Esperanza-related MfDs:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to decentralize Esperanza. I see this as the only viable way to minimize the pain between all parties involved, and understanding that this MfD will have wider, serious implications for other similiar organisations in future.

What do I mean by decentralization? The one main concern brought up in this MfD is the membership, the structure of this organisation. Its programs are good-intentioned, and they are supposed to be avaliable to any editor on Wikipedia. This is also the cause of the perceived "better than thou" and "cabalism" claimed by members, and the lack of consensus building.

This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similiar fate as Esperanza.

All programs will be migrated to its associated projects and shall be open to every editor on Wikipedia. The existing program pages should be redirected to its new project page rather than Esperanza itself. Tentatively, Admin Coaching to WP:ADOPT as separate program (per request), Stress Alerts as standalone (Wikipedia:Stress alerts), COTM to WP:COTW, Trading Spaces already transferred, and birthday to WP:BDC. They are allowed to survive in their new forms and may be MfD-ed seperately if nessecary.

Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required. Esperanza is too big to be deleted without leaving many red-links and making newcomers wonder. A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page. Its talkpage and archives should be clearly marked that its subsequent discussion is only about the essay only. I do not expect the organisation to revive, but hopefully this result will be something that is progressive and less controversial.

- Mailer Diablo 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Esperanza[edit]

I am aware that in renominating Esperanza, I am potentially making myself a hate figure among certain sections of Wikipedia, but I think the deletion of Esperanza is something that is ‘’vital’’, not just for Wikipedia, but for Esperanzans themselves. The Overhaul is now effectively at an end, and Esperanza is little different. This could get quite lengthy, but I want to pre-empt as many arguments as I can, so hang on in there. There are many other good reasons to delete Esperanza, which I’m sure others will lay out below, but these are mine.

Many of the extremely valid reasons for deletion in the previous MfD still hold. The very first comment on the MfD was that Esperanzans had an arrogant belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would meltdown. I wrote this to one EA user:

The recent reforms I think have shown some Esperanzans that that is not true, but many Esperanzans have argued, and continue to argue that Esperanza is needed because “we are not robots”. The implication is that non-Esperanzans are somehow less than human: we have been called (and I am lifting this straight from the MfD and EA pages) “obsessive nerds”, “geek”s, “stark impersonal monolithic bureaucracy”, “A soulless coldhearted group of people”, “emotionless editor”s, “made of stone”, “have no feelings”, “robots”, among others. Other comments made are “People can't work nonstop”, “All this nomination shows is the sheer boredom of such nominators”, “without it, the community would just be...well, hopeless”, “Maybe all the delete "vote"-ers should go find something useful to do instead of trying to make happy editors unhappy”, and “Without Esperanza, I would feel like there is no-one to turn to on Wikipedia”. Make of this what you will.

Several users have pointed out that Esperanza has useful programs, like Collaboration of the Month. To quote Quadell, “The Esperanza CotM is a marginally good thing, I suppose, but it's the only collaboration type that is defined by who edits the article, not by what article is about, and I don't see that as a good precedent.” The same goes for the Esperanza barnstar, only awarded to good Esperanzans. This simply sets the Esperanzan community further apart from the rest of us, for no reason. It works by who people are, not what they do, which goes utterly against Wikipedia’s principles. The Tutorial drive is creating and keeping helpful information that would be easier to find if it were placed in the Help articles for the rest of us.

This highlights a perennial and worrying problem about Esperanza: that they constantly set themselves apart. They say they give Wikipedians hope – but who has any interaction with Esperanza who isn’t Esperanzan? Why is there even a special term for someone who's in Esperanza? This organization ought to be deleted because they’re targeting new and vulnerable users, who then see everything on Wikipedia through green-tinted lenses, and it is not good. It does lead to superiority complexes, regardless of what the front page says. Esperanzans, at least the active ones, see themselves as Esperanzans first and foremost. We have to delete Esperanza for their own good, to show them what Wikipedia is like outside the wall of their sub-culture.

When the first MfD happened, Esperanza immediately started an Overhaul. Seriously problematic programs such as User Page Awards, the Coffee Lounge, and the Barnstar Brigade were quickly deleted, a welcome development – except that they were deleted for the wrong reasons. I have seen multiple statements indicating that people accepted the deletion of these programs, not because they were distracting, or a bad idea, but because Esperanza would be deleted otherwise. They never accepted the arguments behind the deletions. I find that concerning.

The overhaul continued, and many programs were chucked or kept. I had a large part in that. However, as I had predicted, the momentum of change died and many of the overhaul discussions have been effectively abandoned without ever reaching a consensus. Little reform of the kind promised at the MfD has happened, and now seems unlikely to, with many members of Esperanza now having left.

Discussion has since now intensively focused on the creation of the new charter. This brings up another impetus for my nomination for deletion: Esperanza is thoroughly unwikipedian in its desire for endless bureaucracy. At the time of the MfD, Esperanza has a seven member council who held closed meetings on IRC that made binding decisions about Esperanza. Any contentious decision was to be passed up to them. There was no consensus building, no discussion, nothing. This has been a problem from Esperanza’s founding, and it seems to be a intrinsic part of Esperanza that cannot be removed. When these points were raised in the overhaul, which you can see here and here, it was repeated over and over again by virtually every Esperanzan that they needed the leadership, that bureaucracy was needed and that Esperanza would collapse into a mess without it. They do not seem to inhabit Wikipedia, where we seem to function just fine without it. One person even said “I just believe that we cannot all decide policies, we need leadership”. I endorse deletion to disabuse Esperanzans of this notion, most of whom seem to genuinely believe this, and are being sheltered by Esperanza to the detriment of us all.

The biggest issue with Esperanza is the members themselves. I wrote this to someone, and I think it sums up what I want to say: “Esperanza only has 700 members (and I bet under half of them are in any way active) but Esperazans believe they are completely indispensable, and insult the rest of us accordingly. I am "robotic", "cold-hearted", "heartless", "made of stone" and in some way inhumane because I do not agree with Esperanza's existence and do not participate in it. I cannot do anything about this, just like I cannot do anything about Esperanza's constant belief that bureaucracy is good. And that, I think, is the true problem. I can advocate deleting the council, but I cannot stop an Esperanzan thinking it is a marvellous idea. I can insist massive disclaimers be put everywhere saying "ESPERANZA IS NOT BETTER THAN WIKIPEDIA", but I cannot stop an Esperanzan thinking me "made of stone" because I act on my beliefs rather than join an organisation that stands for them. I can change Esperanza, or try to, but I cannot change an Esperanzan. I can edit their pages, but not their hearts.” Esperanzans are deluding themselves about Wikipedia, and will continue to do so as long as Esperanza exists.

