Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive Dec 2006

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).

Editors' Forum

The Editor's Forum has been designed on User:Ed/Sandbox. Should it become an EA program now?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. You should attempt to establish consensus before the Coffee Lounge can become an Esperanza program. In addition, given how unpopular the Coffee Longue was, you will probably be asked to explain the differences between the Editor Forum and Coffee Lounge. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so that everyone knows, the proposal for this is on the proposal page, where there are currently 6 support votes, and not a single object. If anybody opposes this, or has any ideas to improve it, please voice your opinion on the proposals page and/or User:Ed/Sandbox. As it is, it appears that we have a consensus. Also, the differences are pointed out on both pages.  Shardsofmetal  20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Charter Survey

I have made a survey. Please participate in it, but be prepared; it is VERY long. [1] WikieZach| talk 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I took it already. I've been watching the Charter discussions so much that I just quickly took the survey!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I took it. Wasn't very long in my opinion. On one question I just took a guess; I'm still learning about Esperanza's charter. Heh heh, sorry. That survey was written pretty well. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't finish it, but I get the general idea... I think...--SUIT 06:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go back (on the same computer) I think you can finish the ones you forgot to or couldn't do. WikieZach| talk 14:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the survey, it wasnt that long but was well written - • The Giant Puffin • 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry to those whose proposals I had to cut (it limits the amount of words I can write) WikieZach| talk 14:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the survey. I hope my feedback is useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will close it within 24 hours, and give all the results here then. WikieZach| talk 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LIVE IRC CHARTER DEBATE

There are many proposal to change the charter floating around Esperanza right now. Let's talk about all of them in an Esperanza IRC charter "debate". I believe a good time would be exactly one week from today. In US Eastern Time, 5:30pm, next week, on Friday. What do ya'll think? WikieZach| talk 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. And for those ordinary mortals who don't have IRC? Moreschi 22:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of free IRC clients. There's even one built in to Mozilla Firefox. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I use Internet Explorer, which sucks becuse I have no way to get to IRC. I have never been on it in my life.--Chili 22:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The following are two sites from a game I play that helped me get IRC. Just ignore step 5. Remember, once clicking "connect to server", type in #wikipedia-esperanza. The following are two sites, the second is the source, the actual downloading site: [2];[3] WikieZach| talk 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will most likely not be able to attend (if it does happen, that is). I will try, though. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 06:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bouncing ideas off each other on IRC is a great idea, but since not all of Esperanzians will be able to be there, anything that gets agreed upon should be brought back here or to one of the other IRC talk pages, so that all can decide on it. Hope it goes well! -- Natalya 14:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe this should be the first of many. I have provided sites to download it, for free above. Yes, we will post any things we agree on. WikieZach| talk 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Does everyone have to attend? I can't, regrettably. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?•meow!} 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The whole point is that on wikipedia, responses are slow, on IRC it goes much faster, more like a conversation. If you can't come, then maybe you can come to another one (we are bound to do more than one). In the case you can't make it to any, we will post our resolutions here to discuss further. WikieZach| talk 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure to post a summary of what was discussed for those who can't participate, OK? Thanks. --Kyoko 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. WikieZach| talk 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about thos of us for whom 5;30pm Eastern Time is some ungodly hour in the early morning, and we work the next day... Philc _T^E_C^I 13:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We can always move the time around. This is not the permanet time. WikieZach| talk 14:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, its ok, Its jus, whenver you have it its bound to be difficult for a majority of people to take part. Unlike the slow moving wiki discussions where if you are gone for 5 hours, you can catch up quite easily. I just dont kno if it'll work, as an accurate representation of the group. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to join in the discussion, but what is IRC, and how do I get there (using FireFox)? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You can use ChatZilla with Firefox. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Editcount

Certain Esperanzans may experience a drop in the number of edits. This is not a bug; it is because of the recent deletion of some pages during the overhaul. I myself have lost some 1000 edits :'-( --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Never thought about that - wierd! -- Natalya 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about users like me, who only have about 1000 edits!? Does everyone know about this? WikieZach| talk 14:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone does. I’ve myself been worrying about it for a few days after the coffee lounge and the userpage awards were deleted, before I actually got around to check my editcount. I was expecting a drop somewhere in the range of 300 edits, but ended up losing 1000. *waah* :’-( --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

O yeah, I never thought of that! - • The Giant Puffin • 14:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Checked it, seems normal. Thanks for the notice! WikieZach| talk 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes...I noticed. Ah well, it's good I think, because this way I don't have to answer to all my WikiPlomacy and Coffee Lounge edits... DoomsDay349 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That would explain why my edits for November surpassed my October edits just two weeks in. And why I still haven't reached 3000. Oh well, back to work. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup...Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, guys, get over the editcountitis. Hey, if you really want to mess up your editcounts, do some Newpage patrol:) Moreschi 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My edit count does not seem to have been affected. Perhaps this is an indication to increase my participation in Esperanza? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I'll need to start participating more actively - I don't care if those edits are deleted in the end. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

@ Moreschi: amen to that! - Che Nuevara 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Special:Random beckons. That way, your edits can be "safer". The usual reminder: editcountitis can be fatal. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you can die from checking your edits too much? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I lost about 50 or 60 edits through the deletion of the Coffee Lounge. Editcountitis can indeed be fatal, if you obsessively check your edit count to the detriment of eating, sleeping, and personal hygiene. --Kyoko 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming IRC Charter debate, etc.

As you know, we have the upcoming IRC Charter debate this week. I would like to ask, on this same issue, if anyone would support a "Committee" to meet more often and then give a single proposal to Esperanza for a new charter. It should consist of all those who gave proposals. What do you think? --WikieZach| talk 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oi! We're already discussing the governance in depth, I dunno if we should introduce this yet. It's a good idea, I guess, but for now, I say we don't do so because of the confusion over our current status. Incidentally, the debate if Friday, correct? What's the time? Thank ye kindly. DoomsDay349 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is at 5:30pm Eastern United States Time and on the main esperanza IRC. More details to be posted later this week. The reason of a "committee" is the need to have one central proposal. About six proposals were given at the page I made. If we had just one of many merged together (using the popularity from results of my survey) it would be easier to talk about and debate. WikieZach| talk 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would really like to have a Committee to discuss this. Discussion needs to be centralized. I will not be on it, though, since I can't do IRC.--Chili 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Centralizing discussion is good, but please oh please don't appoint a committee! -- SCZenz 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye to that. I myself don't see the point of having so much bureaucracy. I think we can trust the main membership list to be able to get results... Titoxd^(?!?) 23:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I agree.--Chili 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Well, then the next IRC meeting will be very long. I understand what you are saying. WikieZach| talk 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Once a date and time are decided upon, it would be good to post it on the news page. That way more people would participate. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, I will post the agenda for the meeting along with the results of the survey tomorrow around 6pm. WikieZach| talk 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a little more information to the news, and disambigated to the time zone. I will await the survey results then. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to add a link to the IRC tutorial. Not all of us have used IRC yet. =( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The following are two sites from a game I play that helped me get IRC. Just ignore step 5. Remember, once clicking "connect to server", type in #wikipedia-esperanza. The following are two sites, the second is the source, the actual downloading site: [4];[5] WikieZach| talk 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How long will the discussion take? My concern is that I might miss the beginning of the meeting, because I have to come home from school. I can't use IRC on the school computers because the administrators wouldn't allow it anyway.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It starts at 5:30pm, EST. Most likely, it will go on for quite a while. If you miss the fist part, it's no problem. There are bound to more more IRC chats soon, the next most likely will be on the weekend. WikieZach| talk 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please convert that to Singapore time? If the time is right, I would be interested. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What ever the time is in Singapore right now as this message is posted, subtract four hours.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it's 6:30am in the morning. Sorry. WikieZach| talk 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: We keep the discussion going for 24 hours. Most Esperanzians edit at different times of the day, so we'll just carry on the conversations from one person to the next.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just updated my proposal - I'll be away this weekend, so I won't be able to jump on IRC, but I'm looking forward to seeing what issues get brought up (along with the reasoning behind those issues). I'd love it if the IRC discussion focused on highlighting problems and providing short "discussion seeds" to be brought here and expanded on by everyone else. Cheers! Quack 688 13:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

