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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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:

• 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.

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

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.)

• 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.)

• 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.)

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)

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)

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)