolt against the AG and the AC (especially right after we elected them)? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think having an Admin General and the Advisory Council are important. It is good for Esperanza to have a small group that can be looked to during disagreements (even if the disagreements continue :), to approve programs, to organize Esperanza-wide events, and many other things. I feel like when I joined Esperanza (not all that long ago, actually), the AG and AC were present, but not as apparent as they are now. Perhaps stepping back a little bit, and encouraging Esperanza members to be more bold, while still being present, will be the best bet for the continuatin of the AG and AC. -- Natalya 11:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
While I don't have a strong opinion on what the leadership structure should be like, I agree with Titoxd completely. As Esperanzans and Wikipedians, we don't need any kind of directive to spread community and hope. Just as it always should have been, it's up to the individual to do their absolute best in making this encyclopedia and its community a better place. I think I'm going to make a large post here in a second, where I will have more comments (stay tuned ;o) ) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 15:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

List of problems at Esperanza[edit]

I believe that Esperanza's Wikibreak means that no issues will be decided for a short time. Meanwhile, I propose we deliniate exactly what problems exist here at Esperanza. Let's not discuss this issues here, but instead just outline them (for the benefit of those confused about what exactly is going on here, including myself). A simple list will help clear things up for everyone. Please list the items here. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. Users are using the name of Esperanza to justify personal attacks. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Users are revolting against the Advisory Council with harrassment/stress causing Personal Attacks and departures Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. The biggest problem is that users are missing the point of what Esperanza is. The first revision to Wikipedia:Esperanza states, "The Esperanza Association is a proposed association of wikipedians dedicated to strengthening wikipedia's sense of community through establishing a support network for wikipedians in an environment that is often hostile and apathetic." I have seen it become more and more like a social club, and progressively less of a support group for the core editing group of Wikipedia. If we consider John F. Kennedy's quote, users are looking at what Esperanza can do for them, but not what they can do for Esperanza; that attitude is extremely damaging to Wikipedia's ideals of Be bold, and {{Sofixit}}, as both the website and the association depend on the creative and individualistic input of volunteer contributors to fuction. All of Esperanza is secondary to making Wikipedia a better place; however, there has been too much dispute about appendages to this organization, and the basic founding principles of it are being blatantly ignored, because "someone will take care of it". It makes me sad when I see users adding themselves to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members and not do anything else; it makes me wonder if I've been wasting my time. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I added myself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members and then didn't do much of anything else. I awarded one Barnstar and that was about all that I knew of to do. The only other thing I know of is Admin Coaching and I'm not ready for that. This was one reason that I got frustrated with Experanza. All I have seen in the last month is Advisory Council elections, Code of Conduct and IRC/bot/incivility. Not particularly inspiring. Maybe you can suggest what else a new Esperanza member can do? --Richard 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What to do? Be a good wikipedian. Be civil, helpful and friendly in your dealings. That's it... If you want to do more: Find people that need help, and help them. Find places where a civil, calm viewpoint can help resolve conflict. Find projects where some scutwork would help move the project forward and no one's doing it yet, and just do it. Find editors that seem down, that could use a kind word, a thoughtful comment, a meaningful thank you, aind give them that kindness, that thought, that thank you. That's what Esperanza means to me. Not programs, not councils and elections and leaders, but kindness and hope. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments from EWS23[edit]

Hello all. I apologize for being relatively silent in the past few days on this page. I have been hit just as hard as everyone by these recent leavings and combined with the coinciding sudden leaving of Wikipedia by Hermione1980, I have been experiencing more Wikistress than I ever have on this project. However, despite my silence on this page, those of you on IRC know that I am dedicated to staying with this organization through thick and thin. I feel I will stay with Esperanza as long as I believe in its goals, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

As an organization, we have lost sight of our broader goals. Our goals are simple, wholesome, and good: to spread community, hope, and Wikilove. When you have such a broad and large-scale message that you are trying to spread, you can't allow yourself to get caught up in small negative incidents, and that is what we have done in the past few days. As the new disclaimer on the Esperanza page now stresses, (paraphrasing) we are human. Humans make mistakes. However, THIS is not the place where we focus on those mistakes. Focusing on the mistakes is already well covered by places such as AN/I, RfC, ArbCom, and (in practice) RfA. Esperanza is the place where we focus on the positives. It's the place where we look at the GOOD contributions someone has made and say, "Don't worry, your stress will pass. There is hope still in Wikipedia. Come sit with us for a cup of tea, take a little time off, share a few laughs, and get back out there and be the best Wikipedian you can be!" And yes, there is still hope. There is still hope as long as people like you and me are still here.

