Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Migration to [[Wikia]] 

message: ===Move to Wikia===
# Things related to talking about non-encyclopidic stuff (like the Coffee Lounge)
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think admin coaching is good. It prepares edits for RFA, and admin tasks. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question is: can't it really be led/coordinated from Wikia? I'm leaning towards full migration. Misza13 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TeckWiz's Suggestion

message: # Things related to talking about non-encyclopidic stuff (like the Coffee Lounge)
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Move to Wikia

message: # Things related to the encyclopedia (ex. ECOTM)
# Things that help editors (ex. Admin Coaching, moral support)
TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think admin coaching is good. It prepares edits for RFA, and admin tasks. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question is: can't it really be led/coordinated from Wikia? I'm leaning towards full migration. Misza13 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep Here

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Proposal for [[WP:EA/CL|Coffee Lounge]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vote splitting... 

message: :(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The perfect solution. I think this is a fabulous, fabulous idea. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 TECI 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. --RobthTalk 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: That's a reasonable idea. A Wikia for games could be the solution to the recent flood of MfDs! --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...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 Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Keep, everthing that I could say has already been said.--Seadog 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to move to Wikia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 blahedits 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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 blahedits 15:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for how to close this MfD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC? 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Wholly support - these are truly the most helpful and encyclopedic aspects of Esperanza. riana_dzasta 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *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)

text: *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!-TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 12:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *: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)

text: *:(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)

text: *: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)
thread_title:  Restructure of Esperanza 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Unfortunately, vote stacking complaints may very well get far, due to this. -Amarkov blahedits 14:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  (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)

text: 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 blahedits 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Hopefully the bolded and repeated "no mindless vote stacking, please" from multiple Esperanza members would say otherwise. -- Natalya 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must go down this way or that way 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You all are fools. I write Wikipedia. Bweh heh heh heh heh. ~  PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Heretic, couches inspire nothing. -Amarkov blahedits 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Who writes Wikipedia? 

message: 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:
===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)
replies: text: 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 blahedits 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed amendment to Esperanza charter

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 blahedits 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A. Programs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 blahedits 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Closed too fast 

message: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award -- SCZenz 23:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the debate was Speedy delete; overwhelming delete consensus. --May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91 04:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esperanza User Page Award up for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 blahedits 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Be Wikipedia editors first, and avoid talk of non-Esperanzans 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overhaul update. 

message: 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 , doling out invitations to selected Wikiquotians to join as officers , and trying to get other projects' Esperanzans to join WQ solely to operate the project , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Maybe we could clone certain editors and export them? :-) Carcharoth 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I could use some more of me to tag team on the deletions with.  --Cyde Weys 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Inexperienced Esperanzans exporting their social networking 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well this would definitely simplify things. Let's see if anyone else goes along with the idea. Nishkid64 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just a random idea, not an altogether serious proposal, so sorry if I've offended. --Kyoko 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  merge idea for Esperanza, Kindness Campaign, Concordia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What the heck are you all smoking?! 

message: How about if Esperanza becomes a WikiProject instead? (or merge with an existing one) - 203.87.129.111 06:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, Esperanza is a WikiProject. It's listed on the Wikiproject directory.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not rename it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Esperanza? - 203.87.129.111 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Esperanza is being MFD'd again; do we reopen the debate or create a new page? DoomsDay349 21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we reopen the debate?