Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Migration to Wikia 2 TeckWiz's Suggestion 2.1 Move to Wikia 2.2 Keep Here 3 Proposal for Coffee Lounge 4 Vote splitting... 5 Suggestion to move to Wikia 6 Suggestion for how to close this MfD 7 RfC? 8 Restructure of Esperanza 9 Must go down this way or that way 10 WP:SNOW 11 Parade of the strawmen 12 Esmero: Spanish for Dedication 13 No consensus 14 Analysis (Elaragirl's Opinion, NOT OFFICAL (feel free to do your own!) 15 Late comment 16 Who writes Wikipedia? 17 Proposed amendment to Esperanza charter 17.1 A. Programs 18 Closed too fast 19 Goals of Esperanza? 20 My vote. 21 Esperanza User Page Award up for deletion 22 Be Wikipedia editors first, and avoid talk of non-Esperanzans 23 Overhaul update. 24 Inexperienced Esperanzans exporting their social networking 25 merge idea for Esperanza, Kindness Campaign, Concordia 26 What the heck are you all smoking?! 27 Suggestion

[edit] Migration to Wikia

An extension of my comment on the MfD and a place to discuss. After reading wikia:Wikia creation policy I have the impression that Esperanza fits there just fine. So, what do people think of the idea of migrating the bulk of things like the Coffe Lounge, the entire (recently MfD'd and deleted) game department and whatever else is not directly related to building the encyclopedia (per WP:ENC and WP:NOT) there? Comments, ammendments, ideas (other sites?) are welcome. Let's made this MfD constructive, instead of 700 ESP members piling on "keep". Misza13 19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Esperanza: "Esperanzians try to spread hope throughout the encyclopedia, and Spanish is used in the hope that a segment of the Wikipedia community will never again break away as a portion of the Spanish Wikipedia did to form Enciclopedia Libre." Suggesting to move Esperanza away from Wikipedia seems to me to be a way to split the community, and to be against the spirit of Esperanza. Or am I missing something here? Kusma (討論) 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point, but the alternative is to let it be deleted entirely, which I believe would hurt the Project badly. It will of course be up to to the Esperanza governance to keep the community together - keeping the Wikia part only as a social segment and disallowing pathologies like socializing without any contribution to the encyclopedia (like, keeping the requirement of 150 Wikipedia edits). Misza13 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TeckWiz's Suggestion

[edit] Move to Wikia

1. Things related to talking about non-encyclopidic stuff (like the Coffee Lounge)
2. Anything Associated w/ the Coffee Lounge (the games)

Comment - Esperanza is made for Wikipedia. Improving WIkipedia, making Wikipedia more fun, making sure Wikipedia's userpages are cool, etc. Useful or not, Esperanza is all aout Wikipedia, so "moving" it to Wikia is kind of pointless. Miltopia 10:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I've seen a few off-site projects that are about Wikipedia and seem to be doing very well, such as the Countervandalism network or Semapedia. People are not retards, and they won't "leave" Wikipedia just because the domain name changed. Have some faith in people's intelligence. -- Ned Scott 10:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep Here

1. Things related to the encyclopedia (ex. ECOTM)
2. Things that help editors (ex. Admin Coaching, moral support)

TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Moral support: good. Admin coaching: bad idea. My problem with admin coaching is it ultimately is just a formalized approach to gaming the system in order to get through RfA—and that's just silly. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think admin coaching is good. It prepares edits for RFA, and admin tasks. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question is: can't it really be led/coordinated from Wikia? I'm leaning towards full migration. Misza13 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good proposal. I wouldn't mind the Coffee Lounge and the games moved to Wikia, and I would like any other proposed move to be discussed further. I strongly support the admin coaching program to remain on Wikipedia because I have personally seen it contribute to the betterment of editors and thus Wikipedia. I have also seen the "moral support" aspect directly contribute to editors' wellbeing (and again, thus, to Wikipedia). --Fang Aili ^talk 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm going to be posting here, as the main MfD has turned into a bit of a circus. I feel, strongly, that a lot of Esperanza can be moved to wikia, no problem. That's desirable, and far the best thing for the coffee lounge, and a few other things. However, I feel strongly that not all of Esperanza should be migrated to wikia. Things like admin coaching, though I don't use it, make a difference, as does the alerts page, and, hopefully soon, the COTM will too. However, these pogrammes are best to stay on wikipedia, and not move to Wikia. Thε Halo ^Θ 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• What Fang Aili and Halo said. The Coffee Lounge and games could/should be moved, but Admin Coaching has been beneficial to the project, as I have personally seen it contribute to the betterment of editors, and certainly the article improvement drive has a direct effect on the improvement of the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a big fan of moving the admin coaching to it's own page, like Wikipedia:Admin coaching Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Coffee Lounge

I admit and agree that the Coffee Lounge has gotten a bit crazy of late. When I joined in August I thought it was a cool idea, and started responding to some messages. We had some interesting, deep conversations going on... but recently it's kind of decended into insane randomness (for the record, I opposed the *dog barking noises*).

I propose we archive the nonsense sections and introduce a guideline stating that the Coffee Lounge isn't the place to be silly. It's nice having a place to talk about things where many people can contribute (better than having random conversations spread out over dozens of users' talk pages), but strange randomness really isn't necessary. — Editor at Large^(speak) 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh-Uh. IMO the Coffee Lounge has got to go full stop. Unencyclopaedic, unhelpful and a clear branch of WP:NOT a place for social networking. Even if Esperanza survives, I will immediately put the Coffee Lounge up at MFD. It's the worst of the lot. Moreschi 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely understand your point of view, and agree with it to some extent. But the coffee lounge really is a good place to blow off some steam: I know it's helped me keep my stress levels down, and I haven't had any blow-ups with anybody yet because of it. I firmly believe that its positive sides outweigh its negatives. More reasons referred to in my vote on the main page — Editor at Large^(speak) 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely stay, it is helpful, but clearly unencyclopaedic and in violation of WP:NOT. Therefore a move to Wikia would be justifiable in this case. haz (talk) e 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Coffee Lounge has been deleted. It was nominated by DoomsDay349 on November 18, and deleted later the same day. According to DoomsDay, this was because there was overwhelming consensus at the time of deletion. I believe that all was not right in this MfD. The first I knew of it, I was trying to access the Coffee Lounge and noticed that I couldn't. There could potentially have been a no consensus if the full five day period had been waited out. I am going to request undeletion until a full and fair MfD is carried out. I will then abide by that decision. Alethiophile¹2₃ 22:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, WP:NOTers. Which part of WP:NOT?

• Discussion forums refers to the esoteric discussion of ideas relevant to mainspace content, and whether certain types of original research can qualify as Wikipedia content. This section has little to do with Social Newtorking. On the other hand...
• Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site This section only talks about social networking in the context of social bonds for social bonds' sake. Using your user page to communicate with others and non-collectively exert yourself upon the world is forbidden; having places to discuss Wikipedia in general and to make better the lives of all of contributors is not. If Esperanza's Barnstar Brigade and Admin Coaching, as well as Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user and Welcoming committee seems petty to you, or insignificant in the long run, you have an excessively communist view of Wikipedia. Note that eventualism does not apply to users, each of whom have lives and ambitions. (Usually.)
• WP:NOT#SOCIALNET indicates that the differences between social networking and "providing a foundation for effective collaboration" is important. Esperanza is primarily about the users, and making Wikipedia excellent the only it can become excellent: through the users. Esperanza is not about the encyclopedia as a whole. It's more local. If someone is depressed and wants to leave Wikipedia, that's not "effective collaboration." If this seems unimportant, recall the pointless anecdote "Once a boy picked up starfish that had washed up on the shore to die, and threw them back into the ocean. A militarianistic exopedian (joking) came up to him and said, 'Boy, why are you picking up those starfish, if millions more are going to die on the shore? Do you realize how statistically insignificant you are?' And the boy said, picking up another starfish, 'It matters to this one.' And the boy threw it back into the ocean." No, I did not read that from a chain email.
• Personal web pages does not apply to Esperanza. May I further remind you that the whole social networking thing is in the context of personal web pages.
• Esperanza community is not a battleground (it resolves battles), example of anarchy (closely related to the soapbox issue, and remember: Esperanza is not a soapbox), democracy (what is it trying to achieve that requires voting?), or bureaucracy (requires nothing of anyone).
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, per WP:5P. Although residing within the en.wikipedia.org domain and servers, Esperanza never claims to be part of Wikipedia (as WP:5P intends the word "Wikipedia"). Esperanza exists outside of Wikipedia the encyclopedia. That's why nowhere on the article space is there a link to Esperanza. Except for possible Wikipedia {{selfref}}s, and even that's debated.
• Idealism? Not a valid reason for deletion. Heh. (Of course, Esperanza proclaims itself to be idealistic, based upon its introduction, but is actually quite reality-based.)

Thanks for reading. Can you find anything in WP:NOT that I'm overseeing, or allegedly misinterpreting? Gracenotes ^T § 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote splitting...

The "vote split" on the main page is rather confusing... it should either be brought up to a first-level header or put on this page rather than that one, since as it is now it's rather hard to figure out where to vote for what :-). Moving to wikia or otherwise is a different question (or an option that could be put in a comment).

If I can figure out where to put it, my vote would be:

• Keep -- Sheesh!

Didn't CVU face this same problem just a month or two ago? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to move to Wikia

(from main discussion)

Migration to Wikia

An extension of my comment on the MfD and a place to discuss. After reading wikia:Wikia creation policy I have the impression that Esperanza fits there just fine. So, what do people think of the idea of migrating the bulk of things like the Coffe Lounge, the entire (recently MfD'd and deleted) game department and whatever else is not directly related to building the encyclopedia (per WP:ENC and WP:NOT) there? Comments, ammendments, ideas (other sites?) are welcome. Let's made this MfD constructive, instead of 700 ESP members piling on "keep". Misza13 19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this suggestion a lot. It will make the Esperanzians happier too, as they will have fewer restrictions on what they can do. --Cyde Weys 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The perfect solution. I think this is a fabulous, fabulous idea. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also like this idea very much. The dead wood, like the coffee lounge, can go to wikia, and good ridens, while COTM can stay, and everyone is happier. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you move it wikia it defeats the point, you seperate it from the project, therefore nullifying all the benefits it has for wikipedia. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, saying it'll 'nullify all the benefits' seems a little rash. Could you explain more of this in detail? JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion. I hoped that starting a discussion on this would lead to something positive, and this has the potential to be that something. --Robth^Talk 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wikia

1. Things related to talking about non-encyclopidic stuff (like the Coffee Lounge)
2. Anything Associated w/ the Coffee Lounge (the games)

Keep Here

1. Things related to the encyclopedia (ex. ECOTM)
2. Things that help editors (ex. Admin Coaching, moral support)

TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Moral support: good. Admin coaching: bad idea. My problem with admin coaching is it ultimately is just a formalized approach to gaming the system in order to get through RfA—and that's just silly. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I am for no exceptions. Move it all to wikia. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

COTM wouldn't be much good at Wikia, but then again, I am for exceptions. I like that shade of grey ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable idea. A Wikia for games could be the solution to the recent flood of MfDs! --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

...and I'm talking about the idea of moving the Coffee Lounge to Wikia. Esperanza will be useless if the entire thing is moved to Wikia. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely move the Coffee Lounge to Wikia... and all the other "general social" pages (which I will make clear that I am involved with, and would not like to see die). However, the guidance material needs to stay on Wikipedia. Reasons have already been cited, so I won't bother with reiterating them, but Esperanza projects such as admin coaching do aid WP as a whole... therefore keep (selectively). haz (talk) e 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What effect could Esperanza have on another Wikia? None. Face it; that would be like putting a fish in the desert, and you know it. Just a more roundabout way of deleting it. Trust me; I'd leave if it was on another Wikia. DoomsDay349 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It could have plenty of effect. I don't see why it seems so far fetched. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be unorganized, distant, and broken. We know how many people would leave; how many wouldn't bother to work on it. We would be strangling it. DoomsDay349 21:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Moving it to Wikia is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Wikia is a different website. Is it even associated with Wikimedia at all? You'd be making everyone who wanted to be involved with Esperanza sign up for an account with an entierly different organization. Meanwhile, what happens to Esperanza's purpose of stopping people from leaving Wikipedia as a portion of the Spanish Wikipedia did? You'd be encouraging a portion of the community to break away rather then discouraging it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I really, really doubt that making people signup for another account (same username/pw) is gonna be a huge cost of entry. People do it all the time for wikimedia, wikinews, wikitionary etc. etc. And, for that matter, those wikis do flipping great, and I don't see why Esperanza wouldn't have the same success. And those wikis are involved and laced into wikipedia quite well, and so can esperanza. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia, wikinews, and wikitionary are all part of the Wikimedia foundation; they are all part of one thing (Just like Coke and Sprite are part of the same thing but Pepsi is not). You never answered my question, is wikia part of that same thing or not? I've never signed up for Meta, despite the fact that from time to time I've seen a discussion there that I might want to comment on. It's not worth it to sign up for yet another thing. Wikimedia will soon introduce a universal log-in; but if wikia isn't a wikimedia site then it won't be affected. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no wikia is not part of WMF. i didn't think that you had to be under the WMF umbrella to be considered 'easy to sign up for'. I am a member of deafwiki.org and psychology.wikia.com - both were just as easy to sign up for ask wikimedia or wikipedia. 10 seconds of username entry that you use for every wiki is NOT going to keep serious or even casual members from joining. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't move the CL to Wikia. IRC doesn't fall anywhere near the WMF, and m:IRC guidelines states that "IRC is not Wiki*edia", and yet it's still got a great function (similar to that of the CL?). haz (talk) e 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, everthing that I could say has already been said.--Seadog 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for how to close this MfD

At some point some admin will have the unenviable task of wading through dozens of pages of discussion and trying to determine consensus. Whatever decision s/he makes will likely be subject to a great deal of scrutiny. I realize that many contentious XfDs are closed all the time by a single admin, but due to the large number of interested parties, and the intense and personal nature of many of the views on this MfD, I think an accommodation is in order to avoid any appearance of the admin's personal view being a factor in the closing.

