Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 11

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).

WikiBreak

Wh00t!

Right, I now feel it is the right time to come off from the WikiBreak. Everyone has had a chance to think things through and calm down from the events of circa 1 month ago. I propose a new, fresh, clean start. I'd like to have a rational discussion about what Esperanza should be (i.e., to best suit its goals) and then use this to create a new, improved, more effective place for stressed Wikipedians to receive help and to build a better sense of community. Kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

W00t, all for it. Glad to see Espy back, I don't know how many people have said they wanted to join but didn't want to because it was on wikibreak. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats great news! W00t indeed. Welcome back Esperanza leadership. :) Let us move forward together. -- Banes 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

W00t! Just w00t. :) Misza13 ^{T C} 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiW00t! Welcome back. I think we should address this "booting out" for non-Esperanza like behavior question early on. Personally, I would vote against the entire idea. Let's keep people in the club and in dialog for as long as they will stay. If it means we have to have a public pillory where people can object to the behavior of Esperanza members, then so be it. Nonetheless, let us use moral suasion to get people to behave in an Esperanza like way not some sort of harsh discipline like being booted out of Esperanza. --Richard 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an owl saying wh00t! ;) -- Natalya 14:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza as safehouse?

I'd like to talk about dismantling Esperanza as a club/organization and keeping it as a sort of safehouse for editors. Anyone could participate, and would be subject to the same WP:Civil and other codes of conduct for everyone on wikipedia. This would eliminate the need for some sort of voting-out process for members who do not hold to Esperanza's ideals, and would also eliminate any kind of perceived cliquish mentality. Esperanza would be for everyone who wishes to be here. Thoughts? I'd also like to point out that this wasn't my idea; it was discussed on an archived talk page, but I can't find a direct link right now. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea but I hate the proposed word "safehouse". In my book, a "safehouse" is a place where spies and other undercover operatives go to hide when they are threatened by the opposing side. If you wish to avoid the sense of Esperanza being a clique or cabal, I would ditch the term "safehouse" post haste. I would prefer the term "coffee house" as in "Esperanza is a virtual coffee house open to all Wikipedia editors who wish to congregate with other editors in an atmosphere of camaraderie, harmony and mutual support for the ideals of Esperanza."

I do heartily support getting rid of the membership idea.

I was going to say "Let's make the Esperanza logo more like the wearing of the green on St. Patrick's Day". But then I remembered that Irish hooligans beat up those who don't wear green on St. Patrick's Day. Oops, bad analogy.

My point is: Let's make the Esperanza symbol more like wearing a ribbon or armband that represents solidarity with a group or ideal. Anybody can display the Esperanza symbol but, if you are displaying it while not acting in accordance with the Esperanza ideals, then people are justified in challenging your inconsistent behavior.

--Richard 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the "safehouse" spy connotations. "Coffee house" is much better. I don't care for the ribbon/armband symbolism though--I grate against such things. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Plus, wouldn't Concordia fit more of the role as a safehouse thing?--The ikiroid (talk desk advice) 19:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea - Esperanza doesn't do enough looking after people who feel down. -- 9cds^(talk) 19:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems interesting, but where do things like Admin Coaching and Barnstar Brigade fit in? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think these programs could continue just as they are. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Safehouse, in addition to the spy hidout connotation, is ALSO a term sometimes used for places where runaways or battered women can feel safe. So it's not a completely negative connotation. Thought I'd throw that out there. I think Fang may be on to something conceptually ... ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course. I knew my choice of word had some logic to it. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, I forgot about that meaning of "safehouse". Thanks, Lar. And yet, are we really saying that Esperanza members really get battered and bruised as badly as battered women and runaway slaves?

I still argue for "coffeehouse" as being a clearer image of what Esperanza is offering. Just a place to sit and chat for a while as a break from the hubbub of the world (or Wikipedia) outside.

--Richard 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Is safe harbor worth considering? Leaders100 12:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Safe harbor like safe house has alternate meanings which are distracting when trying to explain what Esperanza is about.

Instead of trying to decide right now on a phrase to describe this idea that Fang Ai Li described at the beginning of this section, can we discuss how things would change? How is the "safehouse" idea different from what we have now?

The one thing I know from her description is that we would lose the membership list and leadership structure. In the discussion below, there doesn't seem to have been much support for this part of the idea.

However, I still think we can discuss the "safehouse" part of the idea. How would we provide support and encouragement to "editors who are feeling down"?

What do we do now in this regard? I've looked at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts but I'm unclear on what mechanisms we have for providing support and encouragement to editors who are feeling stressed?

If you look at the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club#How to “Play” Wikipedia?, there's a good example of an editor who was feeling stressed and who was given some good advice on how to cool down and resolve the problem.

How can we provide a forum for doing this kind of thing more? Part of the problem is the current focus of this Talk Page is the huge discussion on membership and leadership. This might tend to discourage someone who was "feeling down" from inserting a call for help.

Perhaps having a separate page would help.

--Richard 14:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ツ 15:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Change in structure of Esperanza

So, may I summarise for a second? If we were to go ahead with this idea, we would lose the membership list and charter. By extension, we would be getting rid of any leadership (Note: I have no problems giving up my position if such is decided)? Advantages of this would be removing the perception of a bureaucratic mess, as well as simplifying things and removing the cliquey atmosphere. A possible disadvantage I can see is that without leadership, projects often just go stagnant, but I don't know if that'll happen in this case. Overall, I like the idea, and it's a great one to throw into the stew and build upon, if the consensus is to do so. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We could perhaps go for a more steward-oriented approach. Say, two trusted users volunteer to keep a watch over the project page. Anyone could still edit it, but these two would have a bit more responsibility toward keeping it updated. Other projects would still have their assigned or de facto leaders. You're right about the possibility of stagnation, but I think that Esperanza is large enough, and its members involved enough, that this wouldn't happen. (I would also like to say that I myself am not completely convinced about this idea, and remain open to conversation and mind-changing.) I think the major disadvantage to decentralization is the loss of a sense of community. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Personally, I rather like Esperanza as it is. As it was rather, before things went sour. Loostening Esperanza would in my opinion make it harder to do what we are supposed to be doing. As it is, our co-ordinated efforts are doing a lot of good. All the bad stuff makes the "headlines", while so much good is going on behind the scenes and out of the "spotlight". Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should become a beaurocracy of innefficiency (um..spelling?), but lets look at the bright side of life. :) Lets try not to get too caught up in discussion (discussion is good, in reasonable amounts) and look at what we are here to do, make wikipedia a better place for its editors, and, by extension (after all, contented cows make better milk :P ) build the encyclopedia. -- Banes 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Banes. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But if we would do it, how would it work? If you would be blocked, the only two things you could edit would be your talkpage and Esperanza's talkpage?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·give advice) 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That would require a request to have the mediawiki changed, (I think, its not my area), which, I fear, would not go down too well. Also, I don't know if this should become the place to complain about Curps blocking you :P . So you're right Ikiroid, it wouldnt really work... -- Banes 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If we keep Esperanza the way it is, then we need to come up with a system of censoring members who do not act according to Esperanza's goals. I believe that we need some mechanism for internal policing; otherwise all Esperanzians will get a bad name (and indeed this has already happened to a certain degree). I dislike the idea of policing and censoring, but it may be a necessary evil. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that a combination of all the possibilities might work out really well for Esperanza. We want this to be a place where people can feel positive about Wikipedia and come and feel welcomed, but at the same time we don't want it to be too exclusive or too bureaucratic and regulated. I think that before we started worrying about members acting up Esperanzian, it was a much more relaxed place; at the same time, it is an issue that we need to deal with. A suggestion, which is still in the developmental phases, kind of mixes all this together and (hopefully) comes out with an idea that could work.

As well as we all discuss things, and are able to work out many problems, I still think it is important to have some type of leadership group for Esperanza. That way, issues that cannot be resolved by simple discussion, or that are getting out of hand, or that need outside intervention can be dealt with. After reading JCarriker's information below, the idea of a looser Assembly seems like a less-bureaucratic way to have Esperanza's leadership. It could involve a somewhat larger group of contributors, but still small enough that the group would be able to work together easily. Also, the idea of electing an Admin General from the Assembly/Council/whatever it were to be called seems like a very good idea; that way, it is assured that the Admin General will have the appropriate experience.

As for dealing with members acting out of an Esperanza fashion, I think there are two things that could help this. One is to modify the proposed Code of Conduct to be more of a "list of values" an Esperanza member should display. This is somewhat similar to the general philosophy of Esperanza, but having the list separate would give more definition to how an Esperanza member should act, while not being too overbearing. If/when we do run into members who are acting way out of Esperanza's values, I think this is where the larger Assembly could come in, and could be responsible for dropping a line to the member in question asking them what the deal is and reminding them of Esperanza's values. By having the Assembly members do this, it provides a definite feeling that something is being done, as well as giving the Assembly members a definite purpose, while (hopefully) not being too bureaucratic.

I haven't actually gotten as far as how to deal with what happens if bringing it up with the member in question does not work. It would be nice to hope that anyone who joins Esperanza would be able to reform their attitude if they are acting out of character, but unfortunately that is likely not true. While actions that would require Esperanza-intervention would likely constitute some of the many other disciplinary actions on Wikipedia, I don't know when/if it would every be appropriate to revoke Esperanza membership. We could always ask them to leave themselves until they feel they can appropriately display the values of Esperanza... but yeah.