I want to end with this: What does Esperanza do? Never mind the criticism above, look at the positive aspects. What is Esperanza for? Spreading hope? How do you spread hope? Ultimately, Esperanza, at its core, is just like Concordia – nice idea, impossible to implement. And the bad side of Esperanza, the bad faith, the bureaucracy, the superiority complexes, I think, means it should be deleted and salted. This organization has gone badly, badly wrong, and its members need to be brought back into the Wikipedia fold with a fresh start. I urge you to delete. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Moreschi[edit]

Most relevant is the comment at the last MFD from Admin, Arbitrator, and Checkuser Dmcdevit. "To be blunt, but, I think, entirely justified; If this is the civility parade, I'd rather stay at home. Esperanza aims to enhance the encyclopedia by improving the community. If so, the poor conduct abounding on this very page is astounding. I think it's time for all participants to rethink their participation." Esperanza lost its way a long time ago. It degenerated into an organisation that detracted from the encyclopedia (see the Coffee Lounge and the associated Games) and all attempts at reform have proved futile. The overwhelming bureaucracy, detailed in excellent details by Dev - closed meetings on Skype for the Advisory Coucil? - shows just how out of touch EA became. A worrying element of cabalism also became present with many complaints made at RFA about "Esperanza votes" for editors particularly associated with EA. True or not, the fact that such a perception could exist is perturbing. Since reform has failed, it is time for deletion. Moreschi Deletion! 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if consensus is to tag as historical I recommend deleting all the useless subpages [1] - my word, there are a lot - and only tagging the main page as historical. Moreschi Deletion! 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Ed[edit]

It turns out that I left Esperanza on the same day that it was MfD'd. (How coincidental!!!) This is the final message I left the Esperanza community as a member:

Unfortunately, I will no longer be a member of Esperanza. I have been debating whether to leave since last night. This was a hard decision to make, but I feel that I could no longer be a part of this organization.

This organization was dedicated to the improvement of the Wikipedia community. Since the first day I added my name to the members' list, I have seen no overall effect on the rest of Wikipedia. Our efforts have only been centered on the members of Esperanza. In no way have I seen a successful organizational effort to reach out to the rest of the Wikipedian community.

During the MfD, as most of you know, there were many votes to "delete" Esperanza. I voted "keep", which I now realize was not the best vote to make. The delete voters were actually trying to help all of EA's members, seeing the faults with our community. We have remained blind to the cries of our fellow editors regarding the problems Esperanza's been having since the past few months.

Since the MfD, the overall community has weakened. In several different places were effors to revive Esperanza. Decisions have never been made. The AC has participated in Esperanza a little bit less than usual (which I understand to be due to numerous Wikibreaks). Less Esperanzians have been giving Happy Birthday wishes to its members. Face it, we have failed Esperanza. More than that, we have failed the Wikipedian community. (Note that I say "we", I feel that I am guilty of not carrying out EA's ideals).

Please do not misinterpret this long speech that I'm giving. I fully support the goals and ideals of Esperanza. There have been several exceptional non-Esperanza-affiliated editors I've seen that promote Wikilove in the best possible way. I have seen many respected members of Esperanza that fulfill the goals of Esperanza to their highest limits. Unfortunately, these respected members, noticing the flaws of this bureaucratical organization, have listened to those non-Esperanzians who supported the MfD, and left. Esperanza's best influential editors are leaving one by one, our actively participating members slowly decreasing. Our member population will get lower, and lower, and lower...

...until there were none

Everything I would have said I already said above.....--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Subsection 1[edit]
As I have discovered with Concordia, Ed, that doesn't work. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right...I'm a little bit too concerned about all of the red-links that will pop up across Wikipedia--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good project for a potential admin candidate. --ScienceApologist 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Fully Protect-Tag Historical This vote was removed somehow...but I won't bother to find out who did it. --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 17:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)!!![reply]
  • MessedRockerify (see below), but I'd prefer to see the sub pages deleted and then made into redirects rather than just being made straight into redirects (though I only feel this very weakly) Martinp23 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, you will always have well-meaning but misguided users trying to start it up again exactly as it was before. I really don't think a historical tag, or the messedrocker solution, is a good idea - it'll just lead to more problems down the line. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly the problem with it. Best to smash delete rip maim kill destroy burn with fire and brimstone delete. If we ever really need to restore it, admins can access the page history. DoomsDay349 22:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think the continued existence of the pages will detatch some of the romanticism from restarting Esperanza by provided a concrete record of why it failed and act to make recreation less likely. Dar-Ape 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salting would make recreation absolutely impossible! Moreschi Deletion! 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects could be locked, so it'd practically be like salting the articles. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could actually salt them... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going along with this idea for a moment - to hide the contents of the old subpages from non admins, we cold delete them and create redirects in place (which would then be protected). I have a feeling this goes against MessedRocker's original idea, but I'm throwing it in anyway. I'd also like to see the main ESP page deleted and a short piece of info provided in place, which would then be protected (again, hiding past revisions from users). Hopefully this would take away some of the cannon fodder for those who may wish to recreate ESP in the future, yet avoid nasty redlinks. Martinp23 23:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not that the EA pages should be saved so that future users can see why Esperanza failed and not restart Esperanza again, but so that future users can see why Esperanza failed and not create any organization that is basically the same, regardless of a new name. The underlying chemistry of the group was what caused the problems, and the equation will not be different with a new name and new members. Only if the pages are saved can we ensure that the same equation will not be tried again. I endorse the "Messedrocker Solution." Dar-Ape 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 2[edit]
(edit conflictx3)Were it not for the fact that 6 delete votes are from EA members themselves... 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The stress alerts are no longer used, admin coaching, as mentioned above, is going to be moved, and the calendar will no doubt by taken over by the Birthday Committee if Esperanza is deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stress alerts are used on a nearly daily basis, and the nom does say all subpages except the smilies. --Fang Aili talk 14:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Why is there even a special term for someone who's in Esperanza?

You mean like "Inclusionist" and "Deletionist"? It's a philosophy, not a cabal. That's why things like compulsory membership should get wiped, to make it clear that's not a secret club. People can !vote "delete" on an article without joining the Deletionist association - but if they choose, they can join that group, to express their support for what Deletionism stands for. Same idea here - you don't have to join Esperanza to send someone a kind word, or teach someone how to Wiki-edit. But if you support Esperanza's principles, you can say so publicly.

- Esperanza is thoroughly unwikipedian in its desire for endless bureaucracy.

What does Wikipedia have? Admins, stewards, bureaucrats, arb-com, board of trustees, Jimbo... and I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody. Obviously, Esperanza needs nothing of this scale. Just a couple of co-ordinators with no real power would be fine. But show me any effective organization in Wikipedia, or in the world for that matter, that has 738 members and no structure whatsoever. WP:MILHIST has 459 members, and it has a structure of coordinators, departments, and task forces.

- Esperazans believe they are completely indispensable, and insult the rest of us accordingly.

Let's be clear: Esperanza is not indispensable. Wikipedia could survive without Esperanza. Just like it could survive in some form without half its bureaucracy, and half its guidelines. No, I'm not saying Esperanza should have the same status as an official guideline. What I'm saying is that "Is it indispensable?" is the wrong question. The correct question is "Would a project based on community-building make Wikipedia better or worse?" (Btw, blanket statements like "Esperanzans believe" sound like stereotyping a whole group, based on the actions of a few members.)

- Ultimately, Esperanza, at its core, is just like Concordia – nice idea, impossible to implement.