Therefore I suggest that a small group of perhaps three admins collaborate on determining consensus and closing this MfD. That should at least help in making the decision not appear to be personal. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This should definitely be done. If only one admin closes, then every possible decision, except MAYBE "no consensus" (as in, when the sky turns purple) will be overturned at deletion review. Then we get to go through this again, yay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, even without reading most of the page (holy crap it's huge), I'm guessing it will go with "no consensus". My hope is that this MfD at least encourages Esperanza to make some positive reform, and that both sides will be able to see something good come out of this. -- Ned Scott 09:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"No consensus" might actually be the best outcome, giving Esperanza time for reform without ruling out a renomination and a deletion in the near future. Kusma (討論) 09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there's been lots of encouragement from the "keep" supporters to put individual subprojects up for deletion, so if this doesn't result in a wholesale deletion of Esperanza, there's still plenty to prune. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to be one of a small group of admins that jointly tries to determine consensus, if there's interest in that approach. I've commented but not stated my preference one way or another. So I have some bias but maybe not as much as some? I think I could evaluate consensus impartially and dispassionately. This is just an offer if there is interest. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To avoid complaints, we should probably get non-Esperanzan admins who haven't commented at all. We'll still get cabal complaints, but not well-founded bias ones. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC?

Perhaps the more formal structure of an RfC could produce slightly more readable results than this. It would also provide some space for those who just want to vote without participating in the discussion. An RfC might be a good idea for Esperanza to see what the community thinks of Esperanza's efforts to strengthen it and to find out how Esperanza can better serve the community. Kusma (討論) 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure of Esperanza

I see a consenus between both keep and delete opinions in the MfD which agrees that some parts of Esperanza are good, while others are bad. The following is just my thoughts on what could be done, and itsn't affiliated with Esperanza as a whole.

Keep Esperanza with the following programmes:

• COTM - this is a project dedicated to improving an article.
• Our tutorial drive - something which hasn't been brought up that much yet. We're creating tutorials of some things on wikipedia for the newer user, some simple, some more complex, with a few to helping new users learn about wikipedia faster.
• Admin Coaching - while I have seen some people speak out against this, lots have also spoken for it, which is why it is on this draft of the list.
• Our Alerts page - this is the only thing which I would consider using WP:IAR on. I firmly believe that happy editors make for a better working enviroment, which leads to a better encyclopedia. I know, full well, that not everyone agrees with me, but I do believe that the alerts page follows the spirit of Wikipedia, if not the letter of the law.

The rest of Esperanza would either be moved to Wikia, or deleted, while the remainder of Esperanza would organize these programmes. As I say, this is just my opinion, no one elses, as of yet. I've decided to put this suggestion here as a sort of starting point for the pruning back of Esperanza. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wholly support - these are truly the most helpful and encyclopedic aspects of Esperanza. riana_dzasta 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Addendum: And coupled with Michał's suggestion above to merge with Wikia, it sounds pretty ideal. riana_dzasta 11:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Despite having already stated my view that admin coaching is a bad idea, I have also said that the moral support aspect of Esperanza was good. I primarly take the moral support aspect to be the Alerts page and not the cutesy things like user page awards and barnstar brigades (which I don't view positively). So I'm fine with it's inclusion, and I would abstain on the issue of admin coaching since I think it is at least better than the inane edit-count-centric RfA-resumé-grooming stuff going on at WP:ER. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Instead of moving it to Wikia, what about moving it to the userspace on someones subpage. You could use User:1ne/Title to make it look like people weren't even redirected (it allows you to change what the title of the page says without changing the actual title.) editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 12:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Even though my tendencies are all with the delete crowd, I've not taken a side in this—yet. But keep up with the suggestions to try and keep the bad parts of Esperanza in user space as a dodge to project space and I will vociferously join the delete side. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  (ec) Same problemo, TeckWiz - people not using the 'pedia as, well, an encyclopedia. See this for an example. riana_dzasta 12:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry TeckWiz, but people's subpages are just as likely to go to an MfD as something in the wikipedia space. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Must go down this way or that way

• Consensus to deleted: voila!
• No consensus to delete (especially with a huge number of strongest possible keep: Proven block-voting, measures have to be taken...

Pjacobi 13:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that everyone who's argued to keep are sheep-voters? One could easily say the same of some of the delete arguments. After such a long discussion, there'll obviously be a point where we're just beating the same dead horse and making the same arguments over and over again. Please let me know if I'm misreading your post entirely... riana_dzasta 14:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, vote stacking complaints may very well get far, due to this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Amarkov, from my reading of that, it appears that they're discussing the deletion, not pledging their undying support for EA and offering to stack their !votes up. In fact, they all appear to be very much against vote-stacking. riana_dzasta 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you saying that members of a project shouldn't alert one another if their project is listed on MfD? If they use the project, obviously they're going to support keeping it. It's not vote stacking, nor do I see any evidence of many horses suddenly having new owners. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Aargh. I'm not saying I'm going to raise complaints of vote-stacking. I'm saying it's likely SOMEBODY will interpret that as "Let's go vote-stack the discussion!", and assume that the people complaining are the minority. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry to misread that :) However, hopefully people will be sensible and actually read the discussion. I'm off to bed now, I'm obviously tired... apologies, once again. riana_dzasta 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the bolded and repeated "no mindless vote stacking, please" from multiple Esperanza members would say otherwise. -- Natalya 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SNOW

I think that this debate has a snowball's chance of reaching any kind of agreement, and it would be best to speedily close it as a "no consensus". Repetitive debate isn't very useful. (Radiant) 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No disrespect, but truthfully I find this to be a disturbing statement. What it means to me is that you're saying we can't make the hard decisions by our current process. Once a subgroup within the project reaches critical mass (which is probably around 40–80 motivated people), they can kill any proposal to move forward by muddying the waters sufficiently that every attempt at change results in "no consensus". If that is indeed true, it is a bigger problem than this MfD.

We need a rational process by which the weight and relevance of the arguments can be weighed rather than just the numbers in determining consensus. Not to endorse either side in this, but I think Elaragirl's Parade of the strawmen comment below makes some good points in terms of applying rational thinking to eliminate the noise in the discussion.

This MfD was up for less than 24 hours, generating over 250K of discussion when you made this suggestion. Filtering out the noise and repeated arguments, there is still a good deal of rational arguments made on both sides, and I think there has also been movement on both sides towards a more common agreement. To propose abandoning this after such a short period of time with WP:SNOW is a vote of no confidence in the process itself. Am I reading this correctly? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Doug, you have to look at it the way most people see it. The MfD has basically three points, at this stage

1. Keep Esperanza cuz it's Esperanza! You people are big meanies! (The Cuddly Argument)
2. Keep Esperanza, we'll try to fix some of the problems, but you're still big meanies (The Fix It In, Oh, 30 Years From Now Argument)
3. Delete Esperanza, for violating WP:NOT a social net, WP:CIVIL yeah, real civil, WP:POINT in the way you they have used spurius arguments for keep, and WP:NOT a gaming site, or a page prettification site, or a barnstar handout site....

There is no good answer that everyone can accept. But it has revealed to me that I have no reason to listen to anyone in this debate who answered in a spurious manner in any other voting arena, such as XfD or RfA or DD. A valuable lesson to bias. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One you're missing is that if Esperanza goes we'd be murdering all of Wikipedia's community, or floundering it significantly - theres no proof of this, and people seem to be falling back on it a lot without considering what life was like before Esperanza.

As to WP:SNOW, I think it applies more towards MfDing the mainpage and things like that. This is a real discussion about some core Wikipedia issues, and it can only be centered around this process. It's a completely appropriate thing to do. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...and indeed, spurious additions by users. Really, really frustrating for me to see. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• (in response to Doug) Yes, I'm saying exactly that - hard decisions cannot be made by this process, MFD. In particular, a subgroup may respond well to requests to change the way it works, but it tends not to respond well to attempts to delete it; deletion is an all-or-nothing effect, and may stand in the way of reaching a compromise of rewording or rescoping. I think this MFD had a poor signal-to-noise ratio, and that the perceived problems with Esperanza are more easily discussed without the threat of imminent deletion. (Radiant) 09:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parade of the strawmen

Let's summarize arguments that have (or should have) no bearing on the discussion:

1. "If you destroy Esperanza you destroy X (the community, hope, fun, relaxation" : If that isn't arrogance I don't know what is. I have never had an Esperanzan give me a 'kind word' but I've had two snap at me, one stab me in the back, and seen a bunch of what looks like pile-on RfA voting for their own kind. Wikipedia doesn't need Esperanza to provide a sense of community. As for people who get too stressed out coming back due to Esperanza's so-called efforts, I really have to say I can care less. If you let editing this place wreck your real life, then quite frankly I have serious worries about your mental stability. Wikipedia is not therapy.
2. "This is a campaign against Esperanzans in bad faith because of X (jealous, hate, etc) : I would never want to be an Esperanzan, especially after the way some of them have acted in this MfD. This nomination was due to a number of things : the waste of time your games comitted, the inanity of your WikiCouch, the arrogance displayed by some members, and your way of acting as if you were an official group. It had everything to do with the way you act -- as if you are better than the rest of us. If you think people don't like Esperanza, you are absolutely correct, and the only people you should blame is yourselves.
3. "This project creates hope" or "This project creates happiness" : I don't need you to create my happiness and hope. I need you to create ARTICLES, fight VANDALS, work on the BACKLOG.
4. "Esperanza does a lot to help Wikipedia" : What, praytell, would that be? Your pretty page award? Putting up pictures of coffee? Splattering barnstars willy nilly to everyone so that they'll feel better? As for the Tutorial, yeah, great, merge it with the Help.
5. "If Esperanza is deleted, people will leave Wikipedia" : Wikipedia is not about you.If you leave, it's because you're basically saying you weren't here to work on the encyclopedia anyway.

The arguments above aren't arguments for an MfD. The arguments along the lines of "Esperanza has gotten editors into editing articles" or "Esperanza should not be deleted en masse but each piece examined individually" or "Esperanza should not be destroyed utterly but heavily revamped and we need to do X, Y, Z to fix it" are arguments that do fit. Will some people disagree? Don't care. Take your coffee lounge, and your happy page awards, and your barnstar brigade, and your RfA-gaming admin coaching away and Wikipedia will still be here, albeit with a lot less histronic baggage. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

While you do raise some valid points, please remember that Esperanzians, as well as Wikipedians as a whole, are individuals and should not be construed as acting or voting as a coordinated group. Some members of Esperanza (and some Wikipedians) spend most of their time contributing to the encyclopedia proper; some spend most of their time with talk pages or the coffee lounge. In other words, there is a whole spectrum of people in Esperanza and on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Kyoko 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect to your own difficult personal situation, I am increasingly forced to wonder how true that is in a realistic sense. Obviously you are not !Borg, but there is a disturbing feel to the way the MfD comments are running, as if a great many people are not even pausing to consider what is being said. I'm fully aware that there are a great many Esperanzans involved in actually doing work for the Wiki, but most of them are not the ones who are moving the page to BJAODN, suggesting cabalist actions in attacking Esperanza, accusing people of bad faith, or throwing up spurious arguments. To me, if the bulk of Esperanza's members do not interact with Esperanza except on a tangental, philosophical basis, then the need for the content does not exist. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Elaragirl, I do not see why you need to be so blatently mean about this. And yes, I'm saying mean, because frankly, that's what your statement above sounds like. I'm sure you intend to be realistic, but you are also being just plain mean. I assume massive amounts of good faith, and I continue to do so, but there is no reason to be condescending to people who disagree with you. Perhaps I am taking your statement the wrong way, but I feel like you've pretty much said that you don't care about anyone who edits this encyclopedia, as long as they edit the encyclopedia. It would be an easy world if no one had feelings, no one got emotional, and no one cared about things they contribute to. We could all just write and write and write, and the encyclopedia would be awesome. Unfortunately, that is not quite the case. If you are not affected by anything that goes on on Wikipedia, then all the power to you for having a good grasp on the real world. For many, many, many Wikipedians, this is not close to the case. People care when they get into editing disputes, people care when articles are vandalized, and people get their feelings hurt. If you think that people shouldn't do so, then that's fine, but the fact is that they do, and if we ignore that, then people will leave the encyclopedia. Any way you look at it, when editors leave the encyclopedia, it hurts the encyclopedia. It is not just the new users who get emotional and leave Wikipedia; it is administrators, bureaucrats, and featured article writers. When editors leave, the encylcopedia loses contributions, it loses people who could add worlds of knowledge to it. We could ignore all their feelings, but I'd much rather take a few easy steps to keep someone here, and keep them editing, and you should respect that people feel that way. -- Natalya 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I am sorry, but I cannot assume good faith on your part now, especially after the way you've been treated. Yeah, okay, I was uncivil with you; I wholeheartedly apologized. But this is the last straw (no pun intended). You are hopelessly biased and you hate Esperanza. Your points, which should be NPOV, are biased to the point of being blatantly mean, for lack of a better word. I, for one, no longer take your opinion into value. DoomsDay349 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• With respect, Natalya, I disagre. Any way you look at it, when editors leave the encyclopedia, editors leave the encyclopedia. There have been editors who have gotten fed up with being (supposedly) mistreated by admins, by having articles deleted, by having revert wars, and the like. Keeping them here by redirecting their output to what seems to be a demi-social gathering is not helping the encyclopedia. It's just keeping them from leaving. When an editor leaves, her contributions remain. It is very easy to say you'd rather take a few easy steps to keep people, but that isn't really what I'm talking about. (sigh) What I am saying is that the arguments being used in this debate about Esperanza are spurious. It is all well and good to assume that you are undertaking a noble enterprise. You might well be undertaking a noble enterprise, but there is appearantly a large segment of the community who does not feel that way, and who feels the actions of the group you lead are not only not helpful but in some cases, such as the games and the admin coaching, quite possible harmful. As for DoomsDay, you were indeed uncivil, and your blatant attack on me really opened my eyes to something: Esperanza is appearantly only concerned, at least in your case, for Esperanza. It is not a matter of NPOV but it is a matter of bias. If Esperanza stays, I strongly doubt much will change, since so much of your orignization momentum is caught up in pseudo-philosophical ideas of what aught to be instead of what is. I do not hate Esperanza -- but I do hate the attitude that is being flung that I tried to address with my arguements above, that most Esperanzans seemingly think that Wikipedia has no worth without Esperanza and that they should be able to do whatever they like, however they like, simply because they are Esperanza. I am still waiting for someone to address my arguments. If your only comment on them is to call me hateful, well, that is an answer in and of itself. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to respond to your concerns from my own experience, Elaragirl. First, My involvement with Esperanza helped me personally in that it gave me a small community of available, helpful people to aid me when I had Wikipedia questions. The Esperanza IRC chatroom, especially, was very helpful in my pre-admin days, because more experienced users were there. While you may argue that I could have gotten answers from #wikipedia or some admin's talk page, it was just easier to have a small community to talk to immediately. By getting my questions answered quickly, I was able to contribute to the encyclopedia in a more efficient manner. Second, during the few times I have had "wiki-stress", Esperanza members gave me words of encouragement. This is no small thing. A little encouragement goes a long way to keeping editors active. It is an extention of WP:CIVIL in my mind--going beyond "civil" into the "friendly". Third, I participated in the Admin Coaching program, helping User:Firsfron attain adminship. While I fully believe he could have done it on his own, it was faster and easier for him to get his questions answered by one designated person, rather than (echoing my first point) asking a random person or help page. Firsfron, in turn, became a coach to another successful admin candidate. If you believe that Wikipedia is aided by the addition of administrators, you must admin that the Admin Coaching program benefits Wikipedia. Finally, I agree that there is good and bad in Esperanza, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If people object specifically to the Coffee Lounge, for instance, let's have a debate on that and not the entirety of a 700-member community. Thank you for reading, Fang Aili ^talk 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone please chill out a bit?? Walk away, have a glass of elderflower, or send someone who will agree with you a profanely exasperated e-mail. That usually gets rid of a lot of stress: it's how I survived Arbitration. But there's no need to start screaming. Right.