Well, that's just my two (possibly three? I did go on for a while) cents, I hope some of it can be useful. -- Natalya 15:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what we had, a list of values. We only ran into difficulties when trying to figure out what to do with users who willingly ignore pleas to abide by Wikipedia's and Esperanza's ideas. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be a dumb idea, ignore it if it is, but why not make one of the condidtions for joining esperanza that you can't have been blocked for being uncivil in the past three months, or however long we think it should be? While I know that this wouldn't help with members who ignore Esperanza's ideas, it might cut down on users who join Esperanza, but don't care about our ideals. The Halo (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a dumb idea. :) I suspect we'll be talking about this again in greater detail once we get the leadership structure worked out. So keep it in mind and bring it up again if need be. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I've seen a lot of good ideas on this page and I'm not quite sure where to respond, so I guess I'll just do it here. Over the last month, and naturally before that, I've been thinking a lot about Esperanza and a possible reform. In my view, Esperanza has a lot, a lot of possibilities and strong points, but also a few problems. One of them is its image: it's seen by new users as 'a cool club' that they want to belong to, while by some admins that have been around for long it's sometimes seen as an obnoxious voting block, a happy but pointless clique. I don't think it's either but I personally have had moments where I found it hard to convince people of the contrary, as I believe we have gotten off track one way or another. I personally have a great fondness for the ideas described above in which Esperanza would no longer have a membership structure. Members are not necessarily needed for Esperanza programs to function properly: becoming a member of a 450+ members organisation by just signing your name is something completely different to committing yourself to one or more of its programs and reaching out to others. Regarding the leadership issues that are proposed in terms of an assembly, and the size of it: I think it's really important to have some kind of leadership, and it should definitely not be just one person. But future assembly members will be ambassadors for Esperanza, and they will - especially if their tasks are like they are described - be living in 'glass houses'. Therefore, I think we should go for quality over quantity, although I'm not quite sure how we should do that in practice :) --JoanneB 15:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely Esperanza is already "for everyone who wishes to be here"? I thought that was the whole point. Deb 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Signature idea

I was just thinking, what if we (hear me out here) cut down on sig advertising? This has some potential benefits...

• Since signatures are becoming more of an issue nowadays, we would cut down on complaints against Esperanzians for the long sigs. Good press.
• A post "you are being an uncivil jackass" from an Esperanza member will not be signed with the "e". This may help to remove the need for suspension and all that debate which comes with it.
• Less annoyance and confusion when clicking on the "e" by mistake.
• I though of another one when I started this post but the cheese-mind has forgotten it. :P Less of a "special club" image. "Look at me! I have the green e badge of Esperanza in my sig! I'm a civil editor!" less of that if you know what I mean. ;)

Downside:

• Less advertising.

This is a major downside, the loss of new users to the project is what I can see happening, but think about that for a moment...Since we have entrance requirements, fewer newbies can sign up anyway. Most wikipedians find out about Esperanza sooner or later, being a well known organization. And userpage advertising is still there. Fewer new users (I love new users, I was one once :) ) who may not know how it all works will sign up. What does everybody think? -- Banes 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with losing the sig. I hesitated to propose it because so many people seemed to use it.

You will note that I never bothered to figure out how to include the green E in my sig.

I disagree with Celestianpower about getting rid of the charter and the leadership. We might have to rework the charter but there should be a charter and I'd bet most of it could be kept with just a few tweaks about membership. As for leadership, we should keep the leadership and ask them to focus more on helping to get projects started and keep them on track. Less rules like "How to enforce the Code of Conduct".

By the way, please notice that I did not say "No Code of Conduct". I think there should be a Code of Conduct. However, violations of the Code of Conduct will bring you criticism from anyone who knows what the Code of Conduct says (i.e. from Esperanza members and non-members alike).

If necessary, we can create a public pillory called "Allegations of non-Esperanza behavior by members of Esperanza". Complainants could post their complaints there and other Esperanzans could review the complaint and maybe drop the accused a note exhorting them to behave better or suggest that maybe the complainant didn't really have a valid complaint as the case may be.

--Richard 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea, I was just summarising. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with losing the sig, too. Actually it might be a really good idea. I think few people know that Cyde considers (or considered) himself a member of Esperanza, even though he didn't put himself on the membership list (said he didn't want the "spam"). Cyde is one of the most controversial admins on Wikipedia, and I imagine that if he had a green E in his signature, we would have been bombarded with complaints. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We swim in new users, that's how we get found! I came here through Cel's sig, that is evidence in itself. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Highway, true, but I'm sure you'd have found us (I sure hope so :) ) anyway via userpages and so on. What I'm saying is, not a ban on sig advertising, but rather instead of encouraging people to advertise in sigs, lets move more toward userpages. And hey, who says CP has to lose his sig. If fewer people have it, the more likely it is to be noticed (absurd logic but it passes for logic all the same). -- Banes 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite a while later I'm sure. ; ) I guess we can't force people, but I don't agree at all. It's the same as school uniform, we either have to behave when we wear it, or act as we wish and not at all. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but "have to behave" raises the whole issue of enforcement and suspension and CoC does it not? Anyway, its been nice to discuss here, but its getting a little late in this part of the world. Night! (yawns) -- Banes 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bye, happy sleep. If we can change the idea behind the green E, then perhaps we won't have this problem... Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's leadership: Origins, Purpose, and Possible Reforms

Some of you may not know me, those that do probably know me as “the founder” of Esperanza—a positions that I did not seek and have never really been comfortable with. JoanneB and Banes have both asked me to comment on Esperanza in this capacity, I must however decline to comment as founder of Esperanza, as I do not feel that such an honorific tells you any thing about me or my relationship with Esperanza. I will comment as the wikipedian from whose mind the idea of Esperanza came from, the person who housed Esperanza in his userspace in its infancy, as someone who served as Esperanza's de facto leader and then as the first Administrator General, and the writer of the original charter, as I feel that these experiences, rather than some title, give worth to what I have to say.

There has been much confusion about what the "Esperanza leadership" is, what exactly it is supposed to do, and even why it exists in the first place. Esperanza was founded in part to be a refuge from what was perceived by discouraged users as mob rule—whoever shouts the loudest or can rally the most friends wins the day—a perception Esperanza founding members believed to be based in fact. In fact this tendency is a by product of what makes wikipedia great, and as a result it Esperanza's founding members did consider it desirable or practical to change the wikipedia system. Instead, a small pocket of wikipedia weary users could turn to for help and encouragement and support, should be formed with special attention was given to counteracting mob rule within its space. The leadership was designed to be a both a check and balance on that tendency, minimizing presentism and factionalism by having a guiding body elected by its Esperanza's members, and restrained by a charter and defining principles. In short, Esperanza has a structure, because it is not supposed to mimic one of the very problems found elsewhere on wikipedia that led to the its formation.

Sadly, this founding principle of Esperanza has been neglected—to the fault of no one—for a long time. It was further damaged, when the original charter was rewritten and positions in the leadership where modified, sometimes losing or not making clear their original purpose. I accept responsibility for that, I should have been more proactive and assertive when the second charter was revised and in monitoring the talk page and answering questions about original intent.

It is my hope that the membership of Esperanza will not do away with this principle by dismantling the leadership because there is confusion about its purpose, but rather renew and reform it, reinforcing and specifying its reason for being. It was this system of checks and balance that made Esperanza unique; I would be very discouraged to see Esperanza lose what made it unique.

Please entertain using some of the ideas from the drafts and discussions about the original Esperanza charter, that were never put into effect:

• The original charter called for an Assembly, not a Council. It would be helpful to have a more inclusive leadership, as called for by the original charter. This would increase the quorum—allowing for more flexibility with absences among the leadership—and give more Esperanzians who wish to serve the chance, which would increase the body of knowledge and diversity of ideas.
• Originally the responsibilities of the Administrator General were: chairing the Assembly, maintaining the Esperanza space (in fact that is where the term Administrator General comes from), and the making appointments to fill out vacated posts until a regular election. Maintaining the Esperanza space is no longer necessary and making appointments may not be desirable. That leaves the responsibility of chairing the Council/Assembly, I would like to see the Council/Assembly select the Administrator General from among their own ranks; this way a departing Administrator General could be quickly replaced without a special election.

Thank you for reading, and for your thoughts in advance. -JCarriker 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with JCarriker. (My 2 cents) :) -- Banes 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jcarriker. I really like the thought of having the Admin General selected by the current Council/Assembly. -- Natalya 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea, too. Thanks for writing JCarriker. Let's assume we keep the assembly/council. How many people would be in it? What would these people actually do? I've never been clear on what exactly the AG and the council are supposed to do. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too, and I ran in the election! ; ) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've at least made a suggestion about something for them to do in the above section. -- Natalya 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Assembly was had the responsibility of approving any change or suggestion that would affect Esperanza as a whole; for example approving new programs, charter modification, and suggestions (such as adding or removing a green e from sigs). Esperanza was growing so rapidly, that it became apparent that reffernda of the general membership for every change would not be practical. That may seem bureacratic to some but keep in mind that the original legislative body was larger—perhaps too large—and more inclusive than the current structure. The first governing body of Esperanza had 15 members, so I would say that number should not be exceeded both for reasons of precedent and manageability. I think any increase should—at the least—be nine (including the Administrator General). I tend to favor 9 or 11 myself members myself. -JCarriker 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Color on Esperanza Page

Will it be ok If I add color to the page? Anonymous_Anonymous 12:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But thanks for asking! :o) ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's busy enough. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus building

After reading everyone's comments, especially Natalya's and JCarriker's, I would like to get a more general consensus on what people think about this. Question/response/commentary is great, but I would like more of a yea or nay here in order to gauge popular opinion. Therefore I offer this propsal--

Esperanza's Council will be expanded into a 9-member Assembly, including the Administrator General. The Council's current 5 members will serve out their terms and the Esperanza community will hold elections for 4 new members.

