Wikipedia:Esperanza/Proposals

Shortcut: WP:EA/PROP WP:ESP/PROP

Contents 1 In development 1.1 Appreciation week 1.2 Former Wikipedian Reinvitation 1.3 Wikipedia awards 1.3.1 Proposed Awards 2 Program Proposals 2.1 Moral support program 2.2 One More Chance 2.3 Wikipedia Wizards 2.4 Esperanza Youth 2.5 Editor forum 2.5.1 Purposes 2.5.2 Goals 2.5.3 Resolution 3 Accepted Proposals 4 Archives 5 Notes

[edit] In development

[edit] Appreciation week

See the dedicated subpage for planning of this proposal.

[edit] Former Wikipedian Reinvitation

See [1] for previous discussion.

This needs organisation, co-ordination and discussion on logistics. Who wants to lead or speahead it? —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This project should be approached with a lot of delicacy and tact. We want to help to encourage users who have left to come back, but we don't want to badger and harass them, possibly alientating them more. The more personal this can be, the more chance it has to bring editors back. -- Natalya 01:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

One idea which probably won't be very useful, but here goes. The majority of the people who would be approached will probably have had one or two articles or subjects which meant a lot to them, whether because they created related articles or worked on the subject for some time. Maybe we could try somehow to try to make some of these articles collaborations for improvement, and then have whomever contact them, mention that they're missed (maybe by having a hopefully unprompted "card" with the signatures of members of a project they belonged to accompanying it?) and mention that their input would be really useful to bringing the collaboration articles up to the next level of quality. Yes, it's manipulative, and actually kinda transparent, but it might work in a few cases. Another option might be to mention the proposed appreciation week, and mention that, even if they're no longer active themselves, they would be more than welcome to nominate anyone they see fit. I kinda doubt that they'd manage to get through the appreciation week without several awards themselves.Badbilltucker 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia awards

See [2] for previous discussion.

Please discuss logistics and details here. What awards do we want? Who wants to spearhead it? How often do we give them out? —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, most of all, we are building an encyclopedia! It would be great to recnognize outstanding editors and contributors to the encyclopedia. -- Natalya 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Specific project- or subject- based awards for people who have contributed in a big way to their field might work best. Maybe those awards could be given out annually by the WikiProjects themselves, either alone or in collaboration. For more general awards, maybe (this is a reach) consider awarding at least one Wikihalo award at the same time as the project awards. Votes for Project-based awards might come only from members of that Project, while the Wikihalo might come from the community as a whole. Badbilltucker 19:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, based upon context, that these "awards" would be like Barnstars, only handed out by an "academy," or a certain board of Wikipedia editors... I like it! I could help with it and even help spearhead it, if necessary. Awards are a great way to recognize outstanding users. The awards themselves could be given out monthly (not yearly, due to the amount of edits done), and they could be given out Wikipedia-wide, as well as project-wide.Diez2 00:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Awards

Here are some proposed awards (feel free to edit or add to the list):

• Best editor

This one could be tough, but we could look at the most improved article and see who spearheaded that improvement.

• Best picture added
• Best Anti-Vandal
• Best Technical User (i.e. bot creation, tool creation)(this could be awarded annually)
• Best Conflict defuser
• Best Translator
• Most Humorous User

Diez2 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Program Proposals

[edit] Moral support program

As the more experienced editors know, an RfA can be a very, very harsh process to go through if a user has a sincere desire to serve the community in a larger scale. Many, many users have left Wikipedia because of the very discouraging, and most of the time, questionable and unreasonable oppose views which have little regard for mitigating factors in one's contribution. It takes an immense strength of character, an unbelievable amount of maturity and a deep sense of non-attachment to carry on and motivate oneself to contribute to this great project even after many failed RfAs. I suggest that experienced and civil users form a community within Esperanza to deal with these pressing issues. Even if users who had opposed on a RfA in good faith, could still encourage, guide and motivate the affected user as well. This would indeed create a sense of bonding, community and friendship among users as well. I recommend also that users who had personaly experienced a failed RfA to join this program as their expereince on failure and how they deal with this would be an invaluable and comforting presence to all failed RfA candidates. Of course, other users could be invited to this community as well, provided they show a strong history of civility, respect and helpfulnesss in their edits and attitudes. Any comments or constructive criticisms about this would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Siva. Interesting idea, but I was wondering, how will this support thing work? Will it be more like admin coaching, where one experienced user helps you through the tough times of an RfA, or will it be more a support group thing, with lots of users leaving messages on the RfAer's talkpage? I would also like to agree with you about how RfA's are. A good oppose or neutral vote will tell the person up for adminship why you think they aren't ready, and then what they could do to improve, instead of all these 1FA type oppose votes. A support group/support mentor could really help with that sort of thing. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, a few experienced administrators are needed here, so this should be much more intensive in terms of analysis and advise on proceeding to the next step after a failed RfA. It is also recommended that the administrators or in some cases, users who had the experience of going through a failed RfA and eventually succeeding in it to leave messages on the RfAer's talk page or even in the user talk page. But dedication is required here as well and we need the support and assurance from very experienced editors that this would be a successful program. The occasional help from Bureaucrats on dealing with failures and disappointment would also prove to be useful. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - I was about to leave the project after some of the Shi... stuff that was said at it, but a few users did the kind of stuff mentioned above, and I'm still here because of their friendly comments. However, I have seen a number of users leave because nothing was said to encourage them after their failed RfA. So, again, support. Daniel.Bryant 07:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. However, I'm not convinced that you need "experienced admins" or even "admins" to do this work although an experienced Wikipedian is a must. Of course, it would be great to have experienced admins do this but I don't think they are the only ones who can do it.