Point 1. To be fair, this has been used quite a lot, and wrongly in my opinion as well. The death of Esperanza - which isn't going to happen, judging by the progress of the MFD thus far - would not kill off Wikipedia. Far too many people seem to think that it would.

Point 2. Although I wouldn't have phrased it like this, there have been far too many assumptions that this was a bad-faith nomination for MFD, when it clearly wasn't. I, for one, deplore such assumptions as against AGF, unEsperanzian, insulting, and plain wrong. Are we surprised Elaragirl is exasperated?

Fair enough. Look, one of the main points raised at this MFD has been that something like the Coffee Lounge distracts and detracts from the Encyclopaedia - even among the keep voters!

Point 4: here again I substantially agree; though it does seem as though EA has a new direction that is focused more on the Encyclopaedia. ECOTM is definitely a good idea. Something like the Userpage award, though isn't really helpful and should probably go - something that really doesn't help the encyclopaedia.

Point 5: I cannot see why people think this is so objectionable. After this after the WikiCouch MFD, I feel annoyed that I am meant to feel bad just because I helped to get your subpage deleted that you'd moved into projectspace - one that was not only unencyclopaedic but also positively harmful. And?

What is not often realised is that people leave the encyclopaedia all the time. People also come to the encyclopadia all the time: Wikipedia is not harmed. It survives despite all these comings and goings. If truth be told, the real reason is usually that people get bored, but can't admit this, and so blame the people working on the project. It is not, therefore, I feel "mean" to insist on a bit more article-writing and less socialising. Also, despite the slightly vitriolic tone to Elaragirl's starting post, that's no reason to abandon AGF, surely? Come on. After the Coffee Lounge Games MFD, is it so surprising that some people have a slightly jaundiced view of Esperanza? The porblem wasn't really the games, but the arguments (or lack of) used to defend them. Moreschi 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing after multiple edit conflicts - arrgggh! "If you believe that Wikipedia is aided by the addition of administrators, you must admin that the Admin Coaching program benefits Wikipedia.". Oohh, that's a bit of a non sequitur, I'm afraid. A lot of people think that this is basically gaming the system at RFA - not that I agree, but I can see their point. If Admin Coaching is telling people what to do when they become admins, and how best to use the tools, then great. If it's just "How to get through RFA", then there are problems. It isn't, but there is a fine line to tread. Moreschi 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

At least someone is trying. To respond to FangAili :first, thank you. Second, I think one problem all sides have is the relative value of X to Wikipedia. For example, you hold the relative value of a small IRC community highly, whereas I hold it very low since in my experince it usually leads to cliques, so we are not looking at the problem from the same , um, situational angle. You follow? Neither one is "right" or "wrong" so there is already a problem in finding consensus. Third, I'm very much against the idea that adding more admins is neccessarily good for Wikipedia. Some admins are great, like Uncle G, SlimVirgin, Cyde, and Dlohcierekim. Some are ... um... not so great. And I had a rather upsetting run-in with Firsfron already, so bringing him up to me didn't really strengthen your point. As for the rest of Esperanza, I'd agree in keeping the Happy Birthday (as part of Department of Fun), Collaboration of the Month, and Tutorial Drive. If we do take each part of Esparanza apart via MfD, the carnage would be very, very ugly. I'd much rather see a rebuilt Esperanza 2.0 --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 19:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now what is wrong with that? Even if you disagree, there is no cause in that last post to abandon AGF. Even if you disagree, the criticism is constructively meant and must be taken note of. Moreschi 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Moreschi that we need to assume good faith, on both sides. I'm sure it must be annoying for anyone with a fancy sig with a keep opinion to be called an Esperanzian strawman. As long as we all remember to keep cool heads, the disussion would get along much better. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Elaragirl: I understand about the relative value. I usually don't go in for "cliques" either, but in my experience Esperanza has been very welcoming of people. About Firsfron: Interesting--I've never seen him act less than admirably or according to wiki policy. Also, some people are not crazy about the admins you mentioned. :) I believe we need more admins every time I see the image deletes backlogged 5 days (which is almost always the case.) But these are only tangential issues. I agree that the Coffee Lounge should go (and the Userpage Award is pretty non-encyclopedic), but I would like to see everything else stay, or at least have a separate discussion on it. At the very least, Esperanza is a haven for many active users, who do contribute to the encyclopedia. If the result of this debate is "no consenus", I will participate in an internal Esperanza discussion to address its problems: to cut back on the socializing and put the emphasis on encyclopedia-building. This is the way it should be, and the way the main Esperanza page is written, but the Coffee Lounge makes the whole thing look bad. And I agree that the attitudes of some Esperanza members (as expressed in keep !votes), are not constructive. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm....confused...Moreschi, what did I say in my last post that abandoned AGF??! --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 19:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, misdirection. I was citing your last post as an excellent reason why people should not give up and abandon AGF, as it seemed to me to be very reasonable. Best, Moreschi 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Response to a far, far above comment that I never got to responding to: Well, Ella, I apologized to you, twice. You got mad at me the first time, and didn't bother to respond to the second. That can hardly make me hold you in any esteem. As for my incivility...hell, yes, I was uncivil, but for the love of ham, a man can only be provoked so far! We've already had our bad feelings prior to this; and now they've all spilled out. If I've soured your outlook on Esperanza, if I've made it seem like we only care about ourselves, then I'm sorry for presenting the wrong image to you. The only thing I can say about that is not to judge my peers by my actions. I'm not going to make excuses; you'd hate me more for it and wouldn't believe me anyway. But don't think for a second I'm going to be scared off this debate; I'm here to fight, and fight on I will. You're lucky I enjoy debate so much, otherwise this wouldn't be nearly as fun. Am I sorry? Yes; but only because I tarnished Esperanza's good name, and for that, I apologize. I've given you your chances. DoomsDay349 23:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• You still don't get it? Well, let me explain. Your entire argument is that Esperanza is valuable since it provides a valuable service to Wikipedia, reducing stress, keeping editors here, etc, etc, etc. This service in your eyes is so valuable that it's worth completely ignoring the damage it's doing to the Wiki. You are no longer arguing rationally -- it's an emotional crusade for you. As for apologies, I don't go around making long speeches about accepting apologies. I haven't attacked you. You have called me hateful, biased, and claimed I had a vendetta. Being "sorry only because you tarnished Esperanza's good name" suggests to me that you aren't really sorry for anything except that people see you as an exemplar of the way some of your group acts. If more people acted like Natalya, Fang Alil, or Kyoto, this entire discussion would not be happening. I don't hate you or anyone else, but I categorically refuse to be told my opinions are wrong because Esperanza stands for hope or some other hug-me helpless screed.

_{The above statement employs sarcasm. Please do not bite the Deletionist.} --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 14:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• No longer arguing rationally? Emotional crusade? So, because I care about Esperanza I can't possibly have any rational points? Ok, so let me respond in order... "your entire arguments is that Esperanza is valuable service to Wikipedia, reducing stress, keeping editors here, etc., etc., etc. This service in your eyes is so valuable that it's worthy completely ignoring the damage it's doing to the Wiki." What other argument is there? Esperanza is valuable...I'm not seeing your point there. As for ignoring said "damage", I understand the damage well. Social networking leading to users not paying attention to the encyclopedia, pretty much. I am not ignoring that; I am placing the positive as more important than the negative, and you do the inverse. I don't know if you're keeping on top of the overhauls, but I'm doing a lot there and support the total reform or deletion of the Coffee Lounge. Nextly, we have our disputes. I've said this in so many words before, but I'll sum it up; we had a tentative relationship at best from the games MFD, and some of your comments suggested an agenda against Esperanza, or me. I realize know that that was totally incorrect, and, though I don't know how much I good it'll do, I apologize. The feelings just exploded from my stress from the argument, and, in all honesty, I looked for someone to snipe at to relieve stress, and that was you, I'm afraid. The same thing happened again; your comment to me further increased my anger-guided feelings, and then when this came about, that was my exploding point; I really lost it. Again, I'm sorry. To the rest of your statements, I wholeheartedly agree; I should have kept my cool like the others did. And finally, your refusal to be told you are wrong, well, being right or wrong is subjective; you think you're right, and I think you're wrong. In all likelihood, we will never back down. I do not have the right to even expect you to accept my apology; all I can ask is that we move on from this and that we can at least maintain civility to each other (not to suggest you were ever uncivil; circumstance and stress led me to do everything I did). DoomsDay349 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1. - I don't mind being told I'm wrong, but there have to be policy reasons why I'm wrong. Until the good of Esperanza is demonstrably shown to those of us who aren't seeing it, it looks to us like people are ignoring the damage because they want to keep Esperanza as it is. For you, you see the damage but place this good that Esperanza does (but that we can't see) as more important. We thus have a total reasoning/logical disconnect and swordfighting between WP:NOT and WP:IGNORE that can't be resolved through consensus. For that reason...
2. - I have been watching the EA discussions on EA, but I don't feel it's my place to comment there. I'm not an Esperanzan and I don't subscribe to many of your beliefs, such as a sense of community. I think in an environment where a signifigant portion of your contributors are completely anonymous and where screed-filled battles over the PSIpower of a Gundam combat suit run to 10 pages, a community is basically a subcommunity or series of subcommunities. There cannot be (in my personal opinion now worth 10 cents on eBay!) any overarching community. But also, I feel, as a non-Esperanzan, that the onus is on EA to reform itself. I cannot say I have good faith in EA's efforts at change if I'm biting my tongue every 5 seconds to keep from verbally evicerating some (remove sarcastic rejoiner) person who thinks WP:IAR is reason to just delete the coffee lounge and everything will be fine. I either trust you all to fix it (since there is no consensus here) or I accuse you all of bad faith and being a cabal, and I'd quit before I did that. All in all, like I said, I have no problem accepting apologies, but I try to remove myself from getting involved in things I'm too passionate about since it removes one's ability to act in a non-biased manner. Which is why I'm pretty much done with this: I no longer trust my own non-bias in regards to Esperanza after this MfD for many reasons. I hope things improve for you and you work off your stress.

_{Dark Mistress of the Deletionist Cabal against Kittens, Smilies, and Niceness,} Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esmero: Spanish for Dedication

A neutral statement of what problems with Esperanza are (in my opinion) and how to fix:

1. Lack of percieved connection to the community in terms of concrete contributions to Wikipedia : by this, I mean that many people cannot see the "good" Esperanza does. Any reform you undertake must therefore address this point or we'll be back in here in six months.
2. Lack of focus on contributing to the Wiki vis-a-vis amount of time spent on Esperanza: You cannot place so much focus on intropian things such as page beautification, wikifairying, having competitions about page looks, running large gaming sections, etc. If you want to do these things, you need to place them in a context where people outside Esperanza can find value in them. For the page beautification stuff, run a series of tutorials on editing and elements of WikiMarkup and then have the users use their pages as the basis, with the idea that they can also use these things in article creation/template making/etc. With the games, make them focus on article surfing/creation/editing, like WikiRPG, Word Association,etc. Try to minimize efforts that focus on projects internal to Esperanza, since that only severs you from the community.
3. Focus on a sense of community : the problem with this is that there is NO attempt currently by Esperzana to extend their sense of community outside the group. Without that, it makes you look to the uninitiated as if you are a clique. I don't have any really hot recommendations on how to remedy this outside of expanding the intensity of welcoming procedures (maybe) and working more heavily with other WikiProjects.
4. Circular Returns : too much of Esperanza's efforts , and the efforts of it's members, are spent on perpetuating the group. Esperanza barnstars, banners, graphics, templates, page layouts, text boxes, userboxes, and transcluded newsletters go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what other WikiProjects and even WikiOrgs like CVG and CCD do. A less ... intrusive approach may serve better.