The Assembly shall:

1. Approve any change that would affect Esperanza as a whole; for example, approve new programs, charter modification, and suggestions, after appropriate consultation with the Esperanza community as a whole
2. Remind members of Esperanza's values, should a member need reminding

The Administrator General shall:

1. Oversee the Assembly and organize its activities. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Fang Aili ^talk 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Anonymous_Anonymous 17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
3. This sounds reasonable (PS. I'm waiting for the first 'voting is evil remark' ;) Petros471 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Voting is evil! but in this case it seems a necessary one? I'd like to see point 2 expanded a bit, but ya... Support ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (changed to oppose 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

4. I would probably support a 7-member assembly more, per Banes below. -- Natalya 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Given our track record of having people elected to the Council leave or go inactive, I suspect that having a larger group would be beneficial. Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Sounds reasonable to me. I think seven is a better number than nine. As we would have a larger number, could election be twice a year, or have the outgoing assembly chose the new one? Elections do tend to cause bad press for Esperanza... —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   I'm open to having 7 members instead of 9. I think the main point here is to agree upon (or not) the reaffirmation Esperanza's leadership structure, and what that leadership should be responsible for. Perhaps we can work out the details after that much is established. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I think that's a good suggestion. I.e. if consensus is reached here about the role and structure of the leadership the details about how and how many leaders are chosen can be the next debate. Just to go against that (:O) I will also point out that I'm in favour it being 7 rather than 9, although 9 does have the advantages of letting a few go off on wikibreak. Petros471 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

7. Sounds good, elections are evil, so older members electing in new ones sounds better. It isn't that bad Cel Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
8. 9? Why 9? Hell, why not 13? 15!--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)(for those with no sense of humor, I was joking there.)
9. Voting is evil, but I feel that Esperanza is lacking in several areas at the moment. This move would be a positive initiative to get things rolling again, as Esperanza appears to have been in a sort of stasis while the council was on holiday. I feel that the number of those in the assembly should not exceed 9 at any time, though, for reasons stated below: bureaucracy would likely hurt Esperanza more than a semi-organized anarchy in which everyone makes an effort to work on the project. Cowman109^Talk 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
10. <edit conflict>I support this sensible proposal, although 7 seems a better figure and a Prime Minister rather than a President is also a good thing. Not that I'll burn my membership card if that doesn't happen, of course. And not just because CP hasn't sent me one. Of course, he doesn't have my address, and would rightly claim his Taize did me more good than a bit of card, but still, I'd like a nice square of green card with my name on it. You know something? I had a point to make when I started this post, and now I seem to have lost it. Hmmm. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

    Hehe. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

11. I think that 7 is a good number to go for, and that this system of leadership might work. I also think that the twice a year voting system for the council members sounds good. The Halo (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
12. All right... although I'm not sure if I've caught onto why the change is needed from 5 to 9. I'm also pretty wary of adding on bureaucracy after seeing the distractability it can cause (e.g. Wikipedia:Community Justice). Given the warm fuzziness of Esperanza, I say we go for "Enlightened Proconsul" as the title. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
13. On condition we keep it at 7 members. :) -- Banes 09:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
14. I like the idea. --Shizane 10:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Though I've always said I'm not the most qualified person to decide these things, I figure I'll still put in my comments. I think this is a good idea; I personally think 9 is better than 7, as 7 is simply adding two spots, whereas 9 is doubling the size of the leadership, which I think is more in-line with what we're trying to accomplish. However, 7 is fine, and I wouldn't mind that if that's the consensus. Also, I think we should change the lengths of the terms...I'd put the proposal here, but I'm already taking up too much space. :oP EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
16. ßottesiηi ^(talk) 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I have changed my stance to oppose. My arguments laid below (under neutral) concerning unnecessary increase of bureaucracy are still in effect. Plus, I like what Fang Aili proposed a few threads above, i.e. the "steward-oriented approach" - this is something that was crawling up my mind. So generally, I think we should run with like 3-4 "stewards" (whatever their name be) and build proposals upon consensus (proposed by anyone, discussed by everyone) - oh, irony: look at the section's title :). This way, Esperanza would become a miniature Wikipedia (with the "stewards" acting as admins). Misza13 ^{T C} 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
2. I too have changed my stand to oppose. I'm now coming round to thinking that no structure at all, just consensus, might be the way to go here. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

(Changed to support). I like this idea, I like it a lot, however I am strongly of the opinion that the leaders should first and foremost set an example for the rest of us to follow. They are Esperanza's ambassadors. I feel that 9 is a little large for this purpose. I feel that a 5, or maybe 7 member board would be ideal. In my opinion, the board needs to consist of model wikipedians, and not neccessarily those with the most votes... -- Banes 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Whilst I can't possibly disagree with 'the board needs to consist of model wikipedians...' how do you suggest they are picked if voting is not used? Petros471 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   I think I worded that poorly. I am all in favour of elections and the voting process, but my point was that there should be more to it than just getting the votes, and that (I hate to describe it this way) the smaller the Assembly, the greater "quality control" there will be. -- Banes 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Would it be possible for the outgoing assembly to choose the next one, or am I just a bit wacko? Note: This is just an idea, if it's crap, don't hold it against me :P. —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Why not do it like corporate boards, and have the outgoing assemby recommend a slate of nominees to be confirmed for the next term? Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Eh, I don't know. I can imagine the "why didn't you recommend me?" sort of feelings that would undoubtably arise. I think we should have elections. I've never noticed any bad press surrounding; they always seemed quite civil, in fact. (What's the bad press you're refering to, Celestianpower?) --Fang Aili ^talk 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   <edit conflict>People bitch offpedia about not being elected, not being voted for, only getting sympathy votes etc. You can't blame them - voting is evil and this is one reason why. A system where we're presented with a slate of new MPs (US: Representatives) that are the recommendation of the old helps prevent the problems caused by evil voting and also reduces ultimately-storming-out-because-I-wasn't-elected-president-of-the-world-type, er, testicles that we suffer from on Wikipedia now and again. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   I was referring to the outside world, on IRC channels ...etc... Loads of non-Esperanzians (and some Esperanzians) had some real concerns about them - their bureaucracy, point ...etc. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Not sure about that, neutral on that one too. :P My point about assembly size can be summarized in this way: The actions of the few tarnish the many, if one member of a large assembly misbehaves, it would be very bad press for Esperanza, even if all the others are model wikipedians. A smaller assembly cuts down that risk a lot. -- Banes 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps we could add a provision wherein we can call a vote of no confidence should an assembly member behave badly. This might be a good idea no matter what the size of the assembly. It wouldn't have to be hugely bureacratic. Anyone could just say, "Hey, I call a vote of no confidence," and if people support, they support, and if they don't, it goes away. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   But endlessly stresses the person "accused", especially if they felt they were acting in good faith. Above all, Esperanza is the "acting in good faith anti-stress department" of Wikipedia, aren't we? ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   I suggested it because you raised a concern about assembly members misbehaving. I prefer to assume they wouldn't, too. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Well, would the vote of no cofidence work if, let's say, a group of five members all voted that they had no confidence in a council member? This would cut out the possiblity of one member being angry at a council member and starting a vote of no confidence. If five members all had no confidence in a counciler, then we could assume that there was definatly an issue of no confidence. Am I making sense? It seems that I'm just rambling on & repeting myself now.... I also think that outgoing council members recomending new council members might be a bad idea, as it will lead to arguments. However, as long as anyone is allowed to contest a free seat, whether a council member has endorsed you or not, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. The Halo (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   I believe we should still have the vote of no confidence concept, as it would be an important check. However, by the time we discipline the offending member, the damage is already done. So if we can minimize the risk of a member misbehaving in the first place, that would be ideal. In my humble (and oft given :P) opinion, 7 would be a good number. -- Banes 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning to oppose. I feel too much bureaucracy and not enough Esperanza in it. For one, I don't see why the Council/Assembly/whatever should grow as Esperanza grows in ranks. For "smoothly running" the community (i.e. overseeing consensus building, program announcing), current status quo should work. If it doesn't the problem lies elsewhere. So, until anyone convinces me otherwise, my stance is here. I will also think it over and may sway either way. Misza13 ^{T C} 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Switched to oppose. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral I am also unclear on why we need 9 people in this group. Kukini 00:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

   As this is about building consensus- would you support if it was 7 rather than 9, as suggested by quite a few? Petros471 10:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need an elite, when everyone is capable of helping. It is logistically pheasable for a completely equal organisation. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The "not blocked for incivility" in the last 3 months idea

It's an OK idea although "not blocked in the last x months" is probably a better idea. (It doesn't matter why you're blocked. If an admin thought you should be blocked, you should be giving your Wikipedia involvement a long, hard think and that includes your membership in Esperanza.

However, it occurs to me that this whole membership/non-membership thing is pretty much unenforceable.

Consider this...

What constitutes membership? Putting your name on the list. How do people really learn that you're a member? By seeing the green E-thingie in your sig. How, pray tell, do we plan to keep people from including the green E-thingie in their sig after we have decided that they should not be considered a member?

The best we can hope to do is create a section or a page that is titled "List of people who are not considered members of Esperanza in good standing". If a complainant comes to us saying "Joe/Jill X is not behaving in an Esperanza-like way", we can respond "OK, we will post Joe/Jill X on the bad-boys-and-girls list and we will try to convince him/her to mend his ways."

What else can we do? You can't block someone for inappropriately putting the green E-thingie in their sig, can you?

--Richard 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sledgehammer, meet walnut. So far this "problem" hasn't been an issue for us. When Esperanzans have been accused of incivility, they've either been all Esperanza about it and apologised, or they have ultimately been vindicated by the blocking of the accuser for trolling or the like.