Consider my recent post in the section titled "admin" at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#admin. I'm not an admin but I think I did a pretty good job of explaining to User:Qrc2006 why his RFA failed and what he needs to do to pass the next one successfully. We could get this program running quickly if we just decide to do it and get started. I would suggest that we ask for volunteers and make a requirement be that volunteers be endorsed by at least one admin (maybe two or three admins if you think that's necessary). --Richard 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

While I don't feel that Siva1979's description of opposition and the potential difficulty of contributing after a failed RfA reflect my own ideas, he definitely has a great idea and is to be commended for taking the steps to make this idea become a reality. Count me in! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sign me up! Great idea. I try to console newer users who go for adminship simply because they don't know the requirements and are met with a rush of "oppose" votes. I'm not an admin and I haven't had an RFA of my own yet, but I remember what Nick was like during his, so I've got a pretty good idea. I'd be more than willing to just do the "comfort" side of the equation if anyone thinks I'm not qualified to give advice, although I have been giving advice and it's turned out quite well. Anyway, it's a fabulous idea on Siva's part. :) Srose (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes from the latest AC meeting: This program has a lot of promise, but also could cause some issues, which are best to be worked out before any decision is made. We don't want to be condescending to those who have had a failed RfA, and we don't want this to lead people to supporting RfAs just so that someone does not feel as bad. Also consider the discussion at WT:RFA#Moral_support_for_failed_RFA_candidates. If issues can be ironed out, however, this could really help a lot of people who get stressed out from RfAs! Thanks, -- Natalya 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to shove my oar in here - I have joined up, BTW - my own POV on this subject is that, as prevention is always better than cure, it needs to be spelt out better to people what exactly being an admin entails, and more importantly, someone should design some sort of tick-box test (see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a), based on typical opposes at RFAs, that prospective admins can put themselves through and better understand what chance they actually have of their RFA succeeding. This might stop RFAs like PHDrillSergeant's, when (quite frankly) it ain't gonna happen.

But what about cure? While I understand the RFA can be a very brutal process (particularly if you fail!), and indeed I've handed out some fairly brusque opposes myself from time to time, I personally feel that if you cannot cope with the stress of a failed RFA, you are fantastically unlikely to cope with the far greater stress of actually being an admin. Ergo, it's probably a good thing that you failed - I'm sure there's some tactful way of phrasing that. The best advice is probably to go away for a bit and rethink your attitude to how you handle (hopefully; not always, I know) constructive criticism. There must be a tactful way of phrasing that, as well. Cheers, Moreschi 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)(As you've probably noticed, plain speaking is one of my virtues. Circumlocution is not. I'll try to make my vocab a bit more Esperanzian, if that's what everyone wants.)

Support A very good idea and well thought through. The only thing I'm concerned about, which has already been discussed, is what Natalya has pointed out, which is that, with all due respect, members shouldn't support RfAs because members feel sorry for them. But in the end, this Program was proposed out of good faith (sp?).--Skully Collins ^Edits 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One More Chance

Moved from WT:ESP

Although my first proposed program, Why Do People Leave?, flopped, I have not been discouraged, but have returned with another proposed program: One More Chance.

There have been incidents whereby an established and respected member of the Wikipedia community commits a serious error, or egregious policy violation. They may have done so under stress and pressure, and the punishments imposed on them may further aggravate their stress. In such cases, we, as members of Esperanza, could step in; reminding them that despite their mistakes, they are still valued members of the Wikipedia community, and helping them learn from their mistakes and continue contributing.

