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)

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Esperanza 1.1 Co-nomination from Moreschi 1.2 Co-nomination from Ed 1.3 Discussion Subsection 1 1.4 Discussion Subsection 2 1.5 Discussion Subsection 3 1.6 Discussion Subsection 4 1.7 Discussion Subsection 5 1.8 Discussion Subsection 6 1.9 Discussion Subsection 7 1.10 Discussion on relocating specific programs 1.11 Discussion Subsection 8 1.12 Discussion Subsection 9 1.13 Discussion Subsection 10 1.14 Discussion Subsection 11 1.15 Discussion Subsection 12 1.16 Discussion Subsection 13 1.16.1 Wow 1.16.2 Suggestion 1.17 Discussion Subsection 14

[edit] Wikipedia:Esperanza

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

• Prior MFD (No Consensus)
• Note to closing admin: Included in this MfD are all subpages, except for the smile templates on Wikipedia:Esperanza/I. The MfD notice is located on Wikipedia:Esperanza/Header, transcluded to every major Esperanza subpage.

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:

“

"Esperanza is necessary because, without it, I seriously doubt that anyone would do what we do without it." Well, I do for start, without ever having been a part of Esperanza. It's this "Wikipedia would collapse without us" mentality that garnered you so many delete votes at the MfD. You keep implying that every editor without the omnipresence of Esperanza is some sort of hardhearted firebreathing deletionist who want to chain everyone to their desks and have them edit fourteen hours a day.

”

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)

[edit] Co-nomination from Moreschi

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)

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)

[edit] Co-nomination from Ed

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)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 1

• Delete as nominator. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-mark all pages as "historical Although Esperanza is in effect "dead", we would want to keep its pages for historical reference--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have discovered with Concordia, Ed, that doesn't work. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Good project for a potential admin candidate. --ScienceApologist 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)!!!

• Delete. Might have been nice in the past, but useless now. And no, don't keep for historical reference. --Majorly (Talk) 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as co-nom. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hear hear, Dev! One of the best essays I've seen in quite some time. A much more thorough nomination than last time, and preempts many arguments. Per everything in your nomination which ultimately echoes my exact feelings, I vote to delete. I don't know about the merits of historically tagging, but I wouldn't be opposed to it, so long as Esperanza is taken off-line, so to speak. DoomsDay349 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's a failed project - there is nothing much of any value, at the least move it to the WikiProject space and tag as historical. (Side note: The nominator deserves a pint for the exhaustive and well written nomination.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete :(- It seems like everyones given up at fixing Esperanza. It was MFD'd by a former member. Esperanza has stopped with the community aspect. I don't see anything that can be moved. I'm taking the green out of my sig and deleting my subpage. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but I'd encourage the "co-ordinators" of various programs in Esperanza to userfy them (or just move them over to WP: space) and keep the particularly useful ones running (admin coaching, I've have to say (being a coach)). I don't feel that any of the projects under ESP need the pointless bureaucracy that it brings. I'll also be removing the green from my sig, like TeckWiz. Martinp23 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC) And kudos on the excellent nom!

• 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)

• (edit conflict x7)Delete. Everything else can go, but admin coaching seems to be one of the few beneficial parts of the whole Esperanza concept. I suggest we move this to some other page? Userfy? Nishkid64 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfying doesn't seem like the right solution...maybe it could be a subpage of WP:RFA? DoomsDay349 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Kill with Fire and Brimstone - (edit conflict) This project is reduced to squabbling amongst itself, whining, and complaining. PTO 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Props for trying to avoid edit conflicts by subsectioning etc... I'm convinced. Delete. Archive for historical record, find a home for editor coaching, and delete the rest. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Amen to that, brother/sister. DoomsDay349 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is sorry to see. I, unlike Dev, do think that the overhaul did well, especially when it was "decided" to stop membership. However, like Dev, I feel that Esperanza thought too much about how to not get Esperanza MfD'd again, rather than how to make changes for the better. In the end we were left with something which didn't help the community, as the people who wanted to keep Esperanza believed in the original MfD, and something which continued to make the same mistakes. I wouldn't be opposed to the historical tags, though only so the same mistakes were not made elsewhere. Thε Halo ^Θ 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete My support in the last deletion discussion was more for the idea behind Esperanza than the reality. I think the nominator now did a good job of demonstrating that the Esperanza train has gone so far off its track that the reality can never come close to matching the idea. Perhaps the idea can be salvaged in a new program; we'll see. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A possibility, but it's best to delete it, and let people regroup from it, and maybe in a year or so (if Citizendium hasn't dethroned us..laugh, chortle, titter, giggle) we can rebuild it. Maybe. DoomsDay349 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Tag as historical and inactivate per above. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC) See below
• Delete, regretfully. So many of its members are leaving, and is it really that useful for Wikipedia? The overhaul has been going on for quite a while now, and not much has changed for the better. Nobody seems to care anymore, nor does anyone seem to be trying to fix it. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- I'm sorry, but this has to go. Do not keep it for historical reference; this is haunting and pretty painful, why keep something that'll make us remember the bad days when more than half of the best programs were deleted? Esperanza ya no tiene esperanza. Translated: Esperanza has no hope. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 22:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, actually, not to be a smart-ass but it means Hope has no hope. A chilling prophecy indeed... :) DoomsDay349 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, you're right.....well, I guess I mean to just leave the name Esperanza alone. Ah, even my spanish is flawed sometimes :D Thanks for pointing it out. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if many don't like it, it isn't harming Wikipedia to keep it around. Why delete something there's no harm in keeping? -- Chris is me 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The whole point of all three nominations is that Esperanza is harming Wikipedia. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I...can't even respond to that (Chris's message). Read the nominations. It's doing absolutely nothing, is totally defunct, has no purpose anymore and is reduced to squabbling amongst itself. DoomsDay349 22:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I still don't think it's harming Wikipedia, but I guess it is pretty dead. Give the programs their own pages, then delete the rest. Keep the IRC channel though as a less-topical #Wikipedia. -- Chris is me 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • There's just one more thing. We're not all worker bees here, and some of us would enjoy some socializing. Maybe we should make a group dedicated to giving editors a place to talk and take a break from all of editing's toils and edit wars. Hmm... -- Chris is me 05:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a bar, or a chatroom; the community exists solely to help that encyclopedia. If you want to set up some sort of online bar or nightclub for Wikipedians to hang out, be my guest. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh wait... I almost forgot. A Wikia wiki, WikiSocial, is set up for that purpose! If any esperanzanians want to hop on over, feel free! -- Chris is me 06:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Historical. bureaucracy + large size + lack of tangible mission + other factors mentioned in nomination = problems that it would seem were too large to resolve. Ah, well. I say historical, too, however, because it seems like someone might try this again down the road, and it would be helpful to keep a record of what went wrong. As I said on the EA talk page, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." —George Santayana. Dar-Ape 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the first MFD, I voted that Esperanza would recover if it followed my advice for refactoring. Unfortunately, they had not taken heed, and they are lost forever. I would suggest that all the Esperanza pages (except Wikipedia:Esperanza itself) are blanked and made into redirects to Wikipedia:Esperanza, which is replaced with a notice on how it's closed down. This way, the history is still around, but it is effectively deleted. Feel free to shorthand/refer to this as the Messedrocker Solution. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Salting would make recreation absolutely impossible! Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The redirects could be locked, so it'd practically be like salting the articles. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Or we could actually salt them... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Keep the peace! frummer 07:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Esperanza was a hive for on wiki drama. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Bye bye Esperanza. Whatever...--SUIT 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- I honestly just do not see the real point. Wikipedia is about editing. I've made a few friends here, but that's because I joined Wikiprojects and got to know them through our shared edits. While my exposure to Esperanza is limited, I just don't see why it's needed. Just another layer of crud on the engine. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Worse than a simple waste of resources, Esperanza drains the wikipedia community of its editing intentions. St.isaac 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 2

• Why Bother? When every Esperanza member is going to come here and vote Keep and this will turn into another no consensus again. semper fi — Moe 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, I don't think they are. The climate there has changed remarkably since the last MfD. -- SCZenz 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  (response to Moe Epsilon)If you had bothered to read the comments above, you would find that most of the users above are actually members or former members of Esperanza. PTO 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  No need to get nasty. I'm aware of that, what about when the other 700 members realize it's up on MFD? I'm sure not everyone is going to vote delete. Just saying, it could be a giant waste of time. No opinion on the matter BTW. semper fi — Moe 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflictx3)Were it not for the fact that 6 delete votes are from EA members themselves... 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but tag the main page only as historical. Regrettably, Esperanza does not seem to have been able to re-define itself in a way more consistent with promoting Wikipedia's mission after the last MfD. I think many members understand what has gone wrong, and that is very heartening, because they will be able to re-commit themselves to the good things Esperanza was promoting and to the useful project pages that were originally created through the organization. But continuing to have a central organization page, at this point, will serve no purpose but to create a focus for people who value community-building and process creation for their own sakes. Let's move on with what we're all here for: the encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support giving the programs their own pages and then marking Esperanza historical. One can remove the beaurocracy of Esperanza and still retain the usefulness of the parts. One of the things that I think would be nice to keep the esperanza name on would be the esperanza newsletter. To be honest, my first experience with esperanza was seeing the newsletter on talk pages. That's all I thought Esperanza was, a friendly Wikipedian newletter, which also was informative about various discussions, birthday notices, and other things which might interest Esperanza members. In reading the nominations and other statements above, the concerns would appear to be the non-Wikipedian processes of Esperanza. So let's remove them and retain the rest as Wikipedian processes : ) - jc37 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (edit conflict) - Anything I could possibly think of saying has been said already in the excellent nomination. Wikipedia is a project to write and refine an encyclopedia, not a coffee klatch. The project, as I see it now, isn't contributing much to the encyclopedia itself, and has "run its course". Crystallina 23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can I please point out to everyone voting to tag as historical that I have advocated full on deletion, not tagging. All it it takes is for one excitable user to remove the tag and this whole nest is kicked up again. Esperanzans need a fresh start, an opportunity to move on - if there is any remnant of Esperanza, this is not good. Please read my nomination. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt - The nominators for this MfD really summed up the concerns that I have gathered from Esperanza, ever since its nomination not so long ago. The mass bureaucracy, distance from Wikipedia and how it looks to be an exclusive club from the outside made me feel that it was inappropriate and against many of the ideals and principles that Wikipedia stands for. As well as the fact that many of the projects within Esperanza were so far disconnected with helping editors contribute to the encyclopaedia. To be fair, there is one or two things of good that Esperanza has done (an editor saying how the project helped two editors who were seriously stressed out did strike a chord with me), which could be implemented into the encyclopedia. However, in regards to Esperanza as a whole, the only recommendation in regards to keeping it for historical use is to show people in future a good example of what should not be placed in Wikipedia space. it is for those reasons, I vote delete and salt all pages. It's ironic that Esperanza is Spanish for hope, yet there is no hope left in Esperanza. --tgheretford (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the outstandingly good nomination, and per my delete vote in the last MfD. Not much has changed since. – Elisson • T • C • 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The seperate sub-pages accomplish everything just fine, and the only purpose Esperanza itself serves is to create a bureaucracy around it. And, of course, to foster the sense that belonging to Esperanza makes you special; witness the proposals that you must be a member of Esperanza to adopt a user. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I admit I have not been keeping up with the arguments for and against deletion, and I didn't participate in the overhaul of Esperanza. However I am !voting keep because I find value in the Stress Alerts, Admin Coaching, and Calendar. I simply find these useful and would be sad to see them go. If they can be moved elsewhere that would be fine. But I'd just like to say that I'm sad that the Esperanza community that helped me become a Wikipedian is dying. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:00, 29 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)