Creating a pillory on which one/some/x-percent-of-users can put another user is decidedly anti-Esperanza. Which Esperanza members have gone wrong so far and would deserve this public tomato-throwing? None. No editor, no matter what the crime, deserves being listed somewhere for others to throw rotten fruit at them. There's a website run by the discontented, nutty and attention-seeking already out in cyberspace somewhere. It rejoices in posts pillorying editors for mispellings, double standards over a 4-year period and general imperfections that humans (shock, horror) display. That's the place for the pillory - with the nutjobs, wackos, trolls and chronically-misunderstood.

I really can't see how Wikipedia can be improved by Esperanza becoming the place for castigation, pillorying, condemning, judging, categorising, sentencing or screwing over fellow editors to prove a point. In fact, I'd be as bold as to suggest that people who suggest that Esperanza should have any negative side of enforcement, judgement or pillory are being a WP:TROLL and rejoicing in WP:POINT. But I'm a member of Esperanza, so I won't say that. I'll keep my thoughts to myself. ➨ ЯЄDVERS

I could name a couple of (former? I'm not entirely current on the removal of names from the member list) members that were arguably fully deserving of public castigation (you've left out, from your list of outcomes, those cases where the accused has been blocked for "trolling or the like").

Nevertheless, I think you're correct insofar as Esperanza isn't the right place for this sort of thing. We have a number of other community processes better designed for—and actually capable of—dealing with the chronically incivil; I don't really see the need for any measures beyond a general understanding that Esperanza neither takes sides in any disputes engaged in by those claiming membership, nor protects its erswhile members from outside disciplinary action. Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like the return of the CoC. If people seriously are still into all this enforcement of behavior thing as a part of Esperanza, may I suggest we return Esperanza to Wikibreak status until we get it out of our system. NoSeptember 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note: All comments here are directed toward ideas, not individuals; I believe everyone who is suggesting these ideas are acting in good faith, and I commend them for their dedication and attempts to make this a better place.) I've already written about this here, so I'll save myself the trouble of thinking up the correct words again and simply quote myself. :oP "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..." etc. The bottom line is that no organization should be condemned for the actions of a small group of its individuals, particularly a group that states openly, "Esperanza does not resolve user conflicts or POV issues, and will not accept requests to do so." Any problems with an individual should be taken up with that individual, and for us to create enforcement and outcast other users creates the very stress that we're trying to combat. </my two cents> EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NS and EWS and go one step further: those members of Esperanza who wish the organisation to become an enforcement, police or punishment organisation are requested, nicely, to go. Now. And don't let the door hit you on the bum on the way out. Sorry, but I really don't believe that the majority of members here want Esperanza to be positively tracking down and routing out people in order to pillory them. They do not.

And if, by some strange miracle, it was shown that Esperanza was now inhabited by a majority of people who get off on the idea of punishment, pillory and taking revenge, then fine. But I'm not leaving. I'll just hang around here, constantly reminding these people that the problem is at their end. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Redvers wholeheartedly. We are not judge and jury, as Pschemp quite rightly stated. When it was realised that this would be the effect of the CoC, it was scrapped. This should be the end of it, in my eyes. —Celestianpower

^háblame 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I might be one of the users that Redvers might want to have leave Esperanza, then. And if he's not the only one, let me know, and I'll go. However, while I strongly believe that Esperanza should not be a police force, I still believe there are some lines that should be drawn somewhere. We do not not have any membership requirements, other than 150 edits and two weeks of editing and some commitment to our charter. All the same, the minute after they jot their name on the membership list, they can go on and insult others left and right, signing their personal attack with a nice green e. They can go and sollicit minors starting in our own channel (yes - that has happened - more than once). They can go against everything we stand for, but we'll just say, 'hey, sure it's ok for you to be a member - eh, let's not do that ok?'. I recognise that there's a thin line. But these are not hypothetical situations. People got hurt, confused, upset - with specific members but with Esperanza too. My idea behind the COC (though perhaps not in its current form) was something to sign when you become a member, saying 'hey, I'm a member of Esperanza now, which means more than that I just belong to some cool club, it means that I'll try to....' - and understanding that that membership of this organisation actually meant something. Its further implementation has never really been discussed - which is fine, but it (in my mind) would have never had to become the police state that some people apparently imagine. I'm not saying that we should re-discuss this whole thing, but I'm a bit - upset and surprised I guess, that suddenly these kinds of statements are made here: "if you think so and so, leave". --JoanneB 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we certainly do not want you to leave, Joanne. You're fantastic, and a perfect Esperanzian in every way. I think you're both wanting the same thing. You both don't want Esperanza to be the police and you both want to get rid of Esperanzians who go against Esperanza's principles. Ergo, you should be on the same page.

Where you disagree is how the CoC will/would work. That's ok - that's what discussion is for. I feel that a great idea is to get rid of membership, then people (other than the leadership) would have no rooted connection here, so anything they do cannot be attributed (even wrongly) to Esperanza. But anyway, my point is that both you, Joanne and Redvers are working towards the same goal in practically the same way. We love you both :). Kindest regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't get back when this discussion started, but the drains broke all along the street, and sewer water came out.

Anyway, I think that the original idea might have got lost somewhere. The original idea was to make one of the conditions of joining Esperanza that you can't have been blocked for incivility in the last 3 months. And that idea would only come into play if this became an issue for esperanza, ie users lossing faith in us, which it hasn't yet. I'm sorry if some people thought that the idea was one of punishment, but it wasn't. It was an idea to try and protect our reputation as nice people, an idea that works for, and was stolen from the birthday committe. It isn't meant for current members, and it isn't meant for people who want the sort of Esperanza that Redvers is so, quite rightly, scared of. I'm sorry if anyone felt that way, and I did say originallt that it might be a dumb idea....

And, after all that rambling, I understand that people still might not like the idea (hell, I don't like the idea! It would be so much better if users could get along and just edit this place without edit wars and blocks etc...), and remember, it was just a suggestion.

The Halo (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced that I've been barking up the wrong tree. There seems to be a consensus against having any enforcement of the Code of Conduct. For the record, it's not that I had any particular desire to pillory people. I was just saying that we couldn't do much more than that. Apparently, we don't want to do even that.

And, I'm OK with this "non-enforcement" approach.

I will say that, being a relatively new member of Esperanza, the only experience that I've had with a complainant was about a month ago when someone complained about an Esperanza member on this talk page. A couple of other members got into a mild argument with that person because our charter said that we would kick people out if they didn't behave Esperanza like. I was also involved in that argument. I think there was a bit of "defending one of our own" starting up there. Somebody pointed out that the complainant was not exactly lily-white himself. Thankfully, User:Natalya jumped in and got all of us to chill out. That one action got me to vote for her when she was up for adminship recently.

If we are going down this route, then we should amend the charter post-haste to get rid of the language that suggests that we will throw people out for misbehavior. I think we should retain the Code of Conduct as an ideal for all us mistake-making humans to shoot for and make it clear that it is just an ideal not an enforceable code.

When people complain about members, our reflex action should be to suggest to complainants that we are not the place to resolve their complaints against members. We should further suggest to complainants that they are welcome to call the offending person's attention to the Esperanza Code of Conduct. And, we should try to leave it at that. We should not defend our fellow Esperanza member nor should we investigate and try to see who is more in the right and who is more in the wrong. If we do, we run the risk of becoming judge and jury.

How does that sound?

--Richard 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Richard, with his whole statement, but more specifically that we should amend the charter to stop confusion by users wanting to complain about our members. And, while we're on the subject, maybe we should at some point think about simplifying the Esperanza front page. I was talking to a friend I know who also uses wiki, and she said that she got confused about where to go when she got to our front page. I think that we're a little busy with everything right now to go into this in detail, but it's something to think about. The Halo (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As has been already expressed, I feel that if we implement having the larger Assembly-Council members approach any users who have been noticed to be acting un-Esperanzian, we should be able to take care of almost all situations that come up. And those that cannot be handled through this, that is why we have the Admin General and the Assembly-Council, and they can take care of any situations on a case-by-case basis, and decide what should be done, whether it be asking the person to leave Esperanza or whatever. That way, the problems will still be dealt with, but will not be detrimental to the entire Esperanza community. -- Natalya 02:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the was support for removing the members list altogether? —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry - my mistake! —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Echo Natalya and others. I agree that we should not have any enforcement provisions, other than letting our leaders give gentle reminders, if it seems necessary. Otherwise enforcement issues should be left to the appropriate wikipedia venues already available. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The charter speaks to membership requirements, which I think is appropriate. I don't think Esperanza should police/castigate/censure/punish people, (there are perfectly adequate mechanisms such as RfC, mediation, admins blocking, arbcom, community banning, and so forth) but if someone really doesn't meet the requirements, they really should be removed from the member list. We don't need a body or officer or police force to do that either, we just need members to consense around whether it's a legitimate removal. Any member can edit the list, and if in so doing they place the reason why in the edit summary, that should be sufficient. If reverted, it's clear a unanimous consensus would not exist. This might lead to slow moving revert wars I guess but it's better than having a membership removal officer appointment committee or a long drawn out discussion. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been auto-blocked for something that was totally not a breach of Wiki rules, so your sayiong I shouldn't be allowed to participate in esperanza anymore? Philc _T^E_C^I 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Change of term length

One of the problems we've had in the past is quite simply that we have too many elections. Once every 2 months is a little much. So, my current idea is 6 month terms, staggered 3 months so that we would have 4 elections per year (as opposed to the current 6), so that newcomers would never have to wait longer than 3 months to become deeply involved, while still creating longer, more stable terms. I think I saw some comments above supporting only 2 elections per year, which would also be fine (though, as I just mentioned, could mean that a newcomer would have to wait as long as 6 months to get involved with the leadership, which is an eternity in wikitime). I'll try to put it in a simpler list format so it's easier to understand:

1. All Advisory Council (Committee, whatever it is to be called) members will serve 6 month terms.
2. These terms will be staggered into two Tranches, as is the current practice, so the entire AC isn't replaced in one fell swoop.
3. The first such elections will finish on June 30th; in order to create the 3 month staggering, Freakofnurture's and Titoxd's terms could be extended to September 30th, at which time there would be new elections

Anyway, just an idea. Feel free to shoot it down, I just thought I'd babble for a bit. :oP Also, don't feel obligated to vote on it immediately; talk about it, throw around a few alternate solutions, and try to find a consensus. (Note: I won't be around much in the next week, which is why I'm giving so many instructions. :oP ) Thanks for reading everyone, and I hope we can make lots of improvements to Esperanza. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always hated the tranches, and found them needlessly confusing. Can we just have that every 6 months, an election takes place and a whole new set of members will be appointed. Some will be the same, some different. In all, I don't see the problem with members having to wait a maximum of 6 months to get into the leadership. If the roles are as above, I see no reason why people would want to get on the leadership inbetween 6 month intervals.

