Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 9

message: To prevent a lot of redirects, could I change this and this so that they link directly to Wikipedia:Esperanza instead of Wikipedia:Esperanza? Jfingers88 21:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Andrewjuren(talk) 22:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: What about all of the other pages and people's sigs that link to Wikipedia:Esperanza? I had thought that WP:ESP was the shortcut agreed upon at one of the Adv Council meetings. There are over 25000 links to WP:EA strewn around Wikipedia . It would take a lot of work, preferrably with the AutoWikiBrowser, to fix all of them, if such a conclusion is reached. Jfingers88 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think that you meant for these changes to be made retroactively. To start, we can change the userbox templates so that all articles (user and user talk pages) with these will point directly to the Esperanza project. Also, I'd look through the joining instructions and make sure they give a direct link. Personally, I find these shortcuts are good for your fingers, but they should otherwise be avoided when not being actually typed. That said, as long as the redirects work (they are not double-redirects, etc.) then I'm okay with leaving the articles as-is for now. Others may disagree. If we want everyone to change their signatures, that will need to be sent out as a notice, I would suspect (i.e. would need backing by Advisory Council and voluntary change by every member.) Andrewjuren(talk) 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Esperanza has grown tremendously over the last couple of months: we have over 300 members now. However, I'm getting some signals from various parts of the Wikipedia community that they see the kind of behaviour from people with a 'green e' in their name that is quite the opposite of the things Esperanza stands for (see, for instance, the charter and the philosophy of Esperanza). I think we need to start thinking about how far we tolerate this, and what we should do in such instances. Do we just leave them a note, do we remove them from the membership list and tell them they're not longer a member? I have some thoughts about this, and the other AC members do too (the Code of Conduct is an example of what we're working on in that area), but I'd really like to see some community input about this, especially about the concrete aspects of implementing such a Code of Conduct and about warning or removing members. I know the latter measure may sound a bit extreme, but the behaviour of some Esperanza members of late has been such that other people's view of Esperanza as a community is affected by it in a very negative way, which may hinder us in the goals that we're striving for. --JoanneB 19:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am tending to agree with JoanneB, we do need to come up with some means of "dealing" (for want of a better word) with incivility within our ranks. It is bad PR for Esperanza. Members should be expected to always act within the project's spirit. That said, we need to be able to distinguish between a heat of the moment flare-up of a good editor under stress, and ongoing incivility. Also, a user apologising should be taken into account. -- Banez 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the Administrator General of Esperanza, I feel I must comment. Firstly, I would like to say that Esperanza so far has made some pretty good advances in stressbusting and establishing a sense of community, amongst its members at least. Secondly, I would like to make it clear that, as an organisation, we denounce incivility and personal attacks totally. They are unacceptable. In terms of the issue of being an Easperanzian meaning something, there is currently a proposal in the pipeline to deal with situations when they arise.  The code of conduct looks to establish a standard of behaviour amongst all members and, we are currently working on getting consensus for this. In the meantime, please bring any untoward behavior to the attention of the Advisory Committee. --Celestianpower háblame 19:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion, any incivility that uses Esperanza as a justification (e.g. "Your ideas are not following the spirit of Esperanza, and I know because I'm a member, you stupid dumbshit") should merit not only an angry response, but outright removal of membership, and if it continues, referral to ArbCom. Again, that's just my opinion, but incivility is utterly unacceptable here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if there are notable un-spirited actions from Esperanza members, they should be adressed by the Esperanza community.  If Esperanza members are repeatedly acting in ways not befitting a member, I think it is our duty to address it - we want to create that better sense of community, but we can't if members are working against it.  That being said, I don't think we should immediately remove from membership (or anything that drastic) anyone who is particpating in things un-Esperanzial.  Bringing it up with them and reminding them of what Esperanza stands for and that they are a member will hopefully, for the most part, correct the situation. -- Natalya 17:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the name of Esperanza... 