The programs like the Coffee Lounge are well and truly gone - does anyone have specific complaints about the remaining projects? If so, then discuss that project, or nominate it for deletion.
If there are users who are behaving inappropriately, deal with those users. You mentioned the namecalling in the last MfD - “obsessive nerds”, “geek”s, “stark impersonal monolithic bureaucracy”, “A soulless coldhearted group of people”, “emotionless editor”s, “made of stone”, “have no feelings”, “robots”, etc. Have there been instances of that since the last MfD? If so, deal directly with the users who behave like that.
On the other hand, there are some useful programs that originated from Esperanza, and there are some Esperanzans who uphold its ideals, and carry themselves with dignity. When you have an object that does some good things, and some bad, it needs to be fixed. It doesn't deserve a "smash delete rip maim kill destroy burn with fire and brimstone delete". Quack 688 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be a deletionist or inclusionist, you simply call yourself one. It's a philosophy, like soemone calling themselves conservative or liberal. To be "Esperanzan", one needs to be a member of Esperanza, and that's the problem. No-one calls themselve a MilHistan, because we are all Wikipedians, just with different interests. The namecalling was taken not just from the MfD, I took them from the Overhaul pages as well, after the MfD. One was even made by a council member. Your argument, Quack, is that one cannot blame the organisation for some bad eggs, or some bad projects, but the fact is that those bad eggs picked up their attitude from Esperanza, because they can't have found it anywhere in the rest of Wikipedia. And if we cannot blame the organisation for anything it creates, what can we credit it for? Either Esperanza is responsible from everything that flows from it, or it is an ideal only to be invoked by the wishful thinking. We tried reform, and it didn't work. Esperanza tried discussing and developing its goals, and it got nowhere. Let those Esperanzans who carry themselves with dignity, carry themselves with diginity as Wikipedians, and let Esperanza rest in peace. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-To be "Esperanzan", one needs to be a member of Esperanza, and that's the problem.
Agreed. We need to change what being "Esperanzan" means. How about this:
Esperanza is a philosophy of XYZ.
Here are a few Wikipedia programs that try to implement the ideals of XYZ.
If you like the ideals of XYZ, jump in and work on a few of these programs.
If you really like the ideals of XYZ, you can add yourself to a list of editors, publicly stating that you support this philosophy.
-Your argument, Quack, is that one cannot blame the organisation for some bad eggs, or some bad projects, but the fact is that those bad eggs picked up their attitude from Esperanza
I don't see how you can prove that claim. Were they bad eggs who joined Esperanza, or good people who got "converted" into bad eggs after they joined? Also, who do you blame for the bad eggs on Wikipedia who have nothing to do with Esperanza? Did they pick up their attitude from Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia itself bear the responsibility for them behaving badly?
-if we cannot blame the organisation for anything it creates, what can we credit it for?
Why not its programs? If a program's useless, delete it. If it's growing, keep it as an Esperanzan "work in progress". If it's widely accepted by the community, then Esperanza's done its job. So move it off Esperanza, find another good community-oriented project that needs work, and improve it. Quack 688 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"We need to change what being "Esperanzan" means." Why? What matters on Wikipedia is not what a project's name means, but what it is perceived to mean. Look at what happened when Concordia was called Community Justice. Esperanza as a philosophy is simply another attempt to monopolise - because ultimately, the message of Esperanza was "Be nice", and that message is spread and lived by thousands more non-Esperanzans than Esperanzans. My point about bad eggs is that I have never, ever, seen anyone outside Esperanza advocate giving up our right to discuss and reach consensus, in favour of an elected council. Esperanza gave them those ideas, and that is dangerous. That's what I mean. Your point about the programs is exactly what I originally proposed at the overhaul, but, like I said above, if Esperanza gets to take the credit for the successful programs, it has to take the fall for the bad ones. There have been many more bad ones than good, the good ones have been moved off Esperanza anyway, and there's been something of a crisis of imagination since. The good side of Esperanza has self-destructed, and so it needs to deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moving a program off Esperanza is no reason to delete Esperanza - if anything, it adds to Esperanza's credibility. It shows that Esperanza has managed to create a program that has received wipespread community support, and can be promoted from an Esperanzan program to a Wikipedia-wide program. All Esperanza needs to be is a "breeding ground" for community projects. Good ones grow up and move out. Bad ones get dismantled.
Have a look at the core ideas expressed in Esperanza's FAQ. You say it's wrong for a group to claim a monopoly on those ideals - to set themselves up as a moral authority - a "Vatican of Positive Values", for lack of a better term? I totally agree. But is it wrong for points like those to be published somewhere on Wikipedia? Are those ideas valid? Or should that FAQ be deleted along with Esperanza?
I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you believe it's wrong for any group based on community-building and kindness to exist, or is this MfD about Esperanza's specific history? If this is about Esperanza's specific history, or, as you say, "what Esperanza is perceived to mean", fine. The group might end up as deleted or tagged historical. But that shouldn't be used as a precedent to speedy-delete any effort by its former members to start again from scratch, with the same community-building ideals. Quack 688 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal view, this is about any group that attempts to use bureaucracy and exclusion as methods to improve the community. -- SCZenz 02:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that "What matters on Wikipedia...is what it is perceived to mean"—what has anyone's perception of it got to do with it? Edits that help build an encyclopedia™ are what matter.--Alf melmac 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of Esperanza itself, I have been following the reforms and have been rather disappointed on the constant debates about the charter and the incessant proposals for more bureaucracy and complicated governance that would seem to detract from what Esperanza should be. I was also quite disappointed that my proposal to get rid of the membership list and therefore get rid of the perception of cliqueness was not supported by as many as I had hoped. Esperanza had its time, but now I'm afraid that time has passed. It no longer seems to reflect what wikipedia is in its approach and has gone from something that was at first quite popular to something that many would not want to be associated with.  YDAM TALK 00:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 3[edit]
This came up once I think. If someone is stressed about the encyclopedia, they should leave. Keeping someone here will give them more stress, possibly causing them to do horrible things, such as suicide attempts. Do you want someone to kill themselves because they couldn't take Wikipedia anymore? TeckWizTalkContribs@ 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is support for the program, I see no reason why it should not be proposed as a separate project in the Wikipedia: namespace. Possibly even started a project of the Kindness Campaign, maybe? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem crass, but Wikipedia isn't here to make people feel good; it is here to be an encyclopedia. Stress Alerts should be deleted along with the other arms of Esperanza because of this plain fact. JoeSmack Talk 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't used the Stress Alerts page but it could be preserved elsewhere (perhaps userfied) if people wish. Editors I respect have found it useful, not just for posting "I'm stressed," but to specifically describe the reasons for their wikistress and to obtain concrete suggestions for dealing with the problems. To TeckWiz's point, of course you are right, but there are a lot of wikistressful situations that fall well short of making one feel suicidal! (No !vote and no opinion on any other aspect.) Newyorkbrad 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 4[edit]

Comment OK, so where do I begin? I agree with the central reason of this MFD, which condemns the cabalistic attitude of having a members-only club on Wikipedia. It is frusterating to see so many beliefs that this program is out to perfect or destroy wikipedia. There is nothing in Esperanza which could possibly destroy wikipedia. Some people in it have particularly aggressive attitudes toward it, but Esperanza is not built on anything malicious. I would also like to add that it is extremely tacky and offensive to write about burning or blowing up Esperanza, or to call those who want it deleted souless robots. There is no need to make this MFD so personal.

