Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 11

message: Right, I now feel it is the right time to come off from the WikiBreak. Everyone has had a chance to think things through and calm down from the events of circa 1 month ago. I propose a new, fresh, clean start. I'd like to have a rational discussion about what Esperanza should be (i.e., to best suit its goals) and then use this to create a new, improved, more effective place for stressed Wikipedians to receive help and to build a better sense of community. Kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: W00t, all for it. Glad to see Espy back, I don't know how many people have said they wanted to join but didn't want to because it was on wikibreak. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats great news! W00t indeed. Welcome back Esperanza leadership. :) Let us move forward together. -- Banes 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: So, may I summarise for a second? If we were to go ahead with this idea, we would lose the membership list and charter. By extension, we would be getting rid of any leadership (Note: I have no problems giving up my position if such is decided)? Advantages of this would be removing the perception of a bureaucratic mess, as well as simplifying things and removing the cliquey atmosphere. A possible disadvantage I can see is that without leadership, projects often just go stagnant, but I don't know if that'll happen in this case. Overall, I like the idea, and it's a great one to throw into the stew and build upon, if the consensus is to do so. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could perhaps go for a more steward-oriented approach. Say, two trusted users volunteer to keep a watch over the project page. Anyone could still edit it, but these two would have a bit more responsibility toward keeping it updated. Other projects would still have their assigned or de facto leaders. You're right about the possibility of stagnation, but I think that Esperanza is large enough, and its members involved enough, that this wouldn't happen. (I would also like to say that I myself am not completely convinced about this idea, and remain open to conversation and mind-changing.) I think the major disadvantage to decentralization is the loss of a sense of community. --Fang Aili  talk 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Banes. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we would do it, how would it work? If you would be blocked, the only two things you could edit would be your talkpage and Esperanza's talkpage?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·give advice) 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would require a request to have the mediawiki changed, (I think, its not my area), which, I fear, would not go down too well. Also, I don't know if this should become the place to complain about Curps blocking you :P . So you're right Ikiroid, it wouldnt really work... -- Banes 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: That's pretty much what we had, a list of values. We only ran into difficulties when trying to figure out what to do with users who willingly ignore pleas to abide by Wikipedia's and Esperanza's ideas. Titoxd(?!?) 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a dumb idea,  ignore it if it is,  but why not make one of the condidtions for joining esperanza that you can't have been blocked for being uncivil in the past three months, or however long we think it should be? While I know that this wouldn't help with members who ignore Esperanza's ideas, it might cut down on users who join Esperanza, but don't care about our ideals. The  Halo (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a dumb idea. :) I suspect we'll be talking about this again in greater detail once we get the leadership structure worked out. So keep it in mind and bring it up again if need be. --Fang Aili  talk 15:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in structure of Esperanza

message: Some of you may not know me, those that do probably know me as “the founder” of Esperanza—a positions that I did not seek and have never really been comfortable with. JoanneB and Banes have both asked me to comment on Esperanza in this capacity, I must however decline to comment as founder of Esperanza, as I do not feel that such an honorific tells you any thing about me or my relationship with Esperanza. I will comment as the wikipedian from whose mind the idea of Esperanza came from, the person who housed Esperanza in his userspace in its infancy, as someone who served as Esperanza's de facto leader and then as the first Administrator General, and the writer of the original charter, as I feel that these experiences, rather than some title, give worth to what I have to say. 
There has been much confusion about what the "Esperanza leadership" is, what exactly it is supposed to do, and even why it exists in the first place. Esperanza was founded in part to be a refuge from what was perceived by discouraged users as mob rule—whoever shouts the loudest or can rally the most friends wins the day—a perception Esperanza founding members believed to be based in fact. In fact this tendency is a by product of what makes wikipedia great, and as a result it Esperanza's founding members did consider it desirable or practical to change the wikipedia system. Instead, a small pocket of wikipedia weary users could turn to for help and encouragement and support, should be formed with special attention was given to counteracting mob rule within its space. The leadership was designed to be a both a check and balance on that tendency, minimizing presentism and factionalism by having a guiding body elected by its Esperanza's members, and restrained by a charter and defining principles. In short, Esperanza has a structure, because it is not supposed to mimic one of the very problems found elsewhere on wikipedia that led to the its formation. 
Sadly, this founding principle of Esperanza has been neglected—to the fault of no one—for a long time. It was further damaged, when the original charter was rewritten and positions in the leadership where modified, sometimes losing or not making clear their original purpose. I accept responsibility for that, I should have been more proactive and assertive when the second charter was revised and in monitoring the talk page and answering questions about original intent. 
It is my hope that the membership of Esperanza will not do away with this principle by dismantling the leadership because there is confusion about its purpose, but rather renew and reform it, reinforcing and specifying its reason for being. It was this system of checks and balance that made Esperanza unique; I would be very discouraged to see Esperanza lose what made it unique.   
Please entertain using some of the ideas from the drafts and discussions about the original Esperanza charter, that were never put into effect:
*The original charter called for an Assembly, not a Council. It would be helpful to have a more inclusive leadership, as called for by the original charter. This would increase the quorum—allowing for more flexibility with absences among the leadership—and give more Esperanzians who wish to serve the chance, which would increase the body of knowledge and diversity of ideas. 
*Originally the responsibilities of the Administrator General were:  chairing the Assembly, maintaining the Esperanza space (in fact that is where the term Administrator General comes from), and the making appointments to fill out vacated posts until a regular election. Maintaining the Esperanza space is no longer necessary and making appointments may not be desirable. That leaves the responsibility of chairing the Council/Assembly, I would like to see the Council/Assembly select the Administrator General from among their own ranks; this way a departing Administrator General could be quickly replaced without a special election.
Thank you for reading, and for your thoughts in advance. -JCarriker 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement with JCarriker. (My 2 cents) :) -- Banes 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, Jcarriker.  I really like the thought of having the Admin General selected by the current Council/Assembly. -- Natalya 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea, too. Thanks for writing JCarriker. Let's assume we keep the assembly/council. How many people would be in it? What would these people actually do? I've never been clear on what exactly the AG and the council are supposed to do. --Fang Aili  talk 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, and I ran in the election! ; ) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Will it be ok If I add color to the page? Anonymous_Anonymous 12:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But thanks for asking! :o) ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's busy enough. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Color on Esperanza Page