message: I know it's a minor issue, but aren't there any ways to subst the  in ? Fetofs Hello! 01:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gets really, really messy when doing so.  I think it can be done, but then any additional edit to the welcome template messes it up.  Ral315 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Out of curiosity, can you show me an example of that? Fetofs Hello! 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I've done it! Can you guys test it? Fetofs Hello! 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yay! Fetofs Hello! 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcoming template 

message: A lot of people have submitted themselves to be reviewed. Including some Esperanzians like me. Please don't hold back. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd do it too if I wasn't scared of some of the replies. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ER|Editor Review]] 

message: I was curious; how did you guys decide on Esperanzian as the adjective form for Esperanza? Don't you think it sounds a bit...awkward? In my opinion, Esperanzan sounds much better. Every place that I can think of that ends in -a has the adjective form ending with -an, such as states like Alaska → Alaskan & Nevada → Nevadan, and countries like Andorra → Andorran and Moldova → Moldovan. And especially seeing as Esperanza is Spanish, other Spanish-speaking countries like Guatemala → Guatemalan, Nicaragua → Nicaraguan, Venezuela → Venezuelan. Was there a reason that Esperanzian was thought to be superior? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I in no part know of how the word was chosen (so perhaps I shouldn't even post!), but to me "Esperanzian" has a kind of zing to it, appropriate for Esperanza.  -- Natalya 11:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's because Esperanzan sounds too much like Esther Rantzen? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Knowledge Seeker that I like Esperanzan much better. (I actually always thought it was Esperanzan, until a week or two ago when I noticed otherwise.) Esperanzian has one too many syllables for me. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjective form 

message: I've started a subpage at User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve where you can comment on me as a user. It was originally suggested by User:Fang Aili over the IRC, and she has since helped me impliment the idea. Unlike Editor Review or RFC, this is not a one-time thing. I plan on having this page until I die or some other horrible thing happens where I have to stop contributing ^_^. So please visit it and give me some advice on how to improve myself, I'll value any advice or commentary. Thanq!--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. I hope you don't mind that I steal it. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 05:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to.--The ikiroid (talk )(Help Me Improve) 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New comment thing 

message: I've seen the word Esperanza appear on Wikipedia from time to time, but always assumed that it was some kind of Esperanto interest group... so I never bothered checking until now... and find myself pleasantly surprised (no offense to Esperanto fans!) that it's nothing of the sort.  I wonder how many other people made a similar assumption about the name and still haven't looked for themselves?  Perhaps there should be a userbox saying "Esperanza is not Esperanto".  :)  -- noosphere 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, maybe it's because I speak Spanish, but that got me laughing for a good while. I wonder if it's caused that question very often. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they both have to do with hope--uhhhhhh.......that's all I got.--The ikiroid (talk )(Help Me Improve) 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esperanza is not Esperanto 

