Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 12

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).

Assembly consensus

(Moved to seperate section from above)

Judging from the "evil voting" above, there was consensus to replace the Council with the Assembly. Yet the changes to the charter still refer to a council. This may just be a matter of semantics for some, but to me it shows that Esperanza is moving back to its roots and original ideals. Can we change the charter's wording to reflect the consensus? Thanks. -JCarriker 01:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) As a side note, Esperanza has always been a parliamentary system, albeit a presidential-parliamentary system—having been modeled after the United Nations.

• After careful, thought I do not believe that my initial statement adequately conveys my feelings on the matter of the word assembly vs. council. In my original post about reform, I outlined that an assembly was what was originally intended and suggested that the council be replaced with an assembly. In that context, there is a difference between "council" and "assembly." In the section Consensus building—begun by Fang Aili—it states “Esperanza's Council will be expanded into a 9-member Assembly,” that proposal was supported, 16/2/1. Under the section entitled evil voting, all of the options speak of an assembly, not a council. This section's opening paragraph acknowledges "consensus for a 7 member assembly." As a result, I feel very strongly that the talk page consensus was the four-member council is to be replaced by a seven-member assembly, with the current councilors being carried over as members of the assembly for the remainder of their terms. The use of "assembly" not only harkens back to the desire expressed by members to move towards Esperanza’s original ideals, but also shows that the legislative branch is a new and distinct entity from the previous body. For me this is not a matter of semantics but an integral part of the reform consensus reached on this page. The omission of the assembly from the modifications of the charter is an omission of the community’s consensus about that section of reform. I will be very disappointed if no effort is made to ensure that the changes to the charter reflect all of the consensus reached on the talk page. Thanks. -JCarriker 11:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with this sentiment, on two counts:

1. I do not feel that consensus was reached to rename the leadership per say (or is it persay - either way, that term needs to be in Wiktionary) and that this was just semantics. I, persoanlly, was voting on the idea of expanding the leadership and terms etc, not the name of it. In my view, that would require a separate poll/discussion.
2. I certainly didn't vote for a change of the name: I don't like the name, "Assembly":
   1. It reminds me of school
   2. It is longer
   3. It doesn't have a name of a person attached to it. "Assemblier" doesn't work and neither does "Assmebly member" very well. You'd have to say "Member of the Assembly", which doesn't initialise well (Advisory Council went to AC; Council is short enough not to need to; Member of the Assembly? MoA? :P)
   4. It sounds much more bureaucratic to me than "council"

Now, if the expressed consensus is to move to the wording, "assembly" then fine, but I think it requires a separate discussion, if it matters that much to people. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it was a purposeful omission - if not, I'm sure it can easily be changed. Assembly seems like a good term to use. -- Natalya 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Striken through, since that was just speculation, and Celestianpower cleared it up. I have no real strong feelings either way, both are good names, and I will support either name. I don't think we should let it cause a big issue, though! :) -- Natalya 18:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion above, where consensus was reached, was about a few things at once: the amount of council or assembly members, their functions, their terms and its name. I think most voters were commenting about the first three things, but I could easily be wrong about that. As a non-native English speaker, I do not have a strong view on the difference between these words, as to me they mean generally the same thing, but I can imagine (and I know, actually) that JCarriker sees that in a different light. Perhaps he could explain to us what the difference between the two concepts are (I suppose that the negative connotation that CP has with 'assembly', might be matched by negative connotations for the word 'council' for others). What will be most important is what this new assembly or council will do I (as the name 'assembly' in itself will not guarantee or even indicate the sentiments you (JCarriker) are voicing - regarding moving back to the roots and Esperanza's original meaning -, if it's not felt the same way by the people that are part of it). If we want them to have a different name, I think that we should have a seperate discussion about that - but right now would not be a very good time: we've just sent a message to 500 people in which it's called a council, announcing the new elections for it. Changing it right now might be confusing, perhaps something for the next elections, in which also the last 'council' members will leave or be re-elected? --JoanneB 19:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping my 0.03 PLN - I'm for "Council". Misza13 ^{T C} 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "council". Is just sounds better than "assembly" - • The Giant Puffin • 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

CP, it's per se. :P More seriously, I like "council" more, but I have no real strong preference for either. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So I've been told. Repeatedly. What a plonker I am sometimes. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(-: Hooray for our Plonker General! :-P Misza13 ^{T C} 09:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Assembly is better. To me it sounds more...democratic and open, I don't know why. Still, I don't feel too strongly either way. P.S. CP, you said "assembly" reminded you of school, but you also told me you can't to go back to school. :P -- Banes 08:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I also don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think "assembly" sounds a little more inviting, whereas a "council" could kind of rule over an organization more than advise them (one of the complaints about the previous AC structure was that it wasn't inclusive or open enough). It might also be worth noting that AC sometimes confuses people in casual conversation with ArbCom, though that's not a particularly big deal. No matter what the name ends up being, I think we should be happy that we've changed the leadership structure for the better, and we're getting a fresh start to make Esperanza what it truly can be and all remind ourselves of our core values and beliefs. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 09:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Council [1] and Assembly [2] are not interchangeable, further more I made a further distinction on this page when I said that council should be replaced with an assembly. The polls that were used to reach consensus referred to the body as an assembly to me that clearly shows support for replacing the council with an assembly. My argument is based neither on semantics nor personal preference, but about principle: I strongly believe that when I voted for the assembly I voted for an assembly; and this is not what has been implemented. I realise that most people want to move on, so I will step aside. -JCarriker 10:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the difference, you were voting on assembly, I was not. I can't speak for anyone else but I can't be the only one to have seen it like that. Is it that problematic to have another quick poll on the subject, since we have a discrepancy? Please tell me if I'm missing something. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I read the dictionary definitions of both, Assembly does sound a lot friendlier... -- Natalya 11:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, you had to look up the difference in a dictionary - in normal speech, they are basically synonyms. —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I don't think that anyone was voting on wheather they wanted council or assembly. From my point of view, that wasn't what the above votes were about. However, this 'naming dispute' isn't something that we should get worked up about. Right now we're having a vote for council members, and to change it now would be damaging to the vote. However, once the voting is complete, the best way to sort this out is to simply have a straw poll about what is wanted. I don't think that we should let this be an issue right now. The Halo (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sound reasoning, that is why I withdrew my argument, and stepped aside. -JCarriker 11:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Once the voting for the members is over, we can hold a vote on what the name will be - • The Giant Puffin • 15:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Coffee Lounge

I think we need to archive some of the posts on the Coffee Lounge. Anyone opposed? Geo. 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a question for the talk page of the Coffee Lounge... possibly a better place than here. — FireFox 20:19, 27 June '06

Signature modification

How do I modify my signature so the E is green? I can not find info on this anywhere.Please repond on my talk page.Geo. 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In your preferences, where you have modified your sig, something like this: [[User:Geo.plrd/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]] which appears as e, and then just put the template {{greene}} on that page. — FireFox 20:23, 27 June '06

It took me many tries (make that many many tries) to figure this out on my own. Perhaps this should be in the FAQ?

