Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 2

I know you're thinking what I'm thinking
Somebody just needs to say it out loud...since the dissolution of the provisional government Esparanza has lost its way! The charter does not reflect the will of the hardworking Wikipedians who most desperately need its services, and who make this encyclopedia possible. Caudillo Carriker was relieved of his leadership in what essentially amounted to a crude coup d'etat by the fatcat Wikifunctionaries who so shamelessly aspire to the Advisory Committee. The Assembly, which would have served as the arm of government most responsive to the needs of ordinary Wikipedians, has been jettisoned in favor of...nothing. Why? Bureaucracy, they tell us. The reality is that the Assembly represented the only true check on the powers of the Advisory Committee. They guaranteed this by immediately nominating the Caudillo to the position of Administrator General. Oh yes, to be sure. They publicly emasculate him and relieve him of his power, so that he understands damn well who is calling the shots. Then they essentially appoint the chastened Caudillo to the defanged Admin General position, where we can be sure that he will know full well not to cross the Advisory Committee, lest they publicly humiliate him and defrock him once again. What we've seen here is a gradual but transparent consolidation of power by those few Wikipedians who will soon man the Advisory Committe. At this point I see only one feasible option: I am forming a Provisional Esparanzian Government in Exile on my Userpage. From there we hope, one day, to restore the power and the idealism that existed for those few, beautiful days in early September when the Esparanzian Revolution had yet to be co-opted by the Cabal. Babajobu 22:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, now this is really getting farcical. We don't need a provisional government. We don't need an assembly. We don't need an advisory committee. We don't need an Administrator General. What it would be nice to see instead would be some actual action, instead of this pseudo-micronationalism. Ambi 22:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There are two wings, JCarriker's wing is for bureaucracy and government. Ambi's wing is for none of this at all. I myself was trying to compromise. I see a few problem with Babajobu's comments, like "The reality is that the Assembly represented the only true check on the powers of the Advisory Committee." Well, the advisory committee and the assembly never existed at the same time, the assembly was erased in favor of the advisory committee. The group has nothing against JCarriker and we respect him as much as a wikipedian respects Jimbo. And the advisory committe did NOT appoint JCarriker, in fact, it doesn't even exist yet. JCarriker has no enemies within esperanza, and a provisional government is a dumb idea for the reason that... it was a provisional government! JCarriker planned it to be killed off when he made the charter. His only problem was how I killed off the assembly, because many people thought it was too bureaucratical. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the founder is leaving, and the association does not appear to be doing much along the lines of its stated purpose to retain him. Perhaps a break from the squabbling to leave a few "please don't leave over this" messages is in order? -- Essjay ·  Talk 23:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Those interested in running for advisory council
See Esperanza/2005_Advisory_Committee_Elections. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

IRC
Our IRC channel is up and running. It's located at #wp-esperanza. Although I've withdrawn formal membership until the association's current problems are settled, I will remain the association's contact (as changing contacts may be a bit difficult). Anyone and everyone should feel free to drop in. -- Essjay ·  Talk 22:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Essjay, I wasn't able to link...it came up dead...can you relink it?--MONGO 02:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You have to have an IRC client (it's like an IRC browser). (If you don't have one, see List of IRC clients) If you don't, you can't get into the channel; if you do have a client and the link doesn't work (it works for me), you can join the server irc.freenode.net and then join channel #wp-esperanza. I think Firefox has a built in client, but I'm not sure about that. -- Essjay ·  Talk 14:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Firefox doesn't support IRC by default - I get "IRC is not a registered protocol." -- Dave C.talk 15:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Death of Esperanza
We have lost our leader due to my actions. I myself am feeling guilty, and can't now see much of a future. Meanwhile, Babajobu claims there's a cabal in the advisory committee and posts a message like this. There's a tiny civil war on government, and we haven't even had a true purpose. The users listed at WP:ESP/A haven't been getting much help from us, which is, thusfar, our only purpose. There's many other problems. I don't see how we're supposed to run this when someone said I formed a cabal to usurp JCarriker, (perhaps formerly) one of my best friends at Wikipedia, and he said to massacre our advisory committee. I want to keep what little government we have, as I know JCarriker wanted to have some, even if he preferred the assembly over the committee. Yet some people are saying government of any sort would be evil. I myself feel government promotes direction and even obligates users holding positions to work on the project. We don't agree with eachother and this fraternal organization seems to be failing. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is why I'm so bemused at the drive to create bureaucracy here. This is such a good idea, and it would really be helpful to the project if it got up and running. I know there's an argument that bureaucracy = direction, but it's fairly unprecedented on Wikipedia to do this, and I think you're bound to lose a lot more people than you would gain by having committees and such. Furthermore, instead of carrying out its focus, people end up spending time on elections and such and haggling over the structure of the organisation, as has already happened (where without the bureaucracy, I think people would have already gotten started). That really isn't helpful to the project.` Ambi 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Is five members in a government really that bad? I mean look at the board of trustees, five members who do anything neccisary. Its not really a bad thing. Ambi I guess my intent was that the five would feel obligated to truly work on Esperanza, whereas most of the community hasn't done too much on the project besides signing up. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My previous post regarding the creation of a "Provisional Esparanzian Government in Exile" was intended as satire. Like Ambi, I was rather bemused by the proliferation of bureaucratic infrastructure and political infighting in an organization that has the singularly simple goal of spreading positive feelings. I thought a claim to be forming a government in exile would highlight the silliness of it all. Apparently I was wrong; apparently things have gotten so bad that my pseudo-tirade actually seemed reasonable, if melodramatic, in the context of everything that was going on. That's a little scary. Anyway, more importantly, I think this project is needed and I think the fact that a "Good feelings" organization has so quickly devolved into a mess of bitter recriminations and bruised feelings (!!!) should make everyone take a step back here, and realize how crazy this is. It's a good, simple idea. For heaven's sakes don't make it so complicated that it undermines its own purpose. I think everyone should take a break and the first task of each member should be to identify someone who has recently made good edits, and compliment them on those edits. That would be a better use of everyone's time than organizing committees and councils and splinter groups, and so on. Babajobu 00:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I had typed out a reply and got an edit conflict, but I really couldn't have said it better. Hear hear. :) Ambi 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop this becoming a farce
Redwolf, please don't be so dramatic. Just because there are a few arguments about the administrative side of Esperanza doesn't mean there's not a huge amount of support and desire for this association. Let's take heed of what Ambi has said. This is becoming a kind of ridiculous farce. The issue of government is actually not quite that important in my opinion. What is far more important is discussion of the role of Esperanza in some detail, working out and agreeing on a "statement of principles"; something like this, which will stimulate activity and include all provisional members.