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)

• Delete all and nail the coffin. About every point that every Wikipedian needs is summarized in this nom. "Oh, but Esperanza means hope! That means we should keep it!" I don't see much "esperanza" in this, I'm afraid.--WaltCip 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Per The Halo and Llama Man. But move the calendar to the Birthday Committee, and keep admin coaching. Sadly, there is really no hope for Esperanza anymore. The ship cannot be salvaged. I have enjoyed my time there immensly, but the condition of it has declined with many valued users leaving. Jam01 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - there are a few specific points I'd like to address.
• After reading through this discussion, I have to agree that Esperanza's become too self-centered for its own good. Therefore, I'm changing my !vote to move some programs out, tag some key pages as historical, and delete the rest. As long as we have some honest discussion about which programs to move, and what pages to keep as historical, I'll be satisfied with this outcome. Quack 688 14:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

- 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)

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)

-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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

• Tag as historical while I realise that most people want this deleted completely I think it would be more beneficial to have it marked as historical. It would discourage anyone from trying to retry the same idea in the future. It's one thing to tell a new user that something is a bad idea but it's another to actually show them it's a bad idea and let them see for themselves. A quick look at the talk page adequately shows a lot of the problems that Esperanza has had and why its become a failure in ways that can't be explained as effectively second hand.

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)

• Keep Esperanza's overhaul is not yet complete. Geo. 00:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You can hardly expect six words to combat the immense wealth of writing that supports deletion. When your argument is "the overhaul is not complete", well how many issues does that address? Oh yes. None. DoomsDay349 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The overhaul will never be completed, Geo. People just lost interest. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The overhaul has been on for a month or two. It's taken too long. That's a sign that it will not be finished. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 02:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 3

• Delete Many of the keeps of the previous MfD for Esperanza were on the condition of reform. The overhaul never happened. It isn't happening right now; talk to the members and ex-members themselves. It won't ever happen. The noms expresses concern after concern, and nothing much has changed since the last MfD. Delete. JoeSmack ^Talk 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Especially admin coaching. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I always thought Esperanza was a bad idea.-gadfium 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Regardless of the outcome, the stress alerts page should be kept. Or moved elsewhere. Or userfied, as long as it continues to exist (which I would be glad to do). More than anything, a huge number of people benefit from it. When leaving a kind word for someone who you saw was stressed out keeps them on the encyclopedia, that is a really good feeling, and this page allows it. -- Natalya 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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? TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete per Messedrocker Solution --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all subpages, tag main as historical or rejected or inactive or whatever is needed to impress the point that it is dead and disapproved. --cj | talk 02:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep harmless club. Hardban the shitstirrer. Nominating this for deletion is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Can you not find something to edit? Grace Note 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  Discount bad keep vote for violation of WP:AGF, an ignorance of WP:COOL, and an ironic violation of WP:CIVIL.--WaltCip 02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  That has nothing to do. Members may be sad, pissed off, or angry. While I advocate for always staying civil, I understand when others can't, and so you should. -- ReyBrujo 17:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am very sad to say this, as a former member of Esperanza myself, but I think it is time to take Esperanza out to pasture. It had potential that failed to materialize, even after years and many, many, second chances. I even invested a significant amount of my time in the overhaul process earlier this month, but I still do not feel like Esperanza was redeemed, and thus, I think it should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, aye. I'm afraid that I was never convinced that Esperanza wasn't the start of the formation of political (or, perhaps worse, and as turned out, apolitical) parties here, and its time has certainly now passed. James F. (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Having an exclusive club, whether intentionally or as a de facto happening, is not keeping with the Wikipedia ideals of a place where anyone should be able to feel welcome. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, Keep Only As Historical unfortunately. It was a good idea that just didn't work, like many on Wikipedia. Just H 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrocker solution. What started out as a worthy project has long since lost its way completely. the wub "?!" 22:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete David D. (Talk) 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 4

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)

• Ikiroid: If more people wrote out their votes like yours, Wikipedia would be several million times better than it is now. Your details are appreciated.--WaltCip 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Originally I was neutral to the whole topic, I didn't have any set opinion for or against. Then I started doing some digging/investigating through the pages and saw a few items that while orignally may have been a good idea, their time has past:
  • First, looking through the charter itself; it appears to go completely against one of wikipedia's basic policies (WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY) creating an 'administration' group appears to be cliqueish and against the consensus that is used for every other portion of Wikipedia (Not including the Arb-com).
  • Secondly, looking at the Esperanza programs, most IMHO are already existant (and more easily) accessed via the community portal: a) Stress alerts seems to me to be very intrusive in nature and potentially embarassing for people listed. b) Esperanza Birthday already exists via the birthday committee duplicating work (Granted I wouldn't be surprized if the member list of both are the same) c) Esperanza Collaboration, well this type work already exists via Wikipedia:Collaborations along with a whole screen-page worth on the community portal page. d) Esp Admin coaching seems to just be a way for passing an RfA despite it claiming that is not the goal. e) Esp to-do is just a repeat of the Template:Helpme f) tutorial drive seems to be a good idea, however once people write these tutorials unless links are added somewhere, they will simply sit unused in that person's user-page.
  • In conclusion, while the idea of Esperanza may have been a good one at its beginning, and a natural extension of the type of community atmosphere that Wikipedia gives, its time seems to have passed unfortunately and has moved beyond the original mission of 'hope' that it was formed for (replaced by Concordia and Kindness Campaign) - Marcsin 02:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Tag front page as historical, delete subpages. While some areas of Esperanza are not the greatest (the administration and what was cut out as a result of the overhaul), I believe we can learn and import some things into the mainstream. Admin coaching and recognition programs, for example, could be incorporated into Wikipedia. Esperanza has taught me many things about the world today, and though I'm reluctant to let it go, I feel that it's now defunct, and as a Chinese proverb says, no medicine can save it. ECOTM, for example, is redundant, and the only edits we've really been doing are marginal. However, some of the ideas are worth keeping; after all, when one chops a tree down, they cut out the wormy parts and take the good wood to construct whatever they need. bibliomaniac15 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep pages as historical even if the programs are all shut down, as there are several jillion talk pages linking to it. Some sort of explanation needs to be present as to what Esperanza used to be for future archive readers, and a historical tag is ideal for such circumstances. Also no prejudice against splitting out any individual programs that people still care about. --tjstrf talk 03:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT: Esperanza needs to be entirely deleted, to prevent newbie users trying to start things up again. Why leave one sad remnant as some sort of warning gibbet? Just let it all go... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete- basically all good things must end, while EA seemed good for a long time, and many members say it has but if you think about it...it hasn't. I think everyone has noticed this giant fall recently with EA and that it has just been sitting there. Basically it hasn't accomplished anything. — Arjun 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you notice nobody anymore seems to "really" care to clean it up. — Arjun 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/Historical I was never apart of Esperanza, but I'm kind of sad that it didn't work out, but only because the motivation was with good intent. I really hope people don't take this MfD the wrong way. It's just.. one of those things that didn't worked out how we hoped it would. The nomination sums it up pretty well. We can and should continue to promote Wiki-love and community spirit, but we don't have to call people Esperanzians to do that, we only need to call them Wikipedians. No one should feel that we are losing anything. Rather, we are just changing our approach. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I also support the historical tag idea. Pretty much a "delete" of the group, but the pages in some form kept per Messedrocker and Gracenotes. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment With no vote on the matter, I just want to take issue with the manner in which the top nomination here is written. Reading over it, I found good points written in an unnecessarily abrasive tone that gave the impression that all people who have ever signed up for Esperenza think, act, and talk alike: in a pompous, condescending manner. That's just not true and I wish the nominator had showed the requisite respect toward the vast majority of Esperenzans who, at the very least, had good intentions. -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Export philosophy to essay. I joined Esperanza because of the ideology it presents (i.e. "70's idealism"), in which I continue to believe. Esperanza now seems like a conglomeration of programs which are either redundant or faulty. I wish nothing but good will to the project's participants, except for me, mostly because it's a bit patent for a sane person to wish good will to him- or herself. (It appears to be a bad joke. Read on.)
• Confession time, then: I saw Esperanza as a club when I first encountered it. I wondered how I could join; after finding out, I proceeded to garner edits by reverting vandalism. This seems somewhat revolting to me today, even if my actions were more due to some vague subconscious volition than a purposeful concentration of will. Although if not for Esperanza, I would not be in Wikipedia today, this behavior is not healthy for anyone. I grew out of the this POV rather quickly, thankfully. Rather than have a "Kindness Central", I find it more challenging, and more rewarding, for each user to exercise kindness on his or her own, and for a community to develop organically. (Note: by "Central" I refer to (an) actual page(s), not in the user or user talk namespace, wherein kindness is performed. This does not include WikiProjects which promotes kindness but requires responsibility of its participants to be individually civil.)
• So, consider this a Delete. I would also appreciate an NPOV page describing Esperanza, its formation and (possibly) demise, so that newbies can understand what happened. (It's not like we have to apply WP:DENY or anything, heh.) Note that I'm inducting anecdotally; if my thoughts are not substance enough to merit a vote, then consider this just a Comment. I would have said "Delete per nom", but thought better of it. (Hey, you, read that piped link! :p ). --Gracenotes ^T § 05:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Implement the Messedrocker Solution - ie. an effective delete, but keep the page history accessible for various historical purposes: blank subpages and redirect to the main ESP page, tag that as historical with an explanation, and protect the redirects to prevent recreation. The Messedrocker solution will discourage recreation, and will allow those who built Esperanza to carry on with dignity. Consider those who have thousands of good-faith edits in their contributions list from working on Esperanza pages, and consider that those edits will vanish if all the pages are deleted. Carcharoth 05:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Post-script - forgot to say: keep the Admin coaching program or any program that is actually useful. Ask Cyde why he says Esperanza has been around for years when the nomination linked to a Signpost article from September 2005 (only a year ago). See - this is why the history needs to be kept visible to all, otherwise we will have to run to admins to ask when things happened... Carcharoth 05:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I really, really doubt that Cyde or any other administrator is attempting to mislead you about the time Esperanza has been around. Deleted pages are routinely made available to anyone with the need to access them. alphachimp. 07:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that wasn't a serious comment about "running to admins". I know asking for deleted pages is fairly easy, but the trick is knowing they exist in the first place. I'm in the "keep all the history" school of thought, especially as past assurances that deleted content will never be permanently lost have weakened somewhat. I vaguely recall Jimbo himself saying this. Give me a moment... Here we are: [2] (my initial comment); [3] (Geni's response); [4] (my response to Geni); [5] (Jimbo's comment later in the thread). The relevant bit of what Jimbo said is: "In general, I am in favor of keeping most deleted material around indefinitely, but on the other hand, most of it is of zero value so I am not a big stickler about it." - though thinking on this a bit more, I guess it will ultimately come down to a developer at some point 'dumping' old stuff. I wouldn't rely on deleted stuff always being available. If we want to keep stuff for historical reasons, keep it properly. Don't (as Geni said) use the deleted area as a way of storing stuff. Carcharoth 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete everything, Esperanza has not acheived its goals yet and also I'm quite disappointed with the reform as I expected something better. There is no good reason for this to stay. The arguments for deletion in the nominations made me changed my opinion after reading it reapeatedly. Esperanza has become a bureaucratic organisation, social club these days, totally different from when I first joined this organisation. Nothing much is done in Esperanza nowadays. The project is a failure I must sadly say. Its just sad for this organisation to become its current state. Terence Ong 05:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Gracenotes's suggestion above to make Esperanza a philosophy essay keeps popping in my mind. I think we could really expand on this idea as a less negative way to "end" the group. See here for more. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not actively involved in Esperanza, although I have official membership. Now, I don't know who's right in the above debates, but I do want to point out one thing: If Esperanza gets erased, many users, including me, will likely have to modify their signatures. I suspect this would require another significant "adjustment period" before everyone fully adapts to the changes. Scobell302 06:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  See VPp#Reduce the size limit for sigs?. Eliminating the colorful sig component of Esperanza would be a welcome benefit to many others. —Quiddity 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Dev's nomination hits the mark exactly; the attempts at reform have been couched not in terms of "how do we make this useful to Wikipedia", but rather in terms of "how do we save this from deletion". The "separate subcommunity" aspect of the organization, its most troublesome aspect, has not been addressed. --Robth^Talk 06:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the strong arguments of deletion. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm extremely impressed by the depth, sincerity, and accuracy of Dev920's nomination. Esperanza has become a large, unwieldy bureaucracy that does little other than segregate itself from the community. True, it's important to create community...but not in the sense that such a community separates itself. I admire the objectives on which Esperanza was founded, but it seems to have deviated quite far from those goals. I would certainly support further attempts at the development of such an organization, but this one appears to be beyond hope. alphachimp. 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per strong arguments by noms, in this and the previous MfD. —Quiddity 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Admin Coaching section; it is useful and still very much active. Keep Wikipedia:Esperanza/To-Do_List and Stress Alerts. Someone above said these pages aren't being deleted, but the nomination says all sub-pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 5