I want to say that I really like what Esperanza has done, and I still like the idea, despite the thoughts put out here. There have been a lot of good ideas, like coaching, support, and recognition programs which reinforce the community. In my mind, the only reason these programs were really that lacking was because we didn't expand them beyond the members. If anything, us members should be the ones managing these programs, and we should reach out and help those who deserve it but haven't specifically asked it. It will be quite a loss when esperanza disappears because it has done a lot of good for people. If anything, I would want to see the community keep the programs. However, I support trimming or removing the members list. I apologize for such a badly worded and overextended vote, but as a member I felt compelled to say my thoughts. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you notice nobody anymore seems to "really" care to clean it up. — Arjun 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well said. I like the idea for the page describing Esperenza, so other people don't get the wrong idea about the group or why the pages got deleted. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, thanks. It might even be a happy ending if the Wikipedia:Esperanza page is rewritten as a tribute to organization's ideals, rather than a stark gray ((deletedpage)) template. If Enciclopedia Libre was the "object lesson" that motivated the founding of Esperanza, what will the object lesson imbued in Esperanza's end be? The less obfuscated Esperanza's past is, the better (without going into loads and loads of details, of course). --Gracenotes T § 07:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly possible, if there is community support, to propose the creation of the program in the Wikipedia: namespace. I am advocating deletion of all pages because not one program has unanimous support as a separate project and thus, if they are to be recreated, they need to establish consensus on their own merits. And the place to do that is a Proposal page, not an MfD. If there's important infrastructure you really need, an admin can get you what you want, but generally speaking, everything has an Esperanza stamp all over it. Best to get rid of all of it and start again, with consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, I'm not sure why I'd need to request admin assistance to retrieve infrastructure. I believe some of the remaining programs are useful to the encyclopedia in one way or another, and don't believe that just because they "bear the stamp" of Esperanza, they must be deleted. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 5[edit]
I don't really see what's wrong with redlinks - just remove them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If redlinks are really such a problem, I can make a new bot to remove all links to everything in a given list of pages. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might create more problems than it solves. Ideally, it would be good if there was a way to distinguish between redlinks where a page existed and was later deleted, and redlinks where a page never existed. But, hey, what colour would it be? Green? :-) Of course, if you implement the messedrocker solution, there would be no redlinks and all the page history and contributions history would still be available Carcharoth 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And who is going to write this essay? How much arguing and debating will simply shift to this essay instead of the council? What would it say anyway? "Be nice"? I really don't think this is a good idea, there's too many what-ifs around it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean blank and redirect? Delete, recreation, and redirect makes the page history less accessible (admins-only), but avoids redlinks. Blank and redirect avoids redlinks, discourages people from reading the old pages (though the history is still there and diffs can be used to show people what it looked like). Deletion and nothing else, creates redlinks, causes people's contributions to Esperanza to disappear from their contributions list, and means that people can't provide diffs to old discussions. In all three cases, protection prevents people from ressurecting Esperanza. Carcharoth 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred not to know about this—most certainly while it is in progress. Unfortunately, even though I am retired from actively editing Wikipedia I still have regular social interactions with wikipedians, even more so than when I was a regular contributor, and could not avoid hearing about this. Since Esperanza was originally my idea and was originally housed in my user space, I feel somewhat obliged to comment on its end.
I am not surprised by this outcome. Despite the good intentions and great efforts of many wikipedians, Wikipedia has become an increasing uncivil and uncooperative environment, and it is no surprise that Esperanza—as a part of wikipedia—fell pray to this spirit and was unable to change it. Esperanza has failed, and if the community feels that it has become a burden rather than a boon to the encyclopedia then it should be shut down.
Those of you that think this is the end of such things are sadly mistaken, the sense of community here is broken and the factionalism will continue to harden. One needs to look no further than the above; in between the well-reasoned votes one finds votes that take a line of incivility that at once would never have been tolerated here. This unnecessary vitriol has increasing crept into wikipedia, not just about the deletion of Esperanza but in nearly all major policy disagreements and article disputes. There will be other fights, other words, other recriminations, and accusations of attacks that will only grow in their scale so long as this behavior is tolerated and encouraged.
Reading over the previous nomination, I find myself shocked and ashamed by the behavior of many on both sides. Looking over other pages, I find examples of similar behavior. Wikipedia can easily survive without Esperanza, but it cannot survive without civility and the sense of community cooperation that the building of this encyclopedia is founded on. -JCarriker 13:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (No, I never liked or used a green sig)[reply]

There was someone who stated that many Esperazans are leaving as a reason for Esperanza's deletion. In fact, he/she even stated that it will not be good for Wikipedia. First of all, the number of members in Esperanza is not, repeat: IS NOT a reason to delete Esperanza. Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (To be continued...)[reply]