Anyway, I see the advantage to the 6 month system thus:

1. No confusing tranches
2. Proper, long, worthwhile terms
3. Little outside criticism

4 elections a year is still a lot if you think about it... —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, It's late here so if I make no sense, feel free to ignore me and I'll express myself better in the morning. Ciao ciao! —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm writing stuff down, may I ask why an Admin Gen isn't allowed more than one term? If we've got a great guy/girl running things, do we really want to have to get rid of that person? I think that we're all smart enough to decided if we want our leader to leave or not. Also, forcing someone out of office, even if everyone wants them to stay, seems a bit bureaucratic. Or is there some important reason that I'm missing? The Halo (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! You're not suggesting that I'm a great guy? :P. Anyway, where does it say that the Admin Gen can't run again? I was under the impression that they could... —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew it said it somewhere, and it's in the charter under the admin gen section. It reads: "...elected at the beginning of each year to a one year non-consecutive term." as I said, it doesn't seem very fair if we've got a great admin gen already (of course I'm saying you're great Celestian...:p) The Halo (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As "non-consecutive", I'd understand that he can't be immediately reelected, but nothing stands in the way of running for this position after a year's break (to give others a chance). And yes, CP rocks as an AdminGen! :) Misza13 ^{T C} 10:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I never thought of it like that. I guess that's true. Hey, go Misza13!! Well done that man/girl!!!! The Halo (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One good thing about the tranches (sp?) is that when new Assembly/Council members come in, there will still be some people there who know how things have been running, and can help the new members become accustomed to it. I definitly agree, though, that a smaller number of elections are better. Can we have two tranches of 3 or 4 members (depending on if we decided on a 7- or 9- person Assembly/Council), with elections every 6 months? -- Natalya 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think we should have tranches so there are still some "veteran" members along with the new ones. But elections every 3 months is a lot. So yes, every 6 months. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(poking my head in from Wikibreak) If we had two tranches with elections every 6 months, would that mean that AC terms would be a full year? I know we're going for stability and such, but that seems a little long to me. Any thoughts? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see too much problem with everyone going up for election at the same time. Stability will happen because some people will be re-elected won't they? Petros471 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... hadn't thought of that. I'm not completely adverse to longer terms, but it is nice to have a bit more rotation... *ponders* -- Natalya 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think elections every three months would already be quite an improvement after the every two months thing we have now, it might be just enough of a change to no longer have the impression that we're living from one election to the next. I'm not supportive of AC member terms of a year, for several reasons, most of them basically coming down to the fact that a year, in 'wikitime' is very long. For instance, someone could become much less active in that year. --JoanneB 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we still up for elections? I liked the idea of old members electing new ones, somewhat less bureacratic and who has a better idea of what the job requires? People could express an interest, and it could be annonymously. Thoughts? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If I do the math right, with a Assembly of 7 members it would make sense to have 3 elections a year (every four months), with two people in each tranche. With an assembly of 9 members, it would work to have 4 elections a year (every three months), with two people in each tranche. -- Natalya 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC) JoanneB is very correct and reminded me that I really shouldn't attempt math at all. ;) -- Natalya 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This would be right if the terms were a year. As with 3 tranches, every tranch would be replaced every third election - with three elections a year, that would be a term of a year for each tranch. I personally think that's too long, so to limit the amount of elections, we might want to have larger tranches. --JoanneB 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh yes, thanks for pointing that out, somehow I thought that separating out tranches made the terms shorter - obviously, my brain is not working in the math-related sense very well! Six months for a term certainly seems like a better lenghth - does that seem more appropriate? -- Natalya 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Childcruft"?

It is my impression that Esperanza is quite widely considered "childcruft" (I'm not sure if it hasn't been said already). I.e. 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 (which is all we're here for). If you don't share my impression, then please bang it outta my head with a large trout. If there is a grain of thuth in it however, please advise on how to alleviate this harmful image of Esperanza. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The image that Wikipedia has to be an impersonal individualistic effort by editors with no regard for the fact that the other editors are actually editors (ie. human), and not fantasy objects who will react totally reasonably without any background knowledge at all. The idea of Esperanza in my view is to create this background. You can take the idea that this is all childish and you are big enough to work on the big encyclopedia without a sense of community but then I doubt you would have involved yourself in the project before. Ansell 10:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think different members emphasize different parts of Esperanza. You have:

1. The various projects
2. The Social club aspects, and
3. The government.

I've always focused mostly on a select few projects (since there are many to choose from) and ignored much of the rest of the organization. But each person will have different interests and uses for Esperanza that suits their needs. NoSeptember 10:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Misza, I strongly agree with you as I've gotten the same impression. I described some of that somewhere above, but it does indeed warrant some extra attention here. I think Esperanza will always attract young users, with, understandably, 'young' behaviour. And there's nothing wrong with that, but we should really start to try to turn this playground image around. For Esperanza as a whole not to be seen that way, I think it's most important to stress the value Esperanza could have for building the encyclopedia itself. Perhaps we could start thinking about starting programs directed more explicitly towards that goal. --JoanneB 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The "playground" image is a LIE. Those who claim it is such have no idea what Esperanza is about. (I'm not pointing the finger at you Joanne or Misza. You aren't doing anything wrong.) Esperanza is absolutely helpful towards building an encyclopedia. It stresses the one thing needed to make a cooperative effort like this work. CIVILITY. We've seen the problems caused when overzealous editors/admins (who will go unnamed) try to push their ideas through without any regard for others, than chastise those who disagree with them. So many policies are violated. It's nice to have a place on here where we know that users will be respectful to each other, regardless if they agree with them or not. As cheesy as it sounds, it's a great thing to have, and I'm proud to be a member.

Sometimes, I think Esperanza should be policy itself. Scary, is it not? :-) --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 12:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you misunderstand Misza and me. We're talking about an 'image' here. An image can't be a lie. It's the way others are seeing us. That image is not necessarily the same as we view it ourselves (and in this case, it isn't). I've seen a lot of conversations on IRC about Esperanza, in several channels, and I think I have a rather good view of how some 'outsiders' view Esperanza. Some of them are influential people, and they have been making good points lately. So rather than calling it a lie, let's just see what we can do about it. --JoanneB 12:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, maybe I did misunderstand. Any statements about Esperanza being childcruft is false of course. My apologize for the misunderstanding. As for fixing it, my recommendation: Tell The Truth. Back it up with a link to the Esperanza main page, and let people see for themselves. Anyone who still thinks it is a spawn of MySpace (yech!!!), well, it's their loss. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 12:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone who has commented on this so far pretty much agrees with eachother, and is saying the same thing different ways. I have the vague impression that Esperanza is seen as being somewhat cliquish, and that if an Esperanza member has a RfA then we'd all vote for him/her (I would have to examine that further, but it is not true for my personal voting habits). Perhaps we could have some internal discussion on that. However, if other people think Esperanza is "Childcruft", then those people can, quite frankly, bugger off. We do serve a purpose, and we do a lot more than hang out in IRC or what-have-you. Worrying about what other people might think about us is unproductive at best. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this "clique" accusation on RfA/RfB before now - usually from someone with a POV to push, but nevertheless, it does exist. Yet a casual glance of RfA has shown that some persistant oppose voters are Esperanza members, and that these people vote to oppose on fellow Esperanzians. Slightly more Esperanzans turn out to vote for a fellow Esperanzan, but that's because we've got to know each other and seen each other in action on-Wiki more often via Esperanza. The same thing applies when someone from WikiProject:Foo gets an RfA - other members of Foo turn out because they know the person posting. And RfA is partially about that - being trusted by people who know you.

As for the "childcruft" accusation... well, Fang's right, that's just nonsense. We're a group of people dedicated to building an encyclopedia who agree that the best way of doing this is through an enhanced sense of community amongst the participants. Some people believe that the community gets in the way of the encyclopedia; some people on Wikipedia only for the community aspect, not for the encyclopedia; some people are somewhere between the two to various degrees; some people can't fit into any online community and therefore seek to tear them down or deny them; some cannot fit into a RL community so therefore seek to build a new one online. And Esperanza stands amongst all of these people, welcoming them all and requiring as much or as little involvement as they want to give to their fellow editors.

We recognise that Wikipedia editors, admins and readers are human. That humans have seven billion different viewpoints, all of which are correct. That all viewpoints can be discussed and debated easily, so long as all people involved maintain civility toward each other. But we also know that, as human beings, we are all incivil now and again. We offer forgiveness here. We hope for contrition. We do not require nor seek retribution. We do not judge. We are Esperanzans. We listen.