• Historical: The previous MFD pretty much struck a fatal blow for Esperanza: The Halo and Natalya, two members of the AC, left the organisation because of the aftermath, confusion, and going nowhere-ness of the project, but deleting the whole Esperanza subpages is going to create thousands of redlinks. Will ^{(Because you're filthy, ooh, and I'm gorgeous)} 07:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see what's wrong with redlinks - just remove them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Comment I am one of the editors that was perceived as being incivil in the previous MfD, my comments about the MfD being an April Fool's joke were very much "attended to", whereas my comments about what motivated me to say it - that it had been discussed elsewhere and then actioned - were not addressed at all. I apologise for that, as in doing so, I added to the polarisation that I was trying to address. I express no view on the current MfD. Thanks. --Alf ^melmac 08:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Last time I voted for keeping and reforming, but as reform was ineffective, there are no other possibilities left. --Jannex 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• kill it with fire its done nothing but lead to the myspacification of wikipedia... ask yourself... do you want every user page to look like JeffK's homepage or something on Geocities circa 1997? If that answer is NO (which it really should be) then vote delete here.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - EA no longer stands for what it says it stands for. After the first MfD, EA started reforming itself but seems to be so much a movement by committee that I left, and edited my 'e' page - I think that if people still intend to provide that help, they can do so (whether in a similar style or the mentoring program or whatever) but doing it by committee simply does not work. --Firien § 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, rewrite frontpage as essay - Same of the ideas of esperanza are truly admirable, but they seem to have stranded by focusing too much on themselves. A truly outstanding nomination btw. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Tag main page historical, delete the rest. The potential large amounts of redlinks will be a pain, so maybe the subpages could all be redir'd to the main EA page, but EA has well outstayed its welcome. Don't mind TheDJ's idea of making the front page an essay, either... – Chacor 12:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Would it be possible to delete and then redirect all Esperanza pages to the main one, which would be tagged as historical, to avoid redlinks? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Comment

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)

• Delete completely Lasciate ogni Esperanza... Whatever Esperanza's purpose once was, it has clearly failed to achieve it. --Folantin 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - My original objections to Esperanza is that some of it's programs did more harm than good, not only to the mission of Esperanza but to Wikipedia itself. Those programs were destroyed....and the result was that the organization did not know what to do with itself. There are a lot of well-meaning, kindly intentioned people in EA, and I do believe that the original formation of EA had a well-meaning idea behind it. Unfortunately, the idea will never work. If you designed this, JCarriker, I can't imagine what you thought it would become. The reason the civility problem on Wikipedia is due to the fact that people value civility over truth, civility over reality, and civility over common sense. If the above comments shock you, they should awaken you to the problems this fixation on being nice has caused. I'd rather work in a community that is honest about it's problems, and works to fix them, rather than anytime a group of people says "This is a horribly bad idea" someone comes to lecture them on civility. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One can be both truthful and civil. What wikipedia needs is people who can be both. -JCarriker 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Overwhelming bureaucracy is even more unwiki than incivility - which is not that big a problem around here. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It's a big enough problem that the nominator of this mfd wrote that he might become a "hate figure in certain sections of Wikipedia" by nominating Esperanza for deletion. I'd call that a big problem. By reading the last time this was mfd you can see many people on both sides behaved atrociously. -JCarriker 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • A problem that is largely limited to Esperanza. For some it became such a big deal that they reacted in an incivil manner when the problem of WP:NOT a place for social networking was pointed out. I do not think that the wider community is in thrall to incivility, and those that are get thoroughly ticked off. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I respectfully disagree, I was at wikipedia for over three years and in that time incivility has gradually become more prominent and tolerated. Reading over the previous mfd, one sees incivil comments on both sides of the issue. I also served as a mediator for quite sometime. But this digression has little to do with the deletion of Esperanza, and I shall leave you to your work and slip back into my retirement thankful that neither rising incivility nor expanding beauracracy at wikipedia are things I have to worry about anymore. -JCarriker 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
            • What comes first, truth or civility? I'd have to say truth. If there's a problem, and you're sugar-coating it just to be civil and avoid conflict, then you'll end up making things worse in the long run. It's better to confront that problem, and deal with it out in the open. Two caveats, though. First, even if truth does come first, that's no reason to throw civility out the window when speaking your mind. Second, some of the blanket statements made during these MfD discussions have violated both truth and civility. Quack 688 17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Also, there are certain points that I have to disagree with:

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...)

• • Please read all the nominations before commenting any further. The whole point of all three of them is that Esperanza has had - and continues to have - a detrimental effect on the community. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. I can't explain it better than the nominator did, Esperanza is becoming useless and distracts Wikipedians from being editors. The only Wikipedians it ever helped were her own members. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrocker Solution. Gracenotes' essay idea is good. Sorry to see it had to go this way. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I refused to comment on the first MfD, but I can not resist now that it is upon me once more. I believed Esperanza failed in all of it's goals long ago, back when I resigned from the leadership, and took a break from editing for a while. The reason why I never re-joined Esperanza and the reason why I believe deleting the project is a good thing: I believe it not only failed to accomplish it's goals, I also feel it will not attain those goals anytime in the near future. There are some really wonderful editors in Esperanza some who really want to make the project work, sadly they can not do it alone, and as I used to be one of them I almost feel obnoxious with this comment. Yet it is how I feel. KOS | talk 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on historical and essay: People who want to create another Esperanza will not be deterred by a page explaining what went wrong. They will simply say stuff like "Yes, but we'll have safeguards" and do it anyway. Look at how Esperanza reacted to the allegations of arrogance at the last MfD: they put a sentence on the front page saying Esperanzans weren't better than Wikipedians. But nothing changed. We need to eradicate this fully, so the Esperanzan meme doesn't survive.

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)

I agree - this didn't prevent this --Alf ^melmac 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is an apt comparison. Two things without a jot to do with each other! *sarcastic clapping* --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I always wondered how there could be a wikipedian community that preaches being open yet never seem to be with anyone but its own members as well as having a council against the function of wikipedia. Its idea is good, at the core, but the fact is that we don't need a group of green e's to be nice to other editors we need editors to be nice to other editors. It had a purpose once, but that purpose as near as I can tell is a fundamental foundation of wikipedia itself and does not require another setion "saving" it. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, FFS, delete it and lets get back to making articles. Move the user alerts to KC, the birthdays to BDC, the admin coaching to it's own little wikiproject or userfy it with the Transhumanist, along with the tutorials. Take Ed's essay on kindness and stick that in the space, and be done with it. This is a MfD -- I made a mistake in bringing up civility, as we can discuss that eleswhere. But unless someone has some solid reasons aside from the perennial favorite of ILIKEIT, we should move along. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, if you'd like to participate in a social site, please find some other site that is not encyclopedia. MaxSem 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  I thought we established that Esperanza isn't social networking? PTO 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  I'd like to object to this wording of MaxSem. For a large part the community is what makes the encyclopedia, and therefore there should be a lot of space for that community. It's not a social networking site, but it sure can be social and i think it should be social and civil. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 6

• Comment. I have been reading through this discussion and find myself agreeing with much of what is being said. As a member of Esperanza, I am sorry to see the negative views that some of the Wikipedians have here. I joined Esperanza after seeing Celestianpower leave a personal note on a user's talk page. I really liked the idea that it was giving, and wanted to help out other users.