Also, can you imagine the edit warring and arguments that will take place if we try to write an essay, or describe how it failed? Esperanza needs to be fully deleted so everyone can properly move on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this didn't prevent this --Alf melmac 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is an apt comparison. Two things without a jot to do with each other! *sarcastic clapping* --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 6[edit]
Since the last MfD, the project has fallen apart. Some users above noted that Esperanza's Overhaul had stalled. That is true. Some of the more influential members (Ed, Natalya, Kyoko, etc.) have left Esperanza as a direct response to the overhaul. The Wikipedia community has made it clear that many of the programs are not acceptable on Wikipedia. As EA has been forced to delete many of its own programs, the projects ability to satisfy its goals are severely limited. I do not think that we (as Esperanzians) should be given another chance to "comply with" Wikipedia regulations, because these regulations only serve to destroy and prevent the possible fulfillment of Esperanza's goals.
Therefore, I grudgingly would support the deletion of EA, but with the placement of a "historical" tag or per the essay idea above. Also, I think that a few of the current programs should be taken out of Esperanza and still used. Although I still think Esperanza could help the Wikipedian community, I think it is more important to keep the programs that have already been created. (If Esperanza is deleted, I would appreciate a little time to be able to move the calendar system out of Esperanza.)
I still believe in the ideals of Esperanza. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  18:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP - What the hell are all of you smoking?! Seriously, I thought that this organization was very nice, but when you jackasses wanted to delete it, it was as if Esperanza's ideals came to a sudden halt, and everything I thought about it changed. Like Kyoko, I'm gonna quit. I'm saying keep because I believe that Esperanza still has a chance to inspire as it once did. Whoever put Esperanza here for deletion (personal attack removed). Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Remember, WP:AGF is one of our fundamental guidelines. I see Esperanza has already failed with their goal of civility... PTO 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to choke on my hat if I find out that we'll get "no consensus" because of keep votes like these.--WaltCip 20:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more like a reason to delete Esperanza than one to keep it ... Cyde Weys 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Bushcarrot even understands what he's defending. Thank you, Bushcarrot, for underlining our arguments with such grace, elan, and style. It's people like you who truly show civility and make everyone feel welcome. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this isn't about the server space. If it was no user would be allowed subpages. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have more user freedom in the Wikipedia space? In American politics, one cannot simply "delete" the Republican Party because you believe it has a negative impact. One has to persuade and argue. If Wikipedia is a real community with openness, these types of tyrannical deletions should not be tolerated. Tfine80 03:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. I ask you to consider this very seriously. Thank you for your time. Yuser31415 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem to be the attitude of many of the people who voted to keep on this page or the previous MfD. Look at the vote below yours. Is that member promoting "harmonious editing and community" by calling someone who disagrees with him a troll? Are we actually building "a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings" when the members voting to keep are so vitriolic, hostile, and rude? --ScienceApologist 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not harmless, and a "harmless" claim goes against WP:ILIKEIT. Read the nom again.--WaltCip 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, ILIKEIT is not policy, and nor will it ever be policy, and I have read the nom thank you Brian | (Talk) 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that piping misapplied insults (like WP:TROLL) through the phrase "Thank you" only illustrates why Esperanza must go. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When WaltCip keeps telling everyone who has voted keep, to 'read the nom again', even through they would have read it in the first place, he is clearly trolling. And to make clear, by member I mean I have had my name on the list since I had 500 edits, I have never been involved with its day to day operations at such. Brian | (Talk) 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should actually read the essay you are referencing. While you might not like it that WaltCip is challenging keep votes, such challenges don't rise to the definition of trolling. At the very most we might call this activity "harassment", but even that would be pushing it. --ScienceApologist 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It WAS beneficial, but it has become a bureaucracy, which trumps WP:NOT.--WaltCip 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll argue it still is. Whatever internal bureaucracy it may have is irrelevent in view of the greater wikipedia community. The idea of having a concern over how other wikipedians are doing is a good thing, even if it is limited to those who put their name on the esperanza roster (that makes it a small good thing, not a bad thing). Yes I am aware that esperanza had some internal politics, but if you look carefully at any wikiproject on here you will find that each one has a leader (usally not explicit but rather defacto). Nothing I have read on this entire page indicates to me any reason to delete this group --T-rex 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you say that the Esperanza bureaucracy is even smaller than the Wikipedia bureaucracy?! With that being the case, Esperanza should have its own website, shouldn't it?--WaltCip 14:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm saying any bureaucracy that Esperanza may or may not have is irrelevent (especially considering the size of wikipedia as a whole) --T-rex 16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please WP:AGF from this nom and read it properly.--WaltCip 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please WP:AGF and assume that User:Nricardo is not iggnorent and is well aware of what he is saying --T-rex 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you gave my efforts at Jake Gyllenhaal GA status and supported me through two FAC attempts, it's a shame you don't remember my name. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict): Statements like those in the "Keep" and sarcastic toned one prior to it, IMHO, demonstrate how those who fanatically support Esperanza are increasingly out of step with Wikipedia-wide standards of civility and "assume good faith".--LeflymanTalk 00:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, also is anyone else confused by the phrase "create less pointless boring admins"? –– Lid(Talk) 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear The Bread: Please read "Don't be a fucking douchebag". Sincerely, Cyde Weys 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 7[edit]
I invite all members of Esperanza to join the welcoming committee instead. It would create new associations/friendships/collaborations, and do far more to head conflict and vandalism off at the pass. The friendships that have been forged in the fires of Esperanza don't need a page or a green "e" to live on and flourish. The ones that I've seen are extremely strong.
The Harmonious Editing Club and the Neutrality Project are also a great opportunities to build community while dealing with some of the "problem children" among the articles. I submit that it's harder to NOT feel a sense of community on Wikipedia than it is to feel it. A shared sense of mission goes a long, long, way. Nina Odell 00:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, burn the ArbCom! Burn it all! What the... OMG! Freddie Bauder's after me! I'm sorry! I'M SORRY! I'll be a good droid, sir! Please don't de-activat -------
(Sorry, I just needed a quiet laugh, no offense intended. But I think you might have mixed up Esperanza's Advisory Council, and Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Quack 688 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, the last thing we want is Esperanza Act II. History repeats itself.--WaltCip 03:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I meant it to be a copy of Esperanza I would've !voted keep.--Húsönd 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, changed to Keep. ESP is still harmless, the RFA lobby accusations still go against WP:V, WP:AGF and WP:BOLLOCKS, and I still frown upon when all the keep !votes in a discussion are being challenged with poor arguments and/or the Chewbacca defense. ESP could've been perfectly reformed if these noxious MfDs against it had provided any useful solutions rather than just a pool of unjustified, unproductive and pointless bad-faith.--Húsönd 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia needs a WikiProject with the same philosophies of Esperanza, I'm sure one will be created. I just hope that if that happens, it will be much different than Esperanza, removing useless things like the bureaucracy and the charter, and replacing them with something much more useful, like a list of goals, and how to achieve them. I agree with the philosophy of Esperanza, and I believe that if it had been run correctly, it could have succeeded. At the last MfD, I voted Keep, because I really thought that it could be changed and could help Wikipedia. But I now realize that I was wrong, very wrong. As a member of Esperanza who has seen Esperanza fall apart, I think it's in Wikipedia's best interest to delete Esperanza, and protect Wikipedia:Esperanza, whether or not any text remains on the page.  Shardsofmetal  05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on relocating specific programs[edit]
Disclaimer: This post isn't about deleting Esperanza, and it's not about deciding which pages, if any, to tag as historical. This is about judging these specific programs, as they stand now. A slight majority on the talk page supported this idea, but not many people commented, so I'm moving it here to get a clear consensus.
Unique programs - they don't have an exact duplicate, as far as I know, but they're still somewhat useful, and there are places on Wikipedia where they might fit in quite well.
- Wikipedia:Esperanza/Tutorial Drive -> User:The Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom
(However, If the tutorials are of high quality, and the Wikipedia community approves them, they should be allowed to exist in main-space somewhere.)
- Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts -> Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign
(This seems to be simply a co-ordinated effort to show signs of kindness to users who might be in need of a kind word or two.)
- Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reach out -> ditto
(This page strikes me as a more informal version of the stress alerts. Someone might be reluctant to make a formal "Stress Alert!" post, but prefer a forum where they can quietly ask a question or two, in a "kindness" environment, about what's giving them WikiStress.)
- Wikipedia:Esperanza/Calendar -> Wikipedia:Birthday Committee
(If the Birthday Committee already uses this resource, it makes sense to move it there. It's also beneficial to keep this calendar infrastructure around.)
- Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin Coaching -> Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User
(Both programs use the principle of personal one-on-one advice. Some of the points discussed in admin coaching, such as how to interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as just as useful for regular editors as they are for prospective admins.)


Duplicates - they should be eventually deleted, but someone should first look at them and see if they've come up with any ideas that would be useful to introduce on the main-space version. People who worked on these Esperanzan pages should also be encouraged to work on the main-space version.
- Wikipedia:Esperanza/Happy Birthday -> Wikipedia:Birthday Committee

- Wikipedia:Esperanza/Collaboration of the Month -> Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive
Any thoughts on these destinations? Quack 688 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edited to add mention of calendar & admin coaching - Quack 688 09:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It makes sense to move the calendar (Wikipedia:Esperanza/Calendar) to the Birthday Committee; they are already using it, and there's no reason not to move it to their section if all of Esperanza is to be deleted.

I'd also really like to (no pun intended) stress the usefulness of the stress alerts page (Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts). There are numerous times where I have seen someone be listed on that page and left them a kind word of support, and seen really good results. When people are stressed out by vandal warring or editing problems on Wikipedia, or when real life is impacting their editing, a nice word from a few editors can go a really long way. This page allows that to happen; rather than just a few editors perhaps seeing when an editor is stressed out by running past their userpage, many people who are glad to cheer someone up can find out, and help them relax so they can get back to editing. As for editors who are thinking about leaving Wikipedia/have left it's up to every individual editor to react to someone deciding to leave Wikipedia. We've all seen people beg editors to come back, but it's really about accepting and supporting whatever an editor chooses to do. By having this page, and by knowing when someone is leaving Wikipedia, we can wish them well in the future and make them feel a little better about their editing experiences here. -- Natalya 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also see many users that have indicated the usefulness of Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin Coaching, and at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Admin Coaching it was suggested to move it outside the Esperanza project space into the Wikipedia namespace somewhere. I'd recommend that instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, users would indicate what they would prefer to keep somewhere. Titoxd(?!?) 04:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, admin coaching is one of a few things that might be worth saving, since that particular aspect has been somewhat useful. I wouldn't mind moving it to Wikipedia space. --Coredesat 04:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we need to add "guidelines" to the Stress Alerts if consensus agrees on moving it to another place on Wikipedia-space. Too many times have I seen well-wishers pass by a retiring users with messages such as "I hope you come back soon!" Now what is the problem with this type of encouragement? These comments encourage retired users to come back to a place they thought just wasn't for them! All of us need to know that Wikipedia simply isn't the right "place" for everyone. More "forcing" comments act against the wishes of the recepient. Therefore, I believe that we must stress the fact that, although we would like to care for our fellow editors, there are limits to the abilities of a volunteer. --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What will we do with the Admin Coaching program? In my opinion, it can somehow be incorporated into WP:ADOPT— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