There's more but if these were fixed, 85% of the opposition to Esperanza would collapse. Note that simply saying these are not problems does not change the fact that 'they are problems , whether or not you agree. This is not really about Esperanzan's view of Esperanza...but the view of non-Esperanzans. Trying to suggest our viewpoint is invalid in evaluating Esperanza just makes things worse. Trying to change makes things better. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, working to make things better is the way to go, which is why I started this thread. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, though, that point 5 isn't all that indicative of anything other than Esperanza's extreme size. While they are, at times, somewhat over the top, and perhaps occupy more editor attention than they should, the basic features you mention (e.g. the various boxes, newsletters, banners, barnstars, etc.) are things that are normally found in the larger WikiProjects as well (e.g. WP:MILHIST); they seem to be a fairly natural thing that arises in larger groups, in other words. Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Very respectfully, might I suggest that WP:MILHIST does just a tad more actual contributing to the Wiki than Esperanza, and thus I'm willing to accept that from them? The basic features are needed in large groups -- but they don't serve a real purpose at Esperanza in the same way they do at MILHIST. In my view. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would certainly hope that MILHIST is a bit more article-work-focused than Esperanza, all things considered. ;-)

(My point was more to the effect that these features were not, in of themselves, something unacceptable; so long as a group is somehow productive, I think they ought to be given some slack in this regard. [No "I'm sorry, you only have three FAs this month; you needed five FAs to keep your pretty boxes!" in other words.]) Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm wrong but the main concern here is WP:NOT. Esperanza is a good idea to keep the community strong and there is nothing wrong in theory with what the project does; being nice to one another and other 'fun' activities. The problem is all of this is encouraging 'social networking', therefore violating WP:NOT. Policy is policy, how I see it, it should be either changed or upheld. - Tutmosis 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating what I have already said elsewhere, I think it would be great if we could get Esperanza to maybe spend some of its userpage improvement energies on some of the WikiProjects or portals or similar wikipedia items, many of which are not what one might call visually appealing. Also, maybe giving a little help to these other organizations in some form or other would help establish Esperanza as being more closely tied to the encyclopedia aspects. Again, I think offering to help the newer projects or portals "get on their feet" would be a wonderful use of Esperanza's talents and people. Badbilltucker 02:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus

If there's 10 subsections, you can be pretty sure no consensus will be found using the standard *fD methods, unfortunately. Try discussing alternative options here, if you like. Hopefully people can come up with ideas for improvements, or ways to improve the page in questions.

Note that you can't delete an organisation with MfD, just pages, so even if the main Esperanza page was deleted, this would not magically shut down Esperanza.

Kim Bruning 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, now what? --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 20:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shrewd observation/smart move, Kim. --A. B. 20:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I suggest we begin to implement the changes that are needed for Esperanza to be acceptable to both Esperanza members and the wider Wikipedian community. This is the only way to go forward. Thε Halo ^Θ 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means please do. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some clean-up is certainly advisable. What can we discuss deleting that isn't controversial? Might I suggest starting with the userpage awards section? Can we all (or most of us) agree on such a proposal? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hope that this goes forward successfully. I made this nomination out of a belief that Esperanza had turned in a direction sufficiently different from the project as a whole that it would be impossible to overcome its institutional inertia and bring it into line with our goals and culture by other means; certain comments from Esperanzans during this nomination demonstrated that a will to reform Esperanza and integrate it into a broader working community does exist . I would be very glad to be proved wrong in my initial assumption, and I wish the Esperanzans working to achieve this luck. --Robth^Talk 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the userpage awards. I am currently starting to start a discussion on the Esperanza pages about what they're for, to see if there's a benefit to them that I'm missing, but I may very well MfD them in the near future. -- SCZenz 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks this MfD will be closed now. It will run its course. If there is no consensus, it will only be the result of people refusing to listen to rational arguments to satisfy personal emotional attachment to (or disdain for) this group. But I disagree that this discussion should be closed yet: it is just a little too 'shrewd'. The Crying Orc 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kim made the right call—it wasn't a move to promote his bias on the subject, but rather a move to help people make sensible decisions on the topic in question. Move the discussion elsewhere; continuing to line up on opposite sides is pointless and harmful to our community. -- SCZenz 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I voted delete, but I was close to closing it as well as no consensus, (speeding the coffee lounge) as the mfd was becoming pointless as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A good point there from Kim. Dealing with the actions of an organisation is not the role of MfD. That is properly attributable to the actions of the members of the organisation (and its leaders), and any such user conduct issues would have to be addressed through dispute mediation, from RfC through mediation and up to Arbitration. I would actually suggest that a lot of the problems with Esperanza would disappear if it was less, not more organised. It should be an abstract philosophy, no more, and any programs should take place within the encyclopedia, not on subpages of Esperanza. The membership of Esperanza can provide editing power to do things, but should work alongside and with other Wikipedia editors out there in the trenches, rather than organising themselves as a separate group to work on their own projects. Think of it like the Salvation Army and St John's Ambulance (Esperanza) helping out the army and emergency services (the non-Esperanza Wikipedia editors), rather than a separate group setting up their own programs. Carcharoth 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing this discussion as no consensus achieves nothing. It renders all of this discussion pointless. All the school prefects in Esperanza will be on good behaviour for a few days until this is forgotten, and within a couple of weeks it will have returned to what it was.

I have tried to avoid becoming too involved with argument here, because once I get started I battle to stop. But there are a few things which need saying:

1. 1. 1. That this is being closed as no consensus is, frankly, a weak thing to do. Rather than face the unpleasant truth that people disagree, and strongly, about this club, you are attempting to plaster over the cracks with more happy talk.
      2. I am well within my rights to keep this thing open, both according to XfD policy and WP:BOLD and the like. There is no telling that tomorrow a whole slough of votes (one way or another) will not come in and result in a clear consensus one way or the other. To assert otherwise is to indulge in more logical fallacies than is healthy for the rational mind. The point is, it is not over yet.
      3. If this page were for some other thing, it would not be closed until the time were up, surely? It is only because it is the wiki-get-along-gang's pet project that it is being closed, so as not upset the emotionally unstable, faux-suicidal, histrionic, hysterical or otherwise unbalanced individuals who use Esperanza as a measure of their self-worth and comfort blanket (or as a convenient sycophantic springboard to adminship).
      4. I see that the page has been protected. Isn't there some stupid bureaucratic procedure to be followed before that is done? There is much favouritism and systemic bias here. It's disgusting.
      5. Certainly one cannot nail the organisation, necessarily, by deleting its pages. But that would help! This is as good a place as any to discuss the matter, surely? Or is there a dedicated place to deal with disbanding silly organisations on Wikipedia?
      6. I had better shut up now, before getting annoyed. But I felt I should register my disgruntlement with the slanted manner in which this is being handled, by two admins who have not bothered seeking consensus or anything of the sort beforehand. The Crying Orc 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1. "People disagree, and strongly" == "no consensus"
2. Will that help or harm wikipedia? While keeping a broken discussion open because that's the rules is certainly the lawful evil thing to do (congrats for staying in character :-) ), please take note that wikipedias alignment is not -in fact- lawful evil, and your action may not be compatible with The Right Thing For Wikipedia. A clear consensus is not going to be found this way right now. We have a sufficiently large number of sane arguments for both sides. This means that people need to go back and negotiate more.
3. Similar actions have been taken in the past for other pages with 250K of discussion in under 24 hours. That's clearly a pathological situation in need of some kind of remedial action.
4. Officially, there aren't supposed to be any stupid bureaucratic procedures. Should you encounter one, feel free to substitute a smart one instead.
5. This mfd sets out to make a WP:POINT. That goes a long way towards explaining why it became so pathological so fast. Even so, I was feeling nice today, and just closed it as no consensus. If you want to disband an organisation, please discuss it on their talk page, or discuss it at the village pump.
6. I noted the lack of consensus, and acted on that. So my action definitely took the current consensus into account.

Kim Bruning 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you really want the discussion dumped on the village pump? Granted, not as many people will discuss it there as here, but it would still likely drawf the discussion at the pump. While I did make the observation early on that this might not be the best forum for discussion, I think just shutting it off like that was unproductive. I do have just one question I'd like answered: Did you read it first? I ask because the nomination included all of the subpages, and I think there are subpages where there was consensus to delete. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging consensus on individual subpages based on this discussion would have been crazy and almost certainly heavily-disputed. Better to MfD the subpages individually, and have more focused discussions. -- SCZenz 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose if I want an answer from Kim I should ask on his talk page, but that is who the question was directed at. I'm having a hard time understanding someone stepping in and shutting this down without even bothering to actually review it. It doesn't smell right, but I don't want to jump to the assumption that that's what happened. So if you don't mind, I'd like an answer from Kim. Thanks. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion has not been stopped. If there are particular points you'd like to bring forward, you can continue to do so. The only thing that's changed is that future discussion shouldn't be in mfd format (since we've seen that that doesn't work too well for organisations), that's all. That and the old mfd page is still around, so you can easily grab ideas from there as well.

Note that I don't own my edits. It's fine to discuss them with SCZenz or in fact anyone you like. :-) Kim Bruning 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG - Crying Orc is even more vitriolic than me. WOW. giggles Anyway, I think Kim made a good call, although I really don't like it -- it fits policy. The discussion was becoming a disintigrating train wreck because only a handful of Esperanzans were addressing the issues. If I had counted most of the "comments" from the deletion-half of the bunch it would have been even in numbers, but at least the delete people prefaced their stuff with "comment". I knew this was a lost cause when Monkey decided to move it to BJAODN, and yet wasn't even warned by an admin. I really, really lost a lot of faith there, because that's about as disruptive as it gets, and he's not some random IP person. Looking over the entire mess, I'm just tired. I've been attacked. People voting delete have been accused from everything from bad faith to quasi-cabalism to hatemongering. At least one person has decided to tell me that until I have more mainspace edits I shouldn't offer my opinion, so I'm going to go create some more articles, vandal fight, and wikify. The MfD is over and let's be realistic: it's far more likely the people pressing for change in Espranza will be nullified or even accused of the same things we are rather than anything positive happening. Color me cynical. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis (Elaragirl's Opinion, NOT OFFICAL (feel free to do your own!)

36 Delete 33 Good Deletes with rationales 3 spam deletes

96 Keep 35 Good Keeps with rationales 5 Uncivil Keeps 56 Repetitions, or pointless

Personally, the way some people reacted during this MfD has ensured that some people will keep this issue on their minds for a long time. I, for one, will be watching Esperanza's reform very closely.

Yikes, Elaragirl -- did you count the votes in Florida in 2000? I usually agree with you on most things (and I also share your finely honed sense of patience) but ... you seem to be dismissive of about 2/3 of the keep votes, while not so of the "deletes". My own scan doesn't show so many "pointless" votes and as, for "repetition", so what of it? Is every comment supposed to break new ground? I hope your sarcasm template applies to the stuff above it as well as the stuff that follows it. Jeez, cut us "keepers" some slack -- these votes count, too. --A. B. 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you go through the page, you'll find a lot of keep votes that basically are non-entities. "Keep, WP:IGNORE" I accepted (no matter how weak), and I would accept a long statement as to why Esperanza was good -- but not stuff like 'per X' if X didn't say anything anyway. I've also clearly labled my opinion AS opinion above. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 00:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

--Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Deletionist Party"? Is this issue really that important to you? And repetition of a commonly held viewpoint, while I agree it doesn't advance the discussion as a discussion, certainly is relevant in assessing a consensus and isn't a negative reflection on the commenter or the subject-matter. Newyorkbrad 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You know, comments like that aren't really helpful. Please, do watch the reform closely, tell us if we start to go wrong. But comments like the above continue the myth that you have a vendetta against Esperanza, which isn't helpful to anyone. Thε Halo ^Θ 21:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying (albeit poorly) to say. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. We don't want a "Deletionist Party" any more than we want Esperanza to be a voting block. The good part of this MfD was the effort to reduce the us-vs.-them attitude that Esperanza sometimes seems to create. I look forward to some reform in that regard, but I also want to see that attitude reduced among non-Esperanza users. -- SCZenz 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well I'm close to speeding the coffee lounge page, as that's most of the keep voters agreed that that isn't encyclopedic. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I sugest you go through the proper channels, otherwise you will upset a whole bunch of people (not me), and keep the bad feelings evident in some comments alive much linger than need be. Thε Halo ^Θ 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't speedy any Esperanza pages right now. A discussion is currently underway on what to do. Give it a little time. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that way everything will fizzle, and nothing will end up being done, as is typical. The Crying Orc 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? --Fang Aili ^talk 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Crying Orc, you've only been editing for a month (happy anniversary, BTW :). How did you get so jaded on the process so quickly? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronchester, for the good wishes. Yep, I haven't been here long. However, from my first day here I was pounced upon by a cabal of CVU do-gooders (entirely unjustifiably: they opened a 'request for investigation' on me which generated nearly as much text as this, but then got archived without me being blocked because I hadn't actually done anything — they just took exception to my personal philosophy or something).