message: All right, the queue at Admin coaching is starting to be too long, and it's time to do a little shake-up around that program. First, I want to thank EWS23 for his hard work and helping me out during these past few weeks; we've decided, based on discussions with other coaches and the perception of the program on WT:RFA, that it's time to make a few changes.
*First off, it is necessary to explain that Admin coaching will not give free adminships. You still need to be a good candidate, as well as to earn the community's trust.
*As well, it is necessary to make clear that Admin coaching is not an admin academy. I've gotten complaints from a few coaches that the pressure that some coachees are giving them is excessive; a few coachees are expecting that after admin coaching, they will pass RfA as if it were a walk in the park. It isn't, and it is not fair to hold coaches accountable in case of a failed Request for adminship.
*Also, some coaches wonder about the nature of the program, and have asked if it is just a clearing house for nominating admin candidates. Not necessarily; some coaches prefer to look at every single edit that the coachee has produced, while others prefer to be available to answer questions from the coachee, to help them understand Wikipedia and learn the unwritten rules of Wikipedia. Both methods are equally valid in my opinion, and they're just a matter of coaching style.
*Finally, I'm making one change. In order to speed up the process, any editor who has not made an edit within two weeks will have his/her coaching request archived and the coaches will be available to take new coachees. Also, I have one request for coaches: please make sure to contact either me or EWS23 if you think you are finished with your current coachee and want another. We'll still go around asking coaches if they're willing, but if you tell us it makes it much faster. 
*I'm still considering whether it is necessary to put some sort of criteria to weed out users who wouldn't have a chance of passing RfA, and I'd like further input about the issue. I've been thinking of something like this: 
** 1 month editing
** 500 edits
** No blocks for incivility/vandalism/disruption/3RR
* These are not passing criteria by any means, but anyone who doesn't meet them will clearly have his/her nomination snowballed by a bureaucrat.
Comments? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all the bullet points are very important and practical. Unreasonable expectations can put too much stress on both the coaches and coachees.  As for the criteria, it's probably a necessary evil. The time/edits are about three times the amount needed to join Esperanza, which seems about right. Maybe we can relax this a bit if coaches/coachees becomes a 1:1 ratio, but unfortunately that isn't likely to be the case any time soon. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree with all of the points - well organized, Titoxd and EWS23!  These guidelines should make admin coaching much more defined, which I'm sure will be helpful.  I also think the last two points are important; with all the discussions about what to do about uncoachable coachees, that should take care of most problems, while still allowing many people to take advantage of the program. -- Natalya 11:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most (if not all) of the credit for the bullet points above goes to Titoxd; I just stood by and said "good idea" every once in a while. :o) After re-reading this a couple times, I think maybe we should loosen the third criteria bullet point a tad. All users make mistakes, especially early in their Wikipedia experiences. Perhaps it could read something like "No blocks for incivility/vandalism/disruption/3RR in the past three months." 3RR is an especially tricky one, as edit wars can get very emotional, and often new users don't know about 3RR until they violate it. (Note: Obviously I don't condone such activities, just recognizing that all users are human (except bots, of course :o) ), and that a black spot on a user's record three (six, nine, twelve) months ago can and should be forgiven by the community. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: While I'm on the coachee list, and have a different perspective, I'd think that those who are signed up as coaches should be allowed some personal bias on who they select... after all, they're the ones putting in the time, and presumably have experience, so they would reasonably be able to select those who they consider to be the most "promising candidates," if you will. After all, the idea of the program isn't to just mentor newer Wikipedians — although perhaps a future program can — but to prepare those who the coaches see as capable of taking on the responsibilities of adminship in the near future. Speaking for myself, I would prefer that an coach not pick me up unless they had faith in my potential ability (not that it hasn't been the case with the current coachees, from what I've seen). Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 13:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about this before, and while I do think it would be nice for coaches to be able to choose thier coachees, I'm afraid that this would lead to some users not being coached at all, or losing confidence in their abilities as a possible admin because no one picks them.  Kind of like picking teams in gym class? -- Natalya 01:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I do is that if a user requests coaching someone who is near the top of the list, and it would just mean changing around assignments I'm about to do, I do accomodate those kinds of requests. The keyword here is if the request is reasonable: if a user requests coaching someone who just signed up, I tell the coach that doing that would be fundamentally unfair, so I can't accept that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good compromise. On a different note, has anyone considered asking for an agreement from coachees that after they had "completed the process," however that is defined, and (hopefully) make admin, that they join on as coaches? Not for a mandatory term, exactly, but in an effort to give back and help others to do the same. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I generally support this proposal. I am slightly dubious about "No blocks for incivility/vandalism/disruption/3RR", with similar thoughts as EWS23. Making mistakes is part of the learning process, so we should not exclude people if they have made one (especially a one-off incident rather than a pattern of such problems). As for the above- I joined as a coach straight after being coached and becoming an admin. However I would totally understand a new admin wanting some experience as an admin before becoming a coach. So how about a suggestion (and not really a formal agreement) to 'graduates' of the program to consider returning as coaches. Petros471 09:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the above points, I would happily sign up, since I'm already coaching a newb (and boy is that fun). I'm not saying that I couldn't do it, but apparently some people can't follow example when it comes to posting on talk pages. Eh, past caring. I need a coach sometime, I'd like to apply for RfA soonish, but I'd like to ask some questions about it, and I don't know anyone well enough who has the time to answer them. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least a couple of people haven't editted since March in the active list. More haven't editted from April 17. At least we know where the coaches are going.... Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More admin coaching 

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

message: Random the Scrambled 23:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you meet the minimum requirements that are listed on the membership page, feel free to list yourself on the list of members! --JoanneB 07:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible for me to join Esperanza? 