I am likely to be a beneficiary of such a program. For the uninformed, in August, due to stress caused primarily by anonymous vandals, I started vandalising Microsoft-related articles anonymously, and was eventually blocked for 1 week after being caught by CheckUser. Off the top of my head, I can recall three established users who have been involved in highly-publicized controversies and would benefit from this proposed program: Carnildo, Everyking, and of course, my arch-nemesis, Chacor.

The name of this proposed program comes from the Jack Neo movie One More Chance. Feel free to discuss and give feedback on this proposal. If you like it, you may wish to leave a Yellow Ribbon on my talk page. If you think it sucks, you can slam it (but not too hard, please).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't give much detail on how the program would work. Are you proposing a strict warning to good-standing editors who succumb to stress and make disruptive edits instead of blocks? I would agree to that, to a point. A good history should provide some merit for leeway, but only if the destructive activities don't go too far. Prometheus^-X303- 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Prometheus, you misread my post. Their status as an established editor should not waive them from receiving justified punishments for policy violations.

However, as Esperanzans, we can offer support to users who have made such mistakes. We can drop them a friendly note to remind them that despite their mistakes, their contributions are still valued. We can also offer them some guidance, so that they will learn from their mistakes and continue contributing.

If our notes and guidance are successful, when an established member commits a serious error, instead of leaving, they will learn from their mistakes and continue contributing.

After I was blocked (and at several other times), I felt that the entire Wikipedia community hated me. After reading several encouraging messages, particularly one from Newyorkbrad, I realised that this was not the case, and with guidance from several other Wikipedians, I continued to contribute to Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As per several messages left on my talk page, I wish to clarify that my use of the word "arch-nemesis" was not intended to be confrontational. I was simply using my skills as a Literature student in a light-hearted manner. I hope nobody's feelings were hurt as a result. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, program proposals should really be added to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Proposals. -- Natalya 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is surely a good idea! I have always felt that no repsected user, like Jtkiefer, Karmafist, etc. have ever erred, except to let off steam and relieve pressure/stress. I feel that we are too harsh on these contributors, that we don't give them a second chance. I guess Esperanza could go a long way in helping them out. I'll add this to WP:ESP/PROP. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I did. I feel that the reasons that seasoned editors and chronic vandals vandalise may be quite different. An editors history should be considered. Perhaps not in the punishment, because whatever the motivation, vandalism is always destructive and disruptive. But those in good standing who suddenly take a wicked turn should be contacted politely to find out why and offer alternative ways to solve the problem.Prometheus^-X303- 13:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's purpose seems to be helping established Wikipedians when they are stressed. When established Wikipedians are stressed, they may react in different ways. Some of them, like the above-mentioned users, may vandalise or cause disruption. Since they are doing this due to stress, we, as Esperanza members, should try and help them. I'm sure they'll stop vandalising if they're no longer stressed.

However, this proposed program should not just cover cases of established users causing disruption due to stress. It should also cover cases where an established user commits a sincere mistake, and is stressed after receiving a justified punishment. The most prominent case I can think of is Everyking. I believe he made a sincere mistake, not knowing that there was personal information in the deleted page. The subsequent events, particularly his desysopping, must have caused him considerable stress. We could have stepped in and remind him that his contributions are still valued, and help him learn from his mistakes. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

At first, I thought this program will be like, find a user, leave a note, find a user, leave a note, on and on and on. But then I talked to Hildanknight via MSN and he explained about this program a little bit more. I think this is a good idea, although some standards of "chance" should be implemented, because we cannot give a chance to a user who have vandalised blatantly for zillion times. Also, I agree with Hildanknight, that ESP can provide a place for guidance, or mentoring, if you wish to say, for users who have been given this chance. Can I say support here? Oh well, I assume yes, support. Cheers -- Imoeng 11:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this program is a good idea. I hope I will never act in such a way that I require Esperanza counseling for my bad behaviour, but anyway... yes, support. --Kyoko 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been out of Esperanza a long time. I was at Hildanknight's talk page today to leave him a note about using incorrect warning templates when I read about this. I must say that this is an absolutely ridiculous misjudgement on the part of Hildanknight to be personally aggressive and uncivil. Almost certainly, if such was made in a heated instance (even in a "light-hearted manner"), it is certainly NOT taken as such, and I would like an apology. – Chacor 09:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Matter resolved. – Chacor 09:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a great idea. I was repeatedly blocked and told that I was "no use to the encyclopedia".^[1] It was Netsnipe who finally got me back on track. If there were more people like that, I could have gotten back to being a productive user a lot sooner, and would have saved everyone a lot of WikiDrama. ~ Flameviper 17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Wizards