Checking the "raw signatures" option also seems to be needed. --Tachikoma 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what WP:SIGHELP says... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and the instructions at Wikipedia:Esperanza/So you've joined Esperanza... do mention checking the raw signatures option. Thanks for bringing that up though, it would be bad if it had been left out! -- Natalya 02:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that you can't use the hex representation of the color (e.g. "AF3469") unless you use a CSS style definition like style="color:#AF3469". You could use the text name instead, like "red" or "olive". I may be wrong about this, but I had trouble with just doing <font color="AF3469">... NathanBeach 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo conversion to SVG

I have created SVG versions of the full and short Esperanza logos. Hopefully they should be as close as possible to their png counterparts. Just thought I'd mention it here, since I know a lot of people include these images in their userpages and such. Also, I'm unable to swap out the Esperanza-short image on this talk page, because the page is so large (ready for archiving?) and my internet connection has been behaving rather terribly. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 01:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed. And great work! Thank you! Misza13 ^{T C} 18:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New user with issues?

Just a heads-up, but new user Advocron (talk · contribs) (aka MarkSteere (talk · contribs), aka 68.121.222.198 (talk · contribs)) seems to have some sort of problem with Esperanza, judging by this edit. I'm guessing it's a bobbled attempt at a WP:POINT violation, but maybe there's something else going on. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Judging by that edit, he is against Esperanza - • The Giant Puffin • 07:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be that quick to judge. You might try asking him why he put the page up for deletion to see if you can figure out why. He might be confused. He might be upset and acting irrationally. Or he might be "against Esperanza", whatever that means. I think the Esperanza thing to do would be to figure out what the deal is before assuming an "us-vs-him" mentality. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocron (talk · contribs) does seem to have a problem, he seems to have a conflict with a certain admin JzG (talk · contribs). Apparently, he has been accused of sockpuppeting, vandalism, personal attacks and has allegated rouge admin abuse against JzG. Check out his talk page. --Terrancommander 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is it might make sense to ask him what he thinks is going on, instead of trying to figure it out going by his edits. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocron (talk · contribs) has given an answer to that edit on his talk page. --Terrancommander 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't This a Little Silly?

Here you have Wikipedians meeting on Wikipedia to relieve stress incurred by being on Wikipedia all the time. Isn't that like Alcoholics Anonymous meeting at a bar for drinks? Everyone is here on a voluntary basis. And it's not like you signed on for a tour of duty. You can come and go any time you feel like it. If you're so fuckin' stressed, take a "wikibreak." Spend some time with your family. They're probably tired of seeing your computer monitor partially obscured by the back of your head. Or, since most of you are doing this on your employers' time, get back to work. The economy would probably go up half a point if every Wikipedian were forced to take a day off once a week.

As Calton (who is apparently stalking me) pointed out, I did attempt to AfD Esperanza, but I typed in Esperanza instead of Wikipedia:Esperanza. I apologized for that faux pas on my discussion page. It's really none of my business what the fuck you guys do with your time.

I'm not attempting to troll, spam, disrupt, or violate WP:POINT. But seriously, am I really the first to suggest the self-contradictory nature of Wikipedia:Esperanza? -Advocron 02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreaks and not spending too much time per day on Wikipedia are certainly viable solutions. However, much of the stress that Wikipedians experience isn't due to the fact that they spend too much time here (that is fixed easily enough), but rather because they face articles in which there are POV pushers, vandals, or constant edit wars. Also, some may be discouraged by articles they have worked hard on being deleted. There are also countless other scenarios that I can't currently think of or are too numerous to list here.

The bottom line is that Wikipedians need a place where they can find reassurance and hope. A place where people can thank them for their positive contributions and encourage them to stay on the project. Without the community atmosphere in which we support one another and recognize each other's contributions, we would lose good editors at a much higher rate than we do today. Strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community helps keep good editors here, keeps them productive, and keeps them happy. This helps to make Wikipedia better, and that's why we're all here, isn't it?

EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and do not swear when posting your comments, Advocron (talk · contribs). Even though we're Esparanzians, we can only stand this much. There is no point apologising for something if you are not sincere, you get me? --Terrancommander 05:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• The bottom line is that Wikipedians need a place where . . . I think the real bottom line is "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Someone works hard on an article for example, and you go in a hack out chunks of it. They're going to view that as pseudo-vandalism and then they're going to seek revenge in real vandalism. There are at least two sides to every story here. I'm sure the vast majority of Esperanzans view themselves as innocent victims of wrongdoing. Someone earlier noted the perception of Esperanzans as "crybabies." I really can't find fault with that point of view. -Advocron 17:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. There's so many things wrong with that statement, it's almost amusing. Someone who hacks pieces out of articles in revenge for something is quickly booted out of Wikipedia, not to even say Esperanza. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear Advocron, please give a source to who labelled us crybabies. If not, do not list it here, as we will take that it came from you. Calling someone a name violates Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. You want to take up an issue with someone, go to his talk page. Do not vandalise other articles to make your point, do not generalise, and once again, no personal attacks. Two sides to the story, only one will be correct. You have been accused of sockpuppeting, vandalism, and you have listed Esperanza on AfD. Do you think we will take your word or we will take the admin's one? If you realise, every single word you add in to try to defend yourself actually tells us more of your character. --Terrancommander 06:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"...it is suggested that we're nothing but a bunch of kids, with ESP as a playground/pseudo-MySpace network, and that we're so sweetie-cute for each other that we spend more time here that actually building an encyclopedia." Ok, so I misquoted. Huge difference. Waaaaaaaaaaaah! -Advocron 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, this doesn't need to be a big deal. Advocron, no one is making you be part of Esperanza, but all of us who are have explained our reasoning to you, as you requested. Please take it as you like, but we don't need to berate each other back and forth. -- Natalya 11:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I raised his edit on his talk page, and he brought it to WT:ESP to talk. What's the point of doing this? Also, he listed Esperanza as AfD after he had a disagreement with an Esperanzian (not me). Isn't that just like: You beat me up, I'll beat your whole family up as well as all your relatives? --Terrancommander 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza--What happened??

I know everyone else is probably going to think "How the heck does Primate" not know this, but I've been on a very long wikibreak. Would anyone mind telling me what happened to Esperanza and why the charter doesn't match the time line?

Thanks in advance

Primate^#101 03:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Plain English would be nice!

What exactly are you referring to? I'd be glad to explain things to you, as would others, but your question is a bit vague to me, sorry. Kind regards, --JoanneB 16:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Election closure

Since the time has now elapsed for voting, the elections now need to be closed. In doing so, I need a couple of election staff members to verify the votes officially and make sure the results depicted in the table reflect accurate community consensus. A post here will do. I will then be able to congratulate and welcome the new councillors into the fold, ready to step down as leader and arrange a way of finding out who the new council wishes to be the Admin Gen, per the changes to The Charter. Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen and analysed, the results are accurate and of consensus. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, well then, I hereby officially (as my last act as AG) announce Natalya (talk · contribs), Banes (talk · contribs), FireFox (talk · contribs) and EWS23 (talk · contribs), Celestianpower (talk · contribs), Freakofnurture (talk · contribs) and Titoxd (talk · contribs) the new Council, under the new system. Would email be the best way of electing an AG or can you all get on IRC? Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's bound to be a vacancy, and we seem to have a 3 way tie for runner-up. So do we flip a coin? let the council choose? mud wrestle? to decide who gets the first vacancy? NoSeptember 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Naked mud wrestling! Though, since we live across the world (Africa, Europe and America for sure) then that might be difficult... I think that the council should choose from the runners up. Consensus shows that they are all equally wanted as councillors so it shouldn't matter to the Esperanza community which one is chosen. Since the Councillors will be working with the new appointee, they should choose, I think. Plus, we really want as few elections as possible, in my opinion. —Celestianpower ^háblame 13:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "naked". Now we know where your head is at ;). NoSeptember 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