And on admin coaching, I have seen so many accusations of abuse that I really think a proper discussion about it needs to be had. See some of the comments above about it. I've never looked, but if admin coaching is being used as a way of gaming the system at RfA, that's a problem. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 8[edit]
  • You're out of line. Read the nom and the above discussions. We've just learned that ESP is actually harming the community by being a bureaucracy.--WaltCip 13:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's out of line Walt. Xyreal Xyrael (WP:TYPO f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)) has just stated his opinion about Esperanza, nothing more. Every editor is entitled to their opinion during an XfD. Thε Halo Θ 13:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be a valid opinion (which I appreciate), but I was just assuring him that - in this case - it's factually incorrect.--WaltCip 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say it is "factually incorrect"? Just because the nominator is unhappy with this group doesn't imply that esperanza is actualy harming anything. I am an outsider from the group and I have never been offeneded by anything that they have done. --T-rex 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument rests on the fact that whatever is going on with ESP, it has still done many good things. My point is that if it is indeed causing trouble, people will simply stop using what it can do, and I believe that this is way more effective than deleting stuff because it demonstrates the clearest consensus possible. In any case, it not being deleted is never going to directly harm people - merely not help, if indeed there are problems with it at all. This may sound rather convuluted and I apologise for that, but I think it does make sense at some level ;) —Xyrael / 14:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Esperanza has been going reform for a LONG time with no avail. Did you read the nom?--WaltCip 13:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A LONG time? It's been like 2 weeks... --T-rex 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think you'll find that it's been more like six  YDAM TALK 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It provides support services for our purpose - building an encyclopedia - and delete nomination is premature given it's efforts at self reform. --Trödel 12:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What support? It's a bureaucracy right now. Read the nom.--WaltCip 13:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that no keep vote can be allowed to stand without rebuttle insults the admin who will close this MfD. I am not interested in arguing the points - my vote stands: They provide hope (support) for some in furtherance of our mission. BTW - I am not nor have ever been a member --Trödel 15:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Where is the proof this is doing more harm then good? (I don't see it) --T-rex 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing an encyclopedia is also a job for a professional... --T-rex 18:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 9[edit]
All of which may be reproposed and their merits discussed as with any Wikipedia idea. However, these programs were unilaterally created by Esperanza and deserve to be considered for deletion like every other aspect of Esperanza. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 10[edit]

*Delete - Per... well alot of people. --Wildnox(talk) 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not leaning one way or the other. --SunStar Nettalk 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this is my opinion. Esperanza should be run more by the community- more discussion. Things that aren't really relevant to editing should go, except I would like to see some more Wikipedia:Wikilove spread, and Esperanza helps in this regard.
I think the main problem here is that people are forgetting the point of Esperanza- to edit Wikipedia solidly, and making it a stress-free environment, with a sense of community. If Esperanza stays, I will definitely work to make it what it was aimed to do- and I'm sure other people will with me.
It should be focused pretty much entirely towards the encyclopedia, and should not be a 'club' as such, but as a project working towards improving the encyclopedia. One of the problems here is that it is run as a club, and that's a reason many are using to delete it. Esperanza needs to focus more on editing the encyclopedia- but this can all be changed easily enough, and it doesn't need outright deletion to do so. I hope this was clear enough, if not, please contact me and ask me about it. I really think that with a lot of work this project can make a difference. CattleGirl talk | e@ | sign! 07:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's that people tried to fix it and pointless bureaucracy prevailed. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 08:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that's one of the things I'm saying needs to change. We do need discussion, like now, but what needs to change is that it remains focused on Wikipedia- not discussions about which policies apply, or who is the leader, who makes the decisions. It needs to be a community-based effort- a lot of the discussion from this MFD would help the changes take place. People just need to keep it in mind to keep it simple. CattleGirl talk | e@ | sign! 08:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "We're undergoing MAJOR reform. We're doing it now." is one thing. Actually doing it is another. There's been a lot of talk about reforming it; there needs to be less talk and more action taken. 1ne 09:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Esperanza's attempts to reform itself led to more discussions, more straw polls, and as a result, more bureaucracy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm saying (or, at least, am trying to say). 1ne 10:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken, and it looks like it will be deleted anyway. However, would some programs remain, but not be under Esperanza? For instance, Admin Coaching? I'd like to see that happen, I didn't see any of these problems occurring there.
From what 1ne said before, that's what I said in my first opinion. I, too, would like to see more action taken, and that's why I voted keep, as, with work done, we can make Esperanza do what it was designed to do- help editors edit Wikipedia effectively and in a stress-free environment. If we can't do this, the program should go, but I think we can, and that's why I voted keep. But, as I said before, your points have been taken. CattleGirl talk | e@ | sign! 02:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asking people to reform doesn't make them reform. 1ne 03:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claims above are precisely the reason that Esperanza needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is not about presenting a "moral code" or promoting "the thought that counts"; nor about developing a "democratic organization". Wikipedia values of civility are not exclusive to a single club, no matter how laudable its intentions. This group is hardly in its infancy; and it's already been "reformed". The potential here is even more harm to the basic premise of Wikipedia: that all editors, no matter from what background, have equal responsibility and opportunity to build a better encyclopedia. The more comments I read here from both pro- and anti- positions, the more obvious it is to me that Esperanza is a Bad Thing because its very existence is de-facto divisive, and a distraction to the primary purpose of writing good articles. This group reminds me of some sort of MMORPG guild-- which leads one to realise that many people think of Wikipedia as a social outlet, like a game. --LeflymanTalk 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a value if you have no choice but to sign up to it (it is a rule). Esperanza is a moral code that people freely choose to sign up to. Now of course 'Wikipedia is not about presenting a "moral code"', but no where did I say it was. It doesn't mean the Esperanza project can't be though. And it also doesn't mean that Esperanza can't be hosted in the Wikipedia namespace. I really do not see how Esperanza can be divisive. Both sides have broadly the same behaviour code, and people are free to flow from one side to the other. No one thinks that non-Esperanzians have less responsibility to "build a better encyclopedia". The only difference between the two groups is that Esperanzians are prepared for their behaviour to be criticised on the basis of their individual values, whereas non-Esperanzians can only have their behaviour criticised in as much as they fail to obey rules. --cfp 13:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 11[edit]
With my real life in a mess, and having difficulty accessing Wikipedia due to the Taiwan earthquake, Esperanza being nominated for deletion is the last news I want to hear. Esperanza is in chaos: useful programs were deleted, discussions distracted Esperanza from offering support and hope to those who needed it, and valued members left Esperanza and Wikipedia. I congratulate Dev920 and the anti-Esperanza brigade for their successful attempts to disrupt the community. Given the ill-will this MFD has generated, Esperanza's deletion is likely to cause massive controversy, possibly even a fork - the very situation Esperanza was formed to prevent.
If Esperanza is deleted, I will not leave Wikipedia immediately. I will continue to write articles, and participate in discussions. However, I will eventually be overwhelmed by stress, and leave because I have lost hope in Wikipedia. I understand that Esperanza has been plagued by various problems, which the Overhauls failed to address, so I suggest that it start over from scratch. Remember: History repeats itself if you don't listen to it, but learn from your mistakes, and what doesn't kill you will make you stronger. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the deletion of Esperanza is going to force you off the project because of stress and loss of hope, then perhaps it hasn't been doing its job. I imagined that the goal of Esperanza was to help stressed out editors turn into healthy ones that could function in the sometimes contentious environment of Wikipedia, but you describe it as having more of a temporarily palliative role (akin to methadone). Instead of curing problems, you suggest that it creates a community of dependent folks who by their own description are unable to function without a social support structure. If that's accurate, then this becomes a deletion that's immediately necessary for the mental well being of anyone who might be otherwise touched by it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, all a stressed editor needs is a little encouragement, to help him put things in perspective, feel better and "get on with his business" (i.e. building an encyclopedia).
My friend e-mailed me this story, and I recently saw it somewhere on Wikipedia. I think it illustrates my point well. In a nutshell, here's how it goes:
A high school student decided to commit suicide. As he walked home, carrying all his textbooks, a bunch of kids collided into him, knocking him over and scattering his books across the road. A passer-by helped him pick up his books, and, touched by the gesture, he changed his mind about ending his life. They became friends, and four years later, when he graduated, he gave a speech thanking his friend.
The moral of the story? Never underestimate the power of your actions, no matter how insignificant they may seem. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. I'm just kinda frustrated by the fact that I am going to be back here in a matter of months because of Messedrocker's well-meaning but ultimately meaningless proposal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need to be back here in a month if page history is kept? We're on the way to establishing a clear consensus that Esperanza should cease to function, and reactivation will not be tolerated. What is to be gained by preventing access to old revisions? Zocky | picture popups 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it takes one person who believes Esperanza is a good idea and is willing to ignore that consensus - I don't need to name names they're obvious on this MfD - to simply remove the redirect and resurrect Esperanza: and we'll have to go through all the hassle of trying to stop them, or have the green mess splurge all over us once more. That's why I don't want the messedrocker solution, because its ultimately only going to lead to a greater waste of all our time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 is not a crystal ball, and numerous editors have already given you their opinions as to why they disagree with your scrying. Restating your oracles ad nauseum may be helpful in some way, but my own clairvoyance is at such a level that I do not perceive this usefulness. --tjstrf talk 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So ESP has its problems. What doesn't? Is the Wikipedia system itself flawless? Not by a long shot. Is the Wikipedia system somewhat skewed to favor certain people? Sadly, yes. But that's how life works. Nothing is completely fair.