The debate is about to begin. Anyone on, please come to IRC. DoomsDay349 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that it is a discussion, not debate. WikieZach| talk 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there so much of a difference? DoomsDay349 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey Results and the Agenda for Friday's IRC meeting

Hello all! Of (sadly) only 21 people taking the poll and some missing some questions, here are the un-edited results:

1. Should the current charter expire eventually?

 YES 52.4% (11 votes)
NO  47.6% (10 votes)

2. How much should be required to scrap the current charter and write a new one?

TWO-THIRDS   47.6% (10 votes)
ALMOST ALL   23.8% (5 votes)
A MAJORITY   23.8% (5 votes)
THREE-FIFTHS 4.8%  (1 vote)

3. Should the above proposal be approved? (Wikizach proposal)

NO  42.1% (8 votes)
YES 36.8% (7 votes)
  ? 21.1% (4 votes)

Kim Bruning Proposal 4. Are you in favor of the above proposal?

 YES 47.4% (9 votes)
 NO  31.6% (6 votes)
 ?   21.1% (4 votes)

Roninbk's Proposal 5. Do you approve of the above stated proposal?

   ?  38.9% (7 votes)
 NO  33.3% (6 votes)
 YES 27.8% (5 votes)

Quack's proposal 6. Do you approve of the above proposal?

  YES 55.6% (10 votes)  
 NO  38.9% (7 votes)
 ?   5.6%  (1 vote)

Becuase of this, the Agenda for the IRC meeting will go one by one for each proposal; from most popular to least. WikieZach| talk 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Hope all goes well. Look forward to seeing the results.--Chili 02:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I await the final results, this is an important change - • The Giant Puffin • 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ARGH

ARGH! I said (slightly paraphrased ;-) ) "Enough is enough, I've had it with this mfing bureaucracy in this mfing wikiproject". I followed that up by applying the KISS principle, and seeding a new wikipage. I was hoping that people would actually try to do some wiki editing on that page. A novel concept, I'm sure.

The apparent outcome? "Kim Bruning's proposal has 47% approval".

Does that count as Morisettian irony, or what?

Well, sorry. That's just not good enough.

reccomendation

I strongly reccommend that Esperanza interpret their mandate to include teaching their members about the key concepts of ...:

• consensus
• wiki-editing
• encyclopedic writing

...and their application on wikipedia.

This should be Esperanza's first priority, and Esperanza should pursue this goal with great urgency. No one should be a member of esperanza without at least promising to make the effort to learn these concepts.

Don't make this a priority because I say so; don't make it a priority because it's a good idea; but make it a priority because -well, it has to be said- how else can you even dare to claim that esperanza is "here to help with wikipedia"?

Esperanza has some smart people helping out. I'm sure that Esperanza can easily meet these undemanding, simple, but fundamental goals :-) . I expect Esperanza to take the lead, to strive for excellence at all times, and to show others how it's done!

Kim Bruning 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I join?

I can't find anything about how to join esperanza. Can someone please tell me why on my talk page? Eskimospy 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

note: has been informed --Dar-Ape

IRC debate

Just on the offchance that someone will read this very soon, the IRC debate will be starting in just a few minutes, so please share your thoughts. See WP:IRC to connect. Best, Dar-Ape 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Charter Debate Reports

Report for the First Session of the Charter Debate (there will be more throughout the next 20 hours)

---

• An agreement has been reached to keep some form of membership requirements
• Other than that, council issues are to be dealt with next

We recessed for an hour for dinner.

--Wikizach, Clerk of the Session WikieZach| talk 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• We will keep the council, but limit its powers WikieZach| talk 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Severely contesting that. That's gonna require more discussion. DoomsDay349 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

SURVEY #2

[6] WikieZach| talk 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One question - why not just have these items for discussion here on the talk page? It's all well to get the percentages of the users who feel one way or another (although it's not really accurate statistically anyway, with all sorts of sample bias), but it seems that it would be much more productive (and as Kim Bruning does point out, a whole lot less bureaucratic) if we discuss things here. Then, it's not just a "yes or no" answer, but an answer and an explanation and things that people can give feedback to. -- Natalya 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. WikieZach| talk 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But taking surveys is done anonymously.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i dont know who sends it. WikieZach| talk 05:09, 2 December 2006 (USC)

Exactly, and that reduces its value, since some may take the survey frivolously, or abuse it; but, in Wikipedia, the process is transparent, and that is its beauty. It helps in better spreading good ideas, and freely giving opinions. In anonymous surveys, some respondents may be un/malinformed, further reducing the worth of such surveys. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Who makes up these surveys? Kim Bruning 16:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do using an online survey maker. WikieZach| talk 17:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While very nice, there are many flaws to do with online surveys. It would be wise to try to obtain consensus on wikipedia instead. Kim Bruning 17:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the survey is to set an agenda for the next online meeting. It also allows us to focus on the more crucial issues like council powers, rather than how many edits a person should have to enter Esperanza, if any. Kim, I would for you and others to attend the next meeting. WikieZach| talk 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed on irc, the survey doesn't do what you think it does. At this point in time, council powers are irrelevant. :-/ You were pretty busy at the time though, I hope we can find another time to discuss this more. :-) Kim Bruning 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just took the survey, and hope you find my feedback useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate you taking the time to fill in the survey, unfortunately I did not find your feedback useful, as I do not have access to it. In future, please provide your feedback on-wiki, and attempt to reach a negotiated consensus with your peers (that is to say: all the rest of us), as this is the traditional manner in which we create new guidelines and ways of working. Kim Bruning 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC Meeting

The First Esperanza IRC meeting has closed with plenty of progress made. The next meeting has been scheduled for December 8, 2006 22:30 UTC. A summary of the discussion will be posted shortly.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage more people to join in the discussion next week. More opinions are needed. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  05:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we unilaterally deciding the time for the meetings. We should probably be taking a poll as to what time most active contributors can be online, and not just a time that is convenient for those in the Western Hemisphere. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 08:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no western hemisphere, and times in .us (Washington, DC) and .eu (Paris) are already at least 6 hours apart :-P (Washington, DC vs London is still 5 hours). Other english speaking countries are new zealand and australia, which are each in different time zones yet again. Pakistan and India also speak english to some extent, and are located in yet another time zone. Kim Bruning 17:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless every social studies teacher in the world is wrong, I'm pretty sure the western hemiphere is North and South America. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We already suggested that the meeting take place around the clock! However, nobody else showed up 5 hours into the meeting, so we decided to close it. Nobody else wanted to participate, so we adjourned.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, according to wikipedia, there's several definitions of western hemispere. The most common one only includes a small number of time zones, and excludes a large number of english speakers :-P Kim Bruning 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• As I said, we're not excluding any other English speakers. We had the meeting planned so that it would last for 24 hours. However, no one else came in to participate so it died down. Shall we start the meeting at a different time, then?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary of IRC Meeting

• Membership- Some users would want to join Esperanza but can't because of their low edit counts. Generally, they would fix this by making pointless edits on userspace, WP space, etc. It was decided that some sort of mainspace edit requirement would be applied. DoomsDay349 suggested making the minimum article space edits 150.
• Newspaper- It was decided that regular EA members should be able to submit their own material to the newspaper.
• Council- With no surprise, the council is being kept. However, we must make it clear what the roles of the AC members are:
  • General Housekeeping
  • Declare consensus
  • Look over programs
  • etc.
  • AC does not have the power to ban users out of the EA community

--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... I would have liked to see less of an emphasis on "it was decided", and more on "it was proposed, and suggested here for further discussion". But anyway...