So what do we need to do? As I've said in the past, I don't know what we should do with the leadership positions; I'll leave that to people who are much more politically savvy than I am. However, as for restoring the spirit that is Esperanza, it ultimately comes down to you. Yes: you. Esperanza will still be place where we can have centralized activities such as Barnstar Brigade, Admin Coaching, the Coffee Lounge, and all the others. However, it is up to the individuals to uphold the ideals that are Esperanza. So go out into the wiki and do so with a bounce in your step, a tune in your heart, and a smile on your face. Give a barnstar to someone deserving. Make someone laugh in a tense situation. Be civil in the face of incivility. Calm everyone down in controversial articles, start fresh, and be productive. Assume good faith. Help newcomers. Better yet, edit with the spirit and enthusiasm and excitement that you had when you were a newcomer.

If everyone does these things and so much more, Wikipedia will be a much better place to be. Then, when you've enjoyed a day of hard work and good cheer, come back to Esperanza and share your stories and stresses and heartaches and successes. Enjoy the light, cheerful, and supportive atmosphere we are going to create here. I will be here, and I hope you will too.

EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Awww, that made me smile. I'm still downed with Wikistress and wanting revenge for someone who is out to destroy me but awww. On the note of the politics, what do the Advisory Council actually do? From my current view, they have a meeting once a month on IRC and rule over the rest of us, something which I don't want to be part of. If the AC do more (I have no intention of getting IRC) then I may re-apply, but eh. Good show Eric, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for that note. It seems to me that instead of Esperanza being a fountain of hope that seeks to calm the troubled waters of Wikipedia, you guys have been letting the troubled waters seep into Esperanza (that's a strange mixing of metaphors, I know, sorry). Anyway, that was kind of the rationale behind my earlier post about being "sick and tired of the bot/IRC discussion". I couldn't figure out who was right and who was wrong and I was tired of even trying. If you like getting into disputes, there's plenty of opportunities to get into that with RfC and Mediation Cabal and even the mundane process of editing articles. Esperanza should be an oasis from all that WikiInsanity. If it isn't, then why bother joining another group to find more conflict? I can find plenty of conflict without your help, thank you.
Now, let's move on to something constructive. I like the idea of WP:HEC. In fact, I think we have a pretty good HEC in the editors who have been working on Aztec-related articles (and some Incan articles as well). When I get some time, I'm going to write up why I really enjoy working on those articles more than on other articles with more contentious editing cabals e.g. United States, global warming and Roman Catholic Church. I thought it might be a good idea to ask people if they are members of any HEC's and if they would like to share their experiences. It's not necessary to name names or even specific articles. What would be most useful is documenting how the principles of HEC and Esperanza contributed to editing being a joyful and rewarding experience rather than a stressful experience.
Another variation would be stories about how stressful experiences were resolved harmoniously. My experience which I will document when I have time is the article that was nominated for deletion within minutes of my creating it. I managed to get it kept partly because it really did have a rationale for existing and partly because I expanded it to address the concerns of those who initially voted to delete it.
--Richard 16:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I am really liking v.2, if you'll call it that, it seems to be the path we were on and should never have left. I've just come up with a new stress busting idea. (Goes off to development tank) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


What the heck happened around here while I wasn't paying attention? Our leadership going on wikibreak, Pschemp leaving?, etc. What? — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody said something nasty on IRC; and then, "For want of a nail..." ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What?! I see like five members that I respect leaving in the past few days >:\ — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The community is trying to address their concerns. Please don't let the negativity get to you. :) -JCarriker 02:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Wuff. Is this really all from the IRC/bot discussion? I read part of that log and it didn't seem to be all that bad. Maybe I missed something. Seems to me there are deeper issues to cause people to start leaving. I apologize if my posts to this page have contributed to any of the discontent and unhappiness. I thought I was making a couple of relatively minor squawks but I seem to have unwittingly done so at a time when Esperanza was under a considerable amount of stress. I had no idea Esperanza was in such fragile shape. --Richard 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
A good assesment of the situation. It seems to be a snowball effect bringing longstanding and diverse discontent to the surface. I only wish these concerns could have been addressed before we got to this point. -JCarriker