Shinmawa created an Articles for creation Wizard (similar to the tutorial page) to help newbies determine whether their submissions follow the rules an are therefore suitable for inclusion. Before it was implemented we had to decline over 90% of the submissions there, making it very hard to find the ones worth creating. Initial investigation shows the amount of accepted submissions has increased after implementation. Since wizards like this one are more inviting to newbies than warning messages, it's more likely to retain good editors who just need to learn the ropes and I would like to see more of these implemented about for example "determining the copyright information of images", "image formatting tutorial", "which tag to choose?" etc. Some newbies are confused by the Wikipedia layout and editing system. Wizards have more of a windows feel and require less wiki learning before they actually start editing (so they don't have to jump hurdles to learn what they need to). What do you think of the idea and more importantly, can you think of more often asked questions to apply it to? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Youth

As a 12 year old myself, I think Esperanza should have a youth program, designed for kids and teens to talk and be appreciated. Also, just like me, I think most children won't want to reveal their actual birthdate for the birthday program, so the program would include a birthday month congrats, for kids who will reveal only their birth month only. I'm sure that people can come up with plenty of more suggestions. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 01:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I should probably mention that there was a proposal or something about Wikipedia in general about young contributors not mentioning their exact location, out of fears of online predators. This was in reference to a young user who has now been banned from Wikipedia. Sorry to cast a pall on the discussion, but for a program like this, people shouldn't mention exactly where they are, which is what this user repeatedly did. --Kyoko 03:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, TeckWiz! I'm a 15-year-old male Singaporean. (Kyoko, have I gone too far?) I support the idea of an Esperanza Youth group, as my youth has made it harder for me to cope with the stress Wikipedia causes. As a side note, I have found many websites to be unfriendly to youths, and I hope Wikipedia is an exception (I have spotted ageism in RFAs). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the banned user I was talking about repeatedly said what her age was and what neighborhood of a certain large city she lived in. She was repeatedly told not to do that and eventually resorted to the use of sockpuppets in order to keep participating on Wikipedia. So no, you haven't gone too far.--Kyoko 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Support, with serious reservations. One younger editor retired recently after being the subject of a truly tasteless pornographic essay elsewhere, by a party other than herself, in which her age, photograph, and username were revealed. There is a real risk of that sort of thing happening again, regardless of the amount of work already being undertaken to ensure otherwise. Maybe, if the age and character of one younger editor could be verified, they might be able to help start such a group, but wikipedia's policy of transparency would almost certainly produce an instance of at least abusive language about an underage editor relatively soon. Badbilltucker 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Certain child editors would be extremely reluctant to reveal their age; people would see them as "children" rather than "editors", and their parents would yell at them for "revealing personal information". Most internet associations tell children never to reveal any personal information. So although it would be a really good idea to support child editors, the difficulty of revealing the "child editor" status presents itself as a hurdle. So I support, although I point out that you should not expect a high membership because of preferred anonymity on the Internet. ~ Flameviper 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The opposition to Esperanza Youth apparently only addresses under-13s. Besides under-13s, Esperanza Youth would also cater to teens. Many established Wikipedians are teens - in Singapore, we have: Natalinasmpf (admin), Terence Ong and Tdxiang. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern (not quite opposition) is for people who are legally considered as children (generally under 18), not just under 13. --Kyoko 15:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What if to join you only need to be under 18. You wouldn't be required to tell your exact age, just that you're a minor. Also optional would be your birthday month, as in just (so that the birthday brigade could congradulate a kid/teen without revealing their exact b-day.). Anyone that reveals anything against Wikipedia's minor policy should be given one warning, with a second one resulting in not being allowed to participate in Esperanza Youth. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As a (An Independant Living 15 Year Old Teenager) Myself I know of such cases where Minor's (Under 18) Have been tormented by Cyber Bullys with things going to the extereams just by jiving out a few minor details like (Age, School and First Name) I don't know if I totally agree on this but I would need more of an Overview of the idea.. Supporting new Children and Teens to the wikipedia is somthing I would agree on but.. Yeah.. Like I said I need more of an overview of the program.. I already think A few of the thingson the Wiki are deemed inappropriot for kids as they like to rush into things not thinking what the outcome might lead to.. (gone into too much detail.. -_-) An Apple a day keeps -The Doctor- Away.. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In light of the recent MfD of Esperanza as a whole, I think that a program like Esperanza Youth would probably not be seen in a good light by critics of Esperanza, because of its apparently less than encyclopedic nature. --Kyoko 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As a non-Esperanza member, I'm not going to put myself under any assumption that my opinion means anything to anyone in it, but I see this as a very, very bad idea. I almost didn't say anything but I think I have to make this known. Some proposals already are working toward a separation of minor editors from adult ones, and this is bad. Such things only encourage social grouping by ages into one category or the other, something that we don't need here. A separate youth section would only encourage divisiveness. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