On the issue of government I tend to think that the "advisory committee" would still be a good idea but I am happy to not have any other governance for Esperanza as I think we are all smart enough to ensure it is SELF-REGULATING. Failing this, I support Ambi's approach. If there seems to become a need for more structured governance down the track then we can have it. It is necessary for Jcarriker to "lose control" of Esperanza but he'll always be remembered as the founer regardless. Lisa 00:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I never had any intention of staying in control as can be seen from my previous statemnets. I at least thought that Esperanza would be what I had inteded for it to be instead it has been altered into to beign nothing more than a mirror of the KC. I've left I'm not standing in anyones way with preceding foward with Esperanza, but I have no desire to be a part of it or wikipedia. I had hoped that Esperanza could be one place in Wikipedia free of mob rule, one place where people couldn't be shouted down by the mob. I thought this would be allowed, but now that idea has been crushed and have no further hope that things can be different any time soon. -JCarriker 01:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are going to leave Wikipedia altogether over this?? Everyone loved your idea! Your idea was to come up with a way of helping to persuade disillusioned Wikipedians not to leave the project. Would you not let the members of the organization you willed into being perform the function of persuading you to stay? Babajobu 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not leaving just over this, Esperanza is actually brought me back from leaving a few weeks ago. I wanted a place where people could aspire to postions that they actually could attain, rather than just be subject to the defacto rule of senior wikipedians or the mechanations of mob rule. Anyone could lead Esperanza and you had three opporunties to join the Assembly and even if you were unable to do that you still had a hand in putting them in, and because you their wer so many of them in. It was this idea of actually sharing responisbilty and pooling resources that made Esperanza different. Since the idea that kept me at wikipedia has been rejected and has become what it was meant to distinguish itself from, I have lost heart and feel it is simply best to move on to other things. I don't bare any grudges, I was just so intialy hurt and shocked by the manner in which things transpired and am still scratching my head out how this could have possibly happened in the way that it did. -JCarriker 02:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would say that your idea has been rejected. There have been a few complaints about it being "too bureaucratic", but I don't think anyone disagrees on the intent of Esperanza. Redwolf24 tried to somehow accomodate them, with good faith. It might have been wrong, but it was an effort to conciliate and grab even more members. So, let's stop the civil war and think for a little bit about this, ok? Let's air our opinions over a cup of hot coffee and then shake our hands in a civilized manner. Let's think about what we want to do with this. Tito xd 03:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * JCarriker, removing the assembly is far from turning it into a copy of WP:KC. The former doesn't do very much, whereas this had the potential to carry out a wide range of good ideas which would have seriously assisted the project. I really don't see why people need "positions to aspire to" on Wikipedia, and I don't see how this helps the project, but perhaps you could explain otherwise. Ambi 09:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply put most wikipedians never get the chance to serve as an arbitor, mediator, or board memeber. This leads to the false perception of a cabal. Esperanza's goverment would have offered an outlet for those who want to serve, Esperanzians are suppose to share, and frankly I find the intolerance and subsequent distructon of that idea disconcerting. However, if there is not going to be an assembly the regularly offers people a chance to join it, I am rather of your mind, the Assembly was a unique idea, the advisory committee is not. I fail to see how reducing the number of people in the government makes it more equitable. I do see the need for a leader to provide direction. -JCarriker 18:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See, I don't think any of those three are necessarily something to be aspired to. Arbitration is a hellish job that burns people out very quickly. Most of the people here would be eligible to join the mediation committee. I really don't see that as being a cabal - whereas I think the format of this appeared very much that way (particularly with the advisory committee). Wikipedia is a great place for those who want to share and serve, but I just don't think a formal position is necessary to do that. I do agree, however, that having a leader could well be useful to keep things moving (as long as it isn't seen as a huge thing). Ambi 02:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A New Order Proposal
This project is dying, it badly needs leadership and specific projects. Plenty of people have joined, but do not know what to do, and we need to keep them here before they just get bored with this inactive project. We need to split up into groups and get out there. Perhaps, which users we greet can be based on their name.