He's probably had over exposure. To me probably. ;) Highway ^Batman! 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested on IRC last night, it would be good to ask all three runners up if they still want to step in (when and if the time comes for one to do so). If only one wants the place after x months then it makes life easy. If two or more want the place them let the current council decide (as CP says above). Petros471 13:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Celestianpower ^háblame 13:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of you bring up good points, that sounds like a fair and equitable system to me. Only one maybe-problem: what if none of them are able/willing? Luna Santin 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to the next runner up then, I would assume? As for choosing the AG, would it be hard for the seven of us to all find an avaliable time, or is email just easier? -- Natalya 00:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm temporarily unemployed (downtime between graduation and getting a job), so I can be on IRC literally any time of the day. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well anyone who is on IRC regularly knows that when I'm available, I'm on, but I'm quite happy just to use email. — FireFox 12:11, 11 July '06

Ditto. -- Banes 09:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Election thanks

As much as I love to spam talk pages (see my contributions back on May 23/24), I decided to post here rather than sending messages to those who voted for me, for primarily this reason: I know that both those who voted for me and those who didn't were trying to make Esperanza a better place through their votes, and I deeply respect that. For those who voted for me, I thank you, and I hope that I will live up to your expectations. For those who did not, I hope that you will still be happy with my actions. For those who ran or worked on the election staff, I thank you for your dedication to the organization. And finally, for those who abstained from voting for various reasons, including the idea that Esperanza should be run by consensus (another idea I deeply respect), I hope that the new leadership structure will prove to be helpful and effective. Like everyone else, I hope that Esperanza will be refocused with this new structure, and I am very humbled that the community has chosen me to be a part of the leadership. Kind regards to all, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Grats :) --Terrancommander 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jehoveranza

Upon further reflection, I disagree with the person who described you guys as a bunch of babies in a playground. I think Esperanzans would best be described as the Jehovah's Witnesses of Wikipedia. Nothing against Jehovah's Witnesses. I keep hoping they'll come around again. I think they're actually avoiding me. I wanted to ask them why they keep predicting the end of the world. -Advocron 00:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I don't get it... -- Banes 09:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought of Esperanza to be like the UN (Esperanza's original concept idea). We're an insular little group who care deeply about the outside world of wikipedia, and the wikipedians within it. We advertise this group with our sigs (well, some of us do) much like a police officer in uniform - so that if you have any trouble, and want to talk about it, we're here.

I think that as a group we are very dislike a religion. We're not a group full of laws and rules that must be followed. We don't worship some divine being. The only thing that we're here for is to help editors as much as we can, whoever they are. The Halo (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, some Esperanzians probably do worship (a) divine being(s), although likely not all the same one(s). Just not in conjunction with Esperanza. (I happen to not, but many probably do.) Nothing to do with Esperanza, of course, other than that Wikipedians of all faiths and creeds are welcome to a group whose goal is making Wikipedians feel good. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, what has Esperanza got to do with religion anyway? I happen to be religious, plenty are not, so what? I don't get the connection to Esperanza...Or the point of the first post. What CheNuevara said. :) -- Banes 14:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does seem like a big leap in logic by Advocron...could you maybe expand on what you meant? Thε Halo ^Θ 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I don't like to point fingers, I think that the guy calling us "crybabies" is Advocron himself. Appeal to Anonymous Authority is a fallacy, my dear friend. --Terrancommander 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Future Shock

I'm just joshin' you guys. No real harm intended. Truth be known, I'm not a huge fan of the current incarnation of Wikipedia, and Esperanza does seem a little silly to me. However, Wikipedia does serve a limited purpose and so I'm sure does Esperanza. To your credit, Wikipedia does cause a certain degree of stress. The term "future shock" comes to mind, though I realize that's a little vague and general. While Wikipedia seems on the one hand like a failed experiment in progress, it also seems like an inevitable, necessary experiment. And it seems to portend some future, more central social phenomenon. To invoke another book title, "1984" comes to mind. -Advocron 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you don't think too lowly of us after all. :) Who knows what the future holds for Wikipedia and Esperanza? Time will tell... -- Banes 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had pretty much written off "Advocron" as a troll but now I'm intrigued by his characterization of Wikipedia as a "failed experiment in progress". However, I don't feel that this page is the right forum for further discussion of this topic because it's really about Wikipedia rather than about Esperanza. Can anybody suggest a better place to discuss this?

--Richard 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Try the links on Criticism of Wikipedia, perhaps. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, I can tell why you aren't a fan of Wikipedia. You lost your article, then you campaigned hard to get it back. And you haven't actually contributed to article space, either on your new account or on your old account, other than to create an article about yourself. I think you've spent more time reading the Esperanza pages than reading Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While this is all certainly interesting, please lets remember no personal attacks from any side. And as the discussion expands, the suggestion of taking it elsewhere is probably a good idea. -- Natalya 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Advocron, do you mind using the existing talk sections to continue the discussion and not keep starting new ones? This makes it difficult for one to follow the trend of discussion. Also, if you really think Esperanza is silly, why not raise your concerns to JCarriker, the founder, or Celestianpower, the Admin-General? I don't think you're looking for answers (all answers already answered or are on the Esperanza main page), and I don't think that you'll get your way if you post comments here... So, what's your real motive? --Terrancommander 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith. Who's to say that Advocron has a 'motive'? I do agree that this discussion should be taken elsewhere, as it really has nothing to do with esperanza any more. However, if you do have something to talk about that pertains to esperaza feel free to bring it and and your questions will be answered. But, as many others have said, this is not the place for this dicussion. Oh, and JCarriker wouldn't, I think, be the right person to talk about the current esperanza, as he is no longer affiliated with this group. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been assuming good faith, but I'm running out of patience. This pointless discussion has been going on and on and on for a long time, yet Advocron does not see reason in our reasonings. So if is not looking for a reply, what is the point of continuing this discussion then? He says Esperanza is silly, so what does he want? He wants the entire Esperanza project taken down? Or he wants us to stop being silly? What's the point of saying its silly? Maybe "motive" was the wrong word to use though. --Terrancommander 13:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that we're all running out of patience with this enitre discussion, and that Advocron need say nothing more on the subject. You don't like Esperanza. Okay, we get it, and we're sorry you feel that way, and we hope that maybe we can all be on the same page one day. I suggest that nothing else be posted here, and we allow this topic to move somewhere else. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza vs. Concordia; Esperanza's memetics/"marketing"