02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why I never got IRC, it's a fight waiting to happen. Everyone just needs a wikibreak to calm down I think. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not about the IRC/bot discussion (although that did have some stress level raising sides to it, to propose an understatement), and it's not all related to IRC, although IRC did have an influence on this, and it wasn't all positive. There have been concerns about Esperanza for a while, about the way it is progressing and the way it's led. The events of the last few days enlarged that, and called for some more 'immediate' action, but reform or rethinking or whatever you'd like to call it, would have had to take place either way. Someone earlier asked what the AC does for Esperanza anyway, and yes, I've been asking myself that same question as well. The answer, in my opinion, should be: the AC and Admin General are there to serve the community in fulfilling its mission. That should mean that we (as AC) facilitate rather than regulate, and when comparing that perspective to reality, I guess things have gone downhill lately. It's not just the AC stuff though, it's also people's expectations when they join, it's the way Esperanza is perceived by the 'outside world' and other things that are discussed elsewhere on this page. It's time to pause, redetermine what we (as a community, not as AC or whatever) want Esperanza to be, and what kind of structure, if any, would be the best to achieve that. Somewhere on this page, someone was talking about 'revolting against the AC'. To be honest, I'd love that to happen, because that means we have a healthy, self regulating community, but I'd rather see that happen by constructive discussion than by people leaving. I respect their decisions, but I'm sorry that we've all gotten to a point where they felt that that was their best or only option. --JoanneB 07:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC comment[edit]

Hi, you'll need to write something specific, to be taken seriously. Tony 06:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... are you sure this is where you wanted to direct your comment? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless you're writing about silly string, seriousness kills there. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick question[edit]

NOTE: I'm was reviewing the archives of Wikipedia talk:Esperanza and found this little tidbit. I'm bringing it back here so that I can add a comment 06:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. Do you think this person is notable: George Harbottle?

He appears to have simply been a shop owner in NYC in the 1800s. That doesn't sound notable to me. Semiconscioustalk 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought. --Fang Aili 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you guys either didn't read the article George Harbottle or didn't understand his claim to fame. If what is written about him is true, his contribution is actually quite substantial. It's just that we're so used to modern watches that you might not know how watches used to work. Before there were quartz watches, there were jeweled watches. You could tell how good a watch was by how many jewels were used. I think this is still true of high-end "real watches".
Here's a good article on the topic [2]
So, if the article is right about George Harbottle, he IS notable.
--Richard 06:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I just read this article, and for me, it's exactly the kind of stuff that makes me love encyclopedias in general: reading about facts that you never knew and that may seem insignificant at first, but that have in fact had an impact on world we live in and the stuff we used daily. --JoanneB 07:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
JoanneB, you have to believe me when I tell you that I did not restart this thread as a joke. It turns out that the George Harbottle article may have been a clever hoax.
I honestly thought that Harbottle should be considered notable IF the claim to having invented jeweled watches was true. However, when I re-read the article just now I started to smell a rat because of the bit about George Jr. being responsible for the slang phrases "doing a george" or "georging around".
When I re-read Fang Ai Li's comment about there being only 224 Google results, I decided to Google around myself. George Harbottle was real according to this website
However, there is no mention on that website of a son, George Jr. I have left a note on Talk:George Harbottle.
My Google search turned up no evidence of a linkage between George Harbottle and jeweled watches. If there is no such link, then there is no notability for our friend George. Of course, the article cites sources but I don't have access to any of them so it could all be a clever hoax. Just one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia, I guess. A sufficiently obscure entry that cites unavailable sources cannot be verified or challenged. Sigh....
--Richard 08:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Further evidence... after perusing the article history, the claim that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches didn't get added until AFTER Fang Ai Li raised the question of notability. It's very possible that someone added it in order to deflect her challenge. Sigh... this has consumed more time than it's worth. The "anyone can edit" feature of Wikipedia can have result in curious quirks, to say the least. Sorry.... --Richard 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've 'searched inside' some books about watches on Amazon, no mention of his name. Don't worry, it's happened to the best of us <coughs> --JoanneB 08:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Argh, after all these months (and after unearthing quite a few hoaxes myself) I should know better than just read an article and believe it's true. I guess four hours of sleep is not a good base to make any judgements on, I'll try to refrain from that any further today. Thanks for the heads up :) --JoanneB 08:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated the George Harbottle article for deletion on grounds that, if the claim is a hoax, then the man is not notable. Some of the time spent on Wikipedia is really worthwhile. Other times, it's just janitorial work. --Richard 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

" the hope that a segment of the Wikipedia community will never again break away from the community..."[edit]

Irony, lol. — May. 10, '06 [07:31] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Unfortunately :( — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no necessity to edit Wikipedia[edit]

The project pages states:

"While thousands of Wikipedians cooperate to share this workload, a smaller group of regular contributors bear a disproportionate share of this workload — either by choice or necessity."