We need a new leader, I say Refwolf24 should do, or we can all just vote for the permanent leader if that is the consensus.

We will also need to decide what consitures a modest edit history (30 or so). This would be a level at which new users would be able to receive Esperanza greetings, mediation links and help. We could intervene to mediate disputes and conflicts along with keeping up on "modest" users, so that they might want to stay.

We can all vote to have 4 other editors, for 6 months(unless they resign), to join the leader, so that they form a 5 person administration. The only thing special about the leader would be that: A)He can brake ties if people don't show up or abstain B)He has a permanent position on the administration, unless he resigns or becomes inactive. Then anyone can nominate themselves to replace him.

Anyone can propose to have one of the "big 5" removed from the administration and replaced as long as a 3/4 majority supports it. This would be the only way to vote out the group's main leader.

Anyone can propose and vote to change the charter, but only the administration(5 people) can actually change it, as long as they are upholding the 2/3+ opinion. If there are three options, and only plurality exits, the 5 leaders will have a separate vote and make the decision, off course, the leader could break any ties that might happen there.

This way is not too beauracratic, as the top 5 only come into play to break ties or enforce concensus. Also they will have 6 month terms, so we dont waste time with elections every month. Voice of  All   @ ''' 00:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I am leaving Wikipedia, Redwolf is the Admin Gen, his position should be respected until an election can be held. -JCarriker 01:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not that in favor of elections...but think you should be "first member" and have a notation that you are the founder...otherwise, everyone (including you) should be a member on equal footing...how does that sound?--MONGO 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Reform?
Okay, Esperanza is desperately in need of reform. I think we can put a lot of this behind us, but esperanzians, let us vote on some things, I'll make a subsection on the main page discussing it. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I was trying to move my comment about a possible outreach program, which is on the project page, to the talk page and I couldn't edit it...maybe something is wrong with my system...or user error on my part.--MONGO 02:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This was only a test, had this been a real emergency …
Ok It took me awhile, but I think I've figured it out. Obvious really, when you think about it. This "dispute" was all just a guerilla theater experiment cooked up by JC and the wolf, and the rest of the inner Esperanzain secret and all powerful cabal, to confront us with our very own Esperanzian Psychodrama, as a sort of test case, to see how we might handle a real dispute elsewhere. Very clever. But you can't fool me. I didn't just fall off the cabbage truck. Our founder and his best wikifriend fighting? Not likely! Our founder leaving Wikipedia? Get real!

So now that I've exposed this little hoax, it is now time for the post action debriefing. When the alarm bells sounded, did we all rush to splash the flames of feeling with biuckets of wikilove? Did we organize into teams, some racing, to pass out the stores of encouragements, and others to break open the boxes of support? Did we grab quickly for our good humor? Did we dash madly into the inferno to save our founder hanging from a burning bacony far above? How'd we do? Did we pass the test? Paul August &#9742; 19:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Blasphemer! We have no Founder but Jimbo! 8^ ) But yeah, I am smelling a little something with this whole thing. Stay tuned for the results. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  19:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm interesting theory... I can only hope! ;-) Maltmomma  (chat)  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|18px]] 20:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's certainly much easier to believe than the alternative...that this has all been real. Babajobu 22:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well its not interesting if you expose us! Way to explain a joke! R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Identity
Is it "Esperanzian", "Esperantist", "Esperanzer", "Esperanist", et cetera...?? --HappyCamper 23:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is "Esperanzian", Lisa coined it and created a phrase before anyone else. -JCarriker 00:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming
Is welcoming new users part of Esperanza's duties? I am aware of the Welcoming Commitee but when I check the new users log I see hundreds of unwelcomed users. I welcome the odd one now and then but there are simply so many of them! Anyway, I was just wondering also what became of the birthday wikipedian idea? (And thanks Redwolf for helping out with my signature.) Ban  e  s  11:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, never mind about the birthday, I see there is a calendar up. Perhaps birthday, and first edit anniversary seperate celebrations? Ban e  s  08:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think not enough users are welcomed, you can post the problem at WP:WC. Oh, and a lot of new users never edit Wikipedia. Those users don't need to be welcomed.--Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 09:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