If you're so desperate to get rid of Esperanza's problems, well then, fix it. Don't delete the entire thing! Really, what's wrong with it? I read all (yes, that is all) the votes, and I see nothing that should merit deletion. It's a page dedicated to helping the editors. So it's unencyclopedic. Whoop de freaking doo.

And yes, it is screwed up, and yes, it wastes editor's time, and yes, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but so what? It's done far more good than bad. If a few choice editors find it upsetting enough to leave after an argument, than they didn't belong here to being with. What's wrong with finding some time to relax? Hm? I suppose that we should delete this and this and this and this and this as well, right? They have absolutely nothing to do with the encyclopedia! What's that? They're needed for the encyclopedia to function at all?

Well guess what? We're human! We need compassion to function!

Esperanza isn't perfect, but then, nothing on this world is. Fix it, don't kill it for having a few problems. --Light of Shadow 22:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Done more good than bad" is your opinion. I haven't seen that opinion backed up in my own experience. --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And your proof of this statement is what? Who's to say it's done more good than bad? Is it doing anything bad right now? Hm? Is it deleting articles out of process? Is it telling certain editors to leave? --Light of Shadow 22:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, doesn't work that way. You asserted it does more good than bad, so you prove it. Like you said: "Who's to say it's done more good than bad?" --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you know to know why Esperanza is bad you could read the nomination... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DE-LE-TE it's the wrong approach. You want to be kind anc compassive? be so. No need of this cruft. How about setting an external wiki ? how about having some external bb forum? the idea is not bad a priori. But as it's been acknowledged, it's not part of an encyclopedia, so it could survive on some external website. -- Drini 22:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, let's set up someplace to go outside of the encyclopedia to help the people on the inside.--Light of Shadow 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Makes PERFECT sense. Http://www.wikiesperanza.org. It's not in the main space, but those who still go to Wikipedia can go to that website as well. Unless it's too hard to go to two websites at once.--WaltCip 22:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, we're not keeping it. Based on the quality (and emotion) of the arguments, I'd say the outcome will be anything but an all-out keep.--WaltCip 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well you go ahead and use your administrative prowess to delete it, alright? Oh, wait... --Light of Shadow 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you misunderstand. It's not what I think; it's that you and other voters like you have failed to come up with a reasonable argument other than that you like it, while those voting delete (including the nom) have cited policies. If we keep it, we'll still have a bureaucracy.--WaltCip 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly I came here just to see why the nomination was made. I recently joined Esperanza, which -to me- meant I added my sig to the member list, no less no more: whether my name is in that list or not I happen to share many of their principles, such as being kind to people and favor community sense, so I'm still the same anyway. All this amount discussion is unbelievable to me and I'd never want to be in the shoe of the poor administrator who has to read all this. I just read a fair part of the original nomination and it seems to me we could all spend our time better. It could be that Esperanza _is_ doing something bad; if so I'd like to know, in plain, concise, terms; otherwise this seems like another "let's move userboxes in user-space in just 2000 man-years and we'll all be happy". —Gennaro Prota•Talk 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, WP:NOT#OR.--WaltCip 22:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? This is disgraceful. We have to delete Esperanza just to prove to ourselves that we're not a social network? Please. If that's what Wikipedia is going to become, then screw it. --Light of Shadow 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Esperanza became little more than a place for social networking, which is prohibited by policy. That's WP:NOT. That's the same policy that allows users that use Wikipedia as nothing more than a place for social networking to be blocked indefinitely. Moreschi Deletion! 22:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does make me wonder whether we should expand WP:NOT to include social organisations as well as social networking, when this MfD nomination is closed. --tgheretford (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about it, Esperanza was free of social networking after the Coffee Lounge was deleted. The only problems with the organization was: chaos, bureaucracy, multiple straw polls, endless discussion in 3 different pages, etc. That's what we need to expand our policy on.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 12[edit]
  • People just get bored of typing "strong delete" to show their views. Most of them don't even provide a topical argument, merely showing how much they really want it gone through emotion. I'll cite this from WP:POLL

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and according to the often cited meta-wiki essay: polling is evil. Decisions should be made by consensus decision making rather than a strict majority rule.