• Membership - I think it should be based on attitude, not simply edit count - that raises too many problems. First, in terms of gaining membership. How good do those edits need to be? Do 150 "add a full stop" edits count? If not, do you need someone to assess the quality of their edits? Second, in terms of keeping membership. A membership based on attitude allows you to disown someone who goes on a spam campaign. If you use a system based on 150 edits, is there a "signal-to-noise ratio" (e.g. number of good posts vs number of spams) they need to maintain to keep membership?

• Newspaper - something I like about the current newsletter is that it's concise. If everyone submits long news stories, then either you'll have a really long newsletter, or someone with a bit of authority (read: AC) will have to make the hard decisions and edit it to make it similar to the current size. What about if anyone could post their proposed news items on the newsletter's discussion board, and let the AC summarize it into a "front page" like the one you've got now, while leaving the discussion's page unedited, so people can read the full "bulletin board" version if they wish? (There still have to be some editing standards on the bulletin board page, though - it can be used to advertise links to wikiprojects or other discussions, but shouldn't turn into a discussion itself.)

• Council - I noticed a question about the Admin Gen on the new survey. What reasons were proposed in the IRC chat for (no AG / AG chosen by members / AG chosen by council)?

• Look over programs - does that mean the council itself decides if new programs get to use the Esperanza tag? I'd prefer it if such a major decision was left to an open discussion, with the AC simply declaring consensus on that discussion. Of course, if some Esperanzans want to do their own project without adding an E-tag, they can do whatever they want.

• AC does not have the power to ban users out of the EA community - Problem: someone with an Esperanzan userbox (either a genuine member, or someone who's just added themselves) starts insulting and mouthing off at some Wikipedians, but stops just short of an instant-ban offense. This can not be allowed to continue indefinitely - it would give Esperanza a very bad reputation, and encourage another "delete Esperanza" campaign.

So what are your options?

- Give the AC executive power to (counsel / threaten / suspend / ban from EA) that person

- Have a community discussion to (counsel / threaten / suspend / ban from EA) that person

- Pass off the problem to a Wikipedia admin (including an Esperanzan admin) who has the authority to order that person to remove the Esperanzan ID tag or be banned from Wikipedia? (That's an assumption on my part - I don't know, but I'm guessing there's a Wikipedia policy for users who add a fake "I'm an admin" box to their userpage, and start talking to users like they are an admin. Is there a policy for someone who adds themselves to another group, say CVU, and starts insulting people at random, but not doing an immediate-ban offense?)

I prefer the idea of Esperanzan "community counselling" for that person, with higher penalties for repeat offenders seen as a last resort. I'm sure there are plenty of valid alternatives, but "do nothing" is not one of them.

I don't have any issues with the other points listed from the IRC chat - but if someone else does, I'd love to hear their reasoning. Out of curiosity, how many people made it onto the chat? Were there any other issues discussed that you couldn't reach an agreement on? Quack 688 08:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Duh, find a time that everyone can be online at once. Isn't that around um, 20:00-22:00 UTC? Kim Bruning 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It starts at 22:30 in UTC time. It runs for an entire day,but like Ed said, no one new came after five hours. If people come in constantly, it would be easier to keep up with. WikieZach| talk 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Members

Lets give our members who are not apart of the governing body to vote on more things. --Sir james paul 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The AC has very little power to vote and make decisions by itself. As seen above, it has the power to determine consensus, not vote and decide themselves. If you look through most of the subpages of Esperanza, you will also see that almost every thing is put up for discussion with the members. (See the proposals page and some of the programs, like the Wikipedia:Esperanza/Collaboration of the Month.) Also, the overhaul is open to discussion by all members and even non-members, so I do not really understand your point. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Review

Look here please! If you want a question asked, tell me on my talk page. WikieZach| talk 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If some Esperanza members want an outside critique (as mentioned in the previous section), one thing I'd say offhand is that you have too many bureaucratic straw polls. -- SCZenz 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't normal Esperanza proceduere. We're currently undergoing a major overhaul, and we're trying to move towards consensus. Thus the recent addition of a number of straw polls to help finish the process. Bear with us. --RoninBK_ETC 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is going a bit too far. First, we get a list of things that were decided by a group on IRC, and I'm still waiting to hear the reasoning behind those decisions. Now, you want to have a yes/no vote on issues like the Admin Gen when we haven't even had a proper discussion on that here? Voting should be used at the end of a discussion, not before it starts. I'm going to set up a few talking points on that new page's discussion section - if you want to discuss another specific point that isn't listed, just add it yourself and say your piece. Quack 688 05:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't everyone trying to remove bureaucratic stuff like this? It may be useful in gaining peoples' opinions, but too many polls and surveys just means that there is no central discussion - • The Giant Puffin • 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem I am having is that the discussions of all the proposals is so fragmented and scattered across multiple pages, precisely as The Giant Puffin says. And BTW, puffins are cute birds! --Kyoko 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion is all over the place is very...problamatic a lot of the time. Why can't we just a have small poll on this page, asking who wants to keep the governance, chnage the governance, or stop the governance. It would be very simple, everyone would see it, and editors wouldn't have to open 10 different windows to answer 10 different questions. Thε Halo ^Θ 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is always the best thing to do. Polls are really only needed when a conscensus can't be reach during discussion, and yes, there's been a lot of discussion, and some disagreement, but the discussion has always been able to focus the discussion more. So let's discussion!

By the way, I know many people are pretty exasperated with this whole process, but thank you for sticking with it. It can be pretty tiring, so your work is appreciated. -- Natalya 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been annoyed myself by the way the discussions have split up over a few pages - that's why on the last discussion page I set up, I've been trying to add as many links to previous pages as I can, so we don't go through the same arguments again, and to co-ordinate all the facts. If you know that question X has already been debated at length on page Y, please, add a link to question X's section! If we can't reach consensus on a particular topic, then we can put a vote on the project page next door, based on the alternatives that arise in the discussion, but that's a last resort. Quack 688 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we stop all discussions and start over again. Like I said in the previous section (#Re-evaluation), we should take a moment to "walk away" from discussion, look at the state we are in, and move on from there. In our discussions, are we taking a look at the problems of Esperanza before the overhaul or the problems it has right now?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, quite a few things have been agreed on - several programs have already been kept or deleted. And the charter discussions' only major sticking points related to governance. How about we look at accepting one of the charters for everything but governance? Then, we can discuss governance issues - and once we figure out what we want, just tack it onto the agreed-upon charter. Governance is a way of keeping Esperanza on track, but that's a seperate issue - it's got nothing to do with what Esperanza's about. Quack 688 09:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Open

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Charter Proposal Voting WikieZach| talk 11:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-evaluaton

I think it would be best if we look at this organization and re-evaluate ourselves. Have we improved? How can be better involved in the WikiCommunity? Have we accomplished our goals? How much longer must our reform take? (etc.) This is important now because of the new reforms Esperanza just went through.