Why is there Wikipedia:Concordia when Esperanza seems to be much the same thing? --Fang Aili ^talk 19:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Community Justice went south. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll get flamed - or not, probably just mildly scolded and asked if everything is alright in my world or whatever - for saying this, but I find that Concordia's mission is clearly explained, and makes sense, while Esperanza's is vague, and relies too heavily on clichéd victim-complex pychobabble terminology like "hope", "support", etc., which no longer have much of any meaning due to overuse and misuse. I for one honestly cannot fathom what this group is supposed to be about. My best two guesses were a) a 12-step (or whatever) group for people who are addicted to wikiing or experiencing emotions they cannot handle due to people reverting their edits or flaming them on talk pages - a support group for Wikipedia obsession, in short; or b) a support group for general depression, manic-depression, self-harm, suicidal ideation and related issues, that exists here because some subset of the population with these issues spends so much time on Wikipedia that they are not getting commisseration of this sort that they need offline any longer, but do still need it. That's the message I walk away from when I read the W:Esperanza page. But reading some of the stuff in here (talk), however, I get a very different feeling - that Esperanza's mission is (or was, or should be, or could have been, etc., etc.) about the same as that of Concordia. So, which is it?! If the latter, then your material needs a major edit, to get to the point and avoid use of wishy-washy feel-good language that doesn't actually convey any concrete meaning. I saw Concordia and thought, "hey, that sounds like a good community-building idea." I saw Esperanza and though "yeesh, this looks kooky, what with all this faith-y language and this cultish spread of the Green E." I guess some of you will think I'm trolling, but I'm just giving you an honest take on your meme fallout. FYI, I had just as negative a reaction (for very different reasons) to M:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, so it's not just you. PS: Lest you think I'm just a right-winger knee-jerking to your use of quintessentially lefty language, I'm actually from San Francisco and presently living in Canada to get away from the Bush regime; my negative reaction to the Deletionists was because their material reads precisely like Religious Right and KKK propaganda with some words changed. So the message I'm sending you is that the Esperanza page is excessively vague and so "visualize world peace" that it's even off-putting to a progressive! No offense intended, I'm just saying the mission and how it's expressed need work if you want to really network with people that share the same goals as I think I'm now hearing here, and over at Concordia. Take that as you will. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]

PS: I've still getting a lot of cognitive dissonance after reading more of this page. It veers from talking about the Pillars and community building to "we don't do enough to support people who feel down", as if this is a meeting of licensed psychologists. Cf. the previous poster who asks "why do you people link here from your sigs?" - note the "you people" distancing phrasing. Esperanza is right on the cusp of one of two things - a great viral meme, or the perception of cultishness. You're scaring some of us. If that's not the idea, then you really need to rethink your positioning and how your goals are expressed. If anyone thinks I'm trolling, please feel free to respond to me on my talk page instead of here (and in fact I am not Watching this page; I have no vested interest, of any motivation, in whether any discussion ensues and where it goes). I a am very active WP editor, and I do not hide behind pseudonyms. I am an opinionated bastard however. But anyway, feel free to Be Bold right back at me. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at WP:ESP/FAQ if you're confused about what we are and what we are trying to achive. As you can see from above, we're going through a big redevelopment right now, and some of your points have been brought up by may others. Personally I think that this place for wikilove, a place to help your fellow user, in any way you can, with any problem they have. I think that this is a pretty simply explination, but it shows off what we're here for. I'm not saying for a second that your points don't have merit (though I am intreagued by "You're scaring some of us"). I just think that maybe if you took the time to get to know us, you'd find out that we're quite a lot different from what you think ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's image and some other things

Now that we have decided on our leadership structure, I really feel that we need to adress how we are seen by the outside community (as per Advocron and, I think more importantly, SMcCandlish).

The fact is that our main page is very hard to understand (I was put off from joining for quite a while because of confusion), which, in turn, makes us a group of editors hard to understand, and thus surrounds us in some sort of mystery. This is obviously very detremental to what we are trying to achive here.

As I suggested on SMcCandlish's talk, we should sit down as a group to figure some of this stuff out, and then also get some outside comment about it, from a user like SMcCandish among others (maybe some past Esperanzians, if they're iterested).

Once the new council has settled in, and an Admin Gen has been chosen, I really think that this should be our first order of business (let's not also forget we've got to have a straw poll on Council or Assembly ;)

These are just my thoughts, and I think that they could really do with lots of imput!

Thε Halo ^Θ 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any firsthand experience of negative perceptions of Esperanza other than what I've read other people say on the topic here on this talk page. However, to validate in part what Advocron was saying about Esperanza being silly, I should comment that some time ago somebody (I think it might have been JoanneB) indicated that some people outside Esperanza had a negative image of Esperanza. Once again, my memory is weak here but the phrase "childcruft" comes to mind. Rather than rejecting these opinions out of hand, we should seek to understand what drives them and how to counter them.

--Richard 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand; what does "childcruft" mean? --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 18:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the glossary entry. The term itself isn't new to me, but I'm not sure how it makes sense to use it here -- could we clarify that, if somebody remembers the discussion in question? I can see why some people would feel the urge to list us at MfD, we do edge on a few rules, and that's going to bother some people. But the thing is, one of our biggest goals is keeping editors happy and reducing stress, and that's important, because without editors we have no encyclopedia. In a very real sense, our goal is the pursuit of the fourth pillar itself -- the Libre incident is just a painful reminder of how very drastic things can get when there's no hidden, atomic force holding us all together. I firmly believe that Esperanza is a prime example of the policy trifecta in action. Luna Santin 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cruft = something irrelevant. Child cruft = irrelevant childish thing. For more details, see above. fetofs ^Hello! 20:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite all of what I've said below, I agree that perhaps our image could do with a bit of sprucing up. As has been suggested above, to the casual observer what defines us is our main page. Perhaps we could take some time to discuss what should be on there and how best to effectively describe what our organization is. All thoughts are welcome, though we should probably hold off actually editing the Esperanza page until we get some feedback and consensus. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that Advocron's case is different. It seems that he had a bad disagreement with an Esperanzian, and just decided to assume we are all like that guy. So, he may actually have a justified (but weak) reason to call Esperanza silly. That, my friend, was the fallacy of Hasty Generalisation committed. --Terrancommander 13:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When all else fails, define us by our programs

Note: this was originally supposed to be a response to the above thread, but it got too long, so I put it under another subheader. Apologies for the long post

Personally, I think if someone is put off by our rhetoric as being too vague or wishy-washy, the best way to learn what Esperanza is is by looking at our programs. Obviously we hope this list will continue to grow as people come up with more great ideas, but the current programs are a good subset of what we're trying to accomplish here.

• Our Stress Alerts page identifies Wikipedians with various kinds of stress, and encourages our members to help those people, lend them a supportive hand or an open ear, and make them feel appreciated within the project and the community.
• The Esperanza Calendar does a similar task, helping Wikipedians celebrate important dates with one another and feel recognized/supported/appreciated.
• The Barnstar Brigade takes this concept to the next level. People involved in this actively keep an eye out for editors who deserve recognition for their hard work in making this a better encyclopedia. As I've said before, editors who are praised for their hard work are more likely to stay with the project and do more good work in the future (see positive reinforcement).
• The Esperanzan Drive, which strives to take different articles to Featured Article status, hasn't quite taken off yet, but it's a great idea, and will hopefully get more use in the future. Obviously there are a lot of Wikiprojects devoted to improving subsets of articles, and the difference here is that Esperanzan's generally know each other so well that they would likely collaborate well on specific article and make that the best it can be.
• Trading Spaces has moved to a new location, but that program helps users feel good about their userspace, and also keeps people who like to do webpage design a little less bored.
• Admin coaching helps Wikipedians become better editors. It answers questions for them, increases their policy knowledge, and helps some users who really don't know where to start as far as becoming an admin goes. We are helping the encyclopedia by helping to make the next generation of admins more knowledgable and more aware of how important the community is to building the encyclopedia.
• The User Page Award can help boost a Wikipedian's mood by recognizing the impressive layout of their userpage. Some may argue that this isn't helping the encyclopedia, and is more of a webpage design competition. However, I feel that this helps the encyclopedia in (at least) two ways: 1) It keeps the editor happier, which always helps editors become more productive, and 2) these are generally the people who help most of the rest of us design our userpages, so we can spend less time on that, and more time on building the encyclopedia.
• Finally, the Coffee Lounge is a place where we can all go to relax when we're stressed and talk about things other than Wikipedia. Sure there are other places IRL where we can go to do that, but most of us have a lot of good friends on the wiki, and it's always good to have pleasant conversations with those we know.