So I spent a lot of time reading Wikipedia policy to see how to deal with that nonsense, which led me in turn to silly pages like Esperanza and 'WikiLove'. All that research, combined with an already quite realistic understanding of humans (like knowing that if 'trouble' is avoided by offering to 'workshop' a solution, nothing will happen) leads me to get 'jaded on the process' and realise that there will be no reform unless done before the muzzle of an MP40. So when I said 'typical', I mean not just typical of Wikipedia, but typical of human beings in general (and the people who edit Wikipedia are human beings, and not characters out of a motivational speech, aren't they?)

I am thus more caustic than a can of drain cleaner when it comes to people interrupting what should be the writing of an encyclopedia with twee little gangs and cabals. I also, in day-to-day life, have little patience with people using (alleged) psychological disorders as 'weapons' (or 'shields') in social situations. The fact that so many keep votes were along the lines of 'Esperanza helped so-and-so when it was threatening suicide' is, in my opinion, despicable and irrelevant.

Being nice to people should neither be obligatory nor systematised. Civil, certainly, and I understand the purpose of that policy. But going beyond 'civil' is not good. It leads to smarmy insincerity (the bottom line is that lots of people don't like each other, and never will, and shouldn't bother trying to, or, even worse, pretending to). If I started some Wikipedia thing where the object was to encourage people to say what they like (within bounds of civility: and let us remember that the ancient Romans were 'civil' to the barbarians) to one another and not make any pretences about liking each other, I would be put in the stocks (again) for the do-gooders to pelt with aphorisms from Chicken Soup for the Soul.

We are here to write an encyclopedia (at least that's what I thought and hoped), so policies, projects and interactions should be centred on that. I doubt very much that the compilers of the Britannica sent each other little pictures of clouds badly photoshopped to look like hearts, or memos about 'BrittyLove' or how bad Britannica editors must sit on the 'BrittyCouch' till they are in a good mood, and think that if one of them had have done that, they would have (rightly) been shown the door. The Crying Orc 08:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Elaragirl: you had better have counted my vote as a 'good' one! LOL. I know it was short ('incisive', I like to think) and maybe even a little too harsh for many Esparanzans' finely developed over-sensitivity, but it was cogent, wasn't it? I just wanted to avoid what I am doing now, namely ranting about something which I really shouldn't be wasting my time on. The Crying Orc 08:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• What did you count my opinion as? --Gray Porpoise 21:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As a reasoned Keep. I thought you actually behaved better than almost everyone else involved, and I saw no evidence -- on your part -- of bad faith, and can understand how you made what some considered a bad-faith statment, but I did not.

--Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone please acknowledge obvious wittiness and sarcasm as such, stop being so unreasonably prickly, and move on? Thank you. Moreschi 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• not to be rude, but could i also find out what mine was because I'm not sue how it could be interpreted. Cnriaczoy42 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  This is my opinion, never forget, but yes, your rationale was firmly stated, and yet civil, so I counted it as a 'rational' vote. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 00:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if I was a good keep or a bad keep? Hmmm. Not that it matters anymore. As for the argument to 'improve 30 years from now'... since when are 'niceness' and m:eventualism the same thing? I'd be happy to help out ASAP. riana_dzasta 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Late comment

Moved from MFD page after discussion ended. -- SCZenz 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There is an awful lot of warfare in Wikipedia. It is my observation that the editors who are most likely to be able to calm things down, and provide for sane and civil discussion are more often than not members of Esperanza. (I say this, although I am not a member). I believe that hampering these folk from socializing will hamper their ability to play the calming role that they do play. One of the things, in my opinion, that increases aggression amongst editors are feelings of isolation and helplessness. There is already enough chaotic free-for-all on Wikipedia without throwing a wrench in one of the sources of order and sanity. --BostonMA ^talk 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who writes Wikipedia?

Delta Tango, on the now-closed MfD, was kind enough to point me to the article explaining in full the "who writes Wikipedia" idea that IPs contribute most of the content. I'm sure it has some relevance to being a welcoming community (what Esperanza are trying to do) - but it implies being welcoming to IP edits that is!! - so I'm adding it here: Who Writes Wikipedia?. Carcharoth 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There's some other pages in that site that read pretty close to screed, but at least that page is ... interesting. Like I said, the Welcoming Committee is a good idea, and anyone/anything that augments it is a good idea as well. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You all are fools. I write Wikipedia. Bweh heh heh heh heh. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was the couch that did the writing, and you just acted as its vessel? --tjstrf talk 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Heretic, couches inspire nothing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I offer free use of my Template:Sarcasm for those who need it, and please ... every time you talk about that couch, God kills a Deletionist. Please...think of the Deletionists. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Misza13 is a deletionist of superior craft—he deleted your template before the bits were even dry. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so I see. Well, I won't recreate it. That would go against the Deletionist Code. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 06:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed amendment to Esperanza charter

Hello everyone. I've also posted this on WT:ESP, but I decided to also post it here to get some comments from non-Esperanzans who may still be watching this page. There were quite a few valid concerns that were addressed here, and I've suggested an amendement to the Esperanza charter, to be inserted in the "Mission" section, that reads:

[edit] A. Programs

All Esperanza programs shall be designed to either directly benefit the encyclopedia or directly assist, encourage, or support those who contribute to the encyclopedia. No programs shall exist solely for the purpose of entertainment or socializing, with the exception of off-wiki efforts such as the Esperanza IRC channel.

---

This amendment would be applied retroactively to all existing programs. Let me know if you feel this would address many of the concerns that were brought up here. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It addresses the concerns, but will also prevent any new programs from ever being created, as it will be too easy to raise the objection of "This doesn't directly benefit the encyclopedia!". For instance, you could make a good argument that admin coaching does nothing except make people who want to be admins feel better, since we've gotten plenty of admins without it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this would have to be applied with a grain of rationality and no single person would have veto power of any such programs based on that argument; for each program, a valid argument would have to be made (and verified by many) that the program either relates directly to the mainspace or provides contributors support, stress relief (not entertainment), or positive reinforcement directly related to mainspace editing or upholding of Wikipedia's key policies. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that stress relief should take care to not degenerate into socialising? There have been several comments warning against a situation where people who get stressed out by Wikipedia end up hanging around at Esperanza getting stress relief and talking to their friends, but not returning to editing (maybe because it might make them stressed again). Stress relief should not be seen as a permanent state of existence. If users really are being frequently stressed by Wikipedia, they should be encouraged to step back and look at the bigger picture. Sometimes someone changing their own behaviour is the best way to reduce stress. Carcharoth 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If we were to add a clause saying that Esperanza could directly assist, encourage and support not only the editors but the other "entities" of wikipedia (Simple English wikipedia, WikiProjects, Portals, Commons, and on and on and on) I would have no objections, but I would like to see a clause to that effect added. Badbilltucker 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closed too fast

Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

I was like some a bit suprised that the mfd was closed so soon. I always thought that closing afd's/mfd's/cfd's requires the administrator to make a clear decision for the good of the project. I always believed in the sentence quoted above. In this discussion I was (like many) questioned of not contributing to the discussion and just voting, which is good since this is a discussion, but why only a few questioning the administrator for closing this as "no consensus"? Yea the discussion is long, and people are divided, but so what? It's a common occurance over at afds for a lot of users running there to try to 'save' what ever topic is being nominated. So when a lot of people disagree, we just going to shy away from all process? I believe in the sentence above, policy comes first. So I don't know what all this talk about too long of page so we won't do anything. How are we possibly going to come to a conclusion if you don't care about policy? All this mfd was about is, is Esperanza really helping the mission of wikipedia. So now after a lot of talking, all of a sudden all the Esperanza users going to want their pages deleted, or the delete votes all of a sudden going to want Esperanza to stay? - Tutmosis 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? There was simply no point in extending it. Not only was it long, but both sides had good arguments, and it was obviously not going to reach consensus. Deleting something years (I think?) old in one clump has no chance of reaching consensus. Process doesn't exist for its own sake. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Already being discussed: #No consensus. -- Kim Bruning 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay sorry, I'll continue in the above section. And to note, following policy doesn't create a 'Moot court'. - Tutmosis 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goals of Esperanza?

(Disclaimer: newbie alert! I'm asking questions not only to prove a point, but also to try and figure this out myself. Hell, there's so many threads going around about that proposed deletion I don't even know if this is the right thread for my post. Also, if any of my assumptions below are wrong, feel free to set me straight.)

First, I'd like to address some common complaints I read on the original deletion thread:

"Admin/editing coaching is too political." That depends on the criteria for receiving said coaching. If everyone with a certain level of contributions is eligible, that's fine. Do they have a political agenda beyond "help the community"? If so, a retune is needed.

"They're a private clubhouse, with an us and them mentality." How will forcing them to disband or move off-site bring these individuals closer into the mainstream?

"They rig elections." Assume (emphasis on assume) that Esperanza is really a "WikiMafia", involved in vote stacking, political lobbying, and Marlon Brando impersonations. If the Esperanza site is deleted, these mobsters will simply go underground keep organizing such activities on an off-site forum or chat room.

"They're too political." It also seems naive to assume that if you get rid of a group like this, politics and factionalism will simply "go away". It's human nature. Put two people in an argument. Add visitors. As the visitors gravitate towards a side or sit on the fence, clusters (factions) are developed. How strong a faction is created? That depends on the topic. But like-minded people will always be motivated to support each other. Besides, if a group has issues, and you disband the group, you'll still have a group of individuals with the same issues which need to be addressed. Unless you want to start banning individuals based solely on group membership (cough), I don't see what will be accomplished.

"REAL encyclopedias doesn't need trinkets like Esperanza to motivate staff." Yeah, they use something else. It's called money. I'm sure that a comprehensive Wikipedia could still be written without Esperanza members. But we want as many quality contributors as possible, and if someone needs a group like Esperanza to keep posting, it's a net gain for Wikipedia. (Of course, if someone just spams on the Coffee Lounge and has no intention of posting anywhere else, they should be identified and gently reminded of Wikipedia's mission.)

Now, the big one. I've been struggling to come up with a real-world equivalent for Esperanza - it's not just a social club, it's a combination of lots of things. These are the key points that Esperanza should strive to maintain (or achieve if it isn't there), IMHO:

• 1. Mission: support contributions to the Wikipedia knowledge base through a variety of methods, including but not limited to:

a. Encouraging Wikipedia readers to make their first edit

b. Training current contributors to become more productive

c. Maintaining staff morale

d. Identifying exhausted or stressed contributors, and encouraging them to stay active

e. Directly improving the state of the Wikipedia by organizing a variety of group projects

(a) is recruiting. The goal is to reassure readers that they are welcome to contribute, and that they won't be shot down in flames. This should be achieved by maintaining a friendly atmosphere in discussions throughout the Wikipedia. Once someone goes to the trouble of making their first post, the goal is to keep them posting, but the friendly atmosphere must still be maintained.

(b) is training. This training encompasses an understanding of how the Wiki-verse works, the technical skills needed for advanced editing, and the right frame-of-mind to be a part of the community.

(c) and (d) are staff support services. This seems to be the contentious part, so I've expanded a bit more below.

(e) is a community action group. This group notices that work needs to be done, and, in the absence of government agencies, does the work itself.

In Wikipedia, all these are services are provided by Esperanza, a community action group of sorts. (e) is the most direct work, but the other projects also improve the quality of Wikipedia indirectly, and in the long run, are needed to ensure a vibrant, diverse community of posters.

• 2. Esperanza's support services are provided for the benefit of staff members only. by writing staff, for writing staff.

Their page states "All Esperanzians are expected to be active in Wikipedia". The definition of active/staff can vary. Do you count the number of edits in the last week, or the last year? What if they're just learning how to edit for the first time - can we have "apprentices" in the group? However you define it, Esperanza is not simply a public social club. (You can't just walk into a sergeant's mess on an army base and demand a drink. That privilege is earned after jumping a lot of hurdles.)

• 3. All staff have the right to use or ignore Esperanza, with no judgement made in either case.

If someone needs a break after an exhaustive edit, and instead of fresh air, computer games, or sleep, they prefer to keep interacting with Wikipedians in an unofficial atmosphere, fine. If they have any problems, and want to discuss it in an unofficial environment, that's fine too. But staff should be judged on the quality of their work, not what they do or say on their break time. Any site that provides such services should be a part of Wikipedia, not a separate Wiki, to make it clear that Esperanza is a sub-section of this community, and not the hub of another community.(If someone needs a coffee break at work, fine. If not, they can keep working. But they can't complain about the coffee drinkers. Also, if there's a traumatic incident at work, the company might be required to offer optional counselling. Even if the majority don't use these services, they have no right to judge those who do. In either case, as long as the person produces more than the cost of the cup of coffee or the counselling appointment, it's a net gain for the company.)

• 4. Wikipedia promotions should be based solely on a person's suitability for the job, and not on any group affiliations or memberships.

If being a part of Esperanza has given someone the right mindset and skillset for the job, great. But membership itself means nothing. (People at work shouldn't be promoted just because they ride a motorcycle and the boss rides a motorcycle.)

• 5. All members should agree to the mission statement in order to join - that is, they should agree to be, first and foremost, individual contributors to the Wikipedia knowledge base.

An Esperanzan "court jester" might spread joy and good cheer throughout the Wikipedia. However, opponents of Esperanza will point to such an individual as an example of everything that is wrong with the group. To avoid such accusations, all members must personally contribute in some form. The form this takes is entirely up to the member - they can be a subject matter expert one week, web-page designer the next, and dispute arbitrator the week after. If they're carrying out Esperanza's mission in some form, then they're a member of staff, with access to all the support services previously listed. Including the coffee. _{(Added by Quack 688 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC))}

In summary, the most contentious part of Esperanza is its "staff support services." Even if companies weren't founded to provide these services, they must still provide a minimal level of support to their employees, even if it means setting aside some office space or profits for the purpose, and even if the majority of employees don't use them. Similarly, Wikipedia's mission is to provide an encyclopedia, not a social support group. And most people aren't members of Esperanza. But if Esperanza (or any other group, for that matter) provides all five services I listed above, I don't see anything but a net gain for the Wikipedia project as a whole. Quack 688 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (last edited: Quack 688 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Well said! You do have some extremely insightful stuff there. Gracenotes ^T § 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good essay, thanks for sharing it. --Kyoko 05:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! Excellent work. This is what we need - more people willing to make a balance. riana_dzasta 06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond to some of what you wrote, then.