BTW, when is the next AC meeting?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be soon, (I'm guessing), the elections are coming up in a few weeks. WikieZach| talk 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm not too sure about the elections or the AC meeting. Right now we haven't go a firm idea of what direction our governance is going to take, so it seems, to me at least, strange talking about elections when we're not even really sure as to what we'd be electing people to. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Ed. Perhaps we should seek some external evaluation regarding this as well-- it seems like there should be an equivalent to WP:ER for an organization so non-members can easily offer us critique. Dar-Ape 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion--SUIT 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with The Halo that we shouldn't be even thinking of electing anybody to anything without first better defining what, if any, form of governance Esperanza will have in the future. The bureaucracy and hierarchy of Esperanza (real or perceived) is a major criticism of the organisation, and we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we try to elect people in the midst of our efforts to clarify who we are and what we stand for. --Kyoko 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just making a comment. WikieZach| talk 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, nothing personal was intended, I'm just saying that it would be very poor form to hold elections when we aren't even sure if there will be officials, or how many, or what their precise roles would be, and holding elections at this time would only confirm the allegations that Esperanza relies too much on having a bureaucracy. --Kyoko 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation

Personally, I think that Esperanza needs more programs to help the community in a better way. If you compare Esperanza before the overhauls with its current condition, we have lost around 1/2 of our programs! Now we're just a bunch of people trying to debate on what step to take next, with no overall effect on the wider community of Wikipedia. Our efforts to help the Esperanzian community fail to help the Wikipedian community. Remember the Esperanza is not a seperate community. It is imperative that we look outside the box, to see how our actions will affect the community, and work quickly so that we may acheive our goals much faster. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, we should start with some new programs--SUIT 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Once the charter etc has been sorted out, I would like to see a programme dedicated to recognizing the great contributions of our editors, much like the Barnstar Brigade did, without seemingly diminishing the value of this recognition. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Teaching

One of the things that I feel has been brought up a couple of times during this overhaul has been that Esperanza can be used as not only a supportive group for our editors, but also as a teaching organization. We already do a this in some places, for example Admin Coaching and the Tutorial Drive, but I'd also like to see Esperanza go out to find and help newbies when they need help, the same way as we go and find the people who need support. We have a great many experienced editors involved in Esperanza, so it seems to make sense to take advantage of this. I'm not sure as to whether we want to put something in our charter about this, or what, but I did think that we should remember that Esperanza is here to offer hope, and helping people to become better editors comes into that. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you dare to name names on which editors are most experienced? (do so per e-mail, if you prefer) Kim Bruning 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Most experienced is quite different to just experienced. I mean, I wouldn't know how to justify who was most experienced. Edit count, length of time here? Experienced in terms of Wikipedia or just Esperanza?

Just to pull a few names out as those who are very experienced; Angela, FloNight, Freakofnurture, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo, Natalya, NoSeptember, Sam Korn, Sango123, Shell Kinney, Tangotango. These are just a few names that jumped out at me from the members list. We also had people like Cyde, Lar, and Tawker, who spring to mind as very experienced. I would say that the above are among the most experienced, but tell me if you want me to be more selective/extensive, or whatever. These are just a few who I personally think of (and I think that a list of most experienced is personal) as the most experienced wikipedians who are members of Esperanza. However, I don't think the above are necessarily the most experienced Esperanzians :P Please, give me some feedback on this list, as depending on why you asked, and what sort of experience we're talking about, it varies greatly. Thε Halo ^Θ 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The usual suspects, is it? :-) Some of these people are probably immune to my charms by now though. :-P Let's see if I can find them. Kim Bruning 00:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, they're the most experienced :p Angela, Freak, and Natalya are the ones from the list with the most first hand Esperanza experience, if you're looking for people to contact about this. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

About your proposal, Halo, I think that your idea sort of overlaps with the purposes of the Welcoming Committee. Perhaps we can propose a merger between both organizations. Even then, you have great ideas! Keep them coming!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I had once proposed a similar merger, hypothetically, with the Kindness Campaign, and was told that it had been tried but rejected, and that Esperanza came off as being arrogant because of how the merger was attempted. I would strongly suggest not attempting a merger with another group or WikiProject until we have a more clearly defined idea of what Esperanza is. --Kyoko 12:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no one really participates in KC discussions. That's why we really didn't get anywhere in your proposal. On the other hand, there are many organizations here in Wikipedia whose purpose is to help the community. Why don't we propose a merger among all of these projects? IMO this would help to increase Esperanza's involvement around the community.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 14:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some checking, and apparently the proposed merger that made Esperanza look bad happened many months ago, dealing with the Birthday Committee. I still think that any talk of a merger should be postponed until Esperanza finishes its overhaul. --Kyoko 15:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with the welcoming committee.

That, and, before esperanza goes out and deals with splinters in other peoples eyes, it's going to have to deal with the log in its own eye.

During the esperanza reform discussions, I'd like to have some people around who actually understand how wikis work and how encyclopedias work, and how to deal with online organisations.

While it's very tempting to exclude inexperienced esperanzans from the overhaul discussions, it might be wiser to have some experienced people around to help and support the newer or less involved esperanza members, so that they can still effectively participate. Kim Bruning 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it was ever said that inexperienced Esperanzans should be excluded from the Overhaul discussion, at least within this section. I believe the whole issue of experienced/inexperienced users was in regard to The Halo's idea of adding a mentoring/tutoring role to Esperanza. The very nature of a wiki is that things change and are never immutable. The open spirit behind a wiki means that all users, experienced and inexperienced, should be allowed to participate, and that includes participation in the overhaul discussion.

As for the whole log/splinter/merge thing, it was never my intention that Esperanza seek to "fix" any other Wikipedia project, nor did I ever say that Esperanza was perfect. If anything, my original motivation behind my merge idea had been that Esperanza could hopefully be fixed by being absorbed within another project. Note the choice of words: this puts Esperanza as the organisation in need of help, and not the other way around. I was trying to brainstorm how to preserve the ideals of Esperanza during the MfD, if not the actual organisation, and this was one idea I had at the time. --Kyoko 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to think about your words some more.

My reply for now:

I'm actually the first person to mention excluding inexperienced Esperanzans. While I started out as a fresh faced, kind and caring person when I was nominated for adminship, wikipedia has made me a cynical, evil, dark hearted person, and I was referring to a constant temptation that I've successfully managed to resist myself, so far. <innocent look>

I was trying to put forward the idea of getting people to help with Esperanza right now, so as to help all the enthusiastic, new, and not-yet-cynical folks to dot their i's and cross their t's, if nothing else.

How can you claim to be a kind of club to help with Wikipedia, if the club members don't understand Wikipedia? On the other hand, if the will is there, us wikipedians should supply the means and help out as best we can, of course! :-) Kim Bruning 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea for Esperanza to work on tutorial programs such as these, especially in showing newbies things like what tools, policies, etc. are available on Wikipedia and where to find them.

I agree with Kyoko that any talk of merging with other programs should wait until all the current discussions have been well and truly resolved. However, if we set up a "newbie portal" on topics A and B, and someone else has done a great intro to topics C and D, and those pages are still current, just like to those external ones - there's too much duplication on Wikipedia anyway. We can offer to give them a hand, and if they want to help with our side, that's cool too. There's no requirement for them to sign a contract and sell their soul to Esperanza before we can give each other a helping hand. Quack 688 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's -ah- nice, I'm sure. In the mean time, how about teaching Esperanzans these things as well, before they become entirely disconnected from the wikipedia community and end up on MFD again? Just a thought. :-P Kim Bruning 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC) As stated before, I consider this to be a matter of some urgency. I do not intend to continue to support the existence of Esperanza without some amount of compromise from Esperanza itself.

Oh, absolutely, if we can setup a tutorial page which outlines these things, that'd be great. But that page could serve two very different functions:

1) We can encourage members to read it, show them how to set a good example across Wikipedia, and how to reconnect with the Wikipedia community as individuals. (Intended comment intended from Wikipedians: "Hey, that Esperanzan's behaving very well - maybe being a member of Esperanza taught him something useful.")

