Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of articles nominated : User:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review/Classification

Clarification to users just entering the debate: The Messedrocker Solution proposes 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." This idea was proposed by User:Messedrocker--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

---

No more co-noms, please. 2 is quite enough, though thanks to Ed for adding his relevant and accurate summary. Just vote. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. You could just as easily post a long deletion vote. DoomsDay349 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Section? 2 Mark as historical rather than delete 3 Expanding on the essay idea 4 Moving programs off Esperanza 5 Fascinating. 6 Newsletter 7 Nastiness 8 Brief review 9 Question 10 Reopen? 11 Second brief review 12 "History" 13 move? 14 reopen????? (again) 15 Need to fix noinclude tag 16 Implementation 16.1 Calendar 16.2 Salting hides history 17 Minor comment 18 The redirect solution 19 ENOUGH!! 20 Some examples of Wikipedia history 21 The Esperanza Spirit 22 DRV

[edit] Section?

As I think much of the debate is going to center around delete v. some sort of historical preservation, I will create a subsection for this discussion unless anyone objects. Dar-Ape 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let's get the actual discussion over, then decide whether to historic or not. DoomsDay349 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• It might be best to simply decide now as part of this MfD. I could be wrong, but I don't remember participating in any XFDs that had a "part two" which decided between historic tagging and deletion. Dar-Ape 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't really mind either way, I guess. Go ahead. DoomsDay349 23:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Really, the closing admin (whoever that lucky person is :)) should be able to obtain the consensus for historical-tagging or for outright deletion from the comments. I suggest that we leave it to that person, who can ask for help/clarification if unsure. Martinp23 (who likes his new sig) 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have simply expressed my opinion on the the matter, and will not create said section. Dar-Ape 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark as historical rather than delete

Because you can only avoid the mistakes of the past when you learn from them.

If all is well, this is procedure for all projects that have actually been operational.

Kim Bruning 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think people are going to to be able to learn what they need to from the MfDs... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Maybe not. I agree with Kim. Mark as historical. Don't delete stuff that has a history. Carcharoth 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And then of course there are the 100,000 archived redlinks to it that would be created... definitely agree with historical tagging. --tjstrf talk 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what is so dreadful about red links? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks which are not supposed to be created are considered inherently negative. Their presence will result in huge numbers of talk pages and archives with broken context. --tjstrf talk 12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If every single Esperanza page was deleted and salted there would be no redlinks. What is more, we will cope with whatever redlinks there are by doing what we usually do - that's removing them. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary salting is even worse than redlinks, and redlinks in page histories are not removable. And are you seriously suggesting we have someone (a bot most likely) go remove all those little green e's from everyone's talk page archives? Because that's what would be necessary to fix the problem. --tjstrf talk 12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Redinks are not my concern (as Morsechi says, simply remove them). However, seeing as Esperanza does have so much history, and, more importantly, ended in a mistake not wanted to be made again, I believe that it would be best to mark as historical. And the arguement that rouge editors would just start it up again (apart from being bad faith) is also rather weak. Yes, Concordia started up again, but do you know how many pages and ideas with Historical tags have not? More to the point, most, if not all !votes agree that Esperanza was of some good once. If an editor can truely get Esperanza back to being good, rather than bad, then great, that's what Wikipedia is all about. The Historical tag was made for this sort of thing, so let's use it. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the post above is kinda what my nomination was all about. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of the arguments in favour of complete deletion rather than historical tagging are that somebody could just come and start it up again, but surely this is just as likely to happen if you delete the page. (more likely in my opinion)  YDAM TALK 12:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but to retrieve a deleted page, you have to have a discussion about why you want it resurrected. A historical tag can simply be taken off, and consensus about the end of Esperanza thrown to the winds. And it will happen, if we don't delete it all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to remake a deleted page you normally type its name into the box on the left of the screen, click its name on the resulting search page, type something there, and hit enter. To remove a historical tag from a page you have to make a substantative effort to revive discussion about the idea it expresses.

For instance, there used to be an essay called Wikipedia:I have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada. It was deleted. I could go retype it from memory, most likely no-one would notice, and if I added an extra paragraph or two I could bypass the CSD criteria for recreated content. Poof! Valid essay page. If it were instead historical tagged, then I could not validly have it as an essay without trying to revive discussion about the page and the talk page and page history would show this to anyone who glanced at them.

Given that Esperanza is of necessity a public operation, paranoia about it being secretly revived is just that: paranoia. --tjstrf talk 12:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(Total tangent.) I just had to know what this page was. It's now at User:Pmanderson/I have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada. - BanyanTree 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting and salting means that it would be impossible to restart. Alternatively, I quite think idea of deleting all the subpages and rewriting the main page as a historical-tagged essay saying why Esperanza failed, so that in future people will know what mistakes to avoid, is just about acceptable, but deleting and salting is my preferred option. What is wrong with salting to prevent recreation? Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SALT: "Pages that are repeatedly re-created after deletion" may be salted. Until someone does recreate Esperanza after deletion at least once, preferably more times than that, SALTing is unwarranted and against the SALT policy. Plus, salting is supposed to be undone after a couple months anyway. --tjstrf talk 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides, isn't making it impossible to restart a bad thing as well? A fresh look after some months might enable the reform that was mandated but found impossible after the last MfD. --tjstrf talk 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting and salting means that it would be impossible to restart Surely the exact same result could be achieved by tagging and protecting. Devs suggestion that retrieving a deleted page involves a little process is only applicable for resurrecting a specific page. There's nothing to stop someone creating a new incarnation of a similar organization completely a fresh. That's something that I would really like to prevent in the future.

Personally I quite like messedrockers suggested compromise of replacing the front page with a description of why it failed but keeping the history so that it's available to be cited to newbies to illustrate why a future incarnation is a bad idea.  YDAM TALK 13:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

People who want to create another Esperanza will not be deterred by 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!) 16:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"People who want to create another Esperanza will not be deterred by what went wrong." - Nor will people who really want to create another Esperanza be deterred by salting Esperanza. You can't salt an idea Dev, so once again, your arguement is flawed. If people, as you believe, are so hell-bent on recreating Esperanza, they will do so anyway, with names like Wikipedia:Hope, Wikipedia:Let's be nice etc. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are simply arguing with me now for its own sake, so I'm going to stop replying. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...interesting idea, but in fact I'm arguing with you because I believe that I am right, and that you are wrong. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Further more, your bad faith has shown that you don't wish to contribute to this discussion, you mearly want your own way, no matter what anyone/everyone else wants/thinks. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I leave because I can't be bothered to fight with you over petty details, and you launch a personal attack. Really mature, Halo. Dev920 (Have a nice day!)

Hmmm? Personal attack? You better read WP:NPA before you start throwing out accusations. Thε Halo ^Θ 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Read it. Also read WP:AGF where it says "There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project." But what am I saying? You know this. You're simply trying to provoke me, and I won't bite. Good day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you can't salt an idea, but you can come pretty close. Salting would carry a definitive message that this was a really bad idea that you really don't want to restart. I do not see a viable alternative that will not wind up wasting everyone's time with attempts at recreation and/or restarting.

Re the spat above, all I will say is that there is no need for everyone to go batshit - quoting from someone's RFA - and that Dev comment "arguing with me now for its own sake" was not exactly the most civil: Halo labelling that bad faith was perhaps justified. The rest of his comment was not and was in itself bad faith.

Even when dead, Esperanza still does not fail to cause wikidrama. Sigh. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, right Moreschi. Dev, I appologise for any and all bad faith remarks I made. This sort of thing would be so much easier if everyone kept their heads ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept, and apologise for any uncivil remarks I have made to you. I still don't think it's worth continuing the discussion though, because we're both utterly convinced of our position and I think there's little compromise that can be made because of the nature of the positions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems unlikly that the two of us could reach a compromise on this. Still, best of luck, and hopefully we'll be on the same page next time we meet :) Thε Halo ^Θ 13:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that if it's tagged historical, the point of that is to show people where it went wrong. With that in mind, this is what I think is the best way to accomplish this (note that this has nothing to do with moving any programs off - this is just dealing with what's left behind.)

• Tag the front page historical, include a very brief comment that Esperanza was shut down due to community consensus, and link to the "comments" page for further description.

• Write a comments page, in which a few people can outline their own personal views on the matter. Was it a good idea that got off track, or was it fundamentally flawed from day one? Did it prompt some useful things in the community, or was it a total waste of space?

• Tag historical (with protection, if necessary) all the pages which are related to "The Rise And Fall of Esperanza". By my reasoning, this includes some of the talk pages, the original charter & proposed alternatives, and the logs of Advisory Council meetings. Just looking at some of the Esperanzan pages listed at the top of the MfD, I can see other times in the past where similar reform discussions have taken place. There should also be links to both MfDs, as well as links to any other places where Esperanza was heavily discussed.

• Delete all the pages that aren't directly related to Esperanza's evolution and ultimate demise.

• Actually, on reflection, it'd be neater just to implement the Messedrocker solution on all the sub-pages, instead of choosing some to keep and some to wipe out. I guess I'm a Messedrockerificationist. :-p

The point of all that, in the end, is to create a "museum exhibit". Not something glorifying Esperanza, or vilifying it, just a NPOV exhibit that says "it was here, now it's gone". The point of tagging something historical is to learn from its mistakes, correct? This way, instead of telling newbies about "The Esperanza That Was", and having distorted views one way or the other being spread, newbies can simply look over the "primary sources" and figure things out for themselves. Quack 688 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
(last edited by Quack 688 08:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Expanding on the essay idea

Take the good ideas and core inspiration for Esperanza and turn it into a philosophy essay. I'm really starting to like that idea and think it would be a less negative way to "end" the project. People could still rally the idea of esperanza (sig links and all), but instead as general good advice to promote wiki-love and community to all, rather than being the community itself. Keep the hope but remove the membership. We could see this as Esperanza's true form, rather than "deletion". Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In my discussion with Dev920 in section 2 of the MfD, I thought of this alternative:

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.

I like your idea of making the distinction between "being part of the community", versus "being the community itself" - that "being the community" approach leads to the isolationist mentality that's brought it here in the first place. The main thing with the programs I mentioned above is that they're not Esperanzan programs - they're Wikipedia-wide programs. Some might have been originally suggested by someone with an interest in community-building, but at the end of day, they're for the benefit of all Wikipedians.