1. "Admin/editing coaching is too political." That depends on the criteria for receiving said coaching. If everyone with a certain level of contributions is eligible, that's fine. Do they have a political agenda beyond "help the community"? If so, a retune is needed. - Well, this is a divisive issue with many possible answers. Some people think admin coaching is good. Others feel it is gaming the system. I personally don't care for it, but unless and until it violates an actual policy I cannot see any reason to delete or remove it. I would like the emphasis to be more on DOING things an admin would need to do rather than learning just how to phrase your RfA.
2. "They're a private clubhouse, with an us and them mentality." How will forcing them to disband or move off-site bring these individuals closer into the mainstream? - Some people feel that Esperanza should be of more primary importance than , as one Esperaznan so civilly put it, "being an emotionless editor" or a "nerd". The way that some (note this word) Esperanzans act generates a low level of ill-will that has simply built up to this shitstorm you see now. Removing the people who can't see past Esperanza to what Esperanza has to do will bring the good parts of the project -- and the real membership -- closer.
3. "They rig elections." Assume (emphasis on assume) that Esperanza is really a "WikiMafia", involved in vote stacking, political lobbying, and Marlon Brando impersonations. If the Esperanza site is deleted, these mobsters will simply go underground keep organizing such activities on an off-site forum or chat room. - True. *shrugs*
4. "They're too political." : Was this an actual criticism?
5. "REAL encyclopedias doesn't need trinkets like Esperanza to motivate staff." Yeah, they use something else. It's called money. I'm sure that a comprehensive Wikipedia could still be written without Esperanza members. But we want as many quality contributors as possible, and if someone needs a group like Esperanza to keep posting, it's a net gain for Wikipedia. (Of course, if someone just spams on the Coffee Lounge and has no intention of posting anywhere else, they should be identified and gently reminded of Wikipedia's mission.) - Yeah, well, there are some people who DO act that way. Before this MfD there was even talk of a Coffee Lounge patrol. When you need PATROLS to keep people from goofing off, your project has entered the "Needs a clue" stage.

All of the above is my personal opinion, and you shall have to excuse any biting sarcasm. Thank you and I hope this clarifies some things. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 06:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries - your feedback's welcome, it's given me plenty to think about.

1. "Admin/editing coaching is too political." That depends on the criteria for receiving said coaching. If everyone with a certain level of contributions is eligible, that's fine. Do they have a political agenda beyond "help the community"? If so, a retune is needed. - Well, this is a divisive issue with many possible answers. Some people think admin coaching is good. Others feel it is gaming the system. I personally don't care for it, but unless and until it violates an actual policy I cannot see any reason to delete or remove it. I would like the emphasis to be more on DOING things an admin would need to do rather than learning just how to phrase your RfA. - Agreed. Such a course should deal with methods of arbitration, and technical skills, not how to get elected. I also think that people commenting in RfAs should judge an applicant by their editing history. Of course, someone who's been editing for a while has probably made some allies and enemies, and they might point out the best and worst of the applicant's work and let the public decide.
2. "They're a private clubhouse, with an us and them mentality." How will forcing them to disband or move off-site bring these individuals closer into the mainstream? - Some people feel that Esperanza should be of more primary importance than , as one Esperaznan so civilly put it, "being an emotionless editor" or a "nerd". The way that some (note this word) Esperanzans act generates a low level of ill-will that has simply built up to this shitstorm you see now. Removing the people who can't see past Esperanza to what Esperanza has to do will bring the good parts of the project -- and the real membership -- closer. - If an "Esperanzan hippie" gets in a flame war with an "emotionless killjoy" (extreme examples, no offence intended), they should both be judged by the same standard: the amount they have each contributed to Wikipedia, directly and indirectly, versus the amount of discontent they've caused. You have brought up a valid point, though - "Esperanzan hippies" will damage the credibility of the group as a whole. I'll add another point to what I wrote before - be right back.
3. (point removed due to consensus, replaced by tea break)
4. "They're too political." : Was this an actual criticism? - Not really, just a comment - some people say Wikipedia's become too political. On a site with this many users, some sort of factionalism is inevitable. It can be argued that some group members reduce these tensions while other increase them, but these tensions will always exist to some extent.
5. "REAL encyclopedias doesn't need trinkets like Esperanza to motivate staff." Yeah, they use something else. It's called money. I'm sure that a comprehensive Wikipedia could still be written without Esperanza members. But we want as many quality contributors as possible, and if someone needs a group like Esperanza to keep posting, it's a net gain for Wikipedia. (Of course, if someone just spams on the Coffee Lounge and has no intention of posting anywhere else, they should be identified and gently reminded of Wikipedia's mission.) - Yeah, well, there are some people who DO act that way. Before this MfD there was even talk of a Coffee Lounge patrol. When you need PATROLS to keep people from goofing off, your project has entered the "Needs a clue" stage. - Esperanzans always have the right to kick visiting morons out of their staff lounge. Given the nature of the group, though, I'd favour a gentle "Why we're here" explanation as a first step, and give them a bit of time to learn the ropes. Of course, if general consensus is that the moron is, in fact, an incurable drop-kick moron, then they'll get the boot for sure. In any case, that gentle explanation should be the responsibility of Esperanza admins. By the same principle of "it's your staff room - you're responsible", then if Esperanza has a page that attracts the drop-kick crowd, they need to deal with the mess themselves.

Thanks again for your thoughts - btw, any ideas on the mission statement part of my previous post? If Esperanza is allowed to continue, are there any other ideals you believe they should consider adopting?

PS. Sarcasm? What sarcasm? That was a two-star chilli at best. I couldn't even taste it. :-p

(Uh oh. I think I might need to find one of those pink sarcasm cards myself. Or a "get out of jail free" card at least.) Quack 688 13:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would formally like to say that the above arguements, which present both sides of the debate about Esperenza, are wonderful, and a delight to read. It is a shame that more like this was not present in the actual MfD. I would recommend that EVERYONE read this. Thank you to both Quack 688 and Elaragirl --Jayron32 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My vote.

I voted just as the MfD was closed, and my vote was removed. Transcluded because I wanted to raise some points.

Absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devestating delete. I have seen the belief that Esperanzans are superior to normal editors first hand, and I have felt threatened by these attempts to make me a second class Wikipedian. Look at the comments above. Wikipedia without Esperanza is supposedly "cold-hearted" - I am not cold hearted, and neither is any other editor I have worked with, and as half the comments on this thread have been in the vein that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would be a lifeless husk, as someone who has never joined Esperanza, I feel deeply insulted by that. The comments of Esperanzans on this thread have been insulting and demeaning to users who do agree with the existence of Esperanza: their response has been to claim they are justified because it's Esperanza. Again, this demonstrates the feeling of superiority that Esperanzans seem to feel they are entitled to. I am also extremely alarmed to learn that Wikipedians who have been suffering mental health issues have been persuaded to stay online because of begging peer pressure tactics employed by Esperanzans - as someone who suffers from depression myself I find the idea absolutely horrifying - one should leave the Wikipedian community immediately until fully recovered. I have also been deeply worried to discover that Esperanza is being used a a method of votestacking to get more Esperanzan Admins - if Esperanza is not deleted something needs to be done about this immediately. Finally, I think the complete lack of interest of every Esperanzan so far in an honest debate about the merits and otherwise of Esperanza demonstrate that editors who join lose sight of the goals of Wikipedia, and thus Esperanza is a danger to Wikipedia and ought to be deleted. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that someone removed your opinion. They should have left it in or moved instead. Thank you for salvaging it! Kim Bruning 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the history to see if it was removed by accident, and it doesn't show up in the history. Perhaps the edit failed because the page was protected while it was being written? In any case, yes, thanks for salvaging it. The goal of closing the MfD was not to end discussion, only to bring it to another venue. -- SCZenz 23:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with every single thing said here. Totally true. --Cyde Weys 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So do I, but I fail to see how the organization being corrupt means it should be deleted instead of reformed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

...I can't believe you just said that. You just admitted that Esperanza is corrupt, but claim that's no reason for deletion? What is wrong with you? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... Nothing? I believe the US government is corrupt, but I'm not about to say that's a reason to destroy it. Corruption is not a reason to destroy something, it's a reason to FIX it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts; forgive me if I didn't read close enough or am being stupid, but what are your reasons for claiming corruption? I think it'll be very useful to enforce the new structure of Esperanza, and I see no corruption. It's not big enough to be corrupt for ham's sake; the U.S. Goverment, well, in short, I don't think it's corrupted substantially, but that is neither here nor there. DoomsDay349 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not at all the big conspiracy theory corruption some people decided they would argue about. It's some Esperanzans, doing some bad things, apparently because they are members of Esperanza, with nobody stopping them. Esperanza itself is fine, just its members are not all very good. Sorry if I implied otherwise. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but no. Esperanza is explicitly an organisation of individuals, which is meant to act as a community and, as has been pointed out, has an extensive bureaucracy to keep its members to the rules, thus if members take from their membership the idea that they are superior to other editors and indispensable to Wikipedia because everyone else is so cold and unfeeling, that is definitely the fault of the organisation because they certainly didn't get from non-Esperanzans. Incidentally, I did not accuse Esperanza of being corrupt. YOU did.

In any case, having pointed out these flaws, and you having accepted them, I am at a loss as to why you think it is possible to reform a system that specifically exists to promote itself and its members. Personally, I find it difficult to see how the admin votestacking COULD be stopped without immediate dismantlement of this exclusivist club. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1: Esperanza's not exclusive. You're free to join, as is anyone who has achive 150 edits. 2: You did accuse Esperanza of being corrupt. "I have also been deeply worried to discover that Esperanza is being used a a method of votestacking to get more Esperanzan Admins" means you except that point of view as being fact. 3: That superior feeling works both ways, as i've certianly got the feeling that I'm a second class wikipedian for having a green e in my name. If you've got the same feeling from people with the e, I'm personally sorry, on behalf of Esperanza, but there are as many sneers from those not in Esperanza as there are from those in it. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are not a member of Esperanza, you may not have the EA barnstar, you cannot participate in any of the programs if you are not a member, and you will be discrimated against at RfA if you are not a member. THAT is exclusionist. I never said Esperanza itself is corrupt - the thought didn't occur to me. Now of course, I accuse Esperanza of being corrupt, of using its membership to insinuate itself, however unintentionlly, in the upper ranks of our community, because its true. Your sudden feeling of persecution has come from this MfD because you have finally realised that there are large numbers of Wikipedians out there who do not like Esperanza and do not think it as marvellous as Esperanzans do. I, on the other hand, have been marginalised by Esperanzans for months, because I do not wear a green e in my name. I'm sure you consider this fine, because I could join Esperanza if I wanted to. Finally, regarding the smearing, non-Esperanzans attacked Esperanza, not its members, Esperanzans called delete voters cold hearted, mad, evil, jealous, and people who wanted to suck the very life out of Wikipedia. You cannot claim the high ground on this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can. I didn't say smearing, I said sneer (which i acidently spelt snear). If you're not a member of EA, no, you can't have a EA barnstar. Just like I can't have a WikiProject Barnstar I'm not a member of. You'll find that is common practice. You certianly may participate in any of our programs, and you won't, I repeat won't be "discrimated against at RfA if you are not a member" Show me a diff of that happening, and I'll apologise to you. But, really, I don't think you'll find the entire Esperanza opposing someone becuase they're not a member of Esperanza. And, my feelings are not known to you. The feeings which I have talked about were with me long before the MfD. I find it nce you assume you know me well enough to second guess my feelings though :) Oh, by the way, we also welcome all to comment and interact during our reform period, just as Cyde has been doing. I now claim the high ground. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm going to compile a list fo quotes from Esperanzans, highlighting how wrapped up in Esperanza they are and utterly unconcerned with Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Halo, I could show you diffs of users explicitly saying that Esperanza itself was supporting an admin candidate. That's a big problem, no? -- SCZenz 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, members of Esperanza supporting another member just because they are all in Esperanza is a problem, but Dev said people were being "discrimated against at RfA if you are not a member", which, to the best of my knowledge isn't happening. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I've not seen that either. -- SCZenz 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's discrimination. If I stood for Admin right now, I would receive a third less votes than a typical Esperanzan, simply because I am not one. That is discrimination. It is wrong, and I find it bizarre that every Esperanzan on here has agreed with my points but still wants the organisation itself to continue. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you basing these statistics on, Dev? I do not believe I have agreed with all of your points, either. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am basing them on SCZenz's assertion that he can provide diffs of Esperanzans explicitly supporting RfAs on the bass of their membership to Esperanza, and comments made by users who hang out at RfA on the MfD who say that Ezperanzan candidates typically gain 30% more supports than other candidiates. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have often hung out on RFA, and have not seen this assertion made until now. The users who have received the most RFA supports are generally the people who are most active on Wikipedia and have a history of civility, as far as I know. If those persons happen to be Esperanzans, that does not mean there has been vote-stacking, and this is an allegation I take seriously. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(re-indent) Seeing as you're not standing for RfA right now, we don't know if that is true or not. Personally, I've voted for many people at RfA who are not in Esperanza. And I'm an Esperanzian, and I've agreed with very little of your points. In fact, I've just argued against them. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sensing an escalating user conflict here. Please calm down. This is a very controvesial situation as it is.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I'll stop replying. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I strongly oppose deleting Esperanza. To say that the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia is too narrow. The purpose of building an encyclopedia, and the ultimate goal of Wikipedia, is to help people. That includes the members of the Wikipedia community. Have you forgotten why we are here? Because we want to be - for the fun, for the "feel good" quotient.[1] If anything, Wikipedia editors are the most important of all (to Wikipedia), and if our readers happen to want the same things as us, well, that's a pleasant coincidence. If Esperanza helps Wikipedians, it is fulfilling Wikipedia's goal. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If Esperanza helps Wikipedians... Yes, well that is a big if at this point. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Doug, I admit I haven't read the entire deletion discussion, but aside from a few concerns of cliquishness, the delete arguments I read didn't talk about Esperanza having a negative effect on Wikipedians. Are there any concerns besides cliquishness that I missed? As for the cliquishness, last I checked the membership requirements for Esperanza were fairly low. (The Mediation Committee is more cliquish in that respect.) I have not personally observed evidence editors who are not members of Esperanzans being discriminated against, but I'd be happy to listen to any concerns about this. Perhaps it is relevant to add at this point that I am not a member of Esperanza. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"To say that the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia is too narrow." It's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Did you miss Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Armedblowfish, but your conception of what Wikipedia is doesn't jibe with what Wikipedia actually is. Wikipedia is a freely redistributable encyclopedia, nothing more, and nothing less. The goal of Wikipedia is certainly not "to help people", although that is a fortunate byproduct of writing an encyclopedia. Here's some good proof that our mission isn't "to help people", though. We don't allow prescriptive advice in our articles. This goes along with neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Although it might help people to give a laundry list of how to deal with wild animals or how to get stains out of their shirts or even how to beat certain hard parts of videogames, it's not appropriate on Wikipedia. If you truly want to work on a site where the goal is "to help people", you need to look elsewhere. --Cyde Weys 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open source project. Is there any open source project that doesn't exist to help people? Being volunteer-contributed, people will only contribute because they want to, with all of the motivations that make people want to volunteer. People who want to volunteer often want to help other people, besides themselves, as well. Some people want to make operating systems, so they contribute to Linux, OpenBSD, or whatever. Others want to make electronic communication more secure - perhaps they contribute to OpenSSH or GPG. Some want to make information freely available - they contribute to various documentation projects, wikis, etc. Wikipedia is a GFDLed encylopedia - it is a tool for making information freely available. It is also a community of volunteers, volunteers who contribute because they want to. Why do they want to? Because it is fun, because of the "feel good" factor. When it is no longer fun, when the "feel good" factor stops, they leave. This is the nature of open source projects. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dev, you bring up some great points. I only voted support, because I was hoping these problems within the system could be fixed before they actually did harm to the greater good. Armedblowfish also brings up some good points. The whole point of Esperanza was so people could relax from the project and just "chill" with other editors. I saw that this wasn't really happening anymore, and I started to drift from Esperanza (well I never really did much in the first place, but that's not the point). I think people take Esperanza too seriously, and I believe there are some people who only go to Wikipedia for Esperanza. If you're not going to bother contributing to the encyclopedia, then don't bother coming here at all. Nishkid64 02:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused. Are you saying that Esperanza isn't helping people relax/chill anymore?