2) Esperanza could publish it, and share it with the Wikipedia community at large. This would allow outside Wikipedians to use the ideas listed, and allow Esperanza itself to reconnect with the Wikipedia community as a group. (Intended comment from Wikipedians: "That Esperanzan page is pretty useful - maybe Esperanza isn't useless after all".)

Those are two totally seperate ideas. But once the tutorial page is written, the exact same page can be used to fulfill both functions. Quack 688 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Writing an actual realistic tutorial would be a great plan, and I'll heartily support it (see this recent rant for some reasons why). It wasn't my original idea though. My first instinct was to actually attract some experienced users who could actually teach by example. :-) We could work on both! Kim Bruning 01:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell, yeah! But whatever methods we use (mentoring, written tutorials, or "something completely different"), at the end of the day, Esperanza will be judged by two things: the behaviour of individial members across Wikipedia, and the quality of the programs which are run by Esperanza as a whole. Quack 688 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On further reflection, I actually think a tutorial page and a mentoring program would complement each other perfectly. First, we could get as much input as possible from those mentors when writing the tutorial page. Second, instead of a mentor having to explain the principles of Wikipedia to each and every student from scratch, they could use the tutorial as a textbook, walking the student through its contents, and answering any questions along the way. The added bonus from this approach is that if something in the tutorial is vague, or something's missing, it can be updated in time for the next "class". Forget about a school textbook that gets updated once every ten years, we could have a textbook that gets updated instantly, thanks to the Wiki-process. Quack 688 03:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL I know what you mean. My social studies textbook still talked about the Soviet union instead of Russia. Anyway, your proposal can incorporate the Tutorials into the mentoring program so that we can help users that, well, need the help. Also, I think it would be good if we have people watching every policy for changes. Usually, when a policy is changed or edited, not much users are aware of these changes because the rarely read these pages. They've known about policy so much that they don't bother to reread their pages. It would be helpful if we could have a messageboard announcing Wikipedia-wide news that can apply to all of our editors.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean there's nothing like that now? I just assumed it existed somewhere and I hadn't found it yet. Crap. Um... yeah, if we do have enough people willing to keep an eye on policies/guidelines and post somewhere when they're changed, that'd be ok. An alternative would be to have people look at them at the end of every month, and put together a "reader's digest" summary of everything that's changed. Third option - what about a watchlist? Is it technically possible to setup a watchlist with every policy and guideline on it (or two watchlists, one for policies, one for guidelines), sorted by last edit date, that anyone can view? An automated solution like that would be my favourite, if it's possible. Quack 688 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Would this watchlist include pointless vandal edits, along with minor spelling and grammar changes that no one would be interested in? I don't like the 3rd option, the other 2 I would support. Your first 2 suggestions seem very similar to me, however.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people would want to be informed of every change as soon as it happens, others wouldn't want to keep track of that many messages, and would be happy to read a summary of it once a month, even if this results in a delay. There's no reason not to do both, and have people read what they want to read. Quack 688 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's no other thoughts on "keeping track of policy/guideline changes", I'd like to get back to the tutorial textbook and mentoring programs - I don't know how many indents WIkipedia can handle, and I don't want to find out. :-p Quack 688 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User Leaving

Despite all of the heated discussion we have been going through, it is still important to watch out for all of our members. I would like to encourage all of you to leave a message for a leaving user (User:Moe Epsilon) [7].--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Banes, one of our Councillors, seems to have left as well. =( --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Same as EWS23HighwayCello, apparently. But he might me on Wikibreak.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

EWS23? Am I missing something here? I don't see evidence of a departure or a wikibreak... Dar-Ape 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's HighwayCello. Check out his contribs.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Emergency Session Needed

To the Advisory Council members and all Esperanza members. It has come to my attention that the polls, surveys, and heated debates on how to run such a large organization will come in conflict with the December Elections. I ask that the council hold a special emergency meeting and postpone the election for at least one month. Thank you, WikieZach| talk 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should "suspend" Advisory Council activity, since that is one of the focuses of our debates. We're still trying to decide what to do with the Advisory Council, so why are we requesting them to have a meeting?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Becuase they are the ones who can suspend an election, then we can suspend their powers. WikieZach| talk 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you don't actually need an AC meeting. You do, however, need a majority of the AC members to comment on this topic.

BTW did you notice that the timeline on WP:ESP/G doesn't match the Governance section on Wikipedia:Esperanza?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? WikieZach| talk 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On the timeline at WP:ESP/G, Banes's bar ended abruptly before elections are scheduled to talk place. But on Wikipedia:Esperanza, Banes's name is on the Leadership box.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC there was a meeting already scheduled for sometime early this week? Kim Bruning 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The advisory council has been discussing things on and off, and while we tried to schedule a meeting, it hasn't worked out for all/most of us to be there, so for the time being we're just discussing through email. It seems that if we've decided on keeping the current system of governance, there is no reason not to hold elections. Don't know as much the feeling on suspending them/holding them next month, but think about what will be accomplished in that next month. Does it matter when the elections are? (That's not a hypothetical question, but something that we should all think about, to decide when they should be). -- Natalya 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Natalya. The best time to hold an election is when we know if/what system to elect people to. Whenever we decided on how Esperanza will be structured will be the time to put that structure to use. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching program revamp

I'd like to inform the Esperanza community that the admin coaching has been revamped. The Transhumanist and I have been making changes to the structure, but not the project concept (i.e. it is still called "admin coaching"), but the request list and volunteer lists have been separated into subpages. We hope that the project pages are now more user-friendly. Our eventual plan is to have the project more or less run itself, by having coaches contact students themselves, without going though a coordinator. This will eliminate the chances of the program stagnating while the coordinator goes on Wikibreak. However there is a very old backlog of requests that we are working through first, and should be cleared before the program can really "run itself". So, that's the plan. I realize that some of the AC members are on wikibreak, but if there's going to be a newsletter soon I can write an announcement. I know that some people think the project should be renamed; I don't agree, but a name change won't change the functionality aspects that we are now working on. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

*applause* for all the hard work. The next newsletter we have, that will certainly go in it. -- Natalya 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, well done guys! Great job. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I join Esperanza?

How? -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia|wanna Talk? 05:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines are under intense overhaul, so my suggestion would be to wait a little while before asking again. Thanks for your interest, though!--CJ King 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You just need over 150 edits, and be here at least two weeks in order to join :) [wossi] 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Crunch time for Appreciation Week might be approaching

If Esperanza wants to conduct its appreciation week to include January 15, I think we should began planning in earnest as soon as possible, so that people can have sufficient notification of what might be happening and the like. Badbilltucker 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What's on January 15? I forgot. WikieZach| talk 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia Day, Wikizach's response to own comment

Are we or not?