With the invention of the new "adopt-a-user" program, I think that this would be almost redundant. If there is any younger editor who feels some sense of isolation and/or inexperience, they could either request to be adopted and hopefully find a sympathetic patron and receive most of the support they need there. As I personally have trouble differentiating the contributions of college students who are just bad writers and people in high school or lower grades apart, I think most other people would as well, and, at least potentially, this group, possibly with some sort of expansion down the line (like maybe a channel "family picnic" or something) would make a teen group redundant. Badbilltucker 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor forum

It was clear from the Coffee lounge overhaul discussion and the Coffee lounge discussions of WT:EA that we should have a place where Wikipedians, not just Esperanzians, can talk about various things. I think that a place like that could be successful if before we start anything, we plan out all the purposes of the page(s), some things that are definitely not allowed, and what actions will be taken against users who don't follow the guidelines. At this point, there are many suggestions and many opinions, some of which conflict. I think that the best way to do this would be to split the page up into many forums, one for each purpose.

[edit] Purposes

Please add any other purposes you think of and sign next to them. Also, please give any opinions you have as sub-bullets.

• Help users deal with stress
• Let Wikipedians discuss current events of Wikipedia
• Discuss Wikiprojects, and direct users to a potential Wikiproject of interest
• Discuss possible changes to Wikipedia policy.
• Discuss essays and collaborate on the writing of essays.

[edit] Goals

Please add any other goals you think of and sign next to them. Also, please give any opinions you have as sub-bullets.

• Keep all conversations related to the topic of the discussion.
• Ensure that all conversations have some positive effect on the encyclopedia.
• Ensure that every conversation is about the encyclopedia.
• Keep out social networking, like the conversations of the old Coffee Lounge.

This is just a rough proposal. I have a feeling it will change a lot as people approve and reject different things.  Shardsofmetal  01:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added some changes to your proposals, and though I'll not vote now in order to obtain new views and ideas, I think it's in good shape. And, not that I'm bragging or anything, but I came up with this basic idea. Shards just posted it first (curses!). Thanks though, Shards. DoomsDay349 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thank you for such a fast reply. Also, I've changed the wording of the goal "Keep out social networking, like the old Coffee Lounge did.", because it made it sound like the Coffee Lounge kept out social networking. Keep the good ideas coming!  Shardsofmetal  02:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah! But new visitors don't have a clue about the Coffee Lounge problems.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the clause of "Keep out Social Networking" will clarify this. If new visitors post a bad topic, we'll revert with explanation to them. If it's a rampant problem, we'll fix, but it's good for now. DoomsDay349 02:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Now we know what actions will be taken against users who don't follow guidelines. Also, I didn't thank you before for making the changes to my proposed purposes, so thank you. :P  Shardsofmetal  04:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, now we need feedback. If you don't mind, leave something at the Esperanza talk page. Yawn. Too tired to do it myself... DoomsDay349 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We'd need to make sure to keep this from being a place where people complain about other editors or badmouthing people, too. Not that I'm saying it would happen, but the "discuss current events on Wikipedia" sounds like it could turn into something of the sort. As long as we lay out something about it, it hopefully shouldn't be a problem, though. -- Natalya 02:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a clear a what it is/what it is not will be necessary. But right now let's just focus on the basic fundamental issue of it, and when we do get it up we can discuss it there. DoomsDay349 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, as long as all the rules stated above are kept. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 12:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Ed/Sandbox for a draft of the forum. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

• Support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but if this is going to include Wikipedians in general, why is it in Esperanza? bibliomaniac15 00:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support- And I agree with bibliomaniac, why is it in Esperanza if it's for general use?--SUIT 00:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose it doesn't have to be in the Esperanza space. I just think that Esperanza programs should stay in the Esperanza space, as a central location. Most of the programs we have now are for all Wikipedians, so I don't think that we have to move all the programs elsewhere, I just think that we have to stress that all Wikipedians are allowed, and encouraged, to partake in Esperanzian programs.  Shardsofmetal  07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support A very good idea. Jam01 07:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, a very good idea.  Shardsofmetal  07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  15:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's my bloody idea! :) DoomsDay349 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think it's a good idea.

[edit] Accepted Proposals

Accepted proposals are listed at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs.

[edit] Archives

Proposals which are not accepted are stored in the archives. If there is an archived proposal that you feel could be modified to work out better, you are welcome to bring it back.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

[edit] Notes