So, now that you've read through that long list (it's great that we have so many programs!), I hope you can see what we're trying to accomplish. We're trying to improve the encyclopedia's community, because that in turn decreases stress, increases positive reinforcemt, tends to keep editors happy, productive, and on the project, and provides people a place to go when they need someone to talk to or need to get away from it all for a while. I have no doubt that we make the community a better place to be, and in doing-so help make the encyclopedia better. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this; it's very smart. Good thinking and good point, EWS! - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! What really matters is what we do, which, as can be seen, is truly fantastic. -- Natalya 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

About the barnstar brigade - personally I don't think we are trying hard enough to find unsung contributors out there - and it appears that most are mainly givien to people already familiar to the awarder. There are tonnes of people out there who have written about 100 articles who have one or none at all. Personally, I was tempted to give some people about ten, but I was worried that I would get lampooned for being an idiot. It may be perhaps that some people also seem to not give barnstars to people with whom they work closely - perhaps they feel that it is a conflict of interest to do so - eg, see Category:Australian administrators - especially Snottygobble (User:Snottygobble/Contributions and see how fat and referenced all of his articles are) and Thebainer (User:Thebainer/Contributions and see how fat and referenced all of his articles are) only have two each, and I gave them one each. Perhaps I should give them 10 each or wait for one of you guys to award them some more? Blnguyen | rant-line 02:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always wanted to award you a barnstar for recognizing SO many unrecognized users, Blnguyen. If you've given them barnstar, there's nothing wrong with telling them exactly what you just told us - that all of their articles are so great, and that they deserve many, many barnstars! They will probably appreciate it even more than a barnstar. -- Natalya 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It would look stupid and nepotistic for me too fawn all over them like that. I always find it more thrilling in the case of say User:Edgar181 who I currently have nominated for RfA (despite haveing zero previous contact with him) - whom I had never met before and completely surprised - I just went to some organic chemistry category, and saw that his name cropped up a few times, and then dug up found out that he had written 140 of them and created about 300 diagrams and nobody had bothered to recognise them. It helps to have a few different people actually - personally I would feel silly if one person gave me five barnstars....Blnguyen | rant-line 02:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A hello from your new Admin General

Greetings my friends, Natalya here. I'm honored to announce that I've been chosen as the new Administrator General of Esperanza! Over email, the council (Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, Titoxd and myself) discussed and chose the Admin General. I'm really, really excited to be here in this capacity. As I'm sure all of you know, I love Esperanza, and can't wait to help us continue and improve as the friendly community that we are. Though it will take myself and the new members of the council a bit of time to ease into our new roles, we will soon begin addressing recent issues. First looks to be the Esperanza-wide decision on the naming of the council/assembly. And as discussion continues on how Esperanza is percieved, we will facilitate how that should progress.

Esperanza has had it's share of problems recently, but we've come a very long way from there. From the thoughtful and respectful discussions and decisions that have occured, I'm confident that we will continue to improve.

Remember that Esperanza is yours, and that you make it the awesome place that it is. The council and the Admin General are simply here to help things run smoothly. If there's ever anything on your mind, please drop by and let me know, I'll always be glad to listen. -- Natalya 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Internal links in sigs again

There's yet more talk at WP:SIG regarding internal linking. I'd encourage anyone interested to join in the discussion, as input is somewhat narrow at this point. - brenneman ^{L} 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My absebce

Some of you may have noticed that I havent been here for a couple of weeks. I really need to change my ISP... - • The Giant Puffin • 08:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened? o.0 --Terrancommander 12:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets just say Tiscali dont have a good customer service department... - • The Giant Puffin • 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say "hi"!

I signed up last night and I wanted to introduce myself a bit. Some of you know me already, most of you probably don't. Anyway, I've been hearing about this group for a while, so I thought I'd finally join. I personally think that keeping a good sense of community is just as vital as the encyclopedia itself, and I'm glad there is an organization that tries to promote a sense of community here on wikipedia. I hope to be active in trying to promote such a community, and I look forward to meeting some new people here. My talk page is always open (I really like getting new messages, so if you ever need to talk, feel free). Bye for now!--The Ungovernable Force 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! You may be interested in getting involved with some of our programs; or, if you think of another program that we should start up, feel free to suggest it at our proposals section. We look forward to having you in Esperanza! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There are way too many people with green signatures. I thought green would make my comments easier to find, but not anymore ;). NoSeptember 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of having it red and black, but it seemed too harsh of a color. Maybe I'll try it here though, so tell me what you think.--The Ungovernable Force 01:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Use whatever colors you like, most do some experimenting until they find what they like. You could pick something unusual from list of colors. NoSeptember 04:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's lovely to have you here! EWS23 has already given many good ideas, and feel free to involve yourself in discussions here and elsewhere in Esperanza. -- Natalya 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen you around before Ungovernable Force, and it's great to have you here!! I hope you ike it, and that we'll all see a lot more of you. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonjour! Why not have a green? Its cool (and environmentally-friendly!) :D --Terrancommander 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Anyone for archiving the discussions? They're getting a bit the lengthy. --Terrancommander 13:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've archived a bit over half of the discussions, but I've left everything from the Assembly/Council discussion onwards, since we will soon be bringing that back up, and it's useful to have the previous discussions still here. -- Natalya 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alerts Page

Well, I checked in to see how all who had left Wikipedia today on the Alerts page and I'm sad to say 6 people in the last 24-36 hours has left Wikipedia. Personally, I'm starting to lose faith in this project for trying to cheer people up as I've seen a sharp increase of users leaving Wikipedia after the creation of these kinds of programs, not a decrease. — The King of Kings 23:30 July 16 '06

I think that it would be wrong to try and infer the cause. Is it that more people are leaving wiki now that these projects are set up, or is it because these projects are set up that we see people are leaving, instead of it escaping our attention? I personally believe that it's the latter, and that by having the alerts page, we are able to help a larger group of people who would leave the project whether we were here or not. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I pray it's the latter. But there have been more people leaving lately than the usual number. 5 to 6 people a day is a little much. — The King of Kings 00:09 July 17 '06