Are we holding an election or not? WikieZach| talk 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If everything has been solved, and the governance structure has been agreed on, then I dont see why not - • The Giant Puffin • 11:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/December 2006 elections WikieZach| talk 13:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no no! Current consensus - by 4 to 7 - at the voting page is to GET RID of the AC! No point in holding elections for something we're getting rid of. This sounds like an attempt to get your way by the back door. Moreschi 13:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Governance structure has not been agreed on by any measure. This does not feel right. Moreschi 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then there is still need of an amendment to the charter, since on the 31st their terms will be expired; also the governance talk may go on for at least two more months--WikieZach| talk 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would propose doing the same thing as what is being done with Concordia: allowing the current AC members to remain in office until the governance issue reaches a conclusion. I do have to say that the Charter Proposal Voting page has a stated deadline of December 19, 2006, so I don't see where the "at least two more months" is coming from. --Kyoko 15:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC) _{The Werdnabot archival process somehow erased my comment, so I am restoring it. --Kyoko 15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}

Send a report to Werdna.It seems like the AC has been less active in EA discussions as they used to. Are they all on Wikibreak? Even then, I agree with Kyoko about keeping the AC in office until we have decided on a course of action. In addition, I think it might be a good idea if we could merge with Concordia. (just a thought...)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have put an illness template up on my userpage, but I'l try to keep up as much as I can :P Anyway, we needn't rush. Some of the time December elections are in January, etc, so it doesn't matter (that is, if the governance remains the same) if the elections are late. It has happened in the past. Also, if it is best for Esperanza to keep the current governance structure whie it sorts out that part of its charter, I would think that would be the best course of action to take. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by two months is that after the voting is over, drafing something will take awhile/ WikieZach| talk 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The advisory council is generally just feeling burnt out. I agree with Halo though, we should be sure we know what kind of governance we would be voting for before we hold any elections. It makes sense to work that out first. Since the what we're doing now involves all of Esperanza and doesn't really hinge on the advisory council, it doesn't seem like it would be a problem to just wait for elections. And if people feel like it's somehow bad to leave people on the council past their term, we could leave a time with no council. But, it doesn't seem like it will matter much either way. -- Natalya 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, now would be the perfect time to see how Esperanza can cope without leadership... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor's Forum

The Editor's Forum was proposed a month ago on the proposals page, and lately all conversation/action regarding it has stalled. There is currently a consensus supporting it (not a single vote rejecting it, yet). Considering the above, I am assuming that it should be okay to create the page. The draft is currently at User:Ed/Sandbox. So my question is: Is it okay to start the program yet?  Shardsofmetal  22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think starting it would help with Wikipedia's mission, and other users who've discussed it all seem to agree, then of course it's ok! This is, after all, a wiki. ;-) SCZenz 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I think this is a good idea, but the with the three caveats as before:

1. Rename it to "Noticeboard" - Forum implies lots of chatting, and youll get misunderstandings by non-Esperanzans.
2. Merge the To-do list to it.
3. Merge the Stress Alerts to it.

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Were the italics really necessary? And anyway, I disagree: having a theme is always good for pages such as these. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not italics: I accidentally added an extra apostrophe to "you'll". :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is named "forum" after the ancient Roman Forum. It is mentioned on the page, and I hope that will clear up any misunderstandings (or most, anyway). The page also clearly states what is not acceptable. As for merging the two programs with it, I think it sounds like a good idea. I will create the forum now, and later if and when we decide to merge, we can deal with it then. :)  Shardsofmetal  02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - • The Giant Puffin • 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The page has been created at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Editors' Forum.  Shardsofmetal  03:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Brigade?

My apologies, as I have been busy editing and RC patrolling for a few months. Just wondering, why were programs such as the Barnstar Brigade deleted? Were they all deemed inappropriate while I was away working? I dunno...but Esperanza is not bringing a lot of "esperanza" my way with these overhauls and no clarity nor statements as to why these cuts have been made. I was a bit disappointed by lack of response to this question here as well [8]. Back to work for me... -Kukini 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul. The discussions are quite inactive now, but are kept for historical reference.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK..well, happy "overhauling"...I have moved on. Kukini 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Members Leaving

If you check out the history of Wikipedia:Esperanza/M, you can see that a few people have left Esperanza in protest to several things. How are we going to fix this? We need to find a solution fast!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Results

Here are the results to be used in the creation of the Charter;

Should we keep the Advisory council in its current structure with 7 members?

4-7; NO

Should the Council's powers be limited to housekeeping jobs and declaring consensus?

3-3-1; Consensus Not Reached

Should we coutinue to have an Administrator General?

6-0; YES

In the case we keep an AdminGen, should the person be elected out of the council or by the people directly?

8-0; By Direct-Vote

Should there be some form of requirements to join our membership?

1-8; NO

In the case a council member or the Admin.Gen. does something wrong (to be determined in detail if this is passed) then should there be a procedure in place to remove them?

6-2; YES

Do you agree with the idea to have an "expanded legislature" that would consist of a ten-member body to make sure the council is doing it's job?

2-8; NO

Should regular members be allowed to 'submit' stories for the EP Newsletter to be edited by the council?

2-5-0; YES, IF EDITED BY COUNCIL

Should we try to make Esperanza less reliant on formal procedures, official structures and parliamentary-style voting?

6-0-1; YES

Should procedures be put in place to suspend or remove disruptive members from Esperanza?

1-4; NO

Should we abolish the idea of membership entirely?

6-2-1; YES

The Above are the results; within 15 days, I will sumbit a new charter for review using the above results and other commentary--WikieZach| talk 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The first question (about keeping the AC) resulted in 4-7, majority voting NO. This result, however, does not give clear consensus on this issue. There is a major dissent against the majority. I think that this particular issue should be more discussed.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The vote's result was to reject keeping the current structure of the AC. I suggest that more discussion be put into this immediately to reach consensus on how the AC will still function, or if it will function at all. Diez2 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Where was this poll taken? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Might I kindly suggest that these results NOT be used to create a new charter? I could put forward a large number of arguments as to why, and what was wrong with this, but I don't really have to...

Because:

• Should we try to make Esperanza less reliant on formal procedures, official structures and parliamentary-style voting?
• 6-0-1; YES

<falls over laughing> hoist by your own petard! ;-)

Kim Bruning 22:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am ready to become part of the Council, how do I run?

I am ready to become part of the Council, how do I run? I know I'm new, but I would love to run. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We are currently reviewing the charter, elections (may) commence in a few weeks, later than usuall. WikieZach| talk 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's generally a bad idea to give power to anyone who actually wants it O:-) Kim Bruning 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Election Proposal

I would now like to make a proposal. Let's have elections in which the people running use their thoughts for a new Charter as part of their statement. With such an election, the council would be like a refferendum on a charter. WikieZach| talk 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And if the council decides that a council is not needed???--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Then they will be disolved. WikieZach| talk 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of a spell from Zork Grand Inquisitor called lladnek : "Make simple things complicated"

I would like to make a new proposal.<casts kendall>:

We declare Natalya the defacto Esperanza coordinator until and unless we find something sane to do with all of this.

Kim Bruning 15:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo, can I join?

Hi, I'm JDitto, and I'm wondering if I can join this group. I'm a Christian wikipedian looking for ways to be nice to others so when I found this page it seems to be just the right thing to join. What are the requirements? --JDitto 19:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's still a rule, but you're supposed to have than 150 edits or higher, or something--SUIT 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That and being on Wikipedia for a least two weeks aswell, I think.  Crazy Sussex Lad  21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I count my edits? --JDitto 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look Here  Crazy Sussex Lad  13:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so this is where the editcountitis starts then, is it? Kim Bruning 03:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

<lol> So I don't need to have a certain number of edits? I'm not worried about how long I've been here, because I know I've been here >3 mths...--JDitto 03:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an esperanzan, but perhaps Esperanza will see the wisdom of welcoming you anyway? :-) Kim Bruning 15:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Smiles

I would like to ask all of you fellow wikipedians to go around giving smiles to people because it promotes wikilove.

~~~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding, {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

• The way I find people to smile at is going on other peoples talk pages and smiling at the people there. You can really smile to a lot of people this way. Another way is to go to wikiprojects and smile to the members. Another way of course is to smile to those who leave comments on your talk page. God bless.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 22:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, some people end up looking very :-( when you spam their userpage with a generic template, instead of actually speaking to them in a human voice. <innocent look> Kim Bruning 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Smile per nom.
• Speak with human voice per Kim Bruning.
• Damn, this human touch thing is tough. Hang on - isn't it POV for us to support one emotion over another? Who are we to say hate is an invalid emotion?