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Armedblowfish, I would suggest that Esperanza doesn't help the Wikipedia community and is actually harmful. The current level of ill feeling against Esperanza probably is connected to PHDrillSergeant's couch, but there are other meaningful concerns. From my perspective Esperanza is a pressure group that pushes a specific agenda. I personally don't consider a fork in the Spanish Wikipedia to be a life changing event, nor does the presence of google ads in the manner of Uncyclopedia fill me with dread. For that matter, I don't consider the continuous repetition of possible errors in public relations by the Wikipedia Foundation to be appropriate. Also, we are seeing the emergence of a variant on anti-deletionism emerging, which relies on emotional arguments, instead of the more thoughtful approach of the AIW which focusses on the encyclopedia. In reply to your question, I'm not convinced the existence of Esperanza was ever very helpful and in the context of some actions by members, which have certainly been elitist, I would suggest Esperanza should be reformed. Personally, I think Esperanza should be divided into separate Wikipedia projects for coaching admins and other useful work, leaving a pressure group with no more presence than AIW. Addhoc 12:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'll respond even more in depth to Armedblowfish. The purpose of Wikipedia is stated by the Wikimedia Foundation as building an encyclopedia. The purpose you see it as is what you see, not what it neccessarily is. Helping people to relax and chill is not helping the encyclopedia in many people's minds. Furthermore, some actions of some Esperanzans, and some attitudes of some Esperanzans, have in effect made some people question whether the group should remain. Addhoc brings up another good point, the emotional/appeal to intent argument that is increasingly being used to oppose XfD, DRV, and even some non-inclusionist policies. Finally I am astounded by the statement that there are no concerns about cliquishness when there is an entire laundry list of problems we listed. Cliquishness is only one. Another is that editors working on Esperanza were not working as much on the encyclopedia. Another is that Esperanza was becoming a project mostly devoted to games, user page contests, and treating Wikipedia like it was a social site, which it is WP:NOT. Yet another is that Esperanza is divisive in some people's minds. Another is that some of it's projects overlap things already being done elsewhere and thus are a replication of effort. Finally and most importantly, the largest problem is that they feel like you do, that the goal of building an encyclopedia is too narrow. I can't really say what I think of that kind of attitude without making what someone might construe as a personal attack, but I will say that if you are working on an open source project, such as Linux, and you think you should expend the efforts of hundreds of members, literally hundreds of hours and dozens of subtasks on something outside of the goal of the project -- yeah, try that on a Sourceforge project and see how far you get. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong agreement with Elara here. Esperanza and projects like that are only useful in so far as they foster community and reduce stress and these can be useful for keeping editors here in the long term. However, Wikipedia is not a social networking site and anyone who thinks that being an encyclopedia is "too narrow" has missed the point. JoshuaZ 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Elaragirl basically summed up what I was going to say. There's nothing wrong with relaxing, but there is a problem when you come to Wikipedia just to relax, and don't even bother contributing to the encyclopedia. I'm glad that the Coffee Lounge was deleted because that was one of the biggest problems with Esperanza. Many people just went to Wikipedia to go to the Coffee Lounge, and it basically functioned as a forum. Some editors weren't doing any article work, yet they had plenty of time to do so, but they just wasted it on mindless discussions of pointless topics in the Coffee Lounge. Nishkid64 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that cliquishness and divisness are valid concerns, although I haven't really seen any evidence of it. I'd also like to hear more about Esperanza as a "pressure group". As for inclusionism for pure emotional reasons, that's regrettable, but I can respect the opinons of others without agreeing with them. But as for Esperanzans who don't contribute to the encyclopedia, is there really any harm in that? Shouldn't we be more concerned about vandals and content disputes? And if you took a random sampling of the people who hung out in the coffee lounge, what percent do you think would be non-contributors? Are the existence of a few people who are neither helpful nor harmful really justification for denying the benefits of the coffee lounge to contributors who did find it helpful?

As for the purpose of Wikipedia, tell me: What is the purpose of building an encylopedia?

OpenBSD is an operating system. But the ultimate purpose of the OpenBSD project is not to build an operating system. According to Theo de Raadt (founder), the OpenBSD team is like a family. He wants to take care of this team. He contributes because he enjoys writing code.[2] According to Theo, the developers make OpenBSD for themselves. Theo sees the user community as being there to support them, and if the users want the same things as they do, well, that's a nice coincidence.[3]

Simply being an encylopedia, perfect and complete, is almost pointless in my opinion - if Wikipedia was complete, we (the editors) would have nothing to do. Building an encylopedia is a means to various other goals. The ulimate goal of Wikipedia is the sum, or perhaps the synthesis, of all of the reasons why people contribute. The joy, the sense of having made the world better, meeting interesting people, the pride of a job well done, and all the rest. Most of these goals basically boil down to helping people - yourself and others.

Nishkid64 - if there's anything to don't feel comfortable saying on Wikipedia, feel free to email me. : )

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Slight self-refactoring in hopes of addressing the concerns of Addhoc. 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC), 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with calling the Esperanza organization "cliquish" is that a clique restricts its membership, while Esperanza always was open to everyone, beyond 150 edits (or whatever it was). Firsfron of Ronchester 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I haven't seen evidence of that. But if it is a problem, then it is a valid concern. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to take your comments seriously, because I suspect you are just trying to exasperate Elaragirl. Comments such as "an encylopedia is pointless" aren't worthy of a reply. Addhoc 00:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant a perfect, complete encyclopedia. One with nothing left to improve, that simply existed. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Wikipedia is in (almost) constant flux. This change - the process - is more important that its state at any given moment. The process has a purpose - the synthesis of the goals of Wikipedians, which we may call consensus. Consensus is also in constant flux, as editor come and go, discuss and change their minds. Overall, consensus moves towards something better. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I still think you are attempting to exasperate other editors and I have no intention of taking your comments seriously... Addhoc 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'd like to know why you feel that way, but since I doubt you're going to tell me, I'll try to figure it out by myself. I'm guessing it was an error in wording on my part, but I could be wrong. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exasperated. I'm just sad that WP:EAD isn't a policy since it would simply things soooo much. Warning! Sarcasm alert! Humor impaired individuals should flee the area --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 02:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

*laugh* Is it safe to guess that the promotion of purely emotional inclusionism is one of your top objections to Esperanza? I once voted to delete an article partially for an emotional reason: the husband of the subject wanted the article gone. Not that that was the only reason. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza User Page Award up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award -- SCZenz 23:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy delete; overwhelming delete consensus. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 04:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be Wikipedia editors first, and avoid talk of non-Esperanzans

This is a repost of a comment I made elsewhere in response to a post that talked about Esperanzans and non-Esperanzans:

This whole talk of non-Esperanzans is silly. Esperanzans are first and foremost Wikipedia editors. Whenever they encounter Wikipedia editors who are not Esperanzans, the reaction should be to greet a fellow Wikipedia editor and work with them, not to label them a "non-Esperanzan". Would you think of someone you meet on the street as a non-Wikipedian? No. You are a human first, and a Wikipedian second. Ditto Esperanza. Keep Esperanza stuff for dealing with Esperanzans. Display the "green e" on Esperanza pages, but not on other pages. When you leave Esperanza pages and head out to edit other pages, you become a Wikipedia editor and the Esperanza 'cap' is placed in your pocket until you return. Does this make sense? Carcharoth 02:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Would you think of someone you meet on the street as a non-Wikipedian?" Yes. I think everyone who doesn't edit Wikipedia has a giant hole in their lives they don't know about and are greatly missing out and yes I know that makes me a really sad geek, and I'm proud! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not a geek. Everyone that volunteers here is willing to contribute their knowledge and share it with the world, which I think is a great action.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But do you wear a Wikipedia hat or T-shirt when out on the street? Do you congregate around those with Wikipedia hats, and not others? Do you think of Wikipedia as being more important to you than real life? Replace all the above mentions of Wikipedia with "Esperanza" and "street/real life" with "Wikipedia" (see below), and you begin to get to the root of the problem that some people see in some Esperanzans (not all, I hasten to add - some Esperanzans are model Wikipedians). Carcharoth 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

extension of above analogy: But do you wear an Esperanza hat or T-shirt when in other areas of Wikipedia? Do you congregate around those with Esperanza hats, instead of other Wikipedia editors? Do you think of Esperanza as being more important to you than Wikipedia? Carcharoth 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all (or even most) Esperanza members think in those terms, you know. I know that I have a green o in my signature, and I can change that if others find it offensive. I personally don't participate much in Esperanza related programs anyway, except for Stress alerts and the occasional birthday greeting. --Kyoko 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's saying ALL Esperanza members think that way, or even most. SOME Esperanzans do, and those people are casting the entire thing into a bad light. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. My own participation in Esperanza is somewhat limited, except in the larger sense of how I aim to treat other people. Perhaps as a result of that, my edit count wasn't affected much by the deletion of the coffee lounge. --Kyoko 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this appears to be the stereotype of Esperanza members, but the fact that some people just come to Esperanza to hang out defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. Nishkid64 20:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Amarkov's got it right. I have, as far as I can remember, NEVER posted to the Coffee Lounge, I do not have a custom signature, and my user page customization, while it is more than I need, has helped me learn wikicode and serves to lower my wikistress - making me more productive on Wikipedia. I do not distinguish between Wikipedians and Esperanzians, and never have. I will, however, recognize when someone is in Esperanza, and use that fact to help me socially - it's easier to empathize with someone and work with them when you recognize them as part of your local subgroup, rather than just any other Wikipedian. That's not a problem - it doesn't mean that I discriminate against non-Esperanzians, but rather that I recognize an Esperanzian as someone with whom I will be able to empathize more easily. If I saw a person wearing a Wikipedia cap in real life, I would probably talk to them - they obviously share a part of their time, through Wikipedia, with me! That does not, however, mean that I shun those who do not wear Wikipedia caps - none of my friends edit Wikipedia, aside from Abhorsen327, and she's on an indefinite wikibreak for school reasons. I don't understand how this discussion can come up - any person who discriminates against a "non-" person is breaking the ethos of Wikipedia. If I discriminate against a non-white person, or a person of a particular faith, that would be known as racism. If that's happening on Esperanza, those members should be shown the proverbial door, not the entire group. Nihiltres 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never posted to the coffee lounge, either, and agree with what you and Amarkov said. I haven't seen evidence of this discrimination. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it. I even saw it on the huge MFD discussion ... some people were challenging whether others had any right to dictate possible Esperanza reforms because they were non-members. Luckily I haven't seen that in the actual overhaul discussions thus far. People like that will get all pissed off if you try to delete their stuff, but when it comes around to actually putting the work in and improving, they're curiously absent. --Cyde Weys 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely appalling and ridiculous. As I have re-iterated multiple times before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Esperanza should have been a program in which people could interact with others, discuss articles, improve their editing, and basically act as a self-help forum. It's disturbing and unfortunate to see that people have taken Esperanza too seriously, and they have put that in front of Wikipedia. Nishkid64 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul update.