message: After reading everyone's comments, especially Natalya's and JCarriker's, I would like to get a more general consensus on what people think about this. Question/response/commentary is great, but I would like more of a yea or nay here in order to gauge popular opinion. Therefore I offer this propsal--
Esperanza's Council will be expanded into a 9-member Assembly, including the Administrator General. The Council's current 5 members will serve out their terms and the Esperanza community will hold elections for 4 new members. 
The Assembly shall:
#Approve any change that would affect Esperanza as a whole; for example, approve new programs, charter modification, and suggestions, after appropriate consultation with the Esperanza community as a whole
#Remind members of Esperanza's values, should a member need reminding
The Administrator General shall:
#Oversee the Assembly and organize its activities.  --Fang Aili  talk 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral, leaning to oppose. I feel too much bureaucracy and not enough Esperanza in it. For one, I don't see why the Council/Assembly/whatever should grow as Esperanza grows in ranks. For "smoothly running" the community (i.e. overseeing consensus building, program announcing), current status quo should work. If it doesn't the problem lies elsewhere. So, until anyone convinces me otherwise, my stance is here. I will also think it over and may sway either way. Misza13 T C 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Why do we need an elite, when everyone is capable of helping. It is logistically pheasable for a completely equal organisation. Philc TECI 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus building 

message: Perhaps related to the above discussion, would Esperanza be the right source for some sort of recognition for editors involved in the creation of featured articles?  I've created and maintain Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, but I suspect most folks appearing on it have no clue they're there and this list only recognizes the editor(s) who directly nominate FAs who are often not the same as those who did the bulk of the writing (see :Category:Authors of Featured Articles).  I could personally add something to each user's talk page on the occasions of their first, second, fifth, etc. FA nomination but this is a far larger task than I'm willing to take on at the moment (or any foreseeable future moment).  If this were an Esperanza activity, it might help Esperanza's image as this would be obviously related to the goal of producing high quality articles.  And then there's Featured pictures, Featured lists, and Featured portals.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask why I'm not on the list? ;) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not automatically updated; presumably the more recent noms just haven't found their way onto it yet ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would make sense. I think we should follow the system we have, and award regular awards for 1 and 2 Featured articles, and then the Featured Article Medal for 3. If they can get more than 3, just start again. I'm sure the Barnstar Brigade would be happy to undertake this. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's of my understanding that esperanza is about all wikipedians, not just those who make articles to featured status. This is just an extention to 1FA. -- 9cds(talk) 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, it's just an attempt at recognizing good work, no?  By your reasoning, we shouldn't encourage barnstars because "Esperanza is about all Wikipedians, not just those who get receive barnstars". Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barnstars are unrelated to Esperanza. -- 9cds(talk) 16:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the barnstar brigade is just a figment of our collective imaginations? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that relates Barnstars to Enperanza. Unless Esperanza invented Barnstars? -- 9cds(talk) 16:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're encouraging their use, obviously.  If it's merely the semantics that concern you, we could have someone come up with this proposed award independently and then adopt it into an FA-recognition brigade; but that seems like a rather silly point.  Is there some reason why we shouldn't recognize work on featured articles?  Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got nothing against a barnstar being created for the purpose, but I'm against an Esperanza project to pick out those who worked on an article to FA status and congratulating them. Whatever it is, that's not spreading wikilove. We should be concentrating on passing kind words to those who need it, because they're going through a rough patch, whatever. -- 9cds(talk) 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, how dare we? Celebrating the diligent, hard work of faithful editors, who are often unappreciated? Perhaps letting them know about their good work and making them stay!? Unforgivable! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, how dare we not promote wikilove, and turn our attention to those who don't need help! ;) -- 9cds(talk) 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat subtly, the best time to promote Wikilove is all the time, not just when someone is already stressed out/on wikibreak/leaving.  There's no reason to limit our efforts to any particular group of people. Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my own opinion, but I just don't see this as wikilove, that's all. -- 9cds(talk) 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiLove for all! I just wrote an FA, and I was really mixed up in other cases. My harrasser/stalker/backstabber is up in Arbitration. W00t indeed. (Can't we do both?) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is a great idea. My impression of Esperanza is that it helps strengthen Wikipedia's sense of community, values the undervalued and is a place for stressed users to come for comfort. This will help in valuing the undervalued - FA writers are quite often taken for granted. Thanks for the suggestion, Rick! Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And FA writers are often celebrated, I know Nicky (whatever ;) received the Barnstar of Dilligence and the Featured Article medal for Binary Star, both from members of the Barnstar Brigade. Cel got a barnstar for Bulbasaur, I got one for Torchic. I know peple get overlooked, but it's far from unheard of. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Over at the evil voting, 16 people voted in support of a continued leadership structure. There was also one oppose and one neutral vote. 
There seemed to be more support for a seven-member Assembly rather than nine-member. 
Is there a mandate to proceed with a seven-member Assembly? Do 16 voices form a consensus? --Fang Aili talk 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there is definatly a concensus to have the style of leadership preposed, but not on wheather to have 7 or 9 council members. I prepose another Evil Vote to see which number members want, 7 or 9. The Halo (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we go from here? 