Agreed, far too much. The worst part is that there is no major cause for this to happen (nothing like the userbox wars), and it seems just like people are loosing faith in the project, which is sad. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you are just referring to absolute numbers, this is to be expected with the high growth of Wikipedia in the past six months, when most of these users joined. With an increase in new users, there is a corresponding increase in users leaving because some percentages of new users leaves. —Centrx→talk • 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about projects such as Esperanza (and others) causing users to leave, as it is very far from likely. We could get into the statistics of it, but more importantly, I know that all of you have seen Esperanza and its members support people when they were stressed out, and help keep them from leaving. Esperanza just happens to find out about all the people leaving because we do have the alerts page. Have confidence that what you are doing is helping people to relax and stay at Wikipedia, because it is! -- Natalya 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be more proactive and look out for each other more. From the front page, it tells me that Esperanza does not intervene in POV disputes, which is fair enough, but as far as unpleasant editors who border of harassment go, I'm just wondering whether we should get in there more and try and initimidate them out of it. Personally I sometimes see people (usually admins and experienced editors doing their job in good-faith) getting stressed because aggressive editors or trolls a victimising them, and nobody else is backing them up. To use a sporting analogy, I'm a bit concerned that we may be a bit reactive rather than proactive - we should watchlist usertalk pages and support people when they get hassled rather than simply wait until they've have been burnt and shed (possibly unnecessary tears) once they have departed in bitterness. For example, see (User:Phaedriel vs User_talk:Atlantahawk for relatively quick intervention and stress prevention) - for another, which wasn't so swift, see User_talk:Enochlau and Talk:Sydney Technical High School and rummage through the contribs list of the attackers in this case. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We should get more involved, especially if that dispute is likely to cause an experience wikipedian to leave. We are a well-known organisation on WP and we have enough clout in the community to sort out many disputes. If it means that trolls and vandals leave instead of good editors, Im all for ESP taking a more active approach in these sort of things - • The Giant Puffin • 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just saw the comment above about the high growth rate of the number of Wikipedians that join a day and such. I have to say that 5-6 serious editors leaving a day is too much. The number of Wikipedians that join a day statistic could be a little off because of how many that actually edit. Out of the hundreds upon hundreds of user accounts created in one day, how many actually become full-time contributor or even contribute part-time? I see a lot of accounts that are created just to have an account rather than edit. Yes, I think Esperanza should get involved in POV disputes because the the least we could do is get involved enough (not to pick a POV), but to lower the stress factor. — The King of Kings 15:21 July 17 '06

Lower the stress factor, we should. But those people who choose to leave are already at the end of their tether, and anyway they have already left so they cannot see any message you leave on their talk. However, most of them are just taking a Wikibreak or such. This usually happens after a vigorous edit war (more than 2 parties?) or due to problems with other Wikipedians. Anyway, taking a Wikibreak is the right way to lower the stress factor, I'd suggest that to them if they asked me. --Terrancommander 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the people that leave are on the end of the tether, and we could prevent them by helping them before the rope got too tight? Personally, everyone who I talk to more than twice, I leave their user talk page on my watchlist, and if a POV-pusher or a vanity-editor or troll or racist tries to intimidate them, I do jump in and try and repel their attacks. This isn't a case of POV, I don't condone the POV of my veteran colleagues, just the intimidation. I really think we should be more proactive in sticking up for good faith veterans, rather than sit around and then spam thm with pointless tears after they have broken down and thrown down their pens in bitterness and walked away. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To add my two cents to this discussion. I think we definitely need to do more to support the long term contributors, as they are often the stabilising influence on unpopular pages where otherwise things would get out of hand. As Blnguyen says, fight the cause not the result. Ansell 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anybody knew about this, but in June I spent about 4 days snooping around and prosecuting a user (who was a partisan supporter of the Chinese Communist Party and ultranationalist) for repeated racist attacks, sockpuppetry, insults, etc, and after that was done he kept on launching more socks, and then went on the mailing list to rant to various arbitrators that I had persecuted him, etc, with false claims and then went on to post an attack RfC against me which had to be deleted. I managed to survive that after the RfC got deleted, but it appeared that some of them were about to believe him. I managed to survive that but maybe in future I won't be so lucky... Perhaps I'll just let the personal attackers go lest I end up getting butchered trying to stop them by myself.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to get involved with users being stressed out by POV conflicts without getting involved in the conflicts themselves. Adding a happy note to their talk page, telling them to not be discouraged, and giving them support can be some of the best things to do, and certainly help to calm them down. -- Natalya 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the harassing user tries to push false charges of innappropriate conduct and slander, in which case other users will have to help rebutt them. You're an admin Natalya, you can read what he wrote about me...Blnguyen | rant-line 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of stress is due to abusive personal behaviour rather than the actual conent of dispute. Which is where a lot of editors are just left hanging when they are targetted by others. It's not a POV battle to intervene to stop personal abuse....Blnguyen | rant-line 03:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While I think that it is a good idea to protect our veterans (I thik it's a good idea to protect all the users on wikipedia from attacks etc), I am curious as to how we would do this. Stopping personal abuse sound more like something cut out for arb com, not esperanza, and I only say this because I don't understand how esperanzians would stop personal abuse without becoming explicitly involved in a conflict. I guess that we could leave the offending user a message saying that personal abuse (or whatever they are doing) is frowned upon, and ask them to stop, but further than that, and, of course, reassuring the user involved, I don't think it falls into the category of what esperanza is about. I firmly believe that leaving a user a heart-felt message, reminding them that there are people who care about them here is actually one of the best thing that we can do. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian in need of support

Hi all,

I have just spent an hour or more leaving a combination of support, encouragement and correction for a young Singaporean Wikipedian who is considering leaving Wikipedia (User:Hildanknight). This Wikipedian is listed on the Stress Alerts page but I find that page rather sterile and I'm not convinced that it actually generates much support for the Wikipedians listed there.

Please consider visiting Hildanknight's Talk Page and leaving him/her a note of encouragement.

I think the various issues listed there have pretty much been addressed as best as they can be. What I think is needed now is some notes of appreciation and encouragement that communicate the belief that this editor is already a valued contributor and can develop to be a great contributor.

This is, after all, what Esperanza is all about, isn't it?

--Richard 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolving POV nasties.

I see that this has recently been discussed, but I feel that it might be useful to bring this up again. Quote from main page: "Esperanza does not resolve user conflicts or POV issues". Forgive me, but I don't see how any practical work is going to get done by this rather peculiar organisation unless it does. In general, WikiStress is caused by unprofitable edit warring, trolling, and arguments over POV. Prevention is always far better and a lot easier than cure (which is why we spend so much time vaccinating people). Telling people to relax in the midst of battle (which seems to me to be a summary of what people here say Esperanza does) is mostly pointless because it does not remove and address the underlying causes of why stressed users feel under attack. If these issues were resolved, good contributors could stay as good contributors and continue to improve Wikipedia.

I'm partly writing this because SomeStranger recently left. He and I once profitably worked together over an article and he helped myself and another collaborator to get it to GA status. I was both shocked and saddened to see him go. The message on his user page is vague but I can't help feeling that if the considerable clout of Esperanza had been brought to bear (there seems to be a large amount of admins hanging around here) the mysterious problem that he was faced with might have been solved, and a very fine contributor might still be here.