message: (I'm not complaining this time, isn't that nice?)
Just a general notice to everyone that you can have a small picture beside your name in the stats, if you'd like.
Take a look at the stats - ILovePlankton and I already have them, so this will give you an idea of what the images will look like.
If you want one, either comment here (and tell me where the image is) or e-mail me (of course, you know what to do to make that a real e-mail address instead of a munged one). 
Also, if you want to be exempt from the stats for any reason, let me know here too. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General notice re IRC channel stats 

message: Hi - I've been thinking about the issue of POV userboxes (e.g. identifying a political or religious view). These have been discouraged, and in a discussion, a majority voted to ban them - but it didn't reach consensus, so they are still in use. 
It seems that some people value the ability to express and identify themselves through these userboxes, and perhaps this is valuable to Wikipedia's sense of community. Though arguably our sense of community shouldn't depend on knowing each others point of view on a particular issue, and if they highlight differing opinions, maybe it's a negative impact. 
After thinking about this, I've written some of my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes - See heading Boxes for political parties and other groups, currently at the bottom. Input welcome. (Best to comment on that page unless specifically Esperanza-related). Thanks. --Singkong2005 11:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes, POV & sense of community 

message: I figure this would be a good place to discuss what should be done about the bot now. After nathanrdotcom left, Misza13 put up Bob_the_Barman. The question is, would the Esperanza community like to stick with the status quo or replace it with BotOfDoom (which is basically ESP_Bar_Keep without a couple features that are never used like !ip2c, although that could be added back in by adding a line to a config file). As I am somewhat biased, I will not state a preference :) Where (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the URL function (Solar eclipse to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse). If that function exists, I don't really care which bot occupies the chatroom. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add some bias towards the other side then. Most of the functions mentioned above (!cookies, WikiLinks, more hello lines) could quite easily be included into Bob_the_Barman, provided that I'm given enough time. (BTW, Bob is currently undergoing a major rewrite.) The thing with making the bot do arbitrary commands has of course to be decided upon. It hasn't been abused yet, but that's not a problem now, since I'm "at the console" all the time. What if the bot was hosted externally and 24/7? This is up for discussion. I also will not push Bob's candidacy too strong, since BotOfDoom is based on a tested Eggdrop framework, while Bob is written entirely from scratch by me, with no warranty of stability/security (which of course doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing). :) Misza13 T C 20:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, it would be nice if the bot could be up 24/7. It would add a sense of friendliness and familiarity to the channel, no matter what time zone you're in. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really mind. I like Bob but until it has WikiLink expansion, I think we have to go with BotOfDoom. With the making Bob say things, could we make it that people with really high access can see who made them, in case of abuse? Would that help? --Celestianpower háblame 10:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bob now seems to have wikilink expansion. Fetofs Hello! 16:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: When I click on the chat link I get a message saying "irc is not a registered protocol". SCHZMO ✍ 12:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you probably don't have ChatZilla installed (properly). (Assuming you use Mozilla.) Misza13 T C 12:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chat link 

message: I suggest that we change all usages of  on Esperanza pages to  which is something I whipped up specifically for use on Esperanza pages. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although I wouldn't mind if all editors would obey Esperanza guidelines :-) --Tone 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone could always make use of  though splitting them up might be going a little too far. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested change in templates 

message: Gee... maybe I shoulda read that Code of Conduct more closely while it was still being discussed.  It was right around the time that I joined Esperanza and so I wasn't paying close attention.
Anyway, I now find that I have problems with Code of Conduct item #5.  I understand that it's not good to "pack the ballot box".  Nonetheless, I have done this in the past and can easily imagine that I would do it again.  
Here's the situation 
I created an article which was titled Adaptation to global warming based upon a suggestion on the Talk Page for Mitigation of global warming that the topic deserved an article unto itself.  So I was bold and did it.  Within minutes, it was tagged for deletion.  I rallied the global warming gang to support keeping it (and also improved the article to address various concerns).  The result was a unanimous vote to keep the article.  Would it have gone that way if I hadn't lobbied for support?  Perhaps.  However, I see nothing wrong with what I did and I'd do it again in a similar situation.
I'd like to hear some thoughts about why item #5 is important.  Of course, the worst thing that could happen if I violate the rule is I could get thrown out of Esperanza.  So, I could either refuse to accept the Code of Conduct now or wait until such time as I feel I need to violate item #5 and then get thrown out then.
Thoughts?
--Richard 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether the above is violated by listing things on WikiProjects or Noticeboards or Deletion Sorting lists. I have regularly done this in the past, for the reason that it gets experts on a subject into a discussion that would possibly otherwise be lacking in their POV's. If this is actually against the policy of this community building organisation then I will have to think again, as I rather like my (sometimes small) wikiproject communities right now. Ansell 07:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest that there is a difference between letting people know that there is a vote they may be interested in, and actively saying 'vote this way'.  Whlst there is that difference then clearly the people that you notify may or may not vote a particular way.  My own view is that spreading the word of the vote is acceptable and indeed supports the policy of seeking consensus by maximising the numbers expressing a view whereas touting for a particular vote seeks to undermine consensus.ALR 08:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code of Conduct Item #5 (uh oh) 