~~~ has frowned at you! Frowns promote WikiHate and hopefully this one has made your day worse. Spread the WikiHate by frowning at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Go to hell!
Frown at others by adding {{subst|frown}} to their talk page with a hateful message.

Signed: Captain Quack - Commanding Officer, Intergalactic Fun Patrol (Merry Christmas Battalion). 02:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

<falls over laughing> Kim Bruning 03:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that is a useful template for this very special day. Arria Belli/Marialadouce | parlami 13:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, I changed my username. Ta-daaaahhh!

Be careful with 'frown' Some users would consider it a personal attack. It is funny though. Geo. 19:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

<grin> But seriously, try this innovative "act like a human being and speak with a human voice" thing. I know, it's all very new fangled for all of us traditional neanderthals, but who knows, maybe "oog smile, oog frown, oog CSD" is becoming a bit old? :-) Kim Bruning 22:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

<wicked grin> Look at me! I'm a Very Important Person. Therefore, my opinions are important, and must be widely broadcast, for the sake of the community. However, I'm far too important to write individual "You suck" letters to everyone on my enemies list. So I'll just hire a secretary bot, to copy-paste appropriate templates at random times. That's much better than bashing people over a head with a neanderthal club, right? Right? Quack the Clueless 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(cough) Okay, I'll stop now. That's enough fun for today, at least. :-p Quack 688 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Charter proposals

Just a quick reminder that this page was pretty big a month or so ago: Wikipedia:Esperanza/New_charter. I've sliced down my governance section based on the last vote, I'm leaning more towards individual program coordinators. If someone else wants to update the proposal they put there, or make up a brand new one, go for it. I don't really see the point of starting another new page about all this when we can just Wiki-edit those ones.

Oh, and Merry Christmas, y'all! Quack 688 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We should soon have a better idea of what to have in a charter per the recent poll. WikieZach| talk 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Or not ;-) (see above) Kim Bruning 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Will we ever reach a concensus on this? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but we might reach a consensus, if people actually wanted to talk about what's really going on :-) Kim Bruning 15:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been endless talks in several different places. None of them seem to be getting anywhere - • The Giant Puffin • 19:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I believe that, in the event that there is no consensus over what format something should take, it is simply scrapped. Dump the charter and see what happens. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We would still need some form of "document". Perhaps a simple Mission Statement would do?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, righ - what? Why do you need a document? Why can you simply write what you're for on the front page like everyone else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Introduction on the main page? If so, then we probably should just improve on that paragraph and scrap the Charter, as you proposed.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I mean. Set out your stall immediately, so to speak. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza

As a new comer to esperanza I thought I'd stop by and give others a chance to welcome me. ;-)

Actually, I wanted to make a comment which I think will be encouraging to everyone here, not only in this group but in all of Wikipedia.

I spent a lot of time over at Uncyclopediaand finally lost much of my enthusiasm for what I thought would be a fun place to do some editing and contributing. It's supposed to be a fun place, but I've been left with the impression that most of the administrators there are a very cliquish who seem to get some kind of enjoyment out of making outsiders feel unwelcome. On the other hand, I've found a lot more support and welcome here at Wikipedia even though I have run into some other users who I've not shared the same views, I still feel much more welcomed and at home even without the Esperanza group. I hope I can make a positive contribution to your efforts, even though my time is limited and my visits may be sporadic. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is great to hear! It's nice to know the Wikipedia community is very welcoming to other users.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jolly good! I'm glad to hear this as well. Dar-Ape 03:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Good to have you with us. Thanks for the nice comment about us! Best wishes, Jam01 08:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have you wish us! -- Natalya 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is good to hear that! You are always welcome here!! Hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and Esperazian!!! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No Community

Most of the community is gone. Isn't Esperanza supposed to promote community? We deleted things like Barnster Brigade, which raises morale. The community is almost, if not totally gone. We said, in order to stay and not me MFD'd again, we would have to change some things. Well, we did, and now we have the choice between Esperanza but no community aspect, or Esperanza w/ community and be deleted. Isn't there anything in between? TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 02:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Esperanza is collapsing as well. The MfD literally put the organization into chaos! Maybe we can delete all Esperanza pages and start from scratch!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't we want to save them for historical purposes? Even if we do start over, it may be good to keep records of some ideas that didn't work so we avoid making those mistakes again. In the words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Dar-Ape 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's because there was little to it but a group of editors who chatted with each other. With no other substance, of course it's going to fall apart when you take that away. It's also why esperanza went up for deletion in the first place. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This overhaul has deleted a lot of the community in Wikipedia. But, if people remain, we can still rebuild Esperanza to effectively promote and preserve the community. Theres no point just giving up, that wont solve anything. With some persistance and determination we can get Esperanza back to its former glory and get it to the point so they cant delete it - • The Giant Puffin • 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What, like Concordia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's how it looks to me. Yeah, Esperanza has definitly lost a lot of its community feel. And yeah, it kind of sucks. What Wikipedia needs (or will at least accept) has changed, but that doesn't mean we have to give up. True, we've lost a lot of programs that many people considered beneficial. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do about those. What we can do, however, is take what we still have, and make it great. And we still have some great programs! The Collaboration of the Month really does a lot of good for the articles, the Tutorial Drive helps lots of users, the To-Do List lets us help anyone who needs a hand with something, and the Alerts Page, well, there's really nothing to say about how good it is. And even though many of the programs are gone, it doesn't mean that each individual person can't still convey the feeling of Esperanza's community. So lets take what we have and do what we can. -- Natalya 15:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The collaboration of the month was started barely a month ago. It hasn't even done that much. The tutorial drive was active for a week and stopped, and the alerts page has hardly been free of criticism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So.... we can all complain about it, or we can do something about it! Optimism is ever so much better than looking at the bad side of everything. -- Natalya 01:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In regards to ECOTM, I know that there has been very little done, but the problem was that it was started just prior to the MFD, for I had had a bit of foresight (not bragging, only saying) and was trying to reform Esperanza like two days before MFD. The chaos of that and then the overhaul put it on hold, and then I took a long break. Hopefully we can have it back into full swing soon. DoomsDay349 01:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

With all of our problems in mind: "When someone gives you lemons, make--lemonade! When someone gives you salt, make--margherita!" =P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

I logged in just to check my messages, and it's turned into 2+ hours on Wikipedia! And this being a Friday night, too. Sigh... Regarding the lack of community, I would suggest that people read and contribute towards articles that interest them, or even articles that don't, and when they encounter a user who is having difficulties or a user who is making very good contributions, help that person or offer him/her your thanks. This approach handles the goals of making Esperanza less inward-looking, helping new users, and building community. --Kyoko 06:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, most of what we are talking about here nowadays are about Esperanza's problems and all that, obviously, to a newcomer, it would be boring talk. Why don't we move all this to another page? Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The heart of Esperanza

Instead of discussing the charter, let me pose a seemingly very simple question: What is Esperanza for?

I ask because it seems to me that people are leaving and complaining about the lack of community - but the original purpose of Esperanza was to provide hope to Wikipedians. What does this mean? What can Esperanza offer by creating their own community here, that the Kindness Campaigners, who carry their beliefs out into the wider community, do not? What does it mean to "support the community", as asked above? It seems to me that Esperanza is now going through the same questioning process as Concordia - nice idea, but how does it work? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that everyone has a somewhat different idea of what Esperanza is, because everyone gets something different out of Esperanza. The way I saw it, Esperanza was a place where there were a lot of nice people, and where when Wikipedia was starting to feel stressful, one could come and relax. Here's something that I wrote a while ago, but that captures at least what Esperanza is about to me:

"Esperanza is truly a place for hope. It is a place for friendly editors to meet other friendly editors. It is a place for less-friendly editors to meet friendly editors and become more friendly. It is a place for bitter editors to meet friendly editors and realize that maybe they don't have to be so bitter after all. It is a place where no matter what is happening in one's life, whether it is on Wikipedia or in real life, one can be surrounded by supportive people, and I am so glad to be a part of it. I love that I can help to cheer people up and help them through conflicts, and know that the same people will be there for me if I need them."