There is no necessity to edit Wikipedia. It is voluntary. There are editors out there who have a keen sense of commitment but that is not the same as a "necessity" to edit article. Alan Liefting 01:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a really good response to this in a previous discussion. -- Natalya 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Simply because Wikipedia exists does not make it a necessity to edit it. Personally, I choose to be an editor because I use it and I want to make a payback for my use. I also agree wholeheartedly with the concept. I think the point I am trying to make about the use of the word is that I hope those who find it necessary to edit do not do it at the expense of other necessary tasks in their life. In an idal world evryone should feel that it is necessary to contribute something to wider society. Unfortunately we do not live an ideal world so it is always left to a minority to do the majority of the work. Alan Liefting 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User page award[edit]

Just to let people who aren't watching that page know- the next round of the userpage award has started. It would be great if Esperanza members could go hunting for some of the 'special' userpages out there and nominate them. Of course you can also nominate your own or sign up as a judge. Petros471 10:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The break[edit]

The break is a relative term. Whewn you people shall come back? --Bhadani 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


I did not join esperanza yet. I just wanted to know where on the list do I put my name? Mabie Active/Semi-active Members? Wikipedian 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just add your name alphabetically to the list (that would be after Feezo and before Fetofs). Cowman109Talk 17:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikipedian 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Linking to this project in my signature[edit]

I've just been given a very hard time about the length of my signature and have had to remove the link to anything other than my user page to keep the hounds at bay. Just thought I'd warn others that there is trouble brewing. Sophia 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird. I looked at your old sig on your userpage and it didn't seem outrageous to me. A bit long perhaps, but I've seen much longer. There's definitely no reason why you can't have a link to your talk page. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand the whole issue, but I blanked out my own signature to keep the peace. Kukini 13:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this debate started as a consequence of the dispute between Nathan and Tony Sideways. It was about having too long signatures, check the last Wikistress alert. --Tone 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between having really long signatures with lots of code or ones that really stands out on a page than having a rather simple one, with minor formatting and a few links. I know about the conflict between Nathan, Tony and some others, but this should, in my view, not be seen as some kind of 'us' (people with links or formatting in their sigs) and 'them' (the people commenting about them) conflict that it's portrayed as right now. As often in conflicts, things have been put rather extremely on both sides and I don't think it's a good idea to draw these kinds of conclusions from it. --JoanneB 14:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Although this all is true, I also have been following the discussion/debate on the issue. I have honestly been a bit suprised by the level of negativity that people have regarding the flags and whatnot. I feel that if it really is going to be maintained as a rule that people shouldn't link things nor include things in their signatures, then we should not be able to do it at all. But, I cleaned mine up to keep the peace. Kukini 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Your signature is how most people recognize you in the talk pages (the same way as avatars affect me on public forums, signature really do pass a lot of who you are, true or not: "oh, it's that green guy again!"). They could, at most, limit the size of it, but forbidding any customization is taking it to too much of an extreme. Fetofs Hello! 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

EA-Welcome Template Needs Mod :-)[edit]

I just got welcomed -- "hi, everybody!" "hi, Dr. Nick!" -- and noticed this:

"The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June."

I assume since it's late May, you'll want to modify the {{EA-welcome}} template as appropriate. :)

WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, under the philosophy of "be bold," I tried to tweak it myself [3] after looking at WP:ESP/E. Hopefully got it right? — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in!! I tweaked it a little more, I think we should adapt the template according to the time that someone has joined: everyone joining now, can take part in the elections. By the time the elections start, we can change that for the 'better luck next time' thing. Anyway, thanks again and please feel free to continue with this boldness :-) --JoanneB 08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

New Esperanza logo & Archivement[edit]

Look at this Esperanza logo I made and uploaded: 400px How do you guys like it? And archive this talk page, it's 124+ kb's.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 19:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It's cute but a little too yellow, too flashy for me. Maybe you should play with colours a little more? I suggest neutral background, a shade of green or blue. --Tone 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but I really don't care for it. It's a little bit too "Free to Be ... You and Me" for me. ;-) — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)