message: I'm posting this after seeing a rash of people who have formed opinions about what transpired without checking their facts or reading the meeting log carefully.
# The COC is still a proposal. The AC voted to make some changes and resubmit. That is all. This doesn't mean that all of the individual members totally agree with it, nor is it yet binding. If you don't like the COC, then a far more useful thing to do would be to comment and make your feelings known, rahter than leaving Esperanza in a huff. If you don't like it, do something about it or stop whining.
#The ban on publishing IRC logs publically is a Wikimedia Foundation rule. As our channel has Wikipedia in the name, we are bound to it, and have been, however, assuming good faith and that people didn't know this, we are making it clear that this rule does apply, yet not punishing anyone for a previous infraction. Logs can still be used to regulate should someone do something terrible, but should be emailed privately to the AC rather than publically posted.
#If a person decides to leave, rather than communicate and makes assumptions rather than asking people, they have forfited their right to complain about Esperanza. We are not mind readers. We do not know exactly what the problem is unless it is communicated and refusal to do so is a grandly dramatic, but ultimatley useless gesture if you want to see things changed. 
And now, onto my personal feelings. 
#I know that all the AC members have done what they think is best for the group. Often, this requires putting personal feelings aside and looking objectively at what needs to be done. However, since many people reading the meeting log obviously don't realize that there is difference between personal feeling and group decisions, and have not even bothered to ask me, but made assumptions, I am posting my personal thoughts here. Unlike some others, I think Esperanza can work, and am willing to put the effort into making that happen.
#I don't think we should have a Code of Conduct at all. My voting to put this back up for discusssion again was in the hopes people would speak up, instead they took their toys and went home. This saddens me, but as I have said over and over, if you aren't willing to communicate, you can't expect anything will change. So I'm communicating here. I think that Wikipedia has community standards of behavior that are well established by consensus and that no further rules should be placed upon that by Esperanza. If a person's behaviour is offensive enough for a block by the community, then that is all that is needed. If not, then we need not be the judge and jury. People need act maturely enough to police their own actions, Esperanza is not their babysitter. If their actions are bad enough, the community will take care of it. If they aren't, then we don't need to interfere.  We are not here to settle disputes between users. It says that right on the front page under General Philosophy. Yes, we are humans, we will make mistakes, we will behave badly. No one can stop that, and trying to force perfect behavior is useless and futile. Sure its appealing to think we can wave a magic wand/COC and everyone will behave. However, that isn't reality and we have more important things to do than to police squabbles about who was incivil. Wikipedia as a whole is set up to take care of that, it is not our job to judge, only to love and give hope. This COC while good intentioned, is the beginning of what will be an Esperanza judge and jury in my opinion. It is a dangerous road to go down, and we shouldn't do it.
#As such, the whining and complaining and nit-picking about others behaviour needs to stop. Be mature, fix it yourself, otherwise, let the greater Wikipedia community deal with it. That is their job. Not ours.
#Initially the COC was written to govern behavior on IRC the same as on wiki. I suggested this be removed. I don't think the COC has a place in Esperanza and is certainly way off base for the channel. IRC needs its own rules.  Unfortunately, if people could self police themselves like they do on many other channels, no rules would have to be stated. But over and over this channel has shown that it cannot. A quote from a friend of mine that explains things, "IRC is an interesting medium. The opporuntity for instant communication produces the opportunity for instant conflict. Also, the ability to sign off and end a conflict in mid stream, without resolution, isn't the same as on WP. People forget themselves. And it's easier to offend people, because instant communication generally takes place as though it was spoken (as opposed to on-wiki communication, which is more easily recognized as "written"), but IRC doesn't convey the same signs and signals as spoken communication. Finally, it's a unique medium; Wikipedia policies don't apply, and there isn't a clear procedure for dealing with conflict and bad behavior. Things that would be frowned upon on wiki aren't frowned upon on IRC. So, it becomes important to make things clear for IRC; it doesn't have to be long and drawn out, but people should know what to expect. Users are expected to respect others, and to avoid making other users uncomfortable. The Esperanza IRC channel is run by channel ops, who's decisions are appealable to other ops, and to the Wikimedia Group Contacts. Users may not post logs, per Wikimedia IRC channel policy. There are few strict channel rules; common sense is the general rule. Users are also cautioned to remember that IRC, while similar to spoken conversation, lacks non-verbal cues, and misunderstandings may occur; users should offer others the benefit of the doubt and ask when unclear." So we need a simple set of rules there, like Play Nice with Others and Don't Post Logs. People not doing this will be kicked. The reason I am in favor of rules on IRC but not the COC is that while Wikipedia already has community standards, IRC has none, as stated above.
#Once again, this is an organization of people. People aren't perfect, and joining Esperanza doesn't instantly make you perfect. So assume good faith with your fellow members rather than judging them. If people just did this one thing, so many issues would disappear. It is too bad that of all things, this seems to be the one thing people don't try to do. pschemp | talk 12:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The last AC Meeting