Many of the discussions of reforms have gone into the voting phase, so I thought it would help you to have an update on the relevant issues:

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance - There are currently four proposals: that the current governing system be kept as is, that it be abolished for either two or four months to test whether Esperanza actually needs that layer of bureaucracy, that it be replaced with two "consuls" to act a a balance of power, or that the council should be abolished permanently.

• Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge - An Esperanza noticeboard, that could potentially incorporate stressed users, the good aspects of the coffee lounge, and the to-do list has been proposed.

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Admin Coaching - Admin coaching is still in the discussion phase, with suggestions to rename or delete and redirect to adopt a user being considered.

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Stress Alerts - Stress Alerts are still in the discussion phase, though a suggestion that they be deleted and resurrected in a third party format at the proposed noticeboard has been made.

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/To-Do List - There are currently two proposals: keep as is, or delete.

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Appreciation Week - There are currently three proposals: that it be kept as is, that it be deleted as an Esperanzan project and be proposed for all Wikipedians at the village pump, or that it be deleted permanently.

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Newsletter - There are currently two proposals: keep as is, or delete. Some residual discussion regarding an "opt-in" list rather than an opt-out list is continuing.

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Calendar - There are currently three proposals: that it be kept as is, that it be moved from Esperanza to the Birthday Committee, or that it be deleted permanently.

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Members List - There are currently three proposals: that the list be kept, that it be kept but the inactive section removed, or that it should be deleted altogether. Discussion is ongoing as to whether it promotes Esperanzans as "set apart".

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Stressbusters - A suggestion has been made by me for this largely inactive project to be deleted and reproposed at Wikiproject Wikidemia. Initial discussion has begun.

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/WikiProject Award - A discussion has just opened about whether the Esperanza barnstar is too exclusive.

Thoughts and contributions to these discussions are welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inexperienced Esperanzans exporting their social networking

Just FYI, the existence of a robust Esperanza project that involves considerable editing not directly related to Wikipedia purposes is beginning to have an impact on sister projects that can ill afford such distractions. User:Sir james paul, a new WP editor who has added himself to the WP:ESP ranks despite failing even the modest guidelines of membership here (which no one seems to have noticed), is trying to unilaterally create an en:Wikiquote Esperanza project, ordaining himself as President [4], doling out invitations to selected Wikiquotians to join as officers [5], and trying to get other projects' Esperanzans to join WQ solely to operate the project [6], despite having virtually no understanding of how Wikimedia projects work.

One cannot blame the Esperanza project entirely for this misadventure (except for the failure to maintain its own integrity by allowing editors to participate with plenty of enthusiam and grand dreams, but without wiki knowledge). But I believe this is a sign of just how easy it is for a project like Esperanza to allow people to forget why we're here. The various WikiProjects for themes (e.g., specific TV shows, album and song articles, etc.) at least have an ostensible rationale for improving article quality (although from what I've seen, far too many of them simply engage is mass-edits of minor tweaks that satisfy genre fans while violating all manner of standard WP practices). But a project devoted to stress relief of wiki editors, whose membership includes people who don't have the experience to have accumulated such stress and don't have the awareness of Wikimedia policies to properly advise, seems incredibly counterproductive. This ill-considered exportation is merely a symptom of the problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this was never discussed nor approved by anyone on the Wikipedia Esperanza. This user did it entirely by himself. He never discussed it on Wikiquote, is obviously not a strong member of their community, and screwed up big time. I'm sorry this happened. Nextly, Esperanza is undergoing severe changes on Wikipedia, so it was dumb to do this before all the changes were made. Personally, I see no use for a wikiquote Esperanza; but that's your call, not mine. I only do a very small amount of Wikiquote work, only for Dragonlance. I do not consider myself part of your community, so it's not my decision. Please accept my apologies on behalf of Esperanza. Just for the record, if you'd like to check out how Esperanza on Wikipedia is shaping up, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul for some info. DoomsDay349 01:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's nobody in Esperanza's fault, exactly... except that clearly something is wrong with how it's perceived, and not just on the part of us grouchy old non-Esperanza admins. There is so much voting and constitution-writing and title-granting going on that it's easy to see why some people get the wrong idea about what Esperanza is for. -- SCZenz 06:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is kind of like how userboxes started here and then migrated to other projects. Now almost everyone is infected with them. Bleagh. --Cyde Weys 01:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could clone certain editors and export them? :-) Carcharoth 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I could use some more of me to tag team on the deletions with. --Cyde Weys 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The similarity to the Userbox Project struck me. I have a feeling that something similar will pop up again. -- Donald Albury 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge idea for Esperanza, Kindness Campaign, Concordia

Hello, this is an idea that I first voiced on Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Stress Alerts. I was thinking that many of the goals of Esperanza, the Kindness Campaign, and Concordia overlap. What if all three projects were merged into one? I know that this idea could potentially offend members of the other two projects, and I should also mention that I'm a member of all three. Just a thought. --Kyoko 15:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we call it the Cabal for Kindness, Kittens, and Hugs? No..seriously. I think that uniting the three would be a good idea. You would have a ready made slogan "Civility + Kindness = Community" and a mass of material to draw from. Your biggest hurdle would be working in a way to integrate this Megasperanza into Wikipedia and to avoid criticism of those who don't like intropian style groups. Also, you would have to take care to avoid the image of "civility storm troopers" CCD used to have, and resource intensive quagmires like that of the Coffee Lounge. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. There is a fair amount of overlap in the scope of the projects, and I think that Concordia and the Kindness Campaign would benefit from Esperanza's, shall we say, visability? While Esperanza would benefit from their focus on the encyclopedia. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not ambitious enough, you should include the Harmonious editing club... Addhoc 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but I recently nominated Concordia for deletion. Believe me, they're long dead, pretty much. And I don't think the harmonious editing club will take a merger very well... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a good idea, if members of all of the above organizations were ammenable to it. However, the basic principle of the right of freedom of association should mean we shouldn't force the organizations to merge. They have similar goals and ideas, and it may be a good idea, but we should be careful about forcing such an issue. --Jayron32 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Concordia has just been marked as historical - don't think they'll be merging any time soon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, there is the KC. If they really want to. But you have to think of this; which one will claim supremacy? What name do we use? Etc., etc. It would be a very delicate situation, one best conducted after the EA overhaul...and in a few months, I think, to let some heat die down. DoomsDay349 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this would definitely simplify things. Let's see if anyone else goes along with the idea. Nishkid64 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It was just a random idea, not an altogether serious proposal, so sorry if I've offended. --Kyoko 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The KC hasn't been operating heavily that much =(. And I would wait on the merger for about a month after the overhaul. After the overhaul, we have to reevaluate our organisation and see if it still satisfies the general Wikipedia community.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically I believe in the spirit of Esperanza and I hope that some form of it will continue to be on Wikipedia, so that is why I made the merge suggestion. I agree that any talk of merging projects should wait until well after the overhaul, and more people should be consulted for feedback. --Kyoko 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck are you all smoking?!

Cripes! One of the main problems with Wikipedia is that it has no means to protect its editors! Every vandal, troll, and malfactor is allowed to violate every single one of our civility rules to whatever extent they feel like it. Death threats, insults, stalking, anything you can think of. It's the internet; you can't stop them. Anyone who dislikes you will shove it in your face and make absolutely sure that everyone knows you suck because you deleted the page about their crappy garage band. If you warn a vandal, what's the first thing they do? Yip at you about being an idiot! And can you do anything other than block one of their (many!) accounts or IPs? No. We are pacifists, regardless of whether or not we want to be.

How is this related to Esperanza? The editors need somewhere to relax. It is simply wrong to take one of the few safe havens we have. Esperanza is a place where-regardless of whatever the trolls have hurled in your face-you will be accepted and taken care of! Yes, it's an encyclopedia, and yes, Wikipedia is not Myspace, but really-do you think we're made of stone? We have no feelings? Wikipedia is a human made encyclopedia, and as humans, we need compassion. However much we may want to resist it and go about our editing without it, we can't! The human race would not be where it is today without love, and Wikipedia is no different!

I left! The trolls got to me! I had truly had enough and honestly had no intent of returning, because I felt unwanted. I'm human, just like the rest of you!

The Esperanzians made sure I came back! And every day, they make sure more editors stay!

Really, everybody needs to stop and think for a minute: are we so serious and formal about the way this encyclopedia is run that we are willing to lose nearly all of our editors to trolls, because a couple of kilobytes of space is unencyclopedic? 69.145.123.171 _{Yes, I'm really an IP} Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 03:29 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but as an idealist, I realize that Wikipedia's foundation is in its ethos. Esperanza may not be an appropriate place on Wikipedia to chat and relax, and if so, it has to go - making one exception is like a hole in a dyke. On the other hand, removal from Wikipedia doesn't mean that we're not allowed to exist - I'm sure that membership would still be recognized by Wikipedia and that Esperanza would be merely moved to a semiprivate Wikia site. Nihiltres 04:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't get 'stressed' because a troll called you an idiot on the internet, then the problem solves itself. Opabinia regalis 05:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What if Esperanza causes an editor stress? Hmm? I am not being mocking, I am being very, very serious. Vandals don't really get under my skin. They're ignorant children, begging for attention. But when editors at the encyclopedia basically say "Well, I need a place to relax. And it can't be on Wikia, or meta, or in IRC, but I demand a special project that generates nothing but pictures of kittens, a lounge full of dog barking noises, games, and totally off topic chat" -- no. At this point, the organization should be working on change, and yet you seem to think that we're all 'evil' for saying Esperanza needs to change. I cannot reiterate this enough : Wikipedia is not therapy, and the next person to suggest that anyone against Esperanza is robotic, stonelike or otherwise inhuman is going to be flamed to a crisp. If you cannot accept the way things are then for the love of God , leave now.. There tens of thousands of editors on Wikipedia who never use or need Esperanza in the slightest. Catering to the needs of a few hundred over tens of thousands is not only illogical but demonstrates that some Esperanzans still think they should be above the law and beyond the rules. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Elaragirl, I feel your pain in many respects but no need to excommunicate those who are taking the Esperanza overhaul in a less receptive way. No need to call the less encyclopedic parts of Esperanza dog barking either. The MfD brought great attention to those involved in Esperanza, and clearly brought to light what needs to be majorly recalibrated in their program. Just remember basic Wiki-Civility towards those feeling the reprocussions. And rather than an us and they thing, lets just all encourage that Wikipedia, with or without Esperanza, is a community of individuals interested in building a great encyclopedia together.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree. First, those who are taking the Esperanza overhaul in a less receptive way are basically backstabbing the members of Esperanza who are trying very hard and in good faith to make the program accessible to everyone and to work closely to find a way to actually do what that fancy sounding charter suggests. People not on board with that ideal are basically hypocrites, sorry to say. Second, dog barking refers to the dog barking noises that was a part of the Coffee Lounge that infuriated so many non-Esperanzans.It DOES need to be called to light since some people seem bound and determined to act as if Esperanza never did anything at all wrong and is nothing but martyrs. Finally, I'm growing increasingly tired of being told to be civil when anyone who so much as voices disagreement with Esperanza is called "nerd", "geek", "Robot", "stonelike", is accused of "nominating in bad faith", "acting in bad faith", "having a vendetta", "destroying wikipedia", and my favorte, "Driving off the editors!" I would take such advice a bit more to heart if it was actually being followed. I'm done. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries Elaragirl, I too dislike the slap of being civil or uncivil in the matter. I'm merely saying that try not to throw jabs at those who are less receptive. It may intensify their dislike of the situation. Right now its best if those involved in the debate feel some hope in the matter. Putting the various viewpoints down does not reach consensus, it only results in more arguments. Again, rest assured I feel very much the way you do, but lets just try and encourage people to handle things in a professional manner rather than being discouraged. Again I really apologize if I am adding more onto any annoyances.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends. It is possible to see the troll and vandal factor as a process of natural selection. Those that can remain calm and reasonable will stay. Those that get upset won't. To some degree this is good. There should be protective measures in place, but if these go too far, then you encounter a safety blanket effect, where unproductive users are retained. Getting the balance right is the difficult thing, but calm productive debate is best, rather than trying to drag everyone to one extreme or other of the debate. Of course, forking the project between a "safe, comfortable, let's all spread wiki-love" version and a "harden yourself to ignore and/or dispassionately deal with trolls and vandals" version would be one way to find out which version would succeed, but surely it is best to select the best of both worlds and reach a compromise. Carcharoth 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• One of the best suggestions I have heard yet Carcharoth.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, vandals can be dealt with by reverting and trolls should be ignored. Why should either cause stress. What causes me stress is when other editors don't immediately see the wisdom of my POV, but I'm learning to deal with that, as well. I'm too busy working my watchlist and editing articles to have time for stress-relief. Or rather, adding good content and ocassionally getting a new article on DYK is all the stress-relief I need. -- Donald Albury 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. You shouldn't stress yourself over Wikipedia. I came to Wikipedia to relax. And by relax, I mean taking time to edit the encyclopedia. Maybe it's just me...but I really never understood how people's WikiStress levels were just so darn high. Nishkid64 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

How about if Esperanza becomes a WikiProject instead? (or merge with an existing one) - 203.87.129.111 06:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Esperanza is a WikiProject. It's listed on the Wikiproject directory.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not rename it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Esperanza? - 203.87.129.111 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)