Our overriding aim is to avoid a situation as happened at ES Wikipedia, where a substantial group of editors forked off over a terrible, heated misunderstanding. We exist to attempt to diffuse these misunderstandings in future. We do this collectively and as individuals. Or we don't do it - it's optional. Esperanzans worked tirelessly over the userboxen row, diffusing, mediating, correcting, all for no publicity because none was required. That was the point that Wikipedia came closest to forking. We avoided it, and Esperanzans were there in the background helping to ensure that they best they could.

Our main problem, therefore, is in the quiet times. The times where Wikipedia is growing steadily and without major strains. We are irrelevant at those times, but that's because we work to make ourselves irrelevant in those times. It's unfortunate that we use those times, like now, to tear ourselves apart. But I dare say that a major war over a fundamental point (say, for instance, if Jimbo announced the choice was between bankrupcy and becoming the Googlepedia) then we would again see Esperanzans there, in the background, in the foreground, loud, quiet, on email, on Wiki, on IRC, wherever and whenever we were needed, just doing that tiny, tiny 0.0001% thing, that voice that says "thank you for your contribution. Have a barnstar. What a nice user page. Have you thought of being an admin. Don't worry that your contribution has been rejected loudly. We valued it. Thanks." ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

**Applauds**. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. If that doesn't make you proud to be here, not only in Esperanza, but in this entire project, then I don't know what will. The Halo (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(twiddles off to find barnstar) I'm awarding one! That was amazing, I think we should have that in the charter or something, it's the perfect summary of Esperanza. It pins us perferctly. Well done, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Redvers was awarded the Defender of Esperanza Barnstar (fine I took some liberties ;) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I too have given Redvers an award. Sorry Highway, I wasn't copying you, it just took a little while to make. I encourage anyone else who was moved and delighted by Redvers words to do the same. The Halo (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I say! Very well said indeed. Hats off to Redvers. -- Banes 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Thank you, Redvers! --JoanneB 22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply amazing. Can we move that to the front page under a "mission statement" section? --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

*wild applause* We should certainly put it somewhere, perhaps a "Are you confused about why Esperanza exists?" page for people who care to complain about us? -- Natalya 19:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If Esperanza had a town square, and Redvers were dead, we would have a bronze statue of him there, for birds to sit on and schoolchildren to have picnics under. Simply an amazing statement. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 20:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

FA contribution award

Perhaps related to the above discussion, would Esperanza be the right source for some sort of recognition for editors involved in the creation of featured articles? I've created and maintain Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, but I suspect most folks appearing on it have no clue they're there and this list only recognizes the editor(s) who directly nominate FAs who are often not the same as those who did the bulk of the writing (see Category:Authors of Featured Articles). I could personally add something to each user's talk page on the occasions of their first, second, fifth, etc. FA nomination but this is a far larger task than I'm willing to take on at the moment (or any foreseeable future moment). If this were an Esperanza activity, it might help Esperanza's image as this would be obviously related to the goal of producing high quality articles. And then there's Featured pictures, Featured lists, and Featured portals. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why I'm not on the list? ;) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not automatically updated; presumably the more recent noms just haven't found their way onto it yet ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Would make sense. I think we should follow the system we have, and award regular awards for 1 and 2 Featured articles, and then the Featured Article Medal for 3. If they can get more than 3, just start again. I'm sure the Barnstar Brigade would be happy to undertake this. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's of my understanding that esperanza is about all wikipedians, not just those who make articles to featured status. This is just an extention to 1FA. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, it's just an attempt at recognizing good work, no? By your reasoning, we shouldn't encourage barnstars because "Esperanza is about all Wikipedians, not just those who get receive barnstars". Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars are unrelated to Esperanza. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So the barnstar brigade is just a figment of our collective imaginations? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates Barnstars to Enperanza. Unless Esperanza invented Barnstars? -- 9cds^(talk) 16:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We're encouraging their use, obviously. If it's merely the semantics that concern you, we could have someone come up with this proposed award independently and then adopt it into an FA-recognition brigade; but that seems like a rather silly point. Is there some reason why we shouldn't recognize work on featured articles? Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing against a barnstar being created for the purpose, but I'm against an Esperanza project to pick out those who worked on an article to FA status and congratulating them. Whatever it is, that's not spreading wikilove. We should be concentrating on passing kind words to those who need it, because they're going through a rough patch, whatever. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean, how dare we? Celebrating the diligent, hard work of faithful editors, who are often unappreciated? Perhaps letting them know about their good work and making them stay!? Unforgivable! Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, how dare we not promote wikilove, and turn our attention to those who don't need help! ;) -- 9cds^(talk) 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat subtly, the best time to promote Wikilove is all the time, not just when someone is already stressed out/on wikibreak/leaving. There's no reason to limit our efforts to any particular group of people. Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my own opinion, but I just don't see this as wikilove, that's all. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove for all! I just wrote an FA, and I was really mixed up in other cases. My harrasser/stalker/backstabber is up in Arbitration. W00t indeed. (Can't we do both?) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. My impression of Esperanza is that it helps strengthen Wikipedia's sense of community, values the undervalued and is a place for stressed users to come for comfort. This will help in valuing the undervalued - FA writers are quite often taken for granted. Thanks for the suggestion, Rick! Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And FA writers are often celebrated, I know Nicky (whatever ;) received the Barnstar of Dilligence and the Featured Article medal for Binary Star, both from members of the Barnstar Brigade. Cel got a barnstar for Bulbasaur, I got one for Torchic. I know peple get overlooked, but it's far from unheard of. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a cool idea too. The barnstar brigade will likely latch onto it happily. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

why do you people put links to here in your sigs?

Why exactly is it that Esperanza people put links to their club in their signatures so often? Is it to advertise, gain exposure for the club? It seems to cause confusion with some newbies, and I wonder if the costs outweigh the benefits. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I stopped linking Esperanza in my signature when it became apparent that certain administrators were getting really annoyed with signatures that were more than 10 characters or so. I kind of liked having the link in my signature, as it was an ongoing reminder to myself that I should uphold the principles of Esperanza, but I don't want to annoy any administrators more than I already have. Also, any attempts I've made recently to edit my signature have just ended up corrupting the thing, so I've given up on the concept. --Elkman (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 18:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a few months back there was some change in the software so that old formats for sigs don't work any more. It's still possible to achieve those sigs if you choose "raw" signatures though. But, {{user5}}, that's cute! -lethe ^{talk +} 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We do it to advertise our membership of Esperanza, rather than to advertise Esperanza. In effect, this is an indication that you can expect a degree of reasonableness from the editor in question, although in reality Esperanza members are just as human as everyone else and proud of it! But, like Elkman says, it should mainly focus as a reminder for the user of the signature him/herself that they should be upholding a sense of community within Wikipedia whenever they write. It's a tiny reminder, but we do tiny thing to make things better here (grand sweeping gestures just annoy!). There's no requirement to do anything with your signature, it's just something that some of us like to do. Also, many of us link to a page in our userspace about Esperanza and editing, rather than to Esperanza itself.

Elkman, if you're using user5 (and it's a nice idea), could you consider subst:ing it to reduce strain on the servers? Thanks! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was stupidly putting raw word count ahead of server load as a priority when I was using {{user5}} in my "signatures". I'll fix that. --Elkman 03:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, as Redvers said, the issue of confusing directions was brought up a few months ago, so contributors are now encouraged to link to a page in their userspace that allows people to decide what they are looking for. (User:Natalya/Esperanza as an example) -- Natalya 20:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a clever solution. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think if one is going to have a link to a special subpage, why bother linking to your user page or talk page at all? (they can be linked in the special subpage). I do this now, a single link to a subpage and no direct link to either my user or talk page. This would save a lot of signature code, of course, just having one link. NoSeptember 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am trying a compromise where I still have the green e but everything goes through the subpage to keep the behind the scenes code a bit shorter. Ansell 01:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That is actually a very good idea for those who still want a green letter in their signature. NoSeptember 12:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I took out the green E (or A in my case) because I agreed with Banes' reasoning (see Signature idea and I just wanted to simplify things a bit. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also a page where you can register if you'd prefer not to have your signature refactored into a non-Esperanza linked version.
brenneman ^{L} 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I totally misunderstood Tony Sidaway's intentions, but I took his No refactor page as a bit of a joke; he doesn't say he will never refactor the sigs listed there ever again, in fact, he says that this doesn't apply to his talk page and anything on AN or its subpages. What else is left? Those are (normally) the only places where he refactors them anyway. I thought that the creation of this page was merely to let us all have a place on his userspace where we could exhibit our full signature, nothing more. But maybe I'm wrong. romarin [talk ] 00:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong; he just put up another note that clarifies things a bit. It is applicable to all other discusssion pages. romarin [talk ] 01:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Trading Spaces program and WP:UPH

Me and another one of the original members of WP:UPH have discussed it and we have come to the conclusion that it would be a good idea if we could get are WikiProject "endorsed" by Esperanza. Like Esperanza as a parent project to this one. As to what WP:UPH is, it is a WikiProject designed to help users who have problems with the HTML coding/markups etc. of Wikipedia and give assistance on how to make thier userpage more appealing to them. I already noticed that Esperanza already had a similar program called the Trading Spaces program and would like to ask Esperanza members how they would feel if they merged the Trading Spaces program into WP:UPH and WP:UPH becomes a extension of the program. In a nutshell, the potential merge would be turning the Trading Spaces program into a WP:UPH subpage and make WP:UPH an Esperanza decendent project. Let me know what you think everybody. Cheers! — The King of Kings 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice project, I just don't see how it fits where we're trying to go with Esperanza. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one it makes users stress less in a sense. Because our project is aimed at assisting and helping users in need, which is similar to Esperanza. — The King of Kings 00:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a very cool program, but I'm not sure how the idea of Esperanza "endorsing" a wikiproject would go over. It seems like it could add to the tensions that people feel towards Esperanza when they think that it is a cliquey organization. That might just be me, though. -- Natalya 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe endorse wasn't the right wording, maybe just turning us into a decendent WikiProject would work. — The King of Kings 00:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As the other original founder, I think what Moe and I are trying to say is that maybe we could merge the two projects together. We have a very extensive self help page, with a decent amount of members. The trading spaces project is a great project, but it is mostly based on completly designing a user page. Our project is mostly about helping users do it themselves, thus teaching them the technical side of Wikipedia, with occasional personal help if the user still doesn't get it. If we could merge the two together, we could combine both the self-help, and the assisted design. Also, I think that you must be a part of Esperanza to have a page designed by the Trading spaces project, while ours is open to everyone. If we combine the two, we could help more users with the large number of members both projects already have. Thetruthbelow 05:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- 9cds^(talk) 08:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging looks good. —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the leader of esperanza agrees, how can we begin to merge them? Should we create a talk page to determine what goes where, what stays the same, and what changes? Thetruthbelow 14:19, 19 June 2006

Where do we go from here?