On a more positive note, it was good to see Hildanknight decide to stay. However, I still feel that Esperanza should provide more of a proactive role than that of a passive shoulder to cry on. Moreschi 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons we choose not to get involved with such things is that there is already an extensive dispute resolution program in place. Our goal here is to improve the sense of community and be a place where users can turn to for hope and support; while we realize that POV arguments and disputes are things that counter our goals, we have already at times allowed our focus to stray too far from our primary goals, and that has caused problems. There are a lot of good people here- some of them would make good mediators, some would not. While those members who wish to resolve such disputes are certainly welcome to do so, I think if Esperanza as an organization tried to become a dispute resolution location, it would degrade the positive atmosphere we are trying to build. Just my two cents. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with EWS23's statement (see my comment on 'Alerts Page'). By weighing in on POV discussions, I think that we'll be adding to stress to situations. By keeping a cool head, and reminding editors that this project contains users who care for one another can, in itself, do all the good in the world. Thε Halo ^Θ 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. A "citation needed" template should perhaps go after that last statement. I remain to be convinced. One final word before I disappear back to opera: Mr McCandlish's point about the language of the project page is (while put perhaps a touch undiplomatically) correct. That kind of wishy-washy psychiatric-style verbiage is just off-putting (especially in Britain, where an anti-shrink mentality is predominant). The FAQ section is lot clearer, but why not have that first up? At least one of your best batsmen usually goes in first. Moreschi 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation? Try this situation, though some of the info about it can no longer be found.

What I’m about to say might seem un-esperanzian, may even violate WP:AGF, but I’m getting tired of coming on this page to see messages asking to explain ourselves. We’ve never made any secret of what we do (I, for one, am proud of it): We try to lower the stress levels of all users on wikipedia; be they experienced users, new users, users who have not been (too put it kindly) the most popular with the community in the past, users who hate esperanza - We do not require nor seek retribution. We do not judge. We are Esperanzans. We listen.. Continually hearing that we’re a bunch of insular weirdoes who look out for each other and don’t do our job properly is upsetting and tiresome.

I appreciate user feedback about esperanza from those outside of it, and I have often said that we need to change our image, but I don’t believe we need ‘convince’ anyone.

I am sorry if this seems bad faith, whiney, whatever. The fact of the matter is that I joined esperanza to help reduce the stress of users in need, not to continually stand up and explain what I believe in and why. Thε Halo ^Θ 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well as EWS23 said, ESP doesn't do POV disputes, but I was talking about harassing editors who need to barricaded away and restrained (eg User_talk:Atlantahawk) not what their POV might be....Also Arbcom is for people who persistently edit-war and cause disruption and need to be banned, whereas people doing straight personal attacks need not be left to cause a mess for three months...Blnguyen | rant-line 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr Blnguyen has a point. No, Halo, I don't take your comments to be a violation of AGF, but could I please make it clear that I am not out to get you. I am not trying to attack anyone: my points are merely suggestions for improvement. My reasons as to why I think that the clout of Esperanza should be used in cases of personal attacks and trollery (though probably not POV disputes, on reflection) are spelled out above, and have been beautifully summarised for me by Mr. Blnguyen. I'm not doing this for myself; I explained above about SomeStranger leaving and the effect that that had on me.

You say that "Continually hearing that we're a bunch of insular weirdoes who look out for each other and don't do our job properly is upsetting and tiresome", and also that "We are viewed as a strange clique". I am not trying to criticise in that detrimental manner and the latter is not my perception of Esperanza, which I believe has enormous potential to do a huge amount of good. However, I don't think that Esperanza helps itself by acting in a singularly clique-like manner when the Admin Gen gives Halo a barnstar for acting as a "EsperanzaDef" after I posted my final comment. Yes, I can understand the reasons why it was done, but most people (not me) would find that very tactless. I have tried to make it clear that I am not attacking Esperanza, and everything that I have said thus far was intended in a sense of constructive criticism. I am trying to help, not only Esperanza but the general community as well. In fact, I was not even going to reply, but I felt it necessary to respond to the implied accusation. Right, this is my last comment. Best, Moreschi 10:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it should not be the primary goal of Esperanza as an organization to try and mediate disputes, I think that all Wikipedians ought to try and mediate disputes before they go to Dispute Resolution or Mediation. This is, of course, only in the case that you think you can avoid becoming part of the dispute yourself. It would be particularly Esperanzian, I think, to have a personal policy that "When I come across a dispute, I will try and handle all sides as fairly and neutrally as possible", because people who do that do lower Wikistress. While it's not Esperanza's job, per se, when looking for a neutral editor (like in an RfC or somesuch), other editors should be able to count on Esperanzians to uphold neutrality, civility, and fairness in comments on disputes. - CheNuevara 10:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We've had a lot of discussion about what Esperanza is and isn't, and hopefully everyone has seen many sides of the issue - I know I have! To me, it appears clear that we all want Esperanza and its members to keep up it's support of people in stressful situations. CheNuevara also had a very good point about going into disputes neutrally, for what better way to help a disagreement, than to come in calmly and help everyone relax a bit? Being a part of Esperanza does not mean that you can't get involved in POV disputes on your own, for I'm sure that almost all of us are involved with at least one as we speak. But as a whole group, I feel that Esperanza is more about support of people, while organizations such as Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee take direct action in disputes.

Moreschi (and perhaps others), I'm sorry that you feel my awarding The Halo a barnstar was "tactless". I see it as Esperanzial, which was exactly why I did it. He was getting very passionate about Esperanza, and it's no good for someone to get stressed out about something they love. Hence, the barnstar, to show that his actions were not for nothing. It was not meant as anything else but positive support, just as Esperanza is. -- Natalya 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, just let me reiterate that I was never seeking official Esperanza sanctions to endorse anything I was doing, nor was I seeking to turn Esperanza into a Supreme Court. I was simply suggesting it as a personal suggestion for people to look out for each other out of their own free will and concerns. I'm sorry that it has been interpreted as though I am seeking to undermine ESP or to seek to seize control of it for my own vanity, to undermine Natalya's position as AG of AC or to recruit my own private wiki-militia for pushing my own POV. Unfortunately, it seems that many are uncomfortable about my presence here, or that I may be trying to poison the atmosphers so I have decided to resign my membership here, as it seems best for the morale of the organisation and as I feel that it in no way hinders my ability to contribute to the encyclopedia or to award barnstars or to offer any advicee or personal experience to those who may wish to listen. And I had already reached this decision as you can see by the my contrib list before I came to this post.Thankyou and all the best for the future. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What we are, and what we do.

There has been a lot over the past couple of weeks that I want to say about Esperanza, so rather than do it in drips and drabs, I'm going to post it here, all together.

Firstly, I love Esperanza, from the bottom of my heart. I think it's the greatest thing that could happen to Wikipedia, and I am in complete accord with all of our principals. However, as I have said, I am tired of having to stand up for these beliefs, to constantly explain to people outside of Esperanza why we do what we do. Maybe we have lost sight of our core ideas in all this restructuring of the project, and maybe that has lead to confusion for other users, but I don't think so. We are viewed as a strange clique, a 'cool kids gang' (as many before me have said), and this worries me. Sort out this image problem, help people to understand that we are a group who are dedicated to strengthening the community through support and kindness, and then maybe we can help more people. On the question of whether or not Esperanza should become involved in cases of harassment, and personal attacks, well, I think I've made it quite clear that I am against this. Not only is this not what Esperanza is designed to deal with, I think it actually goes against some of our principals (the no judgement part especially). I do think it is a good idea, one that can be put into practice elsewhere and really do well. I just think that Esperanza's not the place for it. If it turns out that I am wrong, and this is the path that Esperanza wants to take, I will be fine with that. We are a community based on the decisions of the majority, but I will not follow suit. I will still be telling people that I am here if they need to talk, that I care, and that I hope that they are OK.