message: I have stated the problem in my original message, reposted above.  The posting of the same large message on hundreds of user talk pages is completely unnecessary.  The wiki needs one copy of the newsletter, which everybody interested can pop on his watchlist.  If this works okay for the Signpost, which covers business of interest to all Wikipedians, then it should be enough for  the newsletter of a social group.
Another problem, which is more cosmetic than anything else, is the sheer ugliness of the thing.  This is a massive multicolumn slab of stuff that even as an experienced Wikipedian I found confusing when I wanted to add a comment on someone's user talk page.
And underlying all this, of course, is the problem with our condoning this (relatively harmless) massive spam run, even if it's just once a month.  Esperanza is a relatively harmless society; what do we say when the league of Wikipedian big-endians comes along and starts spamming hundreds of talk pages?
The effect of spam in any environment is to degrade the communication medium, cluttering it with redundant and largely unwanted, largely unread, identical copies of material that only needs to exist in one place.
We have watchlists.  We have email.  Let's use them. --Tony Sidaway 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see the problem, although I had already read everything on Esperanza before it had been sent. Well I'm definitely not getting a coach for all too obvious reasons. And here comes another Oppose. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you oppose stopping the spamming of the newsletter even when people tell you point-blank that they don't want to be spammed?  -- noosphere 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem of massive spam

message: Why are we closing Espy? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because everything's a bit fracked up at the moment. This is a sort of cooling down period. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I don't think that simply pretending that there aren't any problems for a few weeks will do anything other than causing more people to leave.  Kirill Lokshin 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kirill, there's no way that we'll be pretending that there are any problems. We'll be thinking and talking about various options to go on (such as your proposal, and others). However, people have real lifes as well, and they're human, and there's only so much stress people can take in the course of a few days. Discussion can go on in the mean time, it's just that no decisions will be taken, so that all involved have some time and space to focus on what's important. --JoanneB 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Esperanza wikibreak

message: She's leaving apparently, that lasted. Thoughts? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to help, did my best to do good, and was rewarded with a spate of people assuming crap about me, without even asking me what I really thought. Since that seems to be the mode of operation, the organization doesn't need me. However, I don't plan to stick around complaining, as I will follow my own advice. I TRIED to fix it, now its your turn (all of you). pschemp | talk 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very sorry to hear that you are leaving. Anyway, I wish you best of luck for the future. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Pschemp]] 

message: I believe that Esperanza's Wikibreak means that no issues will be decided for a short time. Meanwhile, I propose we deliniate exactly what problems exist here at Esperanza. Let's not discuss this issues here, but instead just outline them (for the benefit of those confused about what exactly is going on here, including myself). A simple list will help clear things up for everyone. Please list the items here. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added myself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members and then didn't do much of anything else.  I awarded one Barnstar and that was about all that I knew of to do.  The only other thing I know of is Admin Coaching and I'm not ready for that.  This was one reason that I got frustrated with Experanza.  All I have seen in the last month is Advisory Council elections, Code of Conduct and IRC/bot/incivility.  Not particularly inspiring.  Maybe you can suggest what else a new Esperanza member can do?  --Richard 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What to do? Be a good wikipedian. Be civil, helpful and friendly in your dealings. That's it... If you want to do more: Find people that need help, and help them. Find places where a civil, calm viewpoint can help resolve conflict. Find projects where some scutwork would help move the project forward and no one's doing it yet, and just do it. Find editors that seem down, that could use a kind word, a thoughtful comment, a meaningful thank you, aind give them that kindness, that thought, that thank you. That's what Esperanza means to me. Not programs, not councils and elections and leaders, but kindness and hope. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of problems at Esperanza 