Over at the evil voting, 16 people voted in support of a continued leadership structure. There was also one oppose and one neutral vote. There seemed to be more support for a seven-member Assembly rather than nine-member.

Is there a mandate to proceed with a seven-member Assembly? Do 16 voices form a consensus? --Fang Aili ^talk 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is definatly a concensus to have the style of leadership preposed, but not on wheather to have 7 or 9 council members. I prepose another Evil Vote to see which number members want, 7 or 9. The Halo (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

7 Members of the Council

1. —Celestianpower ^háblame 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
2. I think around 7 active members of the council is a good number, 9 might be better to let a few disappear/be busy. I suppose this depends on term length as well (I don't think that has been decided). If the term length was longer I'd be more in favour of 9, shorter 7. If it ends up being 7 members with a long term length it would be good to have some system to replace members who vanish (for whatever reason). Petros471 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   My thought on this would be that the ones who came just below actually getting into the council would step in to replace, if that makes any sense. —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   I like that idea - people who didn't "win" didn't "not win" - they have volunteered to serve as substitutes if they are required. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 12:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, this does sound like a reasonable system :) Petros471 12:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3. -- Natalya 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
4. A larger assembly is not by definition more flexible - and as assembly members will be seen as 'ambassadors' inside and outside Esperanza, we should go for quality, not quantity. -- JoanneB 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
5. A larger assembly may get "bogged down", having a hard time forming consensus. Assembly members should also be stellar examples of wikipedians, IMO. What JoanneB said :) . -- Banes 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
6. For reasons stated in my oppose above, I'd rather vote for even less. But since only 7 and 9 are the leftover options, I have no choice but to place my "vote" here. Misza13 ^{T C} 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

9 Members of the Council

1. Chosen 9 because I believe that doubling the number of Advisory Committee will allow a more flexible style of leadership for Esperanza, which can only be a good thing. The Halo (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Six months is a long time; we should make sure we account for possible resignations/departures/whatnot. Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. Either 7 or 9 is fine with me. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Both Sound Good I'd prefer 9 for Halo's reason though. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears} 16:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

More evil voting

While we're at it, I think we should decide on term lengths. Tranche B's terms are expiring on June 30, so we should get the details down before then.

At Change of term length above, several options were discussed:

1. Extend Assembly member term lengths to 6 months; members would be divided in 2 tranches as they are now; in order to create the 3 month staggering, Freakofnurture's and Titoxd's terms could be extended to September 30th, at which time there would be new elections. (EWS23's idea). The Admin General election would take place before Dec 31. So in all, we would have elections 4 times each year, for terms ending June 30, Sept 30, Dec 31, and Mar 31.
2. Extend Assembly member term lengths to 6 months and get rid of tranches. All members would be elected at once. The Admin General would be elected annually. This proposal would mean elections 2 times each year for terms ending June 30 and Dec 31.
3. Keep the Assembly member term lengths to 4 months, in 2 tranches (status quo). We currently hold elections every 2 months, making for elections 6 times each year, for terms ending June 30, Aug 31, Oct 31, Dec 31, Feb 28, and April 30. (Right? If I've screwed up somewhere, please fix it. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC))
4. Elect the AG from the ranks of the Assembly, or, to put it another way, have the assembly elect the AG from among them. This isnt exactly an independant option but rather a variation.

If I've missed a major option, please add it.

I prefer:

Option 1

1. Fang Aili ^talk 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
2. —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Really? Option 2 was your idea. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Oh. Are you sure? :P. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yes. But whatever. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Not the long length for a new member to become involved in leadership as option 2 would be, while not having too many elections, as option 3 would be. (it's like goldilocks and the three bears - this one is just right! ;) ) The Halo (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Misza13 ^{T C} 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
5. I'm glad that there are smart people who figured out how to make this one work out. :) -- Natalya 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 2

1. Computerjoe's talk 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 3

Option 4

1. -- Banes 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   How long would the Assembly members serve? How and when would the admin general be elected? --Fang Aili ^talk 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   A summary: Extend Assembly of seven members (Banes' idea) with term lengths of 6 months; members would be divided in 2 tranches as they are now; in order to create the 3 month staggering, Freakofnurture's and Titoxd's terms could be extended to September 30th, at which time there would be new elections. (EWS23's idea). So in all, we would have elections 3 4 times each year, for terms ending June 30, Sept 30, Dec 31, and Mar 31. The Admin General is a member of the Assembly selected by the other members, avoiding an independent election for the AG; allowing the position to be quickly filled when vacated, thus avoid special elections (JCarriker's idea). -- Banes 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Would the AG be chosen after each election? Or yearly? --Fang Aili ^talk 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   I'd say after each one is most sensible. —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

2. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (4 elestions per year, AG chosen from inside AC sounds like the best option)
3. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Sounds like a good Idea, though I'd think that most people would choose an admin gen with leadership experiance anyway. The Halo (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
5. I helped my meat puppet (Banes) put together this idea, so of course I support. -JCarriker 20:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Why didn't I think of that? :-p Misza13 ^{T C} 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Sounds good. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Lovely! -- Natalya 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Sensible option - • The Giant Puffin • 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting over

Hey, after several wikibreaks, I feel like coming back again. Anyone who has been here for a while might remember me, but a lot of you won't. If you want to help me get re-adjusted, add something to my talk page. I will probably be starting a new account, just to start over with a clean slate. Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this. Howabout1 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A summing up from Celestianpower

Despite polls being distinctly evil, from the polls on this page, I see a distinct consensus. I see a consensus for a 7 member assembly in two tranches with terms of 6 months, from which the Administrator General is chosen internally. If a member leaves, the one with the next greatest number of votes from the last election steps in to fill h(is, er) shoes. If the Admin General quits, a new member is selected for that role internally post haste, hereby mollifying the need for another election.

Am I right in saying this? If so, shall I get to work ammending the charter and setting up a new election page? Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor nit about diction. "mollifying" isn't the word to use here. "avoiding" or "eliminating" would be a better choice of words. Of course, you were going to edit the above text before inserting it into the amended charter but I figured I'd mention it now in case I wasn't paying attention later.

--Richard 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree! --Fang Aili ^talk 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Just a quick question. When you say 'from which the Administrator General is chosen internally', do you mean all members vote for which adversery counciler they want to be admin gen, or the council votes for a new admin gen? I think you mean the latter, but I just wanted to make sure ;) The Halo (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant the former. Once the council is chosen, they pick one of themselves to serve as leader, making a Parliamentary system with a Prime Minister, rather than a Presidential one. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 07:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was the option you ment, but isn't that the latter one? "or the council votes for a new admin gen" is the latter. Petros471 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I got confused. —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Oh and you summed the consensus (or at least majority!) opinion fine. I'd be happy to see that proposal move forward. Petros471 08:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. I see no problems with this new system, long may it reign!! The Halo (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes have been made. Please check this and alter anything you think I haven't interpreted correctly. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 10:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, except that there isn't any of Redvers' lovely words (*tear rolls down cheek*) Oh well, we'll get to that later, I'm sure ;) Oh, actually now I think about it, have we decided wheather we'll hold elections on June 30th this year or not? I've become confused about when the first elections of the 'New Era' Esperanza will be held! The Halo (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

About Redvers' lovely words, I have an email from him about that which I'll disclose soon.