This means that most of the majority of deletes and keeps are invalid, but it doesn't change the consensus (if you check the Talk page and the page history, you'll see that there has been attempt to speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Right now in my opinion, the consensus is whether we should delete it outright, or make Wikipedia:Esperanza historical through the Messedrocker solution. So far, it's looking like no consensus between those two, with default to delete, but a slight edge to the Messedrocker solution. (I don't think any of you understood that. ;) )--WaltCip 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT might be intereting to you--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
INTERESTING? I've been citing it in nearly every rebuttal I've made. In fact people are complaining because of it, saying that it's an essay, not a policy. However, I still feel that it rings of truth.--WaltCip 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia's not a vote, but a minority's opinion should still be considered when reaching consensus. Consider this example of the spread of opinions:
(Disclaimer: these numbers are pure fiction, just used to make a point. I'm not suggesting this is the actual state of the MfD.)
25% Keep Esperanza as is, allow reform process to continue
40% "Nuclear option": Annihilate Esperanza - hard-delete all programs, delete and salt all pages
35% Close down Esperanza, tag historical, Messedrocker solution, possibly move off some programs
You can't keep Esperanza based on those numbers - it's either close down or annihilate. But the opinions of the keepers should still be considered when choosing between those two, and it's pretty obvious which of those options the keepers would prefer.
However, when looking at this MfD, in my opinion, there's more support for a Messedrocker approach than for the nuclear option. In fact, several of the comments that are tagged "Delete" go on to say that they support some sort of historical option. Quack 688 03:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a no consensus for any action. Just H 05:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - that might be a case of no consensus if there were three distinct choices (e.g. red/green/blue, pick one). But (using these example numbers) if you asked, "Should the group be de-activated?", 75% of people would say yes. That's enough to close it down. However, if you then asked, "Once closed down, should Esperanza's pages be annihilated?", you'd only get 40% support. That's not enough support to take action. Quack 688 06:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a very good point. There's no reason that we shouldn't use the concepts of single transferable votes, if indeed a historical tag does indeed prevent a gratuitous recreation.--WaltCip 04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do provide some fair points, Denni. However, a question pertaining from curiosity: In the past few weeks, six to be exact, how has Esperanza been for you? Has it been treating you with the same amount of compassion and communion as it had in the past when you first joined it?--WaltCip 03:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't got much help from Esperanza in the last six weeks. But I don't think it's fair to tell Esperanza it needs to reform, then criticise it for not doing much in the last month but discussing reform. If Esperanza had just stuck to business at usual, it'd be accused of ignoring the reform recommendations of the first MfD. Quack 688 03:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations! You stopped a potential Wikilawyer! :D
  • Mind you, I wasn't leading Denni into a trick question, I was merely asking about how things have gone for him under Esperanza. However, you bring up a good point all the same.--WaltCip 04:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messedrocker solution. --Randy Johnston 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Subsection 13[edit]
Wait, is that a response to me? Cuz if it is, then don't take what I said as stating that the idea itself is bad. We all could use some ecouragement every now and then. But what I'm saying is, do we really need a whole organized project on namespace to achieve it? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 07:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a response to Machchunk, and as for needing a project for it, I'm not certain. At the bare minimum, a modified version of Esperanza's Stress Alerts page could do the job. I say "modified" because someone earlier in the discussion raised concerns about privacy and possible embarassement. I understood that to mean that people shouldn't be listed unless if they list themselves or otherwise give explicit permission to be listed. Of course, being on an online list can ultimately be of only limited help, and people who are extremely stressed should seek help in real life rather than here. --Kyoko 07:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow[edit]

This mfd seems to have a life of its own now. I'm surprised how any consensus towards anything can be taken from this gobbledygook. Just H 05:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's going rather well considering it's size and how many are involved. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is to delete, by my evaluation. DoomsDay349 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely consensus for Esperanza the organization to cease to exist. There doesn't seem to be consensus on outright deleting the pages vs. preserving page history. Zocky | picture popups 05:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus doesn't really have a definite direction towards the next step to be taken. The discussion, IMO, seems to be leaning towards some decision to get rid of Esperanza in some form.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 06:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when it comes to deleting/keeping, which is what the MfD is technically about, all the "messedrockerify" votes mean "keep". Since quite a lot people (including me) are supporting this option (in addition to outright keep voters), I'd say that there's no consensus on the issue o deletion, so it should default to keep. Of course, this MfD has also served the useful purpose of focusing attention on the underlying issue, and the consensus established (at least so far) in that department is a Good Thing. Zocky | picture popups 07:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two distinct questions being discussed here. First, should the group be de-activated? Second, should the individual pages be deleted? I read the consensus as heading towards closing down the group, but keeping the pages' edit histories intact.
Also, note that this discussion is about Esperanza specifically, as it stands now. This discussion should not be used as a precedent to pre-emptively delete any new or existing community groups in the future, on the premise that they might turn into another Esperanza. If it's a copy-paste of Esperanza, then delete it. If it's a new idea, but it starts doing damage, then put it on MfD. But you can't salt-and-delete the very concept of groups on Wikipedia. Quack 688 08:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you planning, Quack? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Is it really that radical to clarify why it's getting deleted? Is it getting deleted because it's a community group, or because of its specific history? If this MfD was interpreted as a total ban on community groups, someone could try to put every community group up for deletion. Including the Kindness Campaign you're a member of. All I said was that any group, or indeed any article, up for deletion should be considered on its own merits. Are you disputing that? Quack 688 13:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zocky, When I said "Messedrockerify", I meant to retain the edit histories but make the pages inactive (essentially salting but not deleting). If this in any way means that the organization will be kept in its current form, then I would request my opinion to delete be taken into account. I imagine most Messedrocker supporters feel this way. So if it's deemed impossible to mark an organization inactive/historical via MFD, then this should probably default to delete. Ral315 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. That's why I'm saying that "messedrockerify" means "keep" only in the technical question of delete vs. keep. It obviously does not mean "keep Esperanza running", quite the contrary. Zocky | picture popups 15:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When will this end? I really want to know when I can take it off my watchlist.--CJ King 06:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second of January, 2007. But why take it off at all? After it is concluded, no new edits will occur unless someone tries reviving discussion on this page, so it wouldn't clutter your watchlist. And in that case another MfD does happen on this page, it might save you some time finding it again. --tjstrf talk 07:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd? Not the full eight days then, i.e. the 5th? Hiding Talk 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the top of the page it says "This discussion is set to close on January 2, 2007." I assume MfDs only run for 8 days so that they can receive sufficient input, due to the lower amount of MfD regulars vs. AfD regulars. Definitely not a concern here. --tjstrf talk 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Hiding Talk 11:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion[edit]

Okay, we've got what I would hope we all agree to be a consensus to inactivate. Can I suggest we examine the options that opens up? To my mind there are a couple of options:

Thoughts? Hiding Talk 09:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 3 would be best. #2 would be sanctioning it, IMO. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of those 3 I prefer #2, but ideally support simply marking every page historical (possibly via the header). Less work and gives more context to archive viewers. However, there is no purpose to holding a duplicate vote here since most people have already expressed their opinion towards 1 of those options in the main section. --tjstrf talk 10:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outright deletion seems the best course. No purpose is served by marking it as historical. We might as well have it redirect to WP:Civility, though. So I would say, number three. .V. 10:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't do much good to redirect the main page to another project if all Esperanza's programs - Esperanza's real content - are deleted. Also, I don't see how something like the Messedrocker solution is sanctioning Esperanza. It makes it clear that Esperanza's inactive, while still letting people learn from Esperanza's mistakes. I agree with tjstrf that there's not much point in having a duplicate vote here. Everyone who's given a full explanation has already made their position clear, and anyone who wrote a one-line "delete" comment is free to go back and expand upon their post. Quack 688 10:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't intended as a duplicate vote. It's intended to help crystallise a consensus on what to do. It's part of the discussion. Were it a duplicate vote it would be a separate listing. The community is, as ever, free to ignore or discuss whatever it chooses to do so. Hiding Talk 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's part of the discussion, but it opens with a rather leading set of options and is of little additional benefit to the debate. --tjstrf talk 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please refrain from biasing the admin's decision by declaring one way or the other whether or not there is a consensus. I will not edit your comment but I would appreciate it if you would edit it to read, "If it seems there is a consensus to inactivate, ...". Thank you. --cfp 13:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Subsection 14[edit]
Clearly it hasn't taught you much or you would know that a sig with eight lines of code is frowned upon here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Categories