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)

• Delete. I can see that a great deal of effort went into the creation of this group, but it appears to be little more than an attempt to have a parallel "governing" organisation to many already in-place Wikipedia bodies. I don't see the point of an Advisory Council other than the creation of another "elite" class. And while a mission of "hope, help and reassurance" sounds laudable, it doesn't jibe with the purposes of creating an encyclopedia -- rather, it strikes me as a means to provide a ready pool of consensus dittos to support particular positions during disagreements. While Wikipedians may want (or need) to socialise with each other-- to gain friends and influence neighbors-- Wikipedia is not a social club, and creation of cliques is a troubling development. Some of Esperanza's activities should be integrated into Wikipedia as a whole, not separated off into yet another cabalistic party.--Leflyman^Talk 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note - The Esperanza User Page Award which was previously deleted has been restored by an editor in their user space: User:Sj/Archive/User Page Award. This also raises another point, what is to stop someone copying some or all of the parts of Esperanza to user space, as has happened here? --tgheretford (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  Post-edit conflict note: Hmm ... whaddya mean by restored? It doesn't seem as though sj plans on coordinating means to give out this deleted accolade; the purpose is just to have an archive (as indicated by his edit summary). Also see User:Sj/Archive. There is no need to pretend that Esperanza is worthy of WP:DENY, either directly or indirectly (see the, er, "canonical" MessedRocker solution). --Gracenotes ^T § 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Historify- Though my vote last time was a keep, there has not been enough promise of major reform for me to still confidently submit a vote to keep the project. Esperanza seems to be dwindling in the ambition necessary to refactor the program into an encyclopedic endeavor. I do not see harm however in considering to keep some of the pages and add the history tag to them.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

*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)

• I'm sick of everyone admonishing me because of my comment, so I striked out my comment. If you want to tell me about how much of an idiot I am, then please email me, and I'll try to civily explain that I was angry, and I was stupid to express it on that comment. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 05:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

This seems more like a reason to delete Esperanza than one to keep it ... Cyde Weys 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Messedrocker solution —Mets501 (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Possibly the best written nomination I have seen for anything on Wikipedia, I must say. - BanyanTree 20:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• It never actually achieved its goals in the slightest - even though it did achieve a few other things, such as the entrapment of newcomers who might be contributing to the encyclopedia instead. Give it a proper burial by hitting delete. Picaroon 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have never been a member but thought it was a good idea, but just not for me. I am convinced by all the arguments above. It should go. I am however very concerned that people think that WP is becoming less civil. It is vital that we continue to be civil and also that we continue to build a community. Without a civil community, we can not write this encyclopedia. --Bduke 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC) On reflection I support Messedrocker Solution. --Bduke 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't really have enough experience with Esperanza to say keep or delete. However, if it deleted then the main page needs to be preserved somehow. There are simply too many links to it to simply delete entirely. Either mark as historical or rewrite into an essay about it and why it was shut down. Koweja 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. "Historical" doesn't mean just slapping a tag onto the page and being done with it. If the decision is made to delete (which it seems will be overwhelmingly the case) then I'd suggest placing a short, purely descriptive note on the project page ("Esperanza was a...") and a warning against recreation with a pointer to this MfD, along with the historical tag. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑29t21:11z
  • Yep. It's like the failed policies: you should at least get a good idea that this idea was tried and what went wrong with it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are several reasons, the first of which is that Wikipedia per se is meant to be what Esperanza decided to be, I think. The second is that, if it was inclusionist, I was never invited to be included. I see it as a clique, albeit originally a clique or good. The third is that I once had a boat named Esperanza. As racing dinghies go it was devoid of any form of hope, and came last whoever sailed it. Like the group here it was pretty to look at, but not pretty in use. So, with regret I feel the group should be disbanded. Fiddle Faddle 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning toward... I'm not intimately familiar with the EA's operations, and I don't know what's going on with the inter-user politics here, so I can't say if the allegations of Bureaucratic Stuff is correct and can't say if this page is really all harmful. I should just point out that I'm completely fine with "community" side of Wikipedia; whatever real projects toward that end were there should be kept or rebooted (and/or discussed individually). However, I'm not in favour of bureaucracy. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and toward that end a virtual community; if we don't have much bureaucracy in our "real work" processes, we sure as heck shouldn't have any bureaucracy whatsoever in our "keeping the humans sane" part of the site's function. Therefore, at worst, ...stubify and mark historical and decide what to do with the individual projects. We, the cold and faceless Editors, can always do a little bit of human-like stuff every once and while. We just can't turn that into a Process of its own; it has to be spontaneous. (Casual work clothing is good. "Wear jeans this Friday or you'll be fired" is not.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There was a dream that was Esperanza. This is not it. Deizio talk 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment We need to keep the EA barnstar, because if it was deleted, there would be a lot of people affected. I'm sure that people who have one (including me) would be wondering why one of their barnstars no longer displays a picture. Or something like that; I'm not exactly sure how it would be affected. Jam01 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely the whole idea of barnstar for special Esperanza-related contributions is just...bizarre? IMO the barnstar should definitely go. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but add a rejected by the community tag to the main Esperanza page. However, I can see some other group or part of wikipedia taking on all of the individual activities of Esperanza. Like it or not, it is a significant page in the history of wikipedia, and attempting to delete it or replace it with an essay are both probably doomed to fail, as well as actually deleting what is, basically, a historical record of wikipedia. And I am a member of Esperanza, but only a peripheral one. Badbilltucker 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All of the arguments have swayed me from a neutral stance, especially the main nominator's point about handling matters on IRC without consensus. I was never the biggest fan of Esperanza, since it didn't seem like the main goal was encyclopedia building, nor community building. It's been a nice try, but it's time for this to go. -- Kicking222 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note that I would support the messedrockerification of Esperanza... just don't let it survive. In fact, the continued arguments have convinced me even more that it needs to go. -- Kicking222 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete waste of time, it's being taken too far by TPTB ST47Talk 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Dev920 made a strong, well written point. I believe Esperanza as a whole had good intentions, but unfortunately, it hasn't really achieved it's goal. I have no problem against "WikiLove" but I don't think you need a special membership to spread it. Anyone can do it anytime. Many of you made really good statements. I wouldn't mind the historical tag, but I support the Messedore (sp? sorry) Solution. The Esperanza barnstars should go though, since that defeats the whole purpose of a barnstar, IMO. Hope all the EA users the best though. --andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Why do people have to be such tyrants about the Wikipedia space? I'm not a member, but if a few people want to have this little club, it cannot hurt anyone. The nominators' concerns should be dealt through dialogue, not deletion. And if the group is inactive, that is not a reason to delete despite the obsessive users' attempts to control the server space. It may become more active in the future. Tfine80 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• • What do you mean, it can't hurt anyone? Yes it can. It can foster the belief that members are superior, it can create a group who think they are a cabal, it can cause votestacking for anything members want, it can make non-members be excluded from good activities, etc., etc... It may be that it doesn't hurt anyone, but don't say that it can't. Oh, and I hope everyone realizes that deletion doesn't save server space; the record is kept. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) People aren't proposing deletion becuase it's in the Wikipedia space, or becuase it's taking up server space (after all, deletion doesn't save any server space, as the page still exists), but because of the negative impact it has, at times, had on Wikipedia, and for the fact that Wikipedia does not need this organisation any more (if ever). The Wikipedia space is reserved for "official projects", and this MfD is seeking to remove this status from Esperanza, and to prevent the organisation from regenerating (in its current form, at least). Martinp23

22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• • • Just to be clear, deleted pages do indeed still exist, but we should not assume that deleted pages will always be available. Deletion is not archiving. If we want the records of Esperanza to be available to Wikipedians interested in the history, or even to future professional historians, we should mark as historical, while still making clear that the Esperanza project has closed down and shouldn't be restarted without lengthy discussion. See my comments further up the page. It is an exceedingly dangerous idea to use deletion as a way to archive things, blithely saying "oh, but we can always undelete if we need to". Archive should have more to say on the subject. Trust the Wikipedia community to be able to police itself well enough to prevent recreation. I'd like to end on a lighter note with an edit summary I spotted in the history of this page: "Upon an archive I ponder, and about an archive I write. Without an archive I'm somber, my sig wouldn't be in sight." credit: User:Gracenotes [6] ) - please, archive history, don't delete it. Carcharoth 23:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This nom was very thoughtful and clearly communicated the problems that a continued Esperanza presence creates. I know that the folks involved had the best possible intentions, but in the long run, a Wikipedia without Esperanza will be stronger, and I hope we can learn an implement the positive side effects that the Esperanza group helped illustrate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or, failing that, mark as historical. I'm biased against deleting Wikipedia space pages, but the noms make a good argument. Cool Hand Luke 22:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. (Edit conflict) Esperanza is a collaboration to help and motivate users. Their goal, to make Wikipedia a friendly and helpful place, is not impossible, simply hard to reach and forever growing. While it will never be gained, their one small effort works wonders for our encyclopedia, which is essentially community-based. Without wishing to discount the nominator(s) for their reasons for requesting deletion, I do think Wikipedia seriously needs a group of editors whose goal is to promote harmonious editing and community. In an ideal world, both Wiki and real, if everyone was warm and helpful to other users, there would be no use for Esperanza. To quote Jimbo Wales,

“

Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. — Jimbo Wales. [7]

”

. I ask you to consider this very seriously. Thank you for your time. Yuser31415 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• keep. (Edit conflict) Okay slight bias, I've been a member for a little over a year, but I feel that it does no harm, so there is no need to delete. Brian | (Talk) 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not harmless, and a "harmless" claim goes against WP:ILIKEIT. Read the nom again.--WaltCip 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• keep - I've never been a member and probably never will be, but I see no reason that this should be deleted. Everything I have seen them done has been benificial to the encylopedia --T-rex 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• It WAS beneficial, but it has become a bureaucracy, which trumps WP:NOT.--WaltCip 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Great Idea (sarcasm). If we don't like what history looks like, let's just delete it. Can we delete everything in real world since Jan 20, 2001? Even if the project is no longer active, it seems wrong to just erase it, but the deltionists would just love that wouldn't they? --Nelson Ricardo 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please WP:AGF from this nom and read it properly.--WaltCip 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Keep I'm ignoring all rules and suggesting that Dev-whoever reads Don't be a dick and in the advent of the page being deleted hope that he/she enjoys being a hated member of the community, and I hope that members of the whole community treat him/her as a hated member of the community, same goes for the others who nomed the page. Esperanza is like Wikiproject:Wikipedians to try an create less pointless boring admins, make people feel like their work is actually appreciated. †he Bread 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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".--Leflyman^Talk 00:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, also is anyone else confused by the phrase "create less pointless boring admins"? –– Lid^(Talk) 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear The Bread: Please read "Don't be a fucking douchebag". Sincerely, Cyde Weys 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 7

• Historical Keep. I think it would be good to keep the page around for historical reasons, but it seems that the purpose behind Esperanza has disappeared into petty squabbling and in-fighting. I also agree with many others here that the projects (called "Programs" on the page) or features of Esperanza should be pulled out to other locations so they are not lost. There is much good in these ideas and programs, so they shouldn't be lost even if Esperanza goes away. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete with fire, brimstone, and a side of tea • They were given plenty of chances to reform the problems pointed out in the original MfD, but have only aggravated these problems further. Unfortunate as it may be, Esperanza has become an overly bureaucratic group whose only interests are for helping themselves and not the project as a whole. If they want to support each other, then fine - but they can do that by email or by IRC or any other messaging site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. There was useful side benefits of Esperanza - such as the stress alerts - but these will survive outside of Esperanza, and never really needed Esperanza in the first place. For further thoughts, read my essay. Really, in the end, they have become a disruptive and negative influence on the encyclopedia and the community, and that, I believe, is why so many longtime members such as E@L, Ed and Kyoko have left. Let us end this here, and now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely strong delete: As an editor who has been outside of Esperanza and whatever issues it has/had, I disagree with it. Unlike most people, it's not because of any failed mission, but because I don't agree with it's original strategy. I simply don't believe in ghettoizing community. Wikipedia already is a community.