As to elections, I'm planning to hold them in the first week of July, ending on the 9th (after I get back from Holiday). I'll open up a page to sign up soon. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 10:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would drop the parliamentary and Prime minister references. Many clubs have this sort of structure, but we are not a nation, so it seems out of place. And how many parliaments have tranches? :) NoSeptember 10:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If we were a nation, could Run With Us by Lisa Lougheed be our natioanl anthem (That song always reminds me of this place) ;) The Halo (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent, replying to NoSeptember) I agree, I think it would look better without the nation references, otherwise looks fine. (I just changed one word, hopefully that's ok!) Petros471 10:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vacancy issue

The charter says the runner up will fill out the remainder of the term. If someone leaves after one month, do we want the replacement to serve a full 5 months, even though there is an election just two months down the road? What if a vacancy in a sooner to expire tranch term occurs a week before a vacancy in a longer to expire tranch term? Then the first runner up would get a short term, and the second runner up would get a long term. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have all replacements' terms expire at the next election? Seats could be filled as we did in the last election, high vote getters filling the 6 month terms, and the lower vote getters filling the 3 month terms. This is also how ArbCom works, with replacement members' terms always expiring at the next election regardless of how long the term was for the original occupant of the seat. NoSeptember 11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I would say that replacements should fill the full term of the people they're replacing. It's simpler that way, and fairer, in my opinion. —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your idea sounds to me like a good one, and one that I would support. The Halo (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, i misunderstood what NoSeptember was saying. I agree with CP. I think that by having the replacement fill the full term we will make the leadership more stable. The Halo (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good idea. I agree with CP. :) -- Banes 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a lottery to me, whether as runner up you get a long term or a short term. With terms of a long length, we will have many vacancies and could even see a council with a majority of replacement members. NoSeptember 12:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem - we did vote for them after all. As a runner up, I guess it's obvious that it's a lottery. The Esperanza community having voted less for you as opposed to someone else (I put that badly, sorry!). —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The replacement should fill the rest of the term, they were the next best person after all - • The Giant Puffin • 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Frequestly Asked Questions

By popular demand, User:Redvers sent me (by email) an FAQ of Esperanza and I have dilligently put it here. Please read it, comment and make any alterations you deem necessary. I'd also appreciate someone finding somewhere to put a link on the Esperanza homepage. Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, Thanks so much, Redvers for creating this - it's great! —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good section to put it in! While we're on the subject however, I think we need to discuss how the front page looks. Right now I think that it is pretty cluttered and confusing, especially to newbies. Maybe we could simplify it by having links to members pages (including alerts, preposals, stressbusters etc), a page for users to go and seek help when they're stressed, a link to the coffe lounge, and maybe moving the calader somewhere else as well. I'm only suggesting it because when I was talking to a non-esperanzian friend, they said that the page confused them as to where to go at first. Ideas? The Halo (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put it in the green navigation box thing on the main page, replacing the "shortcuts" box which really doesn't tell us anything new. — FireFox 12:24, 22 June '06

Elections

For anyone who hasn't seen the main page, the June 2006 elections page has been created. It is now accepting applicants for the four seats on the council, as well as Election staff. The Halo (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Signature links

I was wondering if we could please stop encouraging the use of extraneous links in signatures. Signatures are saved on every talk page that a user edits, and as such, really need to be as streamlined as possible. Longer sigs cause problems because their Wiki source ends up overwhelming the actual comments in edit mode, thus making it hard to find particular comments by others. If you want to proclaim your membership in Esperanza, put a prominent notice on your userpage; your userpage is obviously linked from your sig, so it still won't be hard to find. But the ubiquituous green e I'm seeing is causing some problems. Thanks for your consideration, User:Cyde 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I have raised the issue of the green e several times, here and elsewhere. However, Wikipedia is a large, evolving community. Yes, sigs have become larger and more elaborate over time, but, for instance a sig like mine (with two links) (and from what I can remember, yours has been a bit more 'exotic' in the past as well ;)) has never been seen as a problem anywhere until this 'counter movement' against the long sigs started. I think we should try and find a balance, between usability and .. identity, I guess. A link to just Esperanza's main page has proven to be confusing for some users (judging from the comments that were left here, but were meant for a user) - but a link to someone's 'Esperanza page' (where links can be found to not only Esperanza but also his userpage) is, in my opinion, one of the compromises that we should not make a big deal about. --JoanneB 17:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Questions

1. Why is there an elite group of leaders
2. Why is there a list of members, when there is no criteria to join.
3. Why do people want to make criteria to join, this is ment to put the community back into wikipedia, people are turning it into an elitest group of super-contributers, just so they can show-off that they're better than everyone else.
4. What does this council actually do, I've been a member for several months, and I haven't seen anything happen, several programs have been started, but none seem to have done or acheived anything.

I thoght esperanza was a place to escape the work of wikipedia and sort of just get some help with problems, and discuss the project, instead with all these awards for work and criteria to join trying to be introduced, it will become an elite group of wikipedians ranked on they're recognized contributions, it won't be a community atall, it will basically be a billboard of bragging. Barnstars are already around, if you can't enough of them, why do you deserve something from this. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't hold any particular position of authority here (so my views do not neccessarily reflect those of anybody else) but I thought I'd try to answer some of your questions, in terms of my opinion of course.

1. Part of the purpose of Esperanza was to have a place where one can escape from the "mob-rule" prevalent all over wikipedia. The purpose for these leaders (in my view) is to set an example and act as "ambassadors" for Esperanza.
2. The members list is somewhat controversial, and your point has been brought up before. There are actually criteria, low ones, but criteria all the same.
3. This also has been argued in the past, and it is unlikely that any further criteria will be put in place. The reasoning behind them though was for people to make a visible commitment to civility and kindness. There are all kinds of people in Esperanza, by no means a group of super-contributors (I am a member and most certainly do not fall into this category :P), Esperanza is for all.
4. I've answered what the council does partly at the top. The projects within Esperanza have actually done a great deal. The admin coaching program has helped editors through RfA, furthered their knowledge, and helped the Encyclopedia as a result. Esperanza is also a philosophy (again, this is my view), which its members are encouraged to live by. You may not see it, but often you'll fine Esperanzians doing little things here and there all-over to spread the wiki-love. Other projects, such as Trading Spaces and the Coffee Lounge, are there for people to relieve stress, and do something relaxing. In fact, the Coffee Lounge fits the "a place to escape the work of wikipedia" description pretty well.

The purpose of Esperanza is open to interpretation, although the mainpage explains it quite well. Giving awards are a great way to give some appreciation. I don't know about you, but I for one always like praise after I have done a lot of hard work. Esperanza doesn't hand these out like candy, but encourages users to find people who are deserving. Not all hard work gets noticed. Identifying stress is another service Esperanza provides, a quick note to a stressed user telling them that you care about and appreciate them, really does do wonders. Esperanza has often helped to uplift people.

Thank you for your comments, if you have any more questions don't hesitate. :) Regards -- Banes 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, you have succesfully converted me on the point of the leader people, or whatever the correct term is. Funny you should mention the amptly named admin coaching which states "Admin Coaching is not a program to guide users through the RFA process." I signed up for that, waited for months without moving up the list, nothings happened there at all. Quite frankly the organization of that project was little short of abysmal, all I've seen happen their is bickering.

Awards are good and all, I just think they should be seperate from esperanza. I just think, that they indirectly oppose the purpose of esperanza. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I should have worded that to say "prepare for RfA". Still, that project, while having a hard time with it's organization, and shortage of volunteers, has done plenty of good. Things are happening, albeit slowly... Awards are indeed good, but how do they oppose the purpose of Esperanza? -- Banes 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem of the admin coaching is its 'success': there are just too many users interested in it. Partly because they desire it, partly because they think it's a guarantee or a thing they need to do to become an admin. On the other side are the coaches, which are assigned two at a time, for a few weeks or even months. So it's not hard to imagine that there's such a waiting list.

And regarding the barnstars and other awards: I see what you mean, but I guess this is one of those things that just work differently for different people. The idea was not to pile on the awards on the people that were already getting many because they are highly visible, but to show to the more 'quiet' editors (who don't need to be Esperanza members, by the way) that their edits don't go unnoticed and are appreciated. --JoanneB 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

*ahem* ... er... Hi!

Hallo all! I don't know if this is the right place to introduce myself, but I'm gonna do it anyway. I'm Che Nuevara, an East-Coast American college-aged Wikipedian who, simply put, freakin loves Wikipedia. The concept of the wiki has fascinated me since my first edit (which came before I registered). I'm the creator of WikiProject Buffyverse and am currently writing a piece on Wikitheory.

In short ... I want to help with the wiki and not just the pedia! I'm ready to make the Internet a better place. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza! The simplest way we can all make the community a better place is to be cheerful, civil, and helpful towards others, and based on the above message you seem to be doing a fine job of that already! As far as Esperanza goes, you're welcome to get 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. Welcome again, and feel free to send me or another Esperanzan any questions you may have. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Che Nuevara, I'm intrigued, can you tell me more about what Wikitheory is and what you are writing about it? Also, what is "Che Nuevara"? Is it your real name or is it a pseudonym making oblique reference to Che Guevara? Just wondering.

--Richard 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In short, this is my wikitheory, although I've done some collecting of sources to turn it into a real essay. 'Wikitheory' was really just my way of saying 'the interplay between the concept of wikis and modern philosophy'.

Which sort of ties in with the moniker -- yes, it is a (probably not very good) pun on Che Guevara. (All this information is going to go into my bio, as soon as I get around to writing it.) You could interpret my moniker as "The new guy", 'che' meaning 'buddy', and 'nuevo' meaning 'new', and that was intentional. While I am not a communist, nor generally a proponent of violent conflict, I find Che Guevara to be a fascinating figure for revolutionary theory.

See, I do consider myself a "dynamic revolutionary", in the sense that I believe human beings should constantly and at all times be reinventing themselves, their ways, and their society. Che Guevara's original plan, even if that's not the way it panned out, was to break down the long-entrenched barriers between all manner of different people who would have made a much better society together than apart. As a sort of social deconstructionist, I feel that all people would be a lot better off if they constantly reevaluated themselves and others to see that all people would make a much better society together than apart.

And that sort of fits in with my ideas about Wikipedia -- because it is (nearly) universally readable and editable, I see Wikipedia as a sort of a dynamic deconstructionist approach to knowledge. (I define knowledge, by the way, as 'systematic awareness of information', which I touch on in my little tidbit linked above.)

So anyways, I'm kind of working on a philosophical essay about deconstructionism, and in it there's going to be a bit about information and awareness, which will touch on all that.

That may be more than you bargained for ... then again, it may have been exactly what you were asking. Anyways, that's sort of it. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty cool Che. I found you wikitheory interesting, and the explination wasn't too long either ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)