Post-MfD, Esperanza is somewhat different, but I hope still carries the same values. -- Natalya 17:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a complicated answer to a devilishly simple question. Esperanza has, clearly, gone through a very intense change after MfD. I contemplated leaving Esperanza myself, for only one reason: the project's reputation. When it was created, Esperanza had a pretty clear goal: bring peace and community to Wikipedia. The MfD made it look like we failed, and in a way, we did. I think it might be time for a total and complete reformation, but that is something completely different. The heart of Esperanza: Community. It saddens me to see hordes of Wikipedians splitting off into their different factions. Some of our best editors have left because of these factions (Deletionists, Inclusionists, etc.), and that is never good. We could try to do what the human race has failed: Work together. We should unite ourselves and work together to the ultimate goal of having the complete sum of human knowledge, instead of arguing amongst ourselves. If there is some way we could do that, we should strive to reach it. It would be one hell of a task, but the rewards would be absolutely incredible. PullToOpen^Talk 19:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My charter proposal has a mission and principles section - actually (quick check), all the ones on Wikipedia:Esperanza/New_charter make some mention of what Esperanza's supposed to do. Quack 688 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a very very strange plan. Have just 1 (one) charter page, and it's immediately official. Now just put some gobbledygook on it, and wait for people to wikiedit it into shape. Since it's official, it won't take long for people to take action to fix your terrible unilateral vandalism.

I know, these wiki things are a terribly novel concept, so you might not have heard of them before. I suggest you try them out for a change, you might find that a wiki is a useful tool for collaborative editing. Amazing, who would have thought! :-) Kim Bruning 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid such sarcasm on Wikipedia, it's slightly uncivil. Also, comments on the above heading (Charter proposals) suggest scrapping the Charter altogether.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: wiki-editing the proposals - that could turn into a revert war on governance without a proper discussion, so I do think we need some valid, fully fleshed out governance alternatives to compare. However, the mission and principles parts of my proposal have been floating around on various threads for a month. If someone thinks a point should be changed, mention that on the discussion page, put forward an alternative, and if everyone likes the alternative version, I'm happy to see my one changed. Quack 688 17:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's perfect. As you know, there's a lot of guidelines on wikipedia to help prevent that kind of thing, which you could, you know, read.

If Esperanza (which is here to help people and encourage niceness and all that) actually turns this into a revert war, we'll know for sure that Esperanza lacks any sort of clue whatsoever, and we can cleany wind the thing down. Conversely, if folks succeed, that would be a ringing endorsement :-) It's a challenge! <grin> Kim Bruning 21:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If we do, we can never go back. WikieZach| talk 03:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does Esperanza need more of a charter than other Wiki-groups?

• What is WP:CVU for? According to that page, "help in cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia by..."
  Since it's implementing Wikipedia:Vandalism, it doesn't need a charter that says more than "do what this policy says".
• What is WP:MILHIST for? According to that page, "improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history."
  Once an article's decided as being in its scope, and any specific MilHist issues are addressed, it edits articles using the same basic policies and guidelines as those for other articles.
• What is WP:ESPERANZA for? According to that page, "Strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community."
  What does that mean? Fine, we can give a quick one-paragraph spiel, then link to the Wikipedia guideline that explains how you build that sense of community...

Hang on, there isn't one.

Maybe we should write one.

Maybe we should call it a charter.

Now, exactly how long should this charter be?

• Solution 1: Have a complete discussion, reach consensus on all subjects. Write a full charter which covers all the points of concern, then change sections of the charter in the future.

• Solution 2: Write a basic one-paragraph charter which doesn't address all points of concern, but is allowed to expand. As these concerns flare up in the future, add new sections to the charter. You'll end up with a full charter anyway, it'll just take a few months longer to get there.

• Solution 3: Write a basic one-paragraph charter, forbid it to grow in size, and force people to ignore past consensus and have a brand new discussion every time an old disagreement flares up.

• Solution 4: Write a basic one-paragraph charter, forbid it to grow in size, and force people to manually search through past discussions to find a consensus which may or may not be applicable to the current concern (since you can't record that consensus on the charter itself.)

The first solution requires a lot of work now, but I still think it looks better than the alternatives. Quack 688 17:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Solution 5: Use the wiki, Luke! O ye of little faith, repent!

Come to think of it, solution 5 resembles solution 2. The advantage is that you immediately have a working system you can test on, and you don't have have everyone stand around waiting while you're busy. You can just get right down to business, and things will sort themselves out.

The exact reasons why wiki-editing is so superior to all other methods won't quite fit into the margin of this edit. :-P

The fact that wikis were developed alongside agile development methods is the first big clue you'd get that they may now form some kind of quantum leap in allowing human collaboration. That there is a > 1 million page wiki that we're typing this on is another clue ;-)

Wikis are amazing. Seriously, try them! (and Ed thought I was being sarcastic before. Are we really even having this argument? :-P )

Kim Bruning 21:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Kim at this moment. ;) What we should do is type up a simple paragraph of our goals on the EA main page. If there are growing concerns about this, we can just edit as needed. The same can be done with the Charter...if we decide to have one. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, we need a full charter for this, and not just a paragraph, because there's no Wikipedia page on how to build a community we can simply link to. It's our job to write one. And that includes all the behind-the-scenes procedures that aren't as glamourous as "spreading hope", but just as necessary.

You guys really want to use the Wiki-editing process? Fine, have a look at my next post. Quack 688 04:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

MfD Nomination

Esperanza is currently being considered for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion; I invite all Esperanzians and non-Esperanzians to visit the debate page and give their opinion, in order for us to retrieve a true consensus.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc 13:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you not notice the above two pages of text discussing the MfD? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did, but thanks for pointing it out anyway! Anthonycfc 15:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So why'd you put another notice up? Ed already alerted everyone. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't alert anyone! Well, I did start a conversation about the MfD on IRC...--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Woopsie, it was actually PTO. Sorry about that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is going to end badly, I can see it - • The Giant Puffin • 13:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Does anyone know what will become of the Admin Coaching? I heard from someone that it will be moved, but to where? Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 09:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath?

Consensus at the MFD appears to be for Esperanza's deletion. What should the aftermath be?

For starters, we have to decide what will happen to the programs. While they will probably be deleted with Esperanza, some of them, such as the Stress Alerts and Admin Coaching, deserve to be kept.

We also have to consider how Esperanza will be deleted. Should all Esperanza pages be simply deleted? Deleted and salted? The MessedRocker solution (which entails redirecting all subpages to the main page, placing an {{historical}} tag on the main page, and protecting all pages) will not affect our edit counts.

Some have suggested converting Esperanza's front page into an essay about its ideals, the membership list into a list of people who support the ideals, and "de-Esperanzing" our programs (I think this is an excellent idea). Perhaps a fork - ironically, the situation Esperanza was created to avoid - might be neccesary. Should either occur, I pledge to continue my support to Esperanza.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, that discussion is what the MfD's for... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to have a chat with User:The Transhumanist. He might like some of the better tutorials in the Tutorial Drive for his excellent virtual classroom. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the calander, will that be kept? Or will it's name be changed? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dec920 is correct, be sure to express your feelings on this issues at the MfD, because that is where the decisions will be made. As for programs that may be deleted but seem to have validity to exist, perhaps deletion review is best, since the MfD is pretty all-encompassing. -- Natalya 14:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)