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)

• Probably go for the Messedrocker solution, and export whatever is usable from the project, without prejudice to a redo from the scratch - this will minimize the damage. (Outside view based on the deletion votes/comments - I have never been involved with Esperanza.) - Mike Rosoft 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE but KEEP the Smiles Templates (I think that is part of the nomination) and the Tutorials (on a case-by-case basis depending on if they meet generally accepted standards of quality). I have been around Wikipedia for about 2 years (originally anon, then registered but not very active until November '06, and since then I've made over 1,000 edits in just Dec.). Honestly, today was the first time I became of Esperanza (after the talk pages for three different WikiProjects I'm in were plastered with the warning about this deletion -- bad form in my opinion). I have seen the Smiles before, but was not aware they were Esperanza-based. Since I do not take voting for or against any kind of deletion lightly, I looked through many of the Esperanza pages (though not the bureaucratic ones) to see what there was to see. I saw a lot of good intentions, but weak implementation (plus I felt like I was in the Land of Oz or a hospital with all that green color). Overall, I think the project has grown beyond its own usefulness. Yes, encouragement is nice, and especially recognition for hard work on improving Wikipedia (not so applicable based on non-Wiki actions or personality reasons), but there are WikiProjects that already do that. Improving articles through contribution is a good thing, but other WikiProjects do that. The point is, that I do not see the need for a WikiProject that is so expansive it needs so much administration to duplicate the work other WikiProjects are doing already. Yes, interesting twists and variations, but start the good parts over again as separate, more focused WikiProjects that do not need so much administration. As to deleting or keeping historically... If Wikipedia has a way to make information truly read-only (not just a tag that people can remove), then I'd say lock it for historical reference. Otherwise, salvage the Smiles and any good Tutorials, and delete the rest. --Willscrlt 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from Evil Deletionist Choir^TM: Oh, by all means, keep the smilies, and keep the cup of tea. Heck, keep the EA barnstar for the people who go out of their way to help other Wikipedians who are troubled. (Although almost none of the keep voters in EA seem to bother trying for civility, much less kindness.)But the rest needs to be deleted, save for the main page, which can be historicalized and tagged as "pwned by common sense". --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (with some bare bones historical pages kept), I guess. I hate to break-up the feel-good working group if it is actually working. But, what I've read above indicates it is not. I myself have never seen the need for such a group since being a wikipedia editor is as close to joining a cult as I care to get. -MrFizyx 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a nominal and exasperated member of Esperanza, mark historical the Esperanza main page, move programs such as editor coaching moved to Wikipedia namespace, and delete the rest. This is a classic example of a well-intentioned program that bogged itself down by becoming too bureaucratic and by expanding too fast. Esperanza, no matter how its most vociferous supporters cast it, has failed, and we must accept this and move on. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This thing smells like Scientology with its acronyms (ArbCom, etc). Wake 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Recycle If attempts to reform Esperanza failed, it might be time to come up with a brand new idea from the ashes of ESP. The main purposes of Esperanza proved useful in the past, it's not because it went awry that we have to scrap it completely. Keep or delete, what I think it's important now is that the community isn't left with only the weighty and robotic side of Wikipedia.--Húsönd 02:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please, the last thing we want is Esperanza Act II. History repeats itself.--WaltCip 03:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I meant it to be a copy of Esperanza I would've !voted keep.--Húsönd 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Delete I voted keep last time as I have always viewed ESP as useless but mostly harmless. The nom however convinces me it is useless and slightly harmful. So kill it off.--Doc^g 02:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Implememnt the MessedRocker solution - redirect all subpags to Wikipedia:Esperanza, which can be tagged as historical. If somebody feels like it I think Gracenotes' idea may also be useful: To put a notice on the main EA page explaining what Esperanza was and why it ended up like this. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• Tag main page as historical, delete the rest (EXCEPT admin coaching) per Chacor. Recycling won't work, as the last attempt to reform Esperanza obviously failed since this MFD had to be nominated. Esperanza is a great idea, but it just doesn't seem to work in an encyclopedia-building perspective because it doesn't exactly encourage editing (only community). Perhaps the calendars can be moved per below, but what would be the use of keeping those around, since they don't really help the encyclopedia either? --Coredesat 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Amended argument to exclude admin coaching from deletion. That particular aspect is not worthless, and does actually seem to be useful, so it should be moved to Wikipedia mainspace (as in, not on an Esperanza subpage). --Coredesat 05:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I find the whole concept of Esperanza rather worthless, I am strongly against deleting pages in the Wikipedia namespace unless they are hurting the project. This one, while borderline, is not. --- RockMFR 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• If your definition of borderline is violating Wikipedia policy, then yes, it IS borderline.--WaltCip 14:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Rebecca
• This MfD has listed numerous reasons to delete Esperanza, and some reasons to keep Esperanza. Basically, to sum it up as I see it:
  • Reasons to Keep:
    • It's a good idea
    • It could really help Wikipedia
    • It has some useful programs
  • Reasons to Delete:
    • Esperanza as failed
    • Esperanza has a bureaucracy, which goes against Wikipedia (although some claim it Wikipedia is one big bureaucracy)
    • Esperanza promotes a club, and excludes itself from the rest of the Wikipedian community
    • Any useful programs could be promoted to full WikiProjects
    • It's currently a big mess, doesn't look like it's going to get better, and too many contributing Esperanzians have been stressed out from everything that's happened since the last MfD, and either left, or are taking a WikiBreak

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)

• Delete per nomination. Mackensen (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Promoting common kindness and community spirit can be (or should be) done without the bureaucracy. As a social club, Esperanza is at best tangential, and at worst obstructive, to the ultimate goal of writing an encylcopedia. -- bcasterline • talk 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I never had the... pleasure to join Esperanza but I always felt it's presence since I first started editing Wikipedia. I think something like this should be around, however, Esperanza is not this "thing". I think perhaps a reformation should occur and everything is rethinked. I suggest in a few months so these bad memories sort of go away. However, my vote is for delete.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 07:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrocker solution - nominators' arguments for killing off the organisation are compelling; arguments for salting are less persuasive. It seems to me that effecting a permanent deletion of all Esperanza pages is less to do with preventing the community from being restarted (a restart seems unlikely to me when the community is collapsing already) and more to do with burning Esperanza at the stake. Calmly implement the Messedrocker solution and export any useful programmes still operating to other projects. — mholland 07:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Archive anything useful or historical, then lovingly, kindly put the rest out of its misery and move on. ESP has failed...so what now will make Wikipedia not suck? I believe the working projects are our last, best hope.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Implement the Messedrocker solution. The nom convinced me this needs to go, but I think tagging as historical and protecting is still worthwhile. Move the useful programs out of Esperanza; they're probably better off without the bureaucracy anyway. BryanG^(talk) 08:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• For the numerous reasons listed in the nomination and by many other editors: MOVE or ARCHIVE the few things that have proved useful, turn the main page into a HISTORICAL page and then permanently protect it, and DELETE everything else. ^BlankVerse 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on relocating specific programs

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)

(edited to add mention of calendar & admin coaching - Quack 688 09:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment I continue to advocate complete deletion. However, if these aren't to be deleted, it seems fair to move the calendar to HBC (I already initiated a discussion about that there last night), and merge the tutorials to the help pages that already exist. The collaboration of the month doesn't do anything, so you may as well let that die in favour of ARCAID, Reachout will eventually become another coffee lounge, so let that one go. Start a discussion at the Kindness Campaign about starting a stress alerts there (in other words ASK them first before you start giving them programs to deal with), but you may as well let the actual pages be deleted and let the idea have a fresh start at KC if they agree to have it, so they can put their own spin on it.

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)

• Comment - just a quick note to point out that the names of the 'Birthday Committee' and the 'Kindness Campaign' are slightly worrying in that they suggest the beginnings of a bureaucracy. No need to call them committees or campaigns. The same concerns apply to the name of the 'Welcoming Committee'. No need to call them campaigns or committees. I recognise that behind the names what goes on is probably fine, but the names of committee and campaign have always been off-putting to me at least. Carcharoth 16:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Messedrocker Solution with useful programs spun out into their own wikiprojects. It's the least offensive, while preserving the parts that actually worked.--Rayc 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm loosing track of all of the comments and ideas left here on this MfD, but I support the idea of deleting all programs and having their related projects on Wikipedia "restart" them. That way, those particular Projects can choose how they want to continue the programs without any controversial issues.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 8

• De-subsidize - While I agree that the superstructure of Esperanza should be done away with, the subprograms should simply be renamed to become standalone programs. They are all capable of running autonomously just fine, without a ruling overbody, just like every other page in the Wikipedia namespace. If a particular program doesn't work out, then it is still subject to deletion at anytime, just like every other page. --The Transhumanist 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• don't care. wth, a 132k MfD vote?? Tag as historical or refactor into something useful, whatever works best. I never saw the point in it, but was never annoyed by it either. At least (unlike the pernicious userboxes) it never spilled into main namespace. dab (𒁳) 08:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because ESP doens't do any harm what so ever. We have no need to save disc space by getting rid of it and I think many of the things that it does are positive contributions to the community. Even though I don't spend much time with it now, it helped me greatly as a new contributor. —Xyrael / 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Delete, again. Is this the GNAA of MfDs? People are going to keep nominating it until it dies? While I would prefer to see it deleted I'm not entirely sure that's a good use of time – Gurch 11:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really, it passed the last one with assurances of reform, and then it became clear that the system was unreformable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I was considering doing this myself, since I've poked around esperanza and it became clear that without the chatty in-club, there's nothing to it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- the organisation is currently undergoing a reform, and has already deleted some of the useless material such as User Page Award; so long as Esperanza sorts itself out, keep. Anthonycfc 12:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• A LONG time? It's been like 2 weeks... --T-rex 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I think you'll find that it's been more like six  YDAM TALK 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• What support? It's a bureaucracy right now. Read the nom.--WaltCip 13:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Delete. I have been a member of Wikipedia for some time and was myself a recipient of a very nice gesture of an Esperanza action by member Sarah crane on 7 April 2006 that I still have up on my talkpage. However, I'm absolutely appalled that an organization ostensibly dedicated to improving community through such actions would have its major supporters on this page post such vitriolic and hateful comments about other Wikipedians. The irony is about as palpable as it gets. I hope that the users like the one who encouraged me will continue to add a little sunshine to people's editting experience, but the organization must go as it is encouraging such unbecoming and self-damaging behavior on the part of its members that I can't see any utility its continued existence. --ScienceApologist 15:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as pointless. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, previous promises were not kept, and it's time to end this. Good intentions, unsalvageably poor execution. Seraphimblade 16:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Messedrocker's solution; to save scrolling back up I'll repeat this as 'mark the main Esperanza page historical, redirect the subpages back to it, and protect the redirects'. This means that any subpages that can be salvaged will still be visible in history to non-admins. --ais523 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll have one Messedrocker's solution on rye with extra mayo, please. It was a good idea that broke down. --Merovingian ※ Talk 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Messedrocker's solution I was always convinced that it never did any good, but I used to think it at least didn't do any harm. After reading the noms, I've changed my mind. However, whether we like it or not, it is a major part of Wikipedia history, and should be preserved in some way. Everything should be protected, though - we don't want it coming back from the dead. --Tango 16:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete at long last. I'll resist saying "I told you so". — Dan | talk 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doing more harm than good to Wikipedia. TomTheHand 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Where is the proof this is doing more harm then good? (I don't see it) --T-rex 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unneeded. bogdan 18:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a job, and I see no reason why the wikipedia community should "help" contributors deal with stress: That is a job for a professional. I have never heard of this support group before seeing a post on the WP:Moon project page regarding "Day Awards". The subpages of this project are somewhat scarry. I can only conclude that this subculture is parasitic and that it is using Wikipedia as a host. Lunokhod 18:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Writing an encyclopedia is also a job for a professional... --T-rex 18:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 9