IRC?
Hello fellow Esperanzians. Redwolf's last post to the "spamlist" mentions an irc channel: #wp-esperanza (by the way that link doesn't work for me!?). But I wanted to share with everyone a concern I have about using IRC for wiki-matters. I know IRC is convenient, and can be quite a fun, and sociable experience, and it allows people to get know one another better &mdash; all good things. But unfortunately, I think there is a downside as well. Since there will always be users who won't use it (for various reasons &mdash; some of which may surprise you!), it will tend inevitably, I think, to create an "inner circle", with the obvious problems that that entails. I also like the fact that there is a public record of all wiki conversations. Does anyone else share these concerns? Or am I just being an old stick in the mud ;-) ? Paul August &#9742; 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm unable to access it either and I'm apt to agree with you for the potential of being left out of the loop. Maltmomma (chat) [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|18px]] 02:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Me too. For some reason, I am unable to access it either. I have even tried on multiple computers and multiple browser types. I don't get it. Makes it kind of hard to get into the IRCabal if you cannot access IRC. 8^) -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark) 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I got "IRC is not a registered protocal" error message. I am running FireFox. Voice of  All   @  |  E  |Merit  03:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was able to log on through Mozilla, but the channel was abandoned. I was the only person in there and the only name listed after I logged in. I don't really think that there have been any critical decisions, but then again I'm not exactly in the loop either. -JCarriker 02:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We aren't getting a lot of people to idle there; my idea for the channel was more to be a community chat space, rather than to really make any definate decisions there. (I think important discussions should be retained onsite, where there is a record.) Those of you who use Firefox can get the Chatzilla plugin (run a Yahoo! search on chatzilla), others, there are a number of clients availble, see our list at List of IRC clients. Worry not, however, there is not any cabal action going on in the channel, just users chatting or idling in case anyone needs us. -- Essjay ·  Talk 04:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well first of all I hope you all have an IRC client! And then join the server Freenode and then type /join #wp-esperanza    in your IRC window, you should see me and Essjay and possibly Ambi, AceticAcid, Exir, Pureblade, and some others who show up onc ein a while, there idling.  R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's the "outer circle" for me, not as bad as you might think, when you consider some of the alternatives. ;-) Paul August &#9742; 04:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, let's not go into Tartarus, OK? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Will JCarriker accept Red's leader ship offer?- the definitive answer
Since Red Wolf has continually and generously brought up an offer to to return me to adim gen, I have answered definitively in the only way I feel&mdash;for now&mdash;I can. -JCarriker 04:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The following is from user talk pages:

News

''See WP:ESP/R, WP:ESP/S, WP:RFM, and WP:MC. I'm the acting chair of the medcom now and I've cleaned it up a lot and been trying to get it active again, it seems to be working. I've never seen you mediate and I'd like to observe some time... Also I've been working on a ploy to make you admingen again :P Its a lot of work, plus with the medcom work its too much to handle... Well, see ya around the pedia. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ''Matt, Esperanza has soundly rejected my ideas, in other words they don't want to go in the direction I would lead them. Your concern is appreciated, but please remember that we are talking about an organization that rejected my orginal idea and subequently my proposed compromise. Leaders are chosen for their ideas; my ideas have been rejected, not once by Esperanza, but twice and in so doing rejected me as its leader. Its is simply not pratical, and possibly even unethical for me to take the lead of an organization that has twice sidelined my agenda. Besides Esperanza needs a leader that is upbeat and optimisic about its prospects, I'm still recovering from seeing a tolerant community crush a cherished idea; and while that is already forgiven, it will never be forgotten and subsequently be sometime before I trust the community as a whole again. If you are overburdened, might I suggest you try you entice Essjay, I believe he would meet the qualifications for the job perfectly. Thanks. -JCarriker 03:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ''Do you think Washington or Lincoln always had the country agree with them? I'm sure there were times when they feared the country was gonna crash altogether. Regardless, both were elected to second terms, and were we to run an election, you would win by a landslide. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ''If I were Admin Gen, the first thing I would do would be make the ESP main page more navigable. The second would be to reinstate the provisional government. Do you really think that would be accepted? I don't. -JCarriker 03:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ''...err I guess you have a point :-/ R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

End of excerpt