message: What the heck happened around here while I wasn't paying attention? Our leadership going on wikibreak, Pschemp leaving?, etc. What? — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody said something nasty on IRC; and then, "For want of a nail..." ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?! I see like five members that I respect leaving in the past few days >:\ — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The community is trying to address their concerns. Please don't let the negativity get to you. :) -JCarriker 02:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wuff.  Is this really all from the IRC/bot discussion?  I read part of that log and it didn't seem to be all that bad.  Maybe I missed something.  Seems to me there are deeper issues to cause people to start leaving.  I apologize if my posts to this page have contributed to any of the discontent and unhappiness.  I thought I was making a couple of relatively minor squawks but I seem to have unwittingly done so at a time when Esperanza was under a considerable amount of stress.  I had no idea Esperanza was in such fragile shape.  --Richard 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good assesment of the situation. It seems to be a snowball effect  bringing longstanding and diverse discontent to the surface. I only wish these concerns could have been addressed before we got to this point. -JCarriker 
02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I never got IRC, it's a fight waiting to happen. Everyone just needs a wikibreak to calm down I think. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm....WHAT?!?!?!? 

message: Hi, you'll need to write something specific, to be taken seriously. Tony 06:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... are you sure this is where you wanted to direct your comment? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you're writing about silly string, seriousness kills there. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC comment 

message: Irony, lol. — May. 10, '06 [07:31] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
:Unfortunately :( — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...in the hope that a segment of the Wikipedia community will never again break away from the community..." 

message: The project pages states:
:"While thousands of Wikipedians cooperate to share this workload, a smaller group of regular contributors bear a disproportionate share of this workload — either by choice or necessity."
There is no necessity to edit Wikipedia.  It is voluntary. There are editors out there who have a keen sense of commitment but that is not the same as a "necessity" to edit article. Alan Liefting 01:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a really good response to this in a previous discussion. -- Natalya 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because Wikipedia exists does not make it a necessity to edit it.  Personally, I choose to be an editor because I use it and I want to make a payback for my use. I also agree wholeheartedly with the concept. I think the point I am trying to make about the use of the word is that I hope those who find it necessary to edit do not do it at the expense of other necessary tasks in their life. In an idal world evryone should feel that it is necessary to contribute something to wider society. Unfortunately we do not live an ideal world so it is always left to a minority to do the majority of the work. Alan Liefting 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no '''necessity''' to edit Wikipedia

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

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

message: I did not join esperanza yet. I just wanted to know where on the list do I put my name? Mabie Active/Semi-active Members? Wikipedian 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just add your name alphabetically to the list (that would be after Feezo and before Fetofs). Cowman109Talk 17:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Wikipedian 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Members

message: I've just been given a very hard time about the length of my signature and have had to remove the link to anything other than my user page to keep the hounds at bay. Just thought I'd warn others that there is trouble brewing.  Sophia 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. I looked at your old sig on your userpage and it didn't seem outrageous to me. A bit long perhaps, but I've seen much longer. There's definitely no reason why you can't have a link to your talk page. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I understand the whole issue, but I blanked out my own signature to keep the peace. Kukini 13:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this debate started as a consequence of the dispute between Nathan and Tony Sideways. It was about having too long signatures, check the last Wikistress alert. --Tone 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I just got welcomed -- "hi, everybody!" "hi, Dr. Nick!" -- and noticed this:
:"The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June."
I assume since it's late May, you'll want to modify the  template as appropriate. :)
— WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, under the philosophy of "be bold," I tried to tweak it myself  after looking at WP:ESP/E.  Hopefully got it right? — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for stepping in!! I tweaked it a little more, I think we should adapt the template according to the time that someone has joined: everyone joining now, can take part in the elections. By the time the elections start, we can change that for the 'better luck next time' thing. Anyway, thanks again and please feel free to continue with this boldness :-) --JoanneB 08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EA-Welcome Template Needs Mod :-) 

message: Look at this Esperanza logo I made and uploaded:
How do you guys like it? And archive this talk page, it's 124+ kb's.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 19:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but I really don't care for it.  It's a little bit too "Free to Be ... You and Me" for me. ;-) — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Esperanza logo & Archivement