As far as our image goes, I think that, yes, it might need a face life, but basically, we all know what we are.

Esperanza is an ideal. An ideal of support, an ideal of unity, an ideal of kindness. We are a symbol, a zenith of hope, which cannot die, nor can the users who are part of it. Our beliefs, unconquerable, our visions, incorruptible, our inner, undying desire to help this community, unquenchable. We are defined by our actions and our beliefs, and when you look into the core of Esperanza, you will find a unwavering devotion to Wikipedia and all of its editors. This is who we are.

Thε Halo ^Θ 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. Applauds -- Banes 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

T-Man editing

But it's so much fun! -- Dyslexic agnostic 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I HOPE you get that I am being sarcastic, before I am banned again for no reason... -- Dyslexic agnostic 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just why do these people like to take their personal quarrels here? --Terrancommander 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No it looks very much like yet another instance of sig confusion, getting the wrong link. Or so it would seem. -- Banes 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Smartness, he took his own personal argument with an Esperanzian here and archived the ongoing discussion on his talk page. Similar style to Advocron. Why blow things big and get us all involved? --Terrancommander 04:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"like" vs. "as"

User:71.84.2.85 changed "like" to "as" on WP:ESPERANZA. To which I say, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should".

--Richard 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, darn.

My last post was genuinely intended to be my last, but I seem to have caused such a ruckus (this seems to happen rather easily at Esperanza: I saw in the archives that the founder and first AG left in despair, but perhaps people get over-emotional around here) that I thought that I'd better come back and clarify one or two things.

• "Recruit my own private wiki-militia for pushing my own POV". I hope no one does feel this at all. Mr Blynguyen and I have never corresponded, either on Wikipedia or on e-mail or on IRC. I am not associated with him in any way; we are merely agreeing on a situation about which we feel similarly. If I have to say this again, I will; I am not attacking Esperanza. Nor is he.

• I'll clarify what I meant about that barnstar. I say that Esperanza should take a more proactive role in the community (using its considerable clout); combat personal attacks, take on the abusive trolls, and perhaps intervene in the more ludicrous kinds of POV disputes. Mr Blynguyen agrees. The Halo disagrees. The Halo is awarded a barnstar as a "Defender of Esperanza" (EsperanzaDef). Both the timing and the wording are unfortunate, as it makes it appear that it is perceived that Mr Blynguyen and I are attacking Esperanza. I am sorry if this contributed to his decision to leave.

• "The one and only Cliff " left a slightly odd message on Natalya's talk page. I'm not sure that I understood it fully, but I think that they may be questions that I am perhaps better placed to reply to than she is (with all due respect). If you want to have a chat, then leave me a message.

• Finally, I wish to apologise for the collateral damage and distress that I seem to have caused. However, I still feel that all my comments have been proportionate, and have had a slightly irrational response. Maybe I am too used to the operatic side of WP, where disputes are frequent but always assume a mild tone, are emotionally cool and good faith is always assumed. I have no doubts about the validity of my comments above: I think that Esperanza will only utilise its full potential when it becomes more active. However, strictly speaking it's not my business, but when I saw that several users who I'd worked with had either left or come close to leaving I felt that there should be more proactive support and protection for them, and that Esperanza might be a good organisation to take up this mantle. Once again, I apologise for the damage done, but as regards my original comments I remain unrepentant. Best, Moreschi 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't come here again for a while, but seeing as we're making ourselves clear, I thought I'd make it clear that I had nothing against the idea per se, just where it would be put into practice. The reason Esperanza doesn't get involved in those sorts of arguements is to keep ourselves nutural, so we can help everyone without being seen or tought to have taken sides. It can be difficult to try and help a user if Esperanza has had a major arguement with them in the past. I hope that clears up my stance, and that there are no hard feelings. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi...again!

I have returned after about 4 months from leaving Wikipedia. So I would like to say this: I am glad Esperanza has become a much larger group since I left, and I am glad we have a new leadership. I simply will put it: I am back. No need to reply. WikieZach| talk 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and wanted to say it (my break) was because of my work at CNN, and I am so happy that I got promoted to an International Correspondent. I am set to travel to Haifa tomorrow. WikieZach| talk 21:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Where is that? ;P Be sure to spread the wiki-love! Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Haifa? Haifa is in Lebanon, north of Israel. A possible ground invasion will occur and I need to be there for my new job. WikieZach| talk 21:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Be careful out there. Cowman109^Talk 22:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, congratulations, good luck, and be safe! - CheNuevara 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They really need wiki-love. And be safe! Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. WikieZach| talk 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Take care of yourself :) Thε Halo ^Θ 11:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though you said no need to reply, we can't help but not! Great to see you back, and stay safe! -- Natalya 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible future problem to be looked at

I found a possible problem with the vacancy rule in the charter at §3.A it reads; "Should a Councillor resign or leave Wikipedia, he or she is replaced by the runner up from the last election to serve out the remainder of his or her term." Well what if the runner-up is also gone? I propose the following, just as a Idea. "In the case that there is any dispute from a vacancy in the Council, or a rule in dispute, the Admin. General shall have the sole duty to determine the resolution. In the Case the admin. gen cannot complete that duty, then the Council will do that." Please just review it, and give some comments on what you think. There may not be a problem, but we better off safe than 'sorry'. --WikieZach| talk 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, if the runner-up has left the project, or does not want the position, the next runner-up is nominated. The Esperanza elections are notorious for having 15-20 entrants. I do feel that we should have a clause that says the council can veto a candidate, or request to ask the candidate a series of questions. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound interesting. We really should have a faster way of introducing these ideas. I think that in September, along with council voting, any amendment that is offered that has 'ENOUGH' support on the talk page should be offered to be approved in that same election (since I have read of many ideas) WikieZach| talk 20:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar to US voting? Too much Modern Studies class, (scarrrrry teacher ;) Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Charter#B._Amending_the_Charter_and_Polling, there is actually a section in the charter about how to amend the charter. We will actually soon be exercising this when we take a straw poll on the naming of the Council/Assembly (coming soon! I know you're all excited).

As for filling vacancies, there was some discussion of this in the above thread about the election closure: Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza#Election_closure. Nothing definite was determined, but ideas were brought up since there was a three-way tie for the runner-up. -- Natalya 05:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What date will the straw poll open on? WikieZach| talk 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Very soon; it should be withing the next couple of days. -- Natalya 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin tutoring link

A new(ish) user has just approached me for help, and I remember seeing a link for Admin coaching/tutoring somewhere around here- can anybody point me in the right direction please?

I'll probably have forgotten about it tomorrow, so a reminder'd be nice too!

Thanks,

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESP/AC. Enjoy, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 15:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

user page redesign program?

Hello, I seem to remember that at one time there was a program where people could redesign other people's user pages, and I believe it was within Esperanza. I can't find the page anywhere. If someone knows where to find this, or better yet, if someone were willing to redo my user page, I would be most grateful. As you can see, I have no experience with web page design. Thanks!--Tachikoma 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it used to be an Esperanza program, but it is now run my a different WikiProject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help/Trading Spaces for more info. —Mets501 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer.--Tachikoma 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Wow, I think Esperanza is great, you all deserve this, if you are a member of the Esperanza, please take it

For everything you do to the Esperanza, I, Minun, award you this barnstar —Min un ^Spiderman 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)