I also asked if the MfD is being considered because a group that promotes community-building is inherently wrong, or because of Esperanza's specific history and bureaucracy. SCZenz replied, "In my personal view, this is about any group that attempts to use bureaucracy and exclusion as methods to improve the community." If that's the case, I don't see why Esperanza's original community-building ideals can't be kept alive in some form or other, while deleting the bureaucratic side. Quack 688 06:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The majority of votes are currently for total annihilation. If that is the end result, I ask that you respect that instead of trying to keep Esperanza alive in another form. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And it just occurred to me that anything in this essay would basically a rewrite of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and it's associated pages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Dev, I don't think an essay would really be the right thing to do. If your want an essay about Esperanza, and what it was supposed to achieve, I suggest that you create one in you user space. That's what I'm going to do :) Thε Halo ^Θ 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dev, you never answered this question that I asked in the MfD: "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 bureaucracy and history?"

I've already quoted SCZenz's response above. Quite a few of the delete comments say that Esperanza might have been a good idea originally, but that it's too far gone to be salvaged. I haven't seen many comments that say community-building, in and of itself, is inherently unWikipedian. Therefore, I don't see why people can't have another go at the community-building aspect down the road - after some quiet time to reflect on Esperanza's downfall, of course.

Now, regarding the philosophy outline - you know, you're absolutely right. One thing I hate on Wikipedia is duplication. You mentioned one page, but there are several others that I think are also applicable: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and m:Don't be a dick, to name a few. If there's a point Esperanza thought up that should be mentioned on one of those pages, but isn't, then a discussion to add it should take place at that page. That's the best way for Esperanzans to "re-integrate" with the community - improve what's there, don't make a separate version. That's prompted me to think about the programs as well - I started another post below about that topic. Aside from the programs I listed there, there are two "discussion points" that I don't see a specific home for:

1. What can we do to encourage Wikipedia readers to make that crucial first edit?

2. What new projects could be started to benefit the Wikipedia community?

Those two questions are related to community-building, and important for Wikipedia's future, but I don't see anywhere where such issues are discussed - they're not exactly kindness or civility issues. Don't forget that even if Esperanza's deleted, it did manage to come up with a couple of good programs during its time. Is it wrong for a group to exist which promotes discussion of those questions among the Wikipedia community? Quack 688 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I see where the objection is for this idea. Most of the !votes do not specify "total annihilation", only that the closed community is put to an end. I see this as less an idea to keep esperanza (the sub-group) alive and more an idea to keep it "dead". A duplicate essay of sorts, maybe, but the main idea is to not turn esperanza into a four letter word. This would be a small effort that could reduce a lot of negative tension surrounding the issue. I see no harm in an essay called esperanza. -- Ned Scott 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. A sense of community should be built from the ground up, not imposed by some incredibly bureaucratic organization. Or indeed, possibly, by any organization, which is bound to morph into a cabal. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"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 bureaucracy and history?" The fact that I also nominated Concordia for deletion should help answer that. Basically, I think any organisation that thinks it can encourage an abstract idea through physical action are wrong and are going to go off track. It didn't work with Esperanza, it hasn't worked with Concordia, and all it does is waste everyone's time. It's like the war on terror, you cannot stop or encourage what is not a real tangible objective. That's why these community building ideas never work - let it happen organically. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"any organisation that thinks it can encourage an abstract idea through physical action are wrong"

Isn't the Kindness Campaign doing that, by spreading the abstract idea of kindness through physical methods like user recognition messages? Actually, stop and think about what you said for a moment - doesn't every active group on Wikipedia (indeed, in the world) fall into that category? If the group's doing absolutely nothing, it's inactive. If the group's doing something, then by definition, it's taking some sort of physical action. The only question is, how "physical" is it getting? If it's forcing its values onto the community, then I agree it's gone too far. All I'm saying is that there should be a clearly established place where editors can discuss the community issues I mentioned, collectively work on new community-related proposals which address these issues, and look at ways that existing programs can be co-ordinated to avoid duplication of effort. It doesn't need to issue decrees, just think up some suggestions. If the suggestion isn't practical, and doesn't receive consensus support, then it doesn't happen. Done.

Do you want to know a secret? That's basically how research works in the real world as well. Scientists come up with lots of ideas. Most of them are crap. But some have potential. You take the ideas with potential, expand them, and you end up with something useful. Something you didn't have before. Quack 688 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant through starting programs that never moved out into the real world and expect the world to come to them. I think you need to stop attacking me because you are upset. You don't want Esperanza to go, and as can be shown all over this page, you are trying to rescue as much of it as you can. This is why I want the entire thing deleted, so people like you will stop trying to get around it with "essays" and rescuing the programs, which, btw, were agreed upon by the Esperanzan council and which you now seek to foist upon Wikipedia without ever bothering to ask us. That's what I mean when I say everything should be deleted and individual prgrams can be proposed elsewhere, so they can have the discussion that they never had. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have nothing to do with the little dispute you two are having, and I would certainly not try to start something like Esperanza again (I nominated their game pages for deletion and am supporting a delete here), but I think the essay idea is pretty good. Like I said above, such an essay could actually be used to keep Esperanza from "coming back" (at least like how it was). Such an essay wouldn't be an encouragement for a closed inner community, but rather it would also mention that an inner community is generally not a good idea. So I fail to see how this idea would aid someone in keeping Esperanza alive. The idea in my head is much simpler than Quack's, in that it would just be a simple and short essay. No need to link to stuff like "programs" and all that. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving programs off Esperanza

Since it looks like Esperanza's going to get tagged historical, or outright deleted, I think there should be some discussion about the remaining programs - are any of them good enough to be kept? If so, where's the best place to put them? These are my suggestions:

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Happy Birthday -> merge with WP:BDC, never saw the need for two
Wikipedia:Esperanza/Tutorial Drive -> move to User:The Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom, perhaps? 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 -> move to Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign (Dev920 mentioned this might be an appropriate place for it)
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 about whatever's giving them WikiStress.)
Any thoughts on these destinations? Any other programs you think should be kept in some form? Quack 688 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am doubtful of the value of keeping Stress Alerts in its current format. Quite often it is used simply to rant about how awful Wikipedia and its community are, and the page is pretty much dead anyway. What life there is is too often used up by people who are permanently on that page and never take themselves off it. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually support this. As well as Wikipedia:esperanza/Admin coaching move to Wikipedia:admin coaching. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 15:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What, even after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school? Don't think so myself. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Could also be merged into WP:ADOPT. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 14:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should transfer the images on Wikipedia:Esperanza/I to the WP:BDC--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after taking a look at Wikipedia:Esperanza/I, maybe we should just keep the smile templates, the coffee mug, the cake, and the wine glasses and give them to the BDC--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have said in the MfD, not a single program has unanimous support to be rescued. We should not save an Esperanzan program because Esperanzans want them saved. It should all be deleted, and any programs you think should be recreated should be proposed in the normal manner, as any other Wikipedia proposal. Any infrastructure you require can be retrieved by admin. Either it all goes or bad Esperanzan ideas are going to live on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Errmm, actually, a lot of non-esperanzians have expressed interest in keeping certain programmes. It's important to remember that. Thε Halo ^Θ 17:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We should not save an Esperanzan program because Esperanzans want them saved. By the same token, we should not delete an Esperanzan program just because it's got a history with Esperanza. Do you want these specific programs deleted because they're too bureaucratic, or because they're Esperanzan? Anything that gets deleted on Wikipedia should get deleted on its own merits, not due to guilt by association. Can you honestly look at programs like the Wikipedia:Esperanza/Tutorial Drive and tell me they have no place whatsoever in Wikipedia, and more than that, that they damage the community? If there's a Wikipedia-wide tutorial program they could be put into, great. If not, I'd suggest that's something that's missing from Wikipedia. Quack 688 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These programs are part of Esperanza. They were thought up by Esperanza, agreed by Esperanza, and run by Esperanza. What normal Wikipedians thought of them was never taken into account, and thus it is perfectly reasonable to include them in the deletion. I am going to say this once and I hope you will actually read this: If you think an individual program ought to be recreated outside of Esperanza, propose it so people can debate its merits. Don't say "Oh, well, it's a good idea, we just need to move it". There are people who do not think those programs are a good idea, and have said so on this MfD. Please stop trying to unilaterally create programs in Wikipedia without any kind of consensus. An MfD is not the place to start a consensus building discussion so please, I beg of you, hold your fire until the the MfD is over and then propose whatever programs you think were a good idea, and establish a consensus for their creation before proceeding. Thank you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As you once said Dev, Esperanzains are Wikipedians, so all the programmes that might be saved have been used by "normal" Wikipedians. And, I think that if every programme or every article had to have a discussion with consenus before it was made, we'd all be here a very long time. Rather, make something and if it doesn't work, or isn't wanted, it is quite easy to delete it. That's what's great about a wiki, nothing's set in stone. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with some programs being moved to new locations. I would point out to Dev920 that several of those programs include large amounts of good-faith edits contributed under the GFDL. To simply recreate them from scratch somewhere else is akin to a cut and paste move, and the original contributor loses the credit. You do know that cut and paste moves are bad, right? In general, umbrella nominations like this are notorious for being blunt instruments that sweep out the good with the bad. Trust the Wikipedia community to get this right and allow the moving and integration of various parts as needed. Consider it step two along the road. Step three can be to come back and do MfDs of various parts if anyone thinks they haven't reintegrated back into the wider Wikipedia structure. At the moment, your "delete all" approach is coming down more on the side of destructive deletion, rather than thoughtful deletion, in my opinion. If you read up on examples where the historical tag has been used, and where the move function has been used to properly move page history and pages to subpages of other pages, you will see how careful reconstructive surgery is possible, rather than using a blunt scalpel to hack everything out. Carcharoth 22:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy to bow to the community on this - though the community at the moment wants full deletion... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the bits that people want to save will be saved, irrespective of the outcome of this deletion debate. If that does happen, in the interests of community harmony, I would suggest that people affronted by this hold off on MfDs on those sections until another few weeks have passed. Carcharoth 01:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the support is for full deletion as much as it is for "full stop". -- Ned Scott 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my own observation, but it seems to me that there are enough comments about keeping/merging/renaming the programs that at least that part looks to be at least "no consensus". - jc37 13:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascinating.

If only we could harness the energy of this drama, we'd never need to pay an electric bill again. I'm sort of new here; and I had NO CLUE about the lava boiling beneath the surface. Yeesh. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 09:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

lol. Just H 03:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah :-) I think they deleted everything just in time; I was going to propose to my co-esperantians that we *deleted and salted ourselves* as long as all the people writing nonsense here promised doing something useful instead :-) —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter

I somewhat commented on this in the MfD, but how about just turning Esperanza into a newsletter? It retains the name, retains the sense of unity/collaboration, and yet removes all of the previous beaucracy (presuming it would operate similar to other newsletters). In other words, the ideal of Esperanza could continue, while the other, rather unwanted, "stuff" can be removed. - jc37 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter on what? Saying what? Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Moreschi on this one. A Wikipedia newsletter should report news, nothing more. We already have community-based newsletters like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. I don't see a need for duplication. Quack 688 14:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For one example, consider Template:Cent. This is not unlike what such a newsletter could do. I presume that there are many discussions which would be of interest to Esperanzans. And I presume that there are also many pages of interest to Esperanzans. newsletter articles describing concordia, the Kindness campaign, any number of the programs being discussed above, etc. Hopefully this clarifies. - jc37 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if, when Esperanza is deleted, the concept of "Esperanzans" existing separate from wicked Wikipedians goes as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do certainly hope, though, that all Wikipedians still continue to uphold the values of WikiLove and improve the community.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nastiness

The insults that are being flung arund on this MfD are starting to anger me, because they're almost universally coming people voting keep. Let's have a lowdown:

Keeps:

• 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)
• 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 can go fuck themselves. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 20:03, 29 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Deletes:

• 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)
• 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. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Dear The Bread: Please read "Don't be a fucking douchebag". Sincerely, Cyde Weys 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And I think the differences in incivility levels are obvious to everyone. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but having a separate section broadcasting this "nastiness" isn't going to do any good, in my opinion. The closing admin(s) will read the whole MfD, they won't really need a separate section highlighting the "nastiness". Just my opinion. Thanks, — FireFox (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2006

I didn't make it to show the closing admin - the incivility of some posters shouldn't factor into their calculations. I wnat to point out that so many people have argued that Esperanza is needed to keep people being nice to each other, when in reality people who oppose Esperanza are much nicer to everyone than those who support it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed out quite a few comments Dev. For instance, the continual harrasiment of Keep Voters By WaltCip, and the belief that anyone who votes keep hasn't read the arguments. Oh, and "Delete. This thing smells like Scientology with its acronyms (ArbCom, etc). Wake 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)" - which is potentially offencive to Scientologists. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to, but Walt hasn't said anything specific that I could quote, he's just being very blunt. And Wake is attacking other people, he's slamming Esperanza - not incivility. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Walt has said that a Keep !vote was out of order, and is asking people to read the nom and above arguements, so certainly bad faith, if not incivil. Also, just quickly looking though it again, "Dear The Bread: Please read "Don't be a fucking douchebag". Sincerely, Cyde Weys 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And MaxSem's comment "Strong delete, if you'd like to participate in a social site, please find some other site that is not encyclopedia.". As I say, I'm not standing up for the aweful behaviour of some of the keep !voters, just saying it would be nice if both sides kept a cool head. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Walt and Maxsim's comments aren't personal attacks, but I'll add that Cyde one. Naughty Cyde. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In my defense, I don't think that telling people to read facts, policy, or the excessively detailed nom is considered a personal attack, especially if they haven't done so already. Consensus is reached by details, not opinion. I'm sorry that (that, not if) I appear robotic to anyone, but I'll not have "no consensus" as a result of the closing admin looking at the masses of unabated one-liner keep votes with "oh dear, it looks like we have a gridlock" and not seeing any form of rebuttal. It just results in the cloudy MfD we had earlier. Unfortunately with no specific system where each vote is considered a category, I DO appear blunt. (What exactly do you consider incivility anyway?) And believe me, if I was showing any form of nastiness, harassment or personal attack, you would KNOW it. I believe that most of the comments that I have presented seem to have a HUGE difference of the incivility in the above set.--WaltCip 02:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In Cyde's defense, he's only doing that to people who call other people dicks. The page that it links to explains very well why he's doing it, but I think his cause would be helped if he used a slightly less blatant incivility for the punchline. Zocky | picture popups 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, meant to press show preview. Anyway, what I'm saing is, neither behaviour is good, and this would be a lot easier if the Keep voters didn't treat the delete voters and feelingless robots, and delete voters didn't treat keep voters as fanatic, senseless Esperanzains. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're talking about unnecessary nastiness, or making blanket generalizations...

• "who has any interaction with Esperanza who isn’t Esperanzan?"
  
• "Esperanzans, at least the active ones, see themselves as Esperanzans first and foremost."
  
• "The biggest issue with Esperanza is the members themselves."
  
• "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."
  
• "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."

Dev, I'm not trying to start something here, but I don't see why you need to negatively stereotype people in this manner. Some of your comments have a grain of truth, since in the last MfD, "some" Esperanzans did act exactly as you've described. But there's no mention of "some" in any of those statements, and no acknowledgement that "some" Esperanzans also made their case rationally in the last MfD. All these statements are black and white - "only" Esperanzans visit Esperanza, the "only" place they could pick up bad habits is Esperanza, etc.

The reason I said "unnecessary" is because you can still make a good case for deletion without resorting to comments like these. In fact, you did make a good case, since there seems to be consensus building to close down the group - the only questions remaining are what programs, if any, to move off, and how to tag Esperanza as historical. But most of the delete comments have focused on the value of the group itself, and haven't made any negative statements about its members. For that, I applaud them. Quack 688 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised at how well this is going. When I saw Esperanza was up for deletion again I expected to see a massive flame war on the deletion discussion page. Not that expectations should excuse incivility, but I expected a lot worse. Even the "bad" ones are not as bad as they could be. Most editors here are doing a very good job at keeping things civil in this situation. -- Ned Scott 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brief review

Looking at the votes, I'm seeing overwhelming consensus towards deletion, it's pretty much a call between historically tagging or not. It seems to me, however, that more people want it plain deleted, though I might be wrong on that point. I'd like to point out that most of the keep votes come from new users with little knowledge of policy, and I really don't care if you accuse me of biting on that one. One user even admitted he was a new user and didn't care about the rules. It appears apparent (improper grammar?) that Esperanza is going to be deleted. DoomsDay349 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually find it rather insulting that you assume that editors are voting keep because they are "new users with little knowledge of policy". Simply because some editors may disagree with you, does not imply that you can write them off as being ignorrent. --T-rex 18:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say he assumed anything. He said he looked at the votes, T-Rex. -- SCZenz 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; some of the keep votes, such as the one by Quack, was well though out and presented good points, while others showed very little or lack of knowledge of policies. Some examples:

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)

This one could be argued as strong inclusionist, but shows a lack of knowledge of certain policies. I've bolded the issues with it. The first point, about a club, shows that he obviously hasn't read the last MFD and doesn't realize that there are no cliques on Wikipedia. That's the big glaring one, but the message has other holes.

* 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)

This particular conversation shows incivility and bias on the part of Brian. He though my particular links don't show it due to the way I copied and pasted it, the words thank you were to linked to WP:TROLL and WP:DICK, a pretty nasty accusation on his part.

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)

God do I even have to say it? Though this user isn't new, they still have obviously not read or chosen to follow any policies aside from WP:IAR and WP:DICK. These are only a few examples, and I'm just noticing many of the keep votes simply aren't well supported by policy etc. DoomsDay349 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur that there are more deletes in favour of full deletion rather than historical tagging. It's that impetus which has kept me doggedly trying to rein back those who would spin off programs when there's no consensus for them to do so. If you're one of those people reading this, please stop assuming that its OK to move the programs into Wikipedia: space. No program was ever proposed for the community to develop through discussion, and its not fair to foist it on the community because you personally want to save it. Take the idea of the programs, not the pages, and repropose at the village pump or elsewhere. Let these ideas have the airing they need. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I joined Esperanza a long time ago, but have had only minimal real interaction with it, except perhaps in the proposal stage. What would the list of you think of, as it were, taking the "delete" vote as a given, and simply, from this point forward, have the debate focus on whether to keep the page as historical or delete it completely? Again, it seems to me that the overwhelming consensus is between those two options, but that, with the greater debate going on, people have been less focused on those two specific options. Just a thought. Badbilltucker 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's gone a bit too far to start changing the terms of the debate Bill. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Hmm...what I'd like to see is just deleting it and getting that much over instead of prolonging the debate, then discussing on this talk page whether or not to historically tag. Admins can restore, historic, and protect, yeah? DoomsDay349 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The only objection I can see to that is the possibility/probability of Deletion review possibly continuing the debate even further, and most likely with much less input from the overwhelming majority of editors who favor deletion/historical/etc. Unfortunately, conceivably, that might even result in it being formally reinstuted, as has been done with one or two other WikiProjects. But that is just an opinion. Badbilltucker 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well, I think maybe we should just leave it in the hands of the closing admin; they should be able to determine the consensus. If there is a deletion review, I'm sure it won't get far considering the overwhelming consensus to delete. Just let our closer take care of it. DoomsDay349 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the possibility of splitting and keeping the individual elements, could we discuss how practical these suggestions are? In the case of transferring to the Kindness Campaign, I would suggest this possibly isn't realistic - I'm a member and would vote against including the much derided stress monitoring. Has anyone from the Birthday Committee made any comments about the calendar? Finally, I gather the admin coaching was going to be moved anyway, so I'm guessing that will happen regardless... Addhoc 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm myself more or less assuming that any elements that might survive would probably be cast as entirely separate groups, with their own rules, charters, whatever. Then, maybe later, after a while on their own, they might try to merge with some other group or not. The downside with letting this happen is that there is a very real chance that some of the surviving groups would merge back together into something like Esperanza II in all but name shortly thereafter, potentially starting the argument all over again. Badbilltucker 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Personally, I'm not convinced the Birthday committee requires a calendar, they could just add the dates to m:Wikipedians by birthday. Also, I don't believe the Stress Alerts or Reach Out would form a viable separate group. That just leaves Admin Coaching, which is possibly the only sustainable element. Addhoc 22:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to count "full deletion" vs "historical-tag deletion". When I first "voted" I simply said "delete", but my rational was that we needed this group to basically stop. Reform didn't work, and if something like Esperanza should happen then it needs to start fresh. I really don't care if the file labled "Wikipedia:Esperanza" is deleted or not. That is completely missing the point. So no, it is not accurate to say that "full delete" out numbers everything else, because we shouldn't read into people's comments things that are not there.

One thing is clear, Esperanza will no longer be a "group", and there is consensus for that. If you are worried that this won't kill off Esperanza enough then you're worried about the wrong thing. I'd be worried about the programs being split off far more than the file which holds the title. I would much rather those be "full deleted" than anything, simply because I think things like saying "happy birthday" should not be an organized effort, Esperanza branded or not. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Do I vote on each section or just one? WikieZach| talk 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just one, the sections are just for easier reading, and easier linking to your vote when discussing it with others. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The last one.--Rayc 23:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The sections are also broken up so that you don't have to discuss in a very large editing box. It keeps things more organized for all of the voters. Simply go to the Table of Contents, click on the last section and hit "edit"--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reopen?

An MfD is supposed to last for 5 days, so this debate was closed early. Also, why was the page protected?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Aargh, what is it with these out of process speedy closures? Should I just go open the inevitable DRV now? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Common sense over bureaucracy, methinks. Good call. No point in letting this drag out and allow more opportunity for blood to be spilt. Consensus was clear and would doubtless have stayed that way. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think the result would be any different if this had lasted the full period.  YDAM TALK 17:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It helps us to receive more opinions from more users. In my opinion, this is a very huge debate, and deserves more discussion.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No I don't, but people might not contest it. Whereas now, they are certain to. I give it about 5 hours until someone opens a DRV with something like "This admin speedy closed the debate because they hate having a good community. Please take action." -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree here-something this contentious should most certainly run its full course, might be a bit painful now, but it'll prevent a lot of trouble later! Let it take its course, and let there be little to no question. Seraphimblade 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise good points about DRV, although I get the feeling that there was a good chance of this ending up on there whether or not this was closed early or not. I guess if someone does file a DRV we'll all just have to put up with this saga a bit longer.  YDAM TALK 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel that an early close was unwarranted rather than allowing the debate ot run the full 8 days (as stated in WP:DPR, which would now appear to be wrong!), however I suggest that those who have something to offer to the discussion start one at the admin noticeboard, so it can be brought to the attention of others. There's an existing post on WP:AN about this MfD, though I think a second one on WP:ANI would be better, as the situation has unfolded. Martinp23 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, because the 8 days in WP:DPR was such nonsense, I've changed it to 5 days, to be in line with how the process is understood by the community. Martinp23 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been re-opened. Possibly not the best option, but wisest for now.--cj | talk 18:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad it has been reopened, I think it is a mistake to close anything early that isn't at least 95% one way or the other --T-rex 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the arrogance, if you would call it that, but the consensus is still to delete. It really doesn't matter if we leave it open for two days or close it now. DoomsDay349 20:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If consensus doesn't change then there really isn't much point to closeing it early then is there? --T-rex 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding you but that seems to imply that the possibility of consensus changing is a reason to close early?  YDAM TALK 21:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindof. Besides trying to prevent consensus from changing, I see no reason why anyone would want to close such a controversal XfD early. --T-rex 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the discussion on WP:AN. The fear is that should the MfD run for the full course, it will become too much of a burden for a single uninvolved admin to close. Further, if consensus is clear, process can be harmful if used to excess. The reason, as I understood it, that the decision to re-open was taken was to avoid the problem of even more (probably needless) process at WP:DRV. Martinp23 21:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Then have several admins consult each other perhaps? (If nothing else, a great way to drag IRC into this and cause even more drama!) Believe it or not, people are still discussing and even changing their minds right now, so there is more development taking place. --tjstrf talk 07:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with leaving it open, because it is in the controversial situations that process is most important (not sure whether to link that phrase to the article Due process or the essay WP:PROCESS, but either should do the trick). Also, by giving a full hearing you greatly reduce the amount of wikilawayering that can be done at DRV. --tjstrf talk 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second brief review

Update on the review; we're still leaning towards delete, but now we're torn between full outright delete and messedrockerify, which I think incorporates all the ideas of historical tagging. I think both are good avenues, and I still think we should leave it to the closing admin. Now then, there have been a number of keep votes, still not enough to get no consensus, but in any case some of the keep votes I've seen have demonstrated WP:ILIKEIT principles, and in addition failure to even read the nomination, or so it appears. I realize that this might sound like I'm simply attacking the keep voters, but I'm not; just an honest evaluation. DoomsDay349 20:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Again I disagree (perhaphs i should write WP:IDONTLIKEIT), don't confuse disagreeing with the nomination as the same thing as not reading the nomination. Just because some people don't like esperanza is not in and of itself a reason to delete --T-rex 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is this "Messedrockerify" thing? What would happen if that was the concensus?--CJ King 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Messedrocker solution would turn all Esperanza suppages into redirects to Esperanza and then historical tag the Esperanza subpage, thus effectively deleting it yet allowing the possibility of a recreation with good, useful, and enormous change. DoomsDay349 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps me out a lot!--CJ King 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It basically means we're going to be back here in three months' time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh...yeah. But hey, whatever, so long as we at least stop it, and if they revive it 'tis all the easier to delete and salt it. DoomsDay349 21:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the Messedrocker solution is more likely to prevent a revival than a complete deletion, as the history will always be there to remind us of what a bad idea it would be lest we forget.  YDAM TALK 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much of the MfD you've read, but there are a hell of a lot of people out there who don't agree anything went wrong with Esperanza at all. They're the ones likely to resurrect the project, and everyone else will probably let them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see that happening. There's too many of us that would still be watching the pages and be willing to debate it back to the grave. -- Ned Scott 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Messedrocker solution isn't about revival, it is about keeping the histories avalible to non-admins --T-rex 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading the edit summary "You just don't like anyone, do you?" I am reminded of Dmcdevits quote on the first MFD: If this is the civility parade, I'd rather stay home. If such sentiments are representative of Esperanza, then it should be deleted, as those kinds of sentiments are uncivil, divisive, and contribute to a negative environment on Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On paper, the Messedrockerify solution would be the best solution out there for this kind of ordeal. On practice, it wouldn't work, because all it takes is one trigger-happy "let's all be happy" editor to remove the tag and reopen it.--WaltCip 01:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would happen. I mean, I can see someone trying to start it again, but then I also see editors instantly swooping down and stopping that. It's not like we're going to take Esperanza off our watch lists. -- Ned Scott 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? This MfD has been going on for two days and its 200kb long. If someone tries to start up Esperanza, I can so see massive edit wars about it, accusations of deletionism, of hardheartedness, and eventually lots of Wikipedians would say "Oh well, Esperanza was a good idea, we may as well give it another go". And we're back to square one. Consider how much time this MfD has taken up. I've written an FA this December - who knows how much more I could have achieved if I hadn't spent this month trying to sort out Esperanza, and commenting on this MfD. I don't want to have to do this every quarter because people won't leave alone. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Need I repeat myself? Dev920 is not a crystal ball, and many of us disagree that anyone will or indeed believe that historification will make it less likely. We've heard your statement many many many times already. --tjstrf talk 02:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, wow. I've never seen anyone use a WP:NOT policy to try to prove someone wrong. Tjstrf, it's human nature to predict the future. And it's not a very lopsided prediction, either. A very stylish citation, though, if I may say so myself. ;)--WaltCip 02:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If it got a laugh out of you or, better still, made you pause and think for a second, then the cite did its job, so thanks(?). (I was actually referring to an earlier comment I made[1].)

My concern is this: Dev920's faith in his predictions is surpassing his apologetics for them. When others disagree with your statements and are giving objections to them, simply restating them endlessly is not conducive to effective discussion. (For the policy paralleling version, discuss, don't declare.) --tjstrf talk 03:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This MfD is so long because everyone wants to say something about the situation.. I don't see how the size of the MfD supports your theory. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair theory. Ordinarily an AFD would have, at most, 15 editors coming on to voice their opinion. Here we've got nearly a hundred. This demonstrates that a lot of people are paying attention to this issue. And I'm willing to bet that about 25% of those will be thinking "surely there's no way we can go back and change it?" once the debate's over.--WaltCip 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, Assume Good Faith. --T-rex 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does WP:AGF have to do with the statement you replied to? For a far more effective rebuttal, remind him that there is no such thing as a binding decision on wiki and that Wikipedia:Consensus can change. In brief, yes, you could go back and change it if you could persuade future editors to agree.

This is actually the thing that has been bothering me the most about many of the "DELETE, SALT, COVER WITH LANDMINES, AND ERECT A 10,000 FOOT WALL AROUND IT"-type votes. They seem to ignore that this AfD will not be binding on future editors, and that a revival/recreation in a different form would be permissible under policy. Forbidding such attempts would actually be against policy. --tjstrf talk 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

T-Rex is actually correct to a degree; I'm assuming bad faith by thinking that these people are so foolish as to go back after the deletion's over and make a change, though I did not cite anyone in particular. I was just merely stating a percentage. I hate the "KILL WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!" or "KEEP WITH FLOWERS!" votes too, as well. They don't really prove anything other than how the editor is feeling. But then again, that's why we have admins to dig through the dirt.--WaltCip 03:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(reply to T-Rex Tjstrf tjstrf) Exactly. I think this Esperanza is beyond repair, and any future efforts should start over rather than a reform from the current mess. However, I would still strongly discourage most efforts resembling the current Esperanza.. but people are still open to try new things. At least in new situations we'd be able to guide small groups before getting to the size Esperanza got to. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're replying to Tjstrf. ;)--WaltCip 03:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing how hard it is to get people to not capitalize your name... --tjstrf talk 04:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, leave us alone. And "not capitalize" is a "NOT" category violation. Use something different, for instance Category:Wikipedians who lowercase their name.--WaltCip 04:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such category, and I'm not sure what I did to provoke that reaction. I simply consider it a courtesy to type people's names in the format they have chosen, WaltCip rather than Walt Cip or Waltcip, for instance. I have a good reason for decapitalizing it, since the other consistent capitalization for my title is TJStRF. The second t stands for the and trivial words in titles are not capitalized (e.g. RfA, MfD). --tjstrf talk 05:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding, tjstrf. A little UCfD humor.--WaltCip 14:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

oops. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "History"

Rather a lot of people seem to be saying - please correct me here if I am wrong - that preserving the history of Esperanza is of importance, so we should tag as historical/adapt the Messedrocker solution. May I offer a point against this? Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 2. I mean, that's basically just one big flame war. It's crazy. This is perhaps most disturbing.

"Simply put most wikipedians never get the chance to serve as an arbitor, mediator, or board memeber. This leads to the false perception of a cabal. Esperanza's goverment would have offered an outlet for those who want to serve, Esperanzians are suppose to share, and frankly I find the intolerance and subsequent distructon of that idea disconcerting. However, if there is not going to be an assembly the regularly offers people a chance to join it, I am rather of your mind, the Assembly was a unique idea, the advisory committee is not. I fail to see how reducing the number of people in the government makes it more equitable. I do see the need for a leader to provide direction. -JCarriker 18:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)"

To me this sounds like EA was originally intended as a way for those who wanted power but wouldn't get through RFA to have some. Of course, Esperanza did in fact improve from this, and decent people ran it for quite a long time, though there were other problems that were not remedied. But this initial statement confirms to me that Esperanza was a fairly ignominious part of Wikipedia's history, and should perhaps not be remembered. This is why I advocate full deletion and salting. Just so you know. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Failures are just as important to remember as successes. There is no cause to whitewash our history, and even if Esperanza were nothing but a miserable wreck from the get-go it would still deserve preservation. We are an encyclopedia, we of all people should understand the importance of preserving records. --tjstrf talk 22:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is why I think the historical essay whatever option will actually help prevent another Esperanza. We shouldn't be worried about what happens at that exact file name. This way if some other similar situation happens with a different name (or even a different group of people) we can say: "wait, you might want to see what happened here and take that into consideration." -- Ned Scott 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

An alternative to the historical essay might be the contents of the MfDs themselves, because I think that between the two, they cover enough of what Esperanza tries/tried to do, as well as what actually happened. The downside of this is that Esperanza's history isn't presented in an easy to follow, systematic manner. --Kyoko 16:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another idea would be to have an essay that is collaboratively written (this is a wiki, after all) by people who are familiar with Esperanza and its history, people who wanted to keep it, and people who wanted to delete it. My personal experience as an Esperanza member lasted about half a year or so, so I am unfamiliar with its history prior to that. I would be willing to help with the essay anyway. --Kyoko 16:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move?

Just to confirm before I move this, shouldn't this page be under "Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza (2nd nomnation)" since this is the 2nd time it's been nominated, or is the addition of the number only for closed discussions? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The nominator archived the old discussion for some reason. It should be at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1. Non-standard, but... --tjstrf talk 02:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, too used to FACs... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So that means It's okay if this is moved? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 02:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. We'd have to revert the archives. It'd be more trouble than it's worth.--WaltCip 03:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah. MfD nominating procedures aren't set in stone. This is a wiki, so there's enough leeway for a petty error in procedure.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I say we just leave it up to the closing admin, he can do it if he likes, or not. No pressing need in either direction. --tjstrf talk 04:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reopen????? (again)

An MfD should last 8 days!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• wham* *wham* It actually only is required to be 5, regardless of what WP:DELETE says, but aaargh. Do I get to open up the DRV now? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an appropriate lag time. Initially we picked 8, but it appears to have dropped to 5. I don't think we should get too hung up on how long we need this to last. Hiding Talk 16:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Notes_for_admins_on_closing_discussions says 8 days are needed for an MfD debate--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DEL#Deletion_lag_times says 5, the 8 you cite is for moving closed discussions. Crum375 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother reopening it. From what I see this is the best solution out there. Congrats to Mailer Diablo for an outstanding close.--WaltCip 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion policy says 5. It also states a reasonable lag time. Do you think there hasn't been a reasonable lag time? Hiding Talk 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What it says there, Ed, is that after eight days, the discussions which have already been closed should be placed in the archives. That can be interpreted as "close them after 8 days", but it could be interpreted as "close them before so you can archive them", too. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Check WP:DPR - it's 5 there, and if you were to go to DRV on one MfD not left for 8 days, you set a precedent for every MfD closure for the last few months to go to DRV on the grounds of being closed early. Martinp23

[edit] Need to fix noinclude tag

The </noinclude> tag is placed too early, so subsection 12 and onward are being transcluded onto the main MfD page. Could an admin update this? Koweja 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Debates should never be protected--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Closed debates should not be discussed anymore. If a page is getting misused it should be protected. Trying to continue a closed debate counts as misusing it. Koweja 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say "never", the TEMPORARY protection during processing of this closure seemed fine to me. That being said, now that the debate has been closed, no signifigant editing should be getting done to it. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Koweja 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation

I've concluded the debate, I hope this will be fine to participating editors. Now help is needed to complete the process, such as the replacement essay and the transfer of programs to other projects. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that you've handled the closing of this heated debate excellently Mailer. Bravo! Thε Halo ^Θ 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mailer - Check your edit history on your talk page. I sent you something...--WaltCip 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! I appreciate that! :) - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you knock up a todo list somewhere, I'm willing to lend a hand but can't work out what is going where. Hiding Talk 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Esperanza has all the pages. You can start from here first. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not it, you have to go to this page--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the archive tag for all the archived talk pages. Now where am I moving stuff too? Hiding Talk 17:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Coaching to WP:ADOPT, Stress Alerts as standalone (WP:ALERT), COTM to WP:COTW, Trading Spaces already transferred, and birthday to the WP:BDC. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the results of this debate. It should have the necessary steps to take. A sketch of the essay is being written on Wikipedia:Esperanza for further editing by everyone else.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm tackling the collaboration. Hiding Talk 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What are we going to do with admin coaching? It is one of the better programmes of ESP. I don't see any recreation of the admin coaching page at Adopt a User. Mailer, you have done a good job on closing the MFD. Your reason of closing it makes both parties happy. Coaching, hope we can resume asap. Write the essay quickly, a long one. We can look at the history of the page and write about the governance and so on. Terence Ong 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just received a note, it's to become a new section by itself. See Wikipedia:Admin coaching. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that significantly different from adopt-a-user? It has a really terrible name. I see that the talk page is a redirect to the adopt-a-user talk page also. - cohesion 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been reverted. At first I thought it was going to WP:ADOPT. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be bad, but really, the job of this MfD wasn't to delete the seperate sub-projects that are bad. That can come later. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Any thoughts on what to do with all the calendar pages? Hiding Talk 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Contact the project editors at WP:BDC and see whether they want to absorb the calendar. Another option is to have a separate section. Refer to BDC talk for details. - Mailer Diablo 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, they would be happy to take the calendar, just sorting out the page naming now. Hiding Talk 19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ping. Can't get a reply over the calendar name with the user I was discussing it with. What do people think is better. S/He suggested Wikipedia:Calendar, I prefer Wikipedia:Birthday Committee/Calendar. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Would it help to run a bot on this page and add all pages in it to a category (maybe just Category:Esperanza)? As the bot wouldn't be able to edit protected pages, we'd find out what needed salting/what needed redirects protecting. Of course, it would be a one time job so for things which don't need action taking, the tag could be removed. Any support for this - the reason I suggest is that, with us all working on random parts of [2], we'll end up missing bits, especially when the listing becomes cluttered with pages consisting of {{deletedpage}}? Martinp23 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• To clarify: we'd tag pages with said category and then remove it from pages with {{deletedpage}}, right? I'm showing 426 pages with the Esperanza/ prefix. alphachimp. 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, anything with {{deletedpage}} would (should) be protected, so the bot would be unable to add it to the category :). I'm looking at writing it now (then try to get fairly quick Approval. Martinp23 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Alphachimp is now doing the process as I type with his bot. To admins who wish to help: pages in Category:Esperanza need something doing with them (all pages which aren't sorted out yet from the prefixindex page are being aded there now). The sort of things that need doing include deletion of broken redirects, fixing of double redirects and protection of all redirects (especially those to Wikipedia:Esperanza). Once everything is sorted out with a page listed in the category, and with it's talk page (same sort of issues need fixing), then please remove the category from the page. Thanks, Martinp23 19:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't delete working redirects. That's really important. And try not to protect double redirects. Sorry, thought that needed to be said. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, don't delete user Esperanza pages before suggesting to the user that they turn them into redirects to their talk pages/user pages. Martinp23 19:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Right. How about everything involving the "Advisory Council"? alphachimp. 19:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Salt, according to Mailer's closing. Martinp23 19:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is something like my current Esperanza subpage acceptable following this MfD, or will this have to be changed again? --Kyoko 19:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable, but outdated. I'd suggest redirecting it to your usertalk. alphachimp. 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's up to you - there's no enforced deletion of green vowels going on, though I'd suggest you mention there about Esperanza being gone, and perhaps link to the essay which should be appearing at Wikipedia:Esperanza soon. I agree that you should redirect it to your user talk page when you feel like it. Martinp23 19:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The historical tag was taken off Wikipedia:Esperanza; the rationale makes sense, but wasn't the idea to tag it as such so it was obviously no longer active? -- Natalya 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, it's been taken care of, with a more specific message in its place. -- Natalya 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've tagged all unprotected articles (except individual dates in Wikipedia:Esperanza/Calendar) with Category:Esperanza. Articles that are deleted, protected and redirected to Wikipedia:Esperanza should be tagged as protected redirects with Category:Protected redirects. They should no longer be in Category:Esperanza. alphachimp. 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calendar

• I'm in the process of moving the calendar stuff over. I decided to make it a subpage of Wikipedia:Birthday Committee. Wikipedia:Calendar seemed to broad. Hiding Talk 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay, the calendar has been moved, what do you lot reckon on all the redirects, leave them or update the links to them and delete them? Obviously the main Calendar page should stay as a redirect, that gets huge linkage, but the individual day pages have very few and the months about the same. Any thoughts? I'd favour deleting the day and month pages and updating links, but I like things tidy. All the history is preserved since the pages have been moved, which takes the history with them. Hiding Talk 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salting hides history

The closing decision said this: "the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted." But this loses one of the points of preserving the history, which was to be able to point to the bureaucracy and say "this was bad, this mustn't happen again". At the moment, all people in the future can point to is a warning sign with no history available. The other point of preserving the history was to allow free, unhindered access to that history, regardless of whether it is to use as an example or just to write a history of Wikipedia (note that deletion does not guarantee that the information will be preserved for future undeletion by admin-historians - deleted stuff has been lost in the past). Anyway, the following have been deleted and salted (as far as I can make out):

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Governance

Update: The salted pages have since been deleted, as shown in the page logs here and here. Carcharoth 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What this means is that it is now not possible to see who was a member of Esperanza and who the people were who ran Esperanza. Is this really a good idea in the long run? I voted for Messedrockerfy to see all the page history preserved, not to have several pages offered up to be made an example of and the rest preserved. It is also inconsistent. Why preserve some pages and not others? It is perfectly possible to blank and protect these currently-salted pages, replacing the salted warning with an equally strong warning message that makes clear that the page, although it hasn't been deleted, shouldn't be reactivated. Carcharoth 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I see it as a chance for Wikipedians who were members of Esperanza to make a new beginning without this stain on their character - the MfDs, as far as I'm concerned, stand as the perfect history anyone could want, highlighting good and bad aspects without anyone having to wade through the bilge. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate what I mean by history. For the other pages, I can point to what they looked like when they started:

• Esperanza main page
• last version before blanking
• Wikipedia:Stress_Alerts
• Wikipedia:Admin_coaching
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reach_out
• Wikipedia:Birthday_Committee/Calendar
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/To-Do_List
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Proposals
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter

I can't do this for the salted pages. Now do you understand? Believe it or not, there are now, and will be in the future, people who are not interested in the emotions, the deletion debates and whatnot, but will be and are purely interested in the history. I like looking through the history of pages, and using the tools that allow you to do that. But forget what I like doing, and consider what history really means. Your comment about the MfDs being "the perfect history" shows, with the greatest of respect, that you fail to understand what history is. Preserving history and making it accessible helps prevent the mistakes of the past. Carcharoth 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to be “protected” from history by you or anyone else. What an embarrassment to Wikipedia this whole purging fiasco has been. It’s crap like this that drive people away. Rfrisbie^talk 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you addressing me or Dev920? Carcharoth 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Carcharoth, preserving the history of who had membership in Esperanza would do nothing of benefit, since people would not learn valuable info from such things, and the people who were in Esperanza formerly would disclose as such on their userpage. Rfrisbie, I don't believe I follow your logic, nor do I see how this is an "embarassment" or a "fiasco".--WaltCip 22:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above: "there are now, and will be in the future, people who are not interested in the emotions, the deletion debates and whatnot, but will be and are purely interested in the history" - plus: "Preserving history and making it accessible helps prevent the mistakes of the past." Carcharoth 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you said. The type of question I'm asking is, how could we have prevented another Titanic disaster by knowing who died on the Titanic?--WaltCip 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Who was on", not "who died on". We aren't banning all the Esperanza members. To answer your analogy, by being highly cautious of any attempts by the engineers to design new ships. --tjstrf talk 03:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a wide ranging consensus, though I agree with Mailer Diable in his findings from that consensus - specifically the salting of the more elitist and bureaucratic processes. Looking at the comments, this is clearly a great compromise between absolute deletion and no deletion (just redirection). Martinp23 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That misses the point. Salting is purely meant to prevent recreation. There has been no attempt at recreation, so a pure delete would have been sufficient to hide the page history. Let's get this crystal-clear: (1) page blank and redirect removes visible text but leaves it in the page history at the old location; (2) page moving moves the text and the page history to a new location, leaving a redirect at the old location; (3) deletion removes both text and page history; (4) salting removes the text and the page history and prevents recreation. Note that protection can also be applied to (1) to prevent reversion to an earlier version to undo the blanking and redirect. The talk of deleting some pages and redirecting others as being a compromise is tempting, but it is just an attempt to mollify both sides of the debate when in fact it would be more principled to either delete everything or inactivate and preserve everything. Doing a bit of both makes no real sense when you stop and think about it. Carcharoth 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why would you want to know who was previously a leader or member of Esperanza at this point of time? If the structure/council of the organisation was not expressed enough in detail, then just expand the essay. Naming people is a poor idea because it will just open up the can of worms again. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The primary principle here for me is open, accessible history. The fact that this leaves open the possibility for people to dig around in the dirt is an unfortunate side-effect, but that would reflect more on the people dragging up past history. Carcharoth 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, the deleted pages are primary sources - anything else like the essay is a secondary source. The governance structure and list of former leaders are definitely matters for the public record - I'm undecided about the membership list. There's a valid concern that this list might be misused. But being on something like a "list of former terrorists" is a character stain - being on a "list of members on a project that closed down" isn't. The only character stain that exists is the MfD record of individual Esperanzans who behaved badly. Quack 688 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the Membership and Governance pages should be reopened. The essay, as Quack said, couldn't be better explained to a newcomer unless they can actually view the problematic pages.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 00:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no reason whatsoever to delete project history, negative or no. We should not whitewash our past. The pages should have their histories restored. Also note that the salting is against WP:SALT, as no repeated attempts at recreation had been made. --tjstrf talk 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

One final comment. I am going to sleep on this, but preserving an open, accessible record of the history of Wikipedia is something I feel very strongly about. I am considering taking this to Deletion review to ensure that the entire history of Esperanza remains visible to all and that parts are not brushed under the carpet to become a rumour spoken of in hushed tones. I realise that the Esperanza MfDs have generated a lot of angst within parts of the community, and I don't want to drag this out any longer than the rest of you, so I do hope that Mailer diablo will please consider undeleting and unsalting the pages that were deleted and salted, and making them blanked redirects instead (protected if that is considered necessary). Surely that is not too much to ask? Carcharoth 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza is not Wikipedia. We do not need its history. I ask with all the force of Carcharoth that the pages remain salted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All the force of Carcharoth? Please try and be serious here. I am putting forward my arguments without recourse to such phraseology. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same. Carcharoth 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza is a part of Wikipedia, and SALTing is for one purpose only: preventing the recreation of pages which have been repeatedly recreated against consensus. No such event has occurred, no policy justification for salting exists. --tjstrf talk 01:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is hardly a normal situation.The alternative to salting is usually straight-out deletion, not this "preserving history". But then many Wikipedia namespace pages that are deleted should in fact have been merged, redirected, or inactivated (similar to being made historical). Deletion is removing what should never have been added in the first place - hence no need to keep a record of it. Inactivating something, or declaring it out-of-date, gone wrong, or whatever, is not saying that it should never have existed, but is saying that "we tried this and it didn't work out". But then you need to leave the page history available and accessible as (a) a record and (b) a lesson. And, crucially, this applies to all such pages. This is a general principle I am arguing for here, and the fact that it happens to be Esperanza makes no difference. I'd make these arguments for any piece of Wikipedia history. Carcharoth 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• In this context, salting in this case is to prevent a membership revival of the organisation. - Mailer Diablo 07:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting (or deleting and salting) the pages, how about simply protecting them, and replacing their contents with a redirect or salt template?

Besides destroying the history, deleting (or deleting and salting) the pages will affect the edit counts of many editors. Imagine a scenario whereby an editor needs 1 more edit to reach the 2000 milestone, but because he made many edits to those deleted pages, his edit count decreases by a few hundred when those pages are deleted. While I don't wish to promote editcountitis with my suggestion, I understand the rationale behind Mailer Diablo's decision as "to minimize the pain between all parties involved". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really can't see a situation in which someone's edit count is significant enough to merit the preservation of the history of deleted pages. Other arguments aside, it's somewhat ridiculous to take or avoid administrative actions simply to preserve edit count. If your efficacy as a Wikipedia editor relies on "a few hundred" edits preserved in Esperanza, I'd suggest reexamining the value of your contributions to Wikipedia. alphachimp. 08:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. I suffer from severe editcountitis; always have. But resisting the salting of these pages because of edit count worries seems a tad silly to me. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit count is irrelevant to restoring the deleted governance and membership sections. First, edit count is no reason to restore edit histories anyway - the only thing we want from these pages is their historical content. Second, even if edit-count was a factor, I don't think anyone would have 300 edits to a page like the membership list - what are they doing, re-adding themselves every day?

Now, back to the historical question. I still don't see how deleting the members list and governance structure prevents any future revival. True, the existence of the membership list would make it easier for a re-starter to contact all the former members. But someone that determined to restart Esperanza could track down lots of members from their posts on other places (including the MfDs, non-Esperanzan discussions and user pages). Deleting and salting all Esperanza's pages wouldn't prevent this. Even if you blank every single mention of the word "Esperanza" on Wikipedia, if there's a group of people who are determined to ignore consensus, and make a new group with a different name, but with seven AC members, election tranches, and an Admin Gen, the only effective way to stop them is to seek and destroy their group after they create it. So, deleting the membership list doesn't have a great preventative value in the end. Quack 688 10:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The edit count argument is silly. There is a related, but different argument, concerning an editor's edit history. I personally would like to know if someone has done thousands of edits to Esperanza pages. This has both positive and negative aspects, but the only way to know this is to have those contributions listed in the editor's contributions list.

Also, this "delete the membership and governance pages" thing worries me, because it is the idea of Esperanza-style bureaucracy that needs to be contested, not just the pages themselves. Focus on persuading those who were attracted to such bureaucracy that they were wrong. A key part of that is showing how overextended the Esperanza bureaucracy became. Carcharoth 11:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still unconvinced by the arguments of those that say that the history is either unimportant, dangerous or available elsewhere. I still think that all the history should be openly available and that it is illogical to delete and salt selected pages, rather than inactivate these pages like all the other Esperanza pages. I am considering two routes for the salted pages: (1) An immediate deletion review requesting a 'history only' undeletion (I would like to avoid an immediate deletion review if possible); (2) A later (after a month or so) deletion review, again requesting a 'history only' undeletion; (3) Raising the wider issue of preserving Wikipedia history on the Village Pump and then, if there is consensus that such pages should not be deleted, asking for a wide-ranging review of deleted Wikipedia namespace pages to retrieve deleted areas of Wikipedia history (such as Esperanza) and past policy discussions. The assumption at the moment is that if any of this is needed, it can be retrieved by an administrator. This is using the deleted pages part of the database as an archive, which is not what this was designed for (the impression I get is that deleted stuff might be kept permanently, but in the future it could equally well be compressed, moved offsite and increasingly downgraded in importance). The key point is that there is relevant stuff mixed up with rubbish in the "deleted pages" area. The database itself was designed as an archive to keep any relevant stuff, so the rubbish shouldn't be mixed up with relevant stuff. There is also the issue that the way deletion of pages with relevant history is currently handled puts administrators in a class apart from normal editors, leaving administrators with the keys to the "hidden history". I feel very strongly that the history of the Wikipedia namespace should be available to all (article history is a different matter). Getting back to the Esperanza MfD, and the issue of how to handle the problems I see with the salted pages, I am open to advice and persuasion on which of the three options (or something else) to follow. Carcharoth 11:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• We just narrowly averted a bloodbath. Take things slowly, we can review this in a month or so. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks. I'll drop a note off on your talk page in a month or so. Carcharoth 12:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that this also included Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 14:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot possibly think of a situation in which somebody might wish to view the past precise history of who was running Esperanza. Anything that they might wish to know - such as the governance structure - should be in the front page essay, which I believe it is. Deleting and salting carries a very firm message that massive Esperanza-style bureaucracy will not be tolerated in the future. IMO this is unquestionably a good thing, and all plaudits to Mailer Diablo for displaying excellent judgment in his handling of the monstrous mess that this MFD turned into. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone might wish to contact a former member or Councillor in the future, and the members list and Governance page can make it easier. Therefore, I will be posting a DRV sometime this week.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please hold off on that. I support your position as well, and I think that if a longer amount of time is allowed to pass (say, a month), emotions will have subsided to the extent that a history only undeletion will be more acceptable. Carcharoth 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While doing a quick check of Esperanza subpages, I discovered that all history has, in fact, been deleted! Examples:[3],[4]. The Esperanza pages were not supposed to be deleted, in order to preserve all of Esperanza's history! The Overhaul page, along with all of its subpages, were important discussions resulting of the first MfD. The COTM history included discussions regarding article improvement. Is that not important to the article being improved? In my opinion, all of Esperanza's pages should have been redirected to Wikipedia:Esperanza without deletion.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Moreschi: This MfD is no more a monstrous mess than the other one, and several others I have seen. I agree the closing has been handled well. What I am pointing out is a minor technicality - trying to get it shut down properly and dispassionately, without the need for "firm messages". You are thinking short-term (which is probably needed right now). I am trying to think long-term. Fast-forward 5 years and ask the same question. All the emotion and diatribes are long-forgotten. Now get nostalgic and ask questions like: What did Jimbo's talk page look like when it first started? When did ArbCom first start? When did VfD turn into AfD? When did Esperanza start? Who was in the first group elected to Tranche Beta for ArbCom? Who came 16th in the recent ArbCom elections? How many members did Esperanza have at its peak? How many registered en-Wikipedia accounts were there at the end of 2006? How many people were members of WikiProject Military History? All this is part and parcel of the broad sweep of Wikipedia history. Why brush certain pages under the carpet and not others? The other point is that implementing the "blank and redirect" thing uniformly is still a very strong message. There is no chance that Esperanza will be reactivated while memories of this MfD are alive and every chance that it will be revived if parts of the history are airbrushed. It goes like this: (1) Years pass and some people think - "Esperanza wasn't that bad, was it?"; (2) People say "but it had an overblown, bloated bureaucracy, look at this page here... Hang on, I can't seem to find that page any more. Can anyone remember the link? What it this, or this? Hmm. Ah. Found it."; (3) "Oh, yes, you were right. What a pity it wasn't easier for me to find that page and see how not to do things." And at the end of the day, I am arguing for inactivation of Esperanza, like everyone else. Another point is that, at some point (if Wikipedia really becomes successful), there will be no living memory of this. Only the data wending its way into the future on various media will bear record of what happened here, and loss of the data about the history of Wikipedia might one day be seen as a tragedy: "Oh dear, they really didn't know how to preserve their history back then, did they?" OK, I may have overdone it slightly there, but I hope I am getting across some of the way I feel strongly about history. And once again, it is not Esperanza I am arguing about, this is a general principle of having the history of Wikipedia being open and accessible to all. Others do agree with me. Look back at the rest of this thread, and read through the MfD again. At the moment, I think the short-term need to get this over with and have a lesson made by salting certain pages, is being put above the long-term ideals of helping future Wikipedians learn from history. Carcharoth 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A few points. Any such backward-lookingness as you describe would be extremely unhelpful for Wikipedia as both an encyclopedia and as a community: just as bad as Esperanza's bureaucracy. The whole point about something like Wikipedia is that it looks forward, not back, with its continual expansion, improvement, and development.

Secondly, I find it very hard to believe than anyone will be even thinking of Esperanza in a year or two. Experienced contributors will have learnt the lessons of the MFD discussions. And how, may I ask, will newbies find out about Esperanza in the first place? Gradually the links to Esperanza from user pages and sigs etc are being removed. Even if they do, they are faced with a bland, neutral essay that basically says "don't reactivate". They'll think "Old news", and move on, as indeed they should. The long-term risk of Esperanza being restarted is very slim. The short-term need to send a firm message is far more important than running the slight risk of long-term recreation.

And please - no more process. That's we got rid of EA in the first place. Can't we try to come to some agreement? Anything is better than DRV. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd estimate at least the same number of people will end up at Wikipedia:Esperanza as end up at WP:LTA/WoW at some point in their Wikipedia careers. The essay should hopefully satiate most of their curiosity. --tjstrf talk 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as it is important to move forward in improvement, it is also important to look back at our history and learn from our mistakes. I am an American, and the United States would be very different if we didn't document the American Civil War. What would happen to American society if we "forgot" about the Civil War? Slavery, two-sidedness, seperation, segregation, racism, hatred, etc. Same here in Wikipedia: if we don't restore all of Esperanza's history, what will result? Editors will forget about the issues of bureaucracy, voting, straw polling, exclusive membership, governing rules, etc.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not how systems work. Generally there are always good ideas and bad ideas in everything we do. It is *definitely* helpful to go back and look at how people thought about something in the past. More often than not, it's the only place to find information on the topic at all!

There's a reason we have history, and that is to prevent the same discussion from happening over and over and over and over and over. In fact, we are already doing too little to preserve history, and I am actually finding myself pressed to truely make the same statements over and over. (This is one of the major contributors to what JamesF calls "a failure to enculturate")

I'd go further and state that this is one of the key reasons Esperanza failed the way it did. I was working on helping people do an overhaul, and people just kept reinventing the wheel (as well as reinventing less desirable concepts). I'd like to think I started to get through to people towards the end, but there you go.

We only grow by learning from the past. No past == no growth. Kim Bruning 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Moreschi: Everyone in this thread agrees with the inactivation of Esperanza. All your points are equally met if the history of the deleted pages are restored. Newbies will come up against a redirect to the essay, and then move on. They won't know to go digging in the history. That comes later, as they go through the enculturation process, as Kim so delightfully puts it. Please, accept that there is a sizeable body of opinion that objects to hiding history, and trust the community to not abuse having access to that history. Carcharoth 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am now having trouble viewing all earlier versions of Wikipedia:Esperanza. This is because most of the pages that are transcluded onto that page were deleted (Example:[5]). How can a future user learn about Esperanza's history if all of its subpages, transcluded pages, and links are gone? I propose that all subpages of Wikipedia:Esperanza should be undeleted, all pages that are transcluded will remain in their original state in order to preserve earlier versions of other pages.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia:Esperanza/Images was deleted. As a result, the smile templates and birthday/congratulations greeting images cannot be found. The content on that page should not have been deleted.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was the only Esperanza page that wasn't up for deletion. Quack 688 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We only grow by learning from the past. No past == no growth. Just for the hell of it, I'd like to point out that that is patently false in the case of Wikipedia's articles. What I put into the articles has nothing to do with the past versions of that article. In the case of the community - which is what I assume you meant, Kim - can somone please give me a cogent reason why someone might want to know who was running Esperanza when? If anything I am very firmly of the opinion that the fact that someone was associated heavily with EA's evil bureaucracy should not be used as a black mark against them in the future at RFA or elsewhere. What is more, there is no need for stuff to survive that so blatantly violated WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. This is not a case of a good idea or a bad idea. This a case of a policy-violating idea.

The pages on Willy on Wheels have been deleted. While doubtless WOW was an important part of Wikipedia's history, the need for "history" was surpassed by the need not to create a shrine to an obvious vandal. The same rationale is true here. Whatever need for "history" there is, IMO this is surpassed by the need to send out a strong message and to ensure that association with EA's unwiki governance does not become an avenue for character attacks.

Basically, though, I have little interest in whatever wikidrama ensues over the grave of Esperanza. So long as EA does not get recreated or restarted, I care little. I'm off to write some articles and slay some trolls. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to compare Esperanza to Willy on Wheels, then fine (although they are 2 very different topics). When I was a new editor, I saw repeated references to Willy on Wheels on discussions across Wikipedia. I went to his userpage, disappointed that I was unable to gain information. As a result of my curiosity, I asked around on Esperanza's Coffee Lounge who Willy on Wheels was, and was told he was a page-move vandal.

You see? If you delete all records of an undesirable page on Wikipedia, people will be curious, and they will want those pages reopened.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, just because you don't check article history doesn't mean other people don't :-) I know several people who would otherwise turn in their admin bit, but who keep it so that they can even read the deletion history :-) Kim Bruning 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"someone was associated heavily with EA's evil bureaucracy should not be used as a black mark against them in the future at RFA or elsewhere."

Agreed. I'd hope that Wikipedians would not stoop to that level. Esperanza was a WikiProject that closed down. It was not a terrorist organization. Anyone who tries to bring any form of McCarthyism onto Wikipedia needs a serious talking to. ("Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of Esperanza, or otherwise associated with Esperanza in any way?")

Anyway, it's a lot more than just the membership list that's been deleted now: [6]

"the need for "history" was surpassed by the need not to create a shrine to an obvious vandal."

Esperanza's history is a lot more complicated than that of a simple vandal. Reading Esperanza's history gives some direct insight into what went wrong. I still think all the histories should be kept, but as suggested above, a month's cool-off period before looking at this issue again might be beneficial. If nothing else, if a month goes by and an Esperanza clone doesn't appear, it might reassure some people that Esperanza's bureaucracy will only live on in the historical record. Quack 688 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"someone was associated heavily with EA's evil bureaucracy should not be used as a black mark against them in the future at RFA or elsewhere.". EH!? If people fubar stuff, I want to know who is responsible, and make sure they won't do it again. Kim Bruning 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But there's a big difference between "associated with" and "responsible for". That's exactly why we need to keep the histories intact, so if someone starts throwing around wild claims, we can see exactly what the editor in question actually did. Otherwise, certain individuals will be able to make claims like "Oh, Bob was a member of Esperanza, and while there, he tried to make things as bureaucratic as possible", and the only way to prove or disprove it will be to rely on hearsay. Quack 688 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor comment

The pedant in me wants to point out all the things wrong with the arguments brought up by the "Board of Trustees" vote (second from the end). But as I see the clean-up operation is being handled very well above (though see comment above), I'll just add this note here. Carcharoth 21:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The redirect solution

A clever solution which was arrived at in an earlier situation (but was never documented very well, for some reason) was as follows:

We designated one central page (+ talk) for all community discussion/reporting/etc would occur. Then for each page we would have otherwise deleted, we actually kept the page, but turned it into a redirects. Each page redirected to the central discussion/ essay/ etc/ page.

The central page explained why the originals were a bad idea, but the originals still have their history publically available, so that people could see for themselves.

Would this plan work here too?

Kim Bruning 15:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what lots of people voted for, the 'Messedrocker solution' (and I had a feeling it wasn't an original idea, but rather just a really simple and logical idea). This solution has mostly been implemented for most pages, but for some reason some of the history has been singled out for deletion, and some admins are deleting where others would redirect, but hey, this was never going to be tidy.

I see from your edit summary that the earlier solution you refer to has, ahem, been deleted since then. This is one reason why it would be nice for page deletions and restorations to show up on watchlists. People reading this might also be interested in Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. Carcharoth 16:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to test in simulation, try WP:XD , number 4 :-) . Don't forget to clean up after yourself. Kim Bruning 17:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the Messedrocker Solution was the popular vote, but it simply was ignored by the deleting admins. Now I simply can't track down anything Esperanza-related anymore. All of the subpages, their talk pages, and their archives were deleted. There were lots of valuable information in there as well.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No there wasn't. That's why it was deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the admins who are deleting stuff instead of redirecting stuff don't realise that they are the ones make a deletion review more likely. If they would stick to the scheme that the closing admin had laid out there would be less argument over this. The argument could be restricted to the few pages that the closing admin said should be salted. As it is, the deletions, as you correctly point out, are making it very hard to demonstrate what Esperanza ever looked like. I think you should be able to produce a list of deleted pages (and non-deleted pages) by reviewing the deletion log over the last few days. Set the deletion log to about 5000 and that should take you back to around 1 January. Then search for Esperanza pages. I'll give you a hand with that if you like. I would be interested to see how many pages were properly dealt with by the Messedrocker proposal and how many were deleted straightaway and how many were deleted later. Carcharoth 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I redirected a lot of stuff and deleted a lot of stuff that was salted, as I think "deleted page" looks ugly and there's no risk of anyone trying to stealthily restart Esperanza on us. --Cyde Weys 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, I'm starting to being my search. This is the first list of EA deletions: [7]. Scroll down a little and you'll find a list of EA pages.

Cyde, the pages weren't supposed to be deleted. That was not part of the Messedrocker Solution.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion log on [8][9]--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ed, why not use a usersubpage to list the deletions, then link to it from here? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Messedrocker solution wasn't the outcome of the MFD, though. --Cyde Weys 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No matter. Like people are pointing out, making redirects instead of deletes allows us to leave DRV out of it, which is probably a good thing. :-) Even so, it's overkill. Normally redirecting is sufficient to get a bunch of deliberate trolls out of your face. I still don't understand why simply marking as historical isn't sufficient. Why are we deviating from a decent procedure? What's the big difference between esperanza and other discontinued projects? Kim Bruning 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Responing to Cyde: Please read the closing admin's decision, in particular this bit: "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." - it is this part of the closing admin's decision that is being ridden over rough-shod by admins who seem to have only cursorily looked at the result and then thought "OK, I'll go and help by deleting lots of Esperanza pages". Please admit that it is misleading to say that Messedrocker solution wasn't the outcome of the MfD, without adding that it is a part of the outcome of the MfD. Carcharoth 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who supported the historical tagging, I don't think it's important to have every single page history. I don't think it matters ether way, but I don't see what the big deal is. The idea is to not leave users in the dark who find out about this later on, and to learn from the past. -- Ned Scott 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of leaving users in the dark. Readers are welcome to read the eloquently written explanation found on Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think it pretty much covers everything. alphachimp. 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But it leaves me in the dark. It doesn't explain much at all. I'd like to see the logs please. And diffs. Thanks :-) Kim Bruning 22:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the massive deletion of Esperanza goes against the results of the very MfD! The closing admin specifically said that no deletion is required. Since when did admins violate consensus?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ut oh... <ducks> Kim Bruning 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ENOUGH!!

Ahem. Sorry to shout. :-)

Right, I think I can see a way to end things for now. Those who want a list of deleted pages (as opposed to the redirected ones) have probably got them by now, through the methods pointed out above, and by checking for the (now redirected) subpages of Esperanza that still exist (use Special:Prefixindex), and looking in Category:Esperanza.

I suggest that we let the deletion and tidying up finish for now, in whatever format, and then, quoting Quack above:

"...a month's cool-off period before looking at this issue again might be beneficial. If nothing else, if a month goes by and an Esperanza clone doesn't appear, it might reassure some people that Esperanza's bureaucracy will only live on in the historical record."

OK? I think we've all said our bits and are at least aware of the arguments on both sides. So let's leave the tidying up to be done, and then revisit it in a month to look at what to do with the page histories. OK? Carcharoth 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

COOL it! =) By the time a month passes, everyone would have forgotten this issue. I think that we need to solve these problems right here, right now! The history of Esperanza is very important, but it was deleted by admins! Who knew that admins can't read or follow the results of an MfD? I feel like posting a WP:DRV very soon--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But Ed, if everyone will have forgotten this issue in a month anyways, then why not just start forgetting it now? There isn't anything else to do. Wikipedia:Esperanza is here to make sure we don't repeat history's mistakes. Page histories aren't of any use. Lets just move on. Come write an encyclopedia. Picaroon 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I won't have forgotten in a month's time. I'll remind you if you want. :-) Carcharoth 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the argument goes that people seem to be applying WP:DENY to Esperanza, which insults the ideals underlying Esperanza (no matter how wrong it went). There is no reason to not have the page history available, and I think that there will be more support for undeleting the page history in a month's time. I do want to start a debate on the general need to historicalise Wikipedia pages, instead of deleting, and get community consensus to make a guideline to that effect, but I'm not sure whether to wait until the Esperanza issues have been resolved. Carcharoth 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I still strongly feel the historical record should be kept, but this has nothing to do with what Esperanza actually was. When proposed policies fail, do we delete all record of it, except for one comment like "Someone proposed a policy to do X, and it was rejected"? Or do we leave the failed proposal there in the records, along with all the discussions pertaining to it? You simply don't burn all the evidence after a trial's complete. And you don't burn books because you disagree with their contents.

However, I'm willing to wait a while just so people can stop and consider this as the purely historical issue it is. Since the MfD, we've seen more arguments on exactly how Esperanza failed, and we've also seen the Birthday Commitee and Concordia nominated for deletion. It doesn't necessarily have to be a month, but we can't look at this as a historical issue until all the other arguments die down. Quack 688 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Take it sloooowly. I don't think rushing to deletion review will get the desired results you want. Historically the more controversial the page is, the less likely it's outcome gets an undeletion. - Mailer Diablo 14:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How would you feel if admins neglected your decisions in an MfD result? Because that's exactly what happened! The histories were never supposed to be deleted! Also see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my voice to preserving the full histoy of Esperanza. No attempt is being made to recreate Esperanza, and unless that happens the deletion is a case of prior restraint a form of censorship (which we are not). There is also a worry that we are failing to WP:AGF, to delete details of members shows no trust in our community to abide by the MfD. There are many reasons to preserve the full history, I feel that the participants list and the members of the council are important records, in the spirit of hope and community which esperanze tried to establish, it is important to recognise the people who put a lot of work into the project, and loose some of the rhetoric here that Esperanza was bad, bad, bad. Like any endeavour there are positive sides and negative side. On wikiProject mathematics we have started to list the former members of the project, and I feel that it is an important principle of any community to remember the people that tried. There are further notes we should take from world history in that history tends to be written by the victors, and this is a problem many of us will have encountered as we strive for NPOV in the main space articles. We should treat the history of wikipedia with the same principles that as our main articles, retaining history is important for verifiability, how do I know that the summary essay is NPOV without a full record of past events? I can also see a situation in the future where someone may want to write a fuller detailed history of wikipedia, may be for a books al-la microserfs or maybe a PhD thesis examining online communities, for these the author would require a much more detailed account of the history of one of the major parts in wikipedias history. WP:CRYSTAL says that we cannot predict future events and we cannot predict that at some point in the future someone will not need this information. --Salix alba (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some editors changed the Wikipedia talk:Esperanza page to indicate that, based on an agreement on this page, no discussion of Esperanza should take place for a month. I have removed that text on the grounds that the above discussion shows no evidence of a consensus or agreement to that effect. If nothing else, I object to the "gag rule" and so you don't have a consensus without a straw vote. I don't see the value of the "gag rule" and one month is too long anyway. If you had asked for 24 hours or 48 hours cooling off period, I might not have objected quite so strenuously.

Look, if you don't want to discuss Esperanza, then don't. That's your prerogative. However, I object strenuously to anybody's attempt to gag me or any other good faith editor. Not that I personally had that much that I wanted to say about Esperanza. I just see this "gag rule" as a strong-arm tactic to stifle dissent and I won't abide by it.

--Richard 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some examples of Wikipedia history

• Wikipedia:History_of_Wikipedian_processes_and_people
• Wikipedia:Historic_debates

Anyone want to add Esperanza and the MfD debates there? Carcharoth 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Esperanza Spirit

Esperanza is not a mere organisation that simply ends once its governance and membership rolls are terminated. It is a spirit that should live on in every editor, one of us, whether we were once a member or not. Many of its programs have lived on to carry on this ideal, and continue to strengthen the community to build a better encyclopedia. True Esperanzans take heart, look beyond, and will continue to bring hope to those who are in need, whether this organisation has ever existed in the first place. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Deletion review posted on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)