• Delete - comments from Esperanzans listed in the nom demonstrate that Esperanza has encouraged incivility and elitism. Addhoc 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the Messedrocker behind Messedrocker's Solution, I have no problem with recycling Esperanza programs that would function well on their own. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrockerify. Guettarda 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrocker's Solution seems most sensible, preserves the ideas for furture review and possible revival if the interest is there while depreciating the project as a whole.-- danntm ^T _C 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrockerify. I oppose a mass nomination of the entire Esperanza project. Each of it's programs need to be judged on their own before being deleted. There's plenty of useful programs in there. -= Mgm|^(talk) 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Delete with regret: I found it fun while it lasted, but because of this debate, I'll quit EA after I make this vote. A tragedy for us to see a dream is over, and we members never will forget the days we used to meet each other...well, we're gonna miss you. As much as I am a member, I'm sorry to see it go. (NB: The @ sign has changed back to a regular "a" in my signature because of this.) --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrockerify I've been against Esperanza since day one, but there is no reason to delete any page history. Oh, and stop attacking keep voters. Zocky | picture popups 20:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect all pages from recreation. Distracts from the purpose of Wikipedia. It will be proposed for deletion until it's deleted so delete it now. -THB 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am against balkanization of WP. We are all doing our best to collaborate with civility to build an encyclopedia. Any fragmentation will be detrimental to that effort. Crum375 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrockerify and protect it all. Esperanza has fragmented the community for too long. Admin coaching isn't worth a keep (it's an RFA helper, not an adminship helper), Stress Alerts is a way for users begging for attention to post "I'm feeling sad :(" to get a bunch of stupid WikiLove templates on their page, and the Calendar applies to just the limited base who are members of EA. When Redwolf24/JCarriker and others started EA, it was a noble idea, but it's clear that it's instead attracted a different purpose, and a different base of users, than was originally intended. Ral315 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrockerify. While Esperanza was kind of fun, it also served really no encyclopedic purpose. Some of its programs were admirable, however, which is why I !voted the way I did. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think that it is not going to survive this deletion process. I thought there was hope in Espranza on the MFD, but now I think we should delete Espranza because of all the reasons above such as it's doing more harm than good. We lost hope for Espranza, and it should be deleted. All the programs were fun at first but now they're getting old.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment _{Note to closing admin: J.L.W.S. The Special One moved his original comment from subsection 4 to subsection 11. His edit was one of several that prompted me to post my opinion on this matter. I hope this clarifies any confusion. --Kyoko 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)} I can't bring myself to vote "delete", though that is what I am leaning to. I don't want to hurt other people's feelings, and I do think that Esperanza has done some good. I just think that it lost its way. In reading this discussion, I've discovered that people on both sides of the issue are citing me as an example of what went wrong with Esperanza: the first MfD, the overhaul attempts, or the organisation itself. To be clear, I quit Esperanza not because of the loss of the coffee lounge, etc., but rather the impression that in its attempt to remake itself following the original MfD, it was ironically becoming more self-absorbed, less supportive, and more bureaucratic. This is coupled with the observation that civility (or incivility) and kindness (or lack thereof) know no borders. I've explained much more about my feelings regarding Esperanza on my userpage. I'm sorry about how everything turned out. --Kyoko 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrocker solution, protect the redirects, and make sure the explanation is a good neutral description of what Esperanza was, what was good about it, and why it was shut down. —CComMack (t–c) 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I am slightly leaning towards deletion but I am bothered by the timing of the nomination. First, Wiki-activity is down during the Xmas period so it's likely that not everyone's input is being taken into account and secondly, the original MfD for Esperanza is quite recent and turned into an obvious no-consensus. Also, I am worried about the impact on the many valuable editors which happen to be involved in Esperanza. While the nominators are correct in pointing out that some Esperanzans look down on the cold-hearted rest of us, let's not forget that Esperanzans are often looked down upon as "coffee lounge socialites with zero input on the encyclopedia". We have to find a way of making a smooth transition whereby the cult-like and most divisive aspect of Esperanza are eliminated without losing the positive community-building ideals of many of its members. Pascal.Tesson 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or failing that, any one of the proposed variants thereof (such as Messedrocker's solution). I'm utterly new to this apparently very wikidramatical issue, but I gather this is some sort of bureaucratical club that does practically nothing useful as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. So the applicable policy would seem to be that Wikipedia is not a free web host, yes? Sandstein 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep:Esperanza's goals are in the core concepts of Wikipedia;WikieZach| talk 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — I joined a while back because it sounded like a good idea, but the Encyclopedia doesn't benefit from clubs or societies. Some of the drives/projects are good ideas and should be kept. Wikipedia doesn't need membership divisions; Esperanza was never meant to be that but has become so. A mercy killing is in order. — Estarriol ^talk 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Failing deletion, I will change my stance to Messedrockerify.--WaltCip 14:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 10

• Delete For all the above reasons. Esperanza is, it seems, rather harmful due to its being an exclusionist club with an unnecessary bureacracy and with programs that tend to divert attention from the very purpose of Wikipedia which is to write encyclopedia articles. To those who argue that all of Wikipedia is a bureacracy; you're partly right. Any 'organization' with over a million members is going to have to have some form of bureacracy, though we need to do our best to ensure that this bureacracy remains as small and efficient as possible. Esperanza's bureacracy is absolutely unnecessary and much of what it does isn't necessary. I was especially appalled to discover that its run by a council that meets in private which seems to go against everything Wikipedia stands for. Imagine if the ArbCom passed its decisions in privacy. Also, the stress alerts, I believe, are especially harmful as well. I agree with a previous editor that if someone is getting too stressed they don't need counselling, they need to take a wikibreak. There seems to be an attitude that we need to preserve every editor when the sad fact is, some editors just don't need to stick around if they can't handle the stress stemming from involvement with Wikipedia. Also, I'd like to, as others have, note the irony of the fact that virtually everyone voting for deletion has been very civil while many Esperanzans who are voting to keep have resorted to petty insults and personal attacks which is exactly what their project is designed to stop. --The Way 00:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Err... I must be missing something. I dropped by this page mostly out of curiosity, as I've been on a long break from Wikipedia and haven't paid close attention to the unfolding... uh... drama. But after reading through this page carefully, I keep asking myself why an MfD is the best way to deal with it. If Esperanza has strayed from its original goals... why not just leave it to its own devices? If it's fostering some odd sense of arrogance among members... why not just ignore them? I see plenty of names of editors I've known and respected listed above, so clearly there's something that must have rubbed people the wrong way, but I'm not seeing whatever it was that pushed it to two MfDs. Maybe it's because I'm still going with memories of the good things that Esperanza was doing several months back, but the whole thing has left me confused. Does anybody feel charitable enough to take a minute to explain to an MIA editor how things ended up here? Thanks in advance. Tijuana Brass 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Read the nominations at the very top. They give the best explanation. Koweja 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I did. A few diffs would help — but it looks like I'm just going to need to get off my lazy butt and do some more reading... dang. Tijuana Brass 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry I wasn't more helpful, but I'm not familiary enough with the history of Esperanza to point you to specific incidents. Reading through all of this discussion is the best way to understand the situation, but you should read the original MfD first to understand where this is coming from. Koweja 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, if people still want it, move it to a different website. This project is fine, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It doesn't help build the encyclopedia and it's ridiculous to find users being so rude in this page and at the same time saying it builds a sense of community. The people of this project are spamming other Wikiproject pages with this stuff, but in return it violates WP:SOAP and has nothing to do with the project we're trying to work on. If you really want the project make a domain and chip in some hosting (a penny a person) and host it on a different site. Wikipedia is not the place for this.++aviper2k7++ 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. Couldn't have said it better myself. .V. 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Historify via Messedrockerify Solution, and allow relocation of individual programs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 01:08Z
• Delete, save one or two projects. Then Historify (Messedrocker). Then move projects which were spared from deletion to Wikipedia namespace, or merge to an existing project. However, I plead that the admin coaching program be kept separate from current programs, with immediate discussion initiated to determine its fate, whether it be merged into an existing program, or kept on a stand-alone basis. The discussion should also have a debate on the name. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: We are here to build an encyclopedia, not create cliques. I don't know how much Esperanza has "damaged" the community, but I have seen nothing good come of it, and it certainly seems like an organization that has no place here. -- Rmrfstar 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• I support the Messedrocker solution. --Wildnox(talk) 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• As-Strong-As-Can-Be Delete: Per nom, David Fuchs, Elaragirl, tgheretford...and others. What we have here, folks, is the prime example of something with good intentions spiraling into a mess of elitism, and bureaucracy. Not only has Esperanza taken away contributors meaning to contribute but pledge to help others, and plowed them into the ground with awards and pats on the back as they essentially stop editing anything in mainspace whatsoever, I've been in encounters with "Esperanza" members who have been more incivil than normal members. I don't want to suggest that Esperanza members are less civil than others, but what I mean is that it has done absolutely nothing for civility outside perhaps Esperanza itself, except for the members who were civil IN THE FIRST PLACE!. If this was marked as historical, we would be sanctioning it, saying "gee, this was really nice before, but it got deleted a long time ago. how sad." Like it or not, the word "historical" has a nostalgic undertone, and God knows what would happen if someone got nostalgic and tried to recreate it, in WP or outside it. I hope someone can make sense of this rambling mess, but the overhaul is not enough. This needs to be gone, salted, and forgot about. It was, essentially, a concept that looked nice on paper, but nobody cared to think about the consequences, and so here we are. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that this is one of the more controversial MFD's. Some people like it, others don't, I personally am in between. I'm not really for, or against it, but if it is deleted, then that's OK with me, but if it's kept, I'm fine with that too.

I'm not leaning one way or the other. --SunStar Net^talk 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment wow lots of emotional content on this website. --Ghetteaux 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  You have no idea...Just H 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/Blank per Messedrocker's solution -- Renesis (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MessedRocker's final solution. Esperanza seems like unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy for wikipedia, and also seems to promote the "power-hungry" method of RfA'ing. -- Jmax- 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I literally don't give a crap about this. I'm not exactly a fan of the Esperanza gimmick, but nor am I a fan of BJAODN and WP:FUN. Can't we just get rid of it all and get back to being an encyclopedia? - hahnchen 05:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We can't simply ric Wikipedia of community-building projects. Some of them can even be beneficial to the editors!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a member but have admired many things Esperanza has done, and I haven't seen evidence that those things have completely stopped. Fostering a sense of community, including activities which are not directly concerned with editing/improving/categorizing/etc. mainspace page, still help building Wikipedia by improving editor retention and satisfaction. I don't think there's been a substantial showing of harm; I have read the nominations and the following comments, and frankly, am not convinced that EA is guilty of anything except consuming some extra disk space and sucking up some extra time of editors who may or may not have used that time for Wikipedia editing anyway. But the main reason not to delete Esperanza is that to the extent that people find it a negative or not useful, it can be ignored. Esperanza has been accused of being bureaucratic and elitist, but since Wikipedia itself, by its policies and culture, is not, it does not credibly represent harm or a threat to Wikipedia. I consider the resources (time and server space) consumed in non-directly-encyclopedic activities de minimis compared to the positive activities. --MCB 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Khoikhoi 06:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrocker's Solution per all arguments stated above. -- Wikipedical 06:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Messedrocker-ify per Wikipedical, Jmax, and others. 1ne 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, change a lot and comment I don't think the entire of Esperanza needs to be deleted. One of these reasons is that I am on the list for Admin Coaching, and I think that that will help me a lot more as an editor, and hopefully, one day, as an admin. I'm a member of Esperanza, and I'm not really active there, however I was going to have another look at the calendar, and congratulate other users for different things- first edit days, admin 'anniversaries', etc. I think that that's a valuable part of Wikipedia, and it always makes me smile to see people being kind to each other in that way. Also, people have asked how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia. A number of ways- we need programs that give people things to do that help improve the encyclopedia. Another thing Esperanza does is to help people understand more about editing, and it also helps to improve the encyclopedia.

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)

It's that people tried to fix it and pointless bureaucracy prevailed. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 08:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

That's exactly what I'm saying (or, at least, am trying to say). 1ne 10:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Asking people to reform doesn't make them reform. 1ne 03:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (prefer historical-tag with link to this MFD, plus MessedRocker Solution for subpages), but as much because of what we've seen here as for the original nominator's reasons. Yes, those objections seem founded and real and valid themselves, most notably just how isolated Esperanza seems from the type of "community" and consensus that the rest of the project works with. But look at the two MFDs on this topic, at the MFD for Sandbox/Games, at the MFD for Coffee Lounge. JCarriker is right in saying that Wikipedia would benefit from a healthy infusion of civility. That, as I understand, is what Esperanza was created for. But, patently, that is not what it is engendering now. Let it go, and let's work all the harder to put this all behind us. Serpent's Choice 10:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all delete reasons above and per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Good intentions does not guarantee good results. This is a type of separatism that appears to be harmful to the encyclopedic work in the long run. I'm sorry to say it, but this is a type of sedition that needs to be hushed. Peter ^Isotalo 13:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with a stick. The irony is that Esperanza has very nearly achieved what it claimed it was trying to prevent - forking of the community. Let the original Wikipedia Bureaucrats Club close down forever, and may the military junta of CVU follow shortly behind it. [ælfəks] 13:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Close and protect. Mark it as historical, and then protect it. That way the zillions of references to it on talkpages will not become incomprehensible to new users, but nobody will be tempted to try and revive it. Cynical 13:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This nomination amounts to an attempt at intolerant censorship. Such behavior has no place in Wikipedia. Rfrisbie^talk 14:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. unnecessary and bureaucratic. Dmn € Դմն 14:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Before I joined Esperanza, an Esperanza member astounded me with his decency (while still gently reprimanding me for a few harsh edit comments). I joined Esperanza as a statement of intent to be generally more WP:CIVIL etc. in future. I have never really got involved in the programs (though they all seem to be doing good work), the point of Esperanza for me was merely its very existence. It means that if I'm rude to someone, they'll be able to say "some kind of Esperanza member you are", which will always have more effect on me than someone smugly citing WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. There is a big difference between obeying something because it is a rule of Wikipedia, and obeying something because it is a moral code that you have freely decided to obey. Furthermore, it is reassuring to me at least that there is an organization devoted to making us all nicer. That they may have been a bit ineffectual lately is almost by the by (though of course I hope they continue to improve). As they say with Christmas presents, "it is the thought that counts". As for Esperanza's being a cabal, thinking they're better than everyone else etc etc, why don't you just join? I presume most Wikipedians agree with Esperanza's goals. And if you don't like their closed, bureaucratic structure, stand for election next time round on a reform ticket. They are after all a democratic organization. As ever in deletion debates, current, fixable problems are not a valid reason for deletion. Esperanza is still in its infancy, and in deciding whether or not to delete this page we must all look to its potential, rather than any problems it may or may not now have. --cfp 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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. --Leflyman^Talk 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 11

• Messedrocker-ify --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 14:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The MFDs and Overhauls have disrupted Esperanza's ability to provide hope and build community. They have led to the deletion of useful programs and the increasing stress of some valued contributors, who have left Esperanza and Wikipedia as a result. Take a look at Tachikoma's comments about Esperanza on her user page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply If by "harm" you mean "purge the earth of", I think that was rather the point. --tjstrf talk 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You completely misunderstood my comment. The first MFD, and subsequent Overhauls, made Esperanza worse, not better. They led to discussions, straw polls and more bureaucracy. Useful programs, such as the Barnstar Brigade, were deleted. Because Esperanza was so busy reforming itself, and deleting useful programs, they lost their ability to provide hope and support to stressed users. In addition, the Overhauls caused further stress to Esperanzans, such as Tachikoma. As a result, valued contributors began leaving Esperanza and Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • And so, if I can deduce an implication from your argument, it is the fault of the proponents for Esperanza's deletion that are driving Esperanza into the ground? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Although that isn't the most accurate interpretion, I think you understood what I was driving at. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Hi, I'm Kyoko, formerly known as Tachikoma. I feel obligated to say something because I seem to pop up in this discussion rather much. I don't remember the reasons for the original MfD, apart from objections to the now-deleted Coffee Lounge and the widespread belief that Esperanza encouraged primarily social edits within its various subpages, to the exclusion of contributions to the encyclopedia as a whole. I was initially disturbed by the first MfD, although I did see that its supporters had valid points, and I agreed that they had as much right to their opinion as I did. I voted "Keep, but reform" if I remember correctly.
          
          
        • Following the "no consensus" result of the first MfD, Esperanza attempted a number of changes. Whether these changes were motivated by a genuine desire to improve Esperanza or simply the wish to avoid another MfD, I can't say. Many of the proposed changes involved numerous straw polls, off-wiki discussions that I was unable to participate in, and a large amount of discussion. Over the month or so that was spent in this overhaul attempt, I gradually became stressed by Esperanza itself, because I felt that it was only proving to its critics that it was insular, obsessed with bureaucracy, and that it was indeed discouraging participation in other areas of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it seemed to me that while it was busy talking about how best to structure itself to help Wikipedia, it had forgotten to provide any of the actual support that is among its goals. In other words, in my view it had become neither encyclopedic nor helpful. I also found that members of Esperanza were no more or less likely to be civil and caring than non-members. It was after all this that I decided to quit Esperanza. As can be seen on my user page, I came to feel that while parts of it were (and perhaps still are) good, it is probably better to migrate what can be salvaged to more appropriate areas of Wikipedia, and to delete whatever is left. An alternative would be to delete it all, and consider its individual elements whether or not they merit recreation in any form. I just believe that there is simply too much bureaucratic and emotional baggage associated with Esperanza for any of these programs to continue to exist as a part of the organisation.
          
          
        • I still can't bring myself to formally vote "delete", in order to spare the feelings of people like User:Hildanknight and the other people who choose to vote "keep". I trust that this rather long explanation makes my feelings clear concerning Esperanza. If you feel that I've betrayed Esperanza, that may well be the case. I'm very sorry for any hurt feelings, and I'm very saddened by how everything turned out. With much regret, --Kyoko 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC), modified 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
          • This is not a vote in any way. This is a debate towards consensus.The keep or delete comments next to every user's post is simply a curt and short summary of their opinion.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Er, yeah, OK. If I have to go on record, I guess it has to be as Delete then, to sum up my feelings. --Kyoko 02:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Undisputably among the best writers in my school, I was looking for a online avenue where I could improve my skills further by writing for a wider audience and meeting other excellent writers. I chose Wikipedia because, due to Esperanza and several interesting essays, I thought it was a unique, vibrant and friendly online community. When contributing became stressful, Richardshusr and Natalya offered me hope, support and encouragement; as a result, instead of leaving Wikipedia, I decided to join Esperanza. Over the months, although I have become increasingly disillusioned with Wikipedia, Esperanza has continued to offer me hope (A fellow Esperanzan, whose identity I shall not disclose, is currently lending me lots of support through private correspondence).

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)

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)

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)

• Delete per nom. It seems enough of Esperanza; I'm workikng on something else. But should Esperanza be removed, what should we do? Bigtop 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The same thing the rest of us 99.99% of Wikipedians who aren't in Esperanza do, help to write the encyclopedia? If you're questioning what to do without Esperanza it leads me to believe you were here for reasons orthogonal to the purpose of this site. --Cyde Weys 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the many convincing reasons above TheOne00 17:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong KEEP Helps other users with stress and reachs out into the community to build a better encyclopedia 82.16.32.120 and Dep. Garcia ^{(Talk) (Help Desk)} 17:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Props to user:Jaranda for reverting self after a premature early close of this discussion. This is a wiki. Sometimes ideas don't work out after we see how they look, so Thank You for that!!! And there's a parallel here... Esperanza was an ideal with potential, that ultimately didn't work out. If anyone wants to give Jaranda grief for having tried to do what he thought was right, and then changing his mind on counsel from other admins in IRC, you probably want to give me grief about it too. He did a good thing. We can afford to let this run the full number of days. The consensus to delete/redirect/salvage/messrockerify seems clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the well thought out reasons provied in the nomination. Eusebeus 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it no longer serves its intended purpose. —Pilotguy (ptt) 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as it serves no purpose to the encyclopedia in its current state, and trying to reform it only adds to the problem. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It would seem that despite the massive numbers of votes for complete deletion, Messedrocker is going to get his way in some form because people can't bear to delete "history". So can I please ask that if you are going to create redirects, you do delete the archives and more useless pages (like an election page for every single person who stood) and just redirect the more historical pages, like the closed meeting logs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We may be reading the consensus somewhat differently, as I see pretty clear consensus for history, merge, move, redirect etc rather than out and out destruction with gaping red links left behind (or revisionist history of the places linking to it). But this isn't about a "kill it with fire" victory in which the opposing side is overwhelmed. It's not about a war at all, it's about doing what is best for the encyclopedia. I'm not sure that " Messedrocker is going to get his way" is a comment that helps advance that cause. ++Lar:t/c 19:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete & Salt. --Spartaz 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and do whatever needs to be done to make sure this NEVER happens again.--CJ King 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the cursory look at this discussion confirms that Wikipedia got run over by antisocial freaks. Very sad indeed.  Grue  21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Someone has to say it: please observe WP:AGF and try to be civil in your contributions. Martinp23 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Stop. Just stop. Look at what you're all doing-biting each other's heads off over two hundred freaking kilobytes on a "build-it-yourself" encyclopedia. Sit down. Breath.

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment - if you feel a need to social network or sort your life out or find compassion or cry on someone's shoulder or whatever, what I've never understood is why you can't do so in real life. Or even on IRC! But not on-wiki, where social networking violates WP:NOT. You will surely find far better support in real life than here. "We need compassion to function!" I agree, completely. But Wikipedia is not the right place to find it. Real life is. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, WP:NOT#OR.--WaltCip 22:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 12

• Delete. Wikipedia is not, nor was it ever, a tool for social networking. Proto::► 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after the previous MFD and the stalled attempt to revamp itself probably the best option. The discussion here and the revamp discussion have pretty much convinced me that it basically got out of hand for what it is. There seems to be a huge overhead for something which should be quite simple. I've no problem with a page expanding on WP:CIVIL and encouraging people to get involved in other projects to further the general goal. Some of the subprojects are/were not unreasonable but as I said during the revamp I can't see the need to Esperanza branding to validate them, they should be able to stand them on their own. --pgk 00:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment.Whether voting to delete or to keep, it seems that each comment submitted with verbiage to the effect of "delete painfully"/burn it alive/"kill it"/"rub salt on it" etc seems only to prove Esperanzans' concerns that wikipedia is no longer a place of proper civility. Patronizing comments like "we need to save these people from themselves" probably don't help much either. If the consensus position is that a project is not neccessary to ensure amicable behaviour on wikipedia, perhaps we should exemplify it with our actions. Balonkey 02:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

WP:ILIKEIT might be intereting to you--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

That seems like a no consensus for any action. Just H 05:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not Myspace. With all respect to Esperanzans, with all confidence in the purity of their intentions, and with every hope of a peaceful and unifying end to this discussion, I've got to say that Esperanza is a breeding ground for cliquish behavior and a distraction from the true purpose of the community. There's no trouble with being sociable on Wikipedia or building the Wikipedia community, but that should be a secondary, emergent component of the work we do, not another, separate cause.-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 02:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't believe some of the vitriolic rhetoric I've read above. One would think Esperanza were some kind of foul demon bent on the total destruction of Wikipedia. Esperanza is one of the reasons I'm still here. On the day both my featured articles got put up for delisting, Esperanza is where I went to help me deal with it. There was nowhere else to go. When I passed the important benchmark of 10 000 edits and 150 articles, Esperanza appreciated it and congratulated me. Nobody else was going to. I got more birthday wishes from Esperanza than in what passes as my real life. And I put back in, too. I left a kind message on more than one confused or angry person's talk page, and I hope they felt paid attention to. In 2004, Wikipedia won a Webby for, hold on, community. Sorry folks, but outside of Esperanza, I don't see too much community here. I really take umbrage at those who say our job is to create an encyclopedia, so get the shoulder back to the boulder. I've put thousands of hours into Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I want to take a few minutes of my time once in a while to be part of a real community. WP:NOT a gulag. It used to be that when something good got broken, it was fixed. Today, we just throw it away and buy a new one. Well, we can't buy a new, improved Esperanza, so what's wrong with giving it time to be fixed? Denni ^talk 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• • This is a discussion, not a vote--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Eh? He's giving a specific support rational, which is different from "I like it", "I don't like it", etc. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but WP:ILIKEIT states "this is probably the worst kind of argument that can be made in a deletion debate because, well, it isn't an argument. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates."--WaltCip 04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:LIKEITSHMIKEIT. It's obvious that this means "mark historical, redirect subpages, per Messedrocker". Given that Messedrocker above provided a sensible rationale for his vote, this vote is perfectly well explained. Zocky | picture popups 05:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whether we delete or not, definitely keep archives: the success of wikithings means the experiences of editors is going to make a facinating study topic for some psychologist/sociologist one day... this could provide a lot of insight. –Adrian J. Hunter 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 13

• Delete Note well, that until yesterday, I was not aware of Esperanza's existence; my opinion here is based on the discussion here and my review of the Esperanza project pages. I believe the project accidentially became a Granfalloon. None of the members of the project set out with that goal in mind; it arose from their preoccupation with the project which had, I must say, very lofty goals, goals that somewhat overtook the participants. Much has been written here about the community which the Esperanza project furnished to it's participants. That is laudable, but not unique to this group. As I noted, I have not been aware of Esperanza's existence until today, but I have not been wanting for community; this happens in the course of editing pages and becoming involved in the discussions that such edits engender. So, does one need a project to provide for what comes naturally? If there is a takeaway from this Esperanza discussion, for me it is this: we are all responsible to ourselves on how wisely we expend our energy on Wikipedia. To me, that means spending the majority of time in the Article namespace. All Wikipedia namespace projects, in my humble opinion, have the potential of becoming granfalloons, sucking editors into funny little isolated worlds. Indeed, I suspect one would not have to look too far to find an "Articles Nominated for Deletion" community. One does not necessarily have to sign up for such a community: the tendency of being distracted out of the Article namespace is reflected in all our contribution pages. I suggest that a healthy contribution page has a majority of contributions in the article name space. To my mind, the Esperanza project is an archetype for a larger issue that will not be put to rest with the demise of this particular project. the larger caution is this: we are all suseptable to distraction, especially participants of this discussion (myself included). I cite as evidence the sheer mass of this discussion! Are all these words necessary? Have we not gotten involved in arguing rather fine points at rather great length? I suggest that we all should take as a New Year's resolution an appraisal of our contributions pages, and decide for ourselves how much we are contributing to the encyclopedia, as opposed to contributions to discussions about the encyclopedia. Both are important, but I believe the latter should not overtake the former, for it has the dangerous tendency of becoming a preoccupation. Take care, all. Gosgood 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• At first it didn't matter to me what happened, as I didn't see how Wikipedia would be any different with it being around or without. Then I saw the "keep" votes by Esperanza members in this nom and the last and thought, wow. How can a project like this succeed when its members are the complete opposite of what they expect other editors to be like? (one person even told the nominator to "go fuck [him]self" - huh.) The group doesn't seem to have accomplished much anyway (I thought projects were supposed to improve the encyclopedia, not cheer up editors?). So delete. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 05:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I find myself in the peculiar position of defending the idea of Esperanza while having previously spoken for its deletion. The theory behind Esperanza, as I understand it, was that by giving encouragement and support for Wikipedians, these people could continue to make positive contributions towards the encyclopedia, when they might otherwise have been tempted to leave the project. The effectiveness of Esperanza at putting that theory to practice has been... how shall I word it?... debatable. Certainly there are times when people should take a wikibreak rather than remain in an environment that stresses them. Possibly there are times when people should best leave Wikipedia altogether. There are however times when Wikipedians may need some form of support. Perhaps they tried very hard to build an article towards GA or FA status without success; perhaps their RfA failed; perhaps they've had difficulties or even edit wars in the article mainspace. I feel that at its best, Esperanza, or rather members of Esperanza, helped relieve the hurt feelings or offered helpful advice in these sorts of situations. This is not to say that being an Esperanza member gave them any special authority, insight, or empathy. Esperanza does (or did) at least present a very visible resource for people to turn to, something more approachable than asking a random person for help. In this sense, it could be argued that Esperanza needlessly duplicates the functions of the Kindness Campaign and the admin noticeboard, among other resources, while adding bureaucracy. Perhaps so. In any case, I still think that the idea of some sort of support group or resource could work on Wikipedia. --Kyoko 07:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• • • I don't think anyone here that is voting delete is arguing that support is not welcome here. If they are, I completely and utterly disagree with them - having a community spirit that helps support fellow editors in their on and off wiki problems is essential. I think most are arguing that support should be "universal" (in the context of Wikipedia), and not confined to one group. We shouldn't have to look to an external organization for members that can give support, it should be assumed. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Messedrockerify - make historical, but otherwise delete Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 07:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

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)

I think it's going rather well considering it's size and how many are involved. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is to delete, by my evaluation. DoomsDay349 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Indeed. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What are you planning, Quack? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

2nd? Not the full eight days then, i.e. the 5th? Hiding Talk 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Fair enough. Hiding Talk 11:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

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:

• Outright deletion;
• Redirect all subpages to the main page, marking that as historical and protecting;
• Delete subpages and redirect the main page to any one of the following: Wikipedia:WikiProject Community, Wikipedia:Concordia, Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign or Wikipedia:Civility;

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

1 or 3 would be best. #2 would be sanctioning it, IMO. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Frankly, if it is closed in one of the delete or messedrocker versions, I'd support redirecting them all to the main page, changing the main page to discuss the history of the organization and its closure, and marking it as historical. Concordia's not any better, and the rest of the links, while appropriate as "see also" on a main page as I've suggested, wouldn't be appropriate redirects, because they aren't related to the organization. Ral315 (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I was just about to say something along those same lines. If it's Messedrockerafied, it's essentially deleted; the worry that someone will start it back up again should not be a problem, as they can be directed to this MfD where it was, for all intents and purposes, deleted. As Ral315 said, redirecting to the main page, but modifying the main page to make it very clear that it is no longer in existance is a realy good idea. If all the pages are deleted, there will always be whispers about "that myserious organization called Esperanza that was deleted back in the day", but of whom only admins can see the history of. It seems like it would work well to modify the main page to just show that Esperanza at one point existed, and write a blurb about it's history, including why it ended (which would both be informative and help people not to recreate it). -- Natalya 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Requesting clarification: The three options above discuss "pages". Should one presume that "pages" includes the programs inherent on those pages? (If so, then I can think of at least a fourth option - See talk page for more information) - jc37 12:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously even if we delete Esperanza outright, the risk of having a recreation is the same across the board if we picked the other choices. Therefore it would be best to select the Messedrocker solution, as that actually presents some form of organization and administrative historical background.--WaltCip 14:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Subsection 14

• Keep - I am new to wikipedia and esperanza is has helped me a lot to understand what wikipedia is all about. This matter should be on a talk page and not Mfd RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 12:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Request the Board of Trustees to decide - If I based my decision on the above consensus of the motives for deleting Esperanza, I would say keep. Disliking Esperanza and the people who participate in Esperanza is not an MfD/AfD valid ground for deletion. Esperanza has contributed significantly to Wikipedia and Wikipedia has benefited greatly from its contributions. However, Esperanza represents Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Esperanza to self-promote its project. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site each of which are contained in Esperanza. In particular, the focus of Esperanza is social networking, which is restricted by What Wikipedia is not Rule 1.6.1 Further, because Esperanza is not contained within a user pages, Esperanza is not entitled to the leeway given to individual users when posting personal/social information. Although violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is valid grounds for deletion under the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Esperanza has grown to the point where it has become a significant community within Wikipedia itself. Deleting Esperanza using a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion procedure would leave too many Wikipedians feeling cheated out of the significant community they have built, which is not the Wikipedia way. The only way Esperanza pages and organization can be deleted and have that deletion accepted by everyone is through a decision by (Jimbo and/or) the Board of Trustees. Thus, I vote to request that that the Board of Trustees review the above posts and make a decision on the matter. -- Jreferee 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, mainly because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and we shouldn't need any organisations that attempt to do what is attempted here. We don't need projects which help to strengthen the sense of community, that implies a strength of community is important. Anything that this should cover is already discussed at WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Wikipedia is not first and foremost a community building project, it is an encyclopedia built by a community. This project, whilst noble in its intentions, is a fork and a cabal. Hiding Talk 16:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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.