message: While we're at it, I think we should decide on term lengths. Tranche B's terms are expiring on June 30, so we should get the details down before then. 
At Change of term length above, several options were discussed:
#Extend Assembly member term lengths to 6 months; members would be divided in 2 tranches as they are now; in order to create the 3 month staggering, Freakofnurture's and Titoxd's terms could be extended to September 30th, at which time there would be new elections. (EWS23's idea). The Admin General election would take place before Dec 31. So in all, we would have elections 4 times each year, for terms ending June 30, Sept 30, Dec 31, and Mar 31. 
#Extend Assembly member term lengths to 6 months and get rid of tranches. All members would be elected at once. The Admin General would be elected annually. This proposal would mean elections 2 times each year for terms ending June 30 and Dec 31. 
#Keep the Assembly member term lengths to 4 months, in 2 tranches (status quo). We currently hold elections every 2 months, making for elections 6 times each year, for terms ending June 30, Aug 31, Oct 31, Dec 31, Feb 28, and April 30. (Right? If I've screwed up somewhere, please fix it. --Fang Aili talk 17:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More evil voting 

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

message: The charter says the runner up will fill out the remainder of the term. If someone leaves after one month, do we want the replacement to serve a full 5 months, even though there is an election just two months down the road? What if a vacancy in a sooner to expire tranch term occurs a week before a vacancy in a longer to expire tranch term? Then the first runner up would get a short term, and the second runner up would get a long term. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have all replacements' terms expire at the next election? Seats could be filled as we did in the last election, high vote getters filling the 6 month terms, and the lower vote getters filling the 3 month terms. This is also how ArbCom works, with replacement members' terms always expiring at the next election regardless of how long the term was for the original occupant of the seat. NoSeptember 11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I would say that replacements should fill the full term of the people they're replacing. It's simpler that way, and fairer, in my opinion. —Celestianpower háblame 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Oops, i misunderstood what NoSeptember was saying. I agree with CP. I think that by having the replacement fill the full term we will make the leadership more stable. The Halo (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a good idea. I agree with CP. :) -- Banes 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like a lottery to me, whether as runner up you get a long term or a short term. With terms of a long length, we will have many vacancies and could even see a council with a majority of replacement members. NoSeptember 12:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see this as a problem - we did vote for them after all. As a runner up, I guess it's obvious that it's a lottery. The Esperanza community having voted less for you as opposed to someone else (I put that badly, sorry!). —Celestianpower háblame 12:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I was wondering if we could please stop encouraging the use of extraneous links in signatures.  Signatures are saved on every talk page that a user edits, and as such, really need to be as streamlined as possible.  Longer sigs cause problems because their Wiki source ends up overwhelming the actual comments in edit mode, thus making it hard to find particular comments by others.  If you want to proclaim your membership in Esperanza, put a prominent notice on your userpage; your userpage is obviously linked from your sig, so it still won't be hard to find.  But the ubiquituous green e I'm seeing is causing some problems.  Thanks for your consideration, User:Cyde 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns, and I have raised the issue of the green e several times, here and elsewhere. However, Wikipedia is a large, evolving community. Yes, sigs have become larger and more elaborate over time, but, for instance a sig like mine (with two links) (and from what I can remember, yours has been a bit more 'exotic' in the past as well ;)) has never been seen as a problem anywhere until this 'counter movement' against the long sigs started. I think we should try and find a balance, between usability and  .. identity, I guess. A link to just Esperanza's main page has proven to be confusing for some users (judging from the comments that were left here, but were meant for a user) - but a link to someone's 'Esperanza page' (where links can be found to not only Esperanza but also his userpage) is, in my opinion, one of the compromises that we should not make a big deal about. --JoanneB 17:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature links