Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza

Wikipedia:Esperanza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-nomination from Moreschi

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

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

Co-nomination from Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

...until there were none

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

Discussion Subsection 1

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

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

I guess you're right...I'm a little bit too concerned about all of the red-links that will pop up across Wikipedia--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete. Hear hear, Dev! One of the best essays I've seen in quite some time. A much more thorough nomination than last time, and preempts many arguments. Per everything in your nomination which ultimately echoes my exact feelings, I vote to delete. I don't know about the merits of historically tagging, but I wouldn't be opposed to it, so long as Esperanza is taken off-line, so to speak. DoomsDay349 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's a failed project - there is nothing much of any value, at the least move it to the WikiProject space and tag as historical. (Side note: The nominator deserves a pint for the exhaustive and well written nomination.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete :(- It seems like everyones given up at fixing Esperanza. It was MFD'd by a former member. Esperanza has stopped with the community aspect. I don't see anything that can be moved. I'm taking the green out of my sig and deleting my subpage. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but I'd encourage the "co-ordinators" of various programs in Esperanza to userfy them (or just move them over to WP: space) and keep the particularly useful ones running (admin coaching, I've have to say (being a coach)). I don't feel that any of the projects under ESP need the pointless bureaucracy that it brings. I'll also be removing the green from my sig, like TeckWiz. Martinp23 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC) And kudos on the excellent nom!
• (edit conflict x7)Delete. Everything else can go, but admin coaching seems to be one of the few beneficial parts of the whole Esperanza concept. I suggest we move this to some other page? Userfy? Nishkid64 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfying doesn't seem like the right solution...maybe it could be a subpage of WP:RFA? DoomsDay349 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Kill with Fire and Brimstone - (edit conflict) This project is reduced to squabbling amongst itself, whining, and complaining. PTO 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

The problem, you will always have well-meaning but misguided users trying to start it up again exactly as it was before. I really don't think a historical tag, or the messedrocker solution, is a good idea - it'll just lead to more problems down the line. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem with it. Best to smash delete rip maim kill destroy burn with fire and brimstone delete. If we ever really need to restore it, admins can access the page history. DoomsDay349 22:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the continued existence of the pages will detatch some of the romanticism from restarting Esperanza by provided a concrete record of why it failed and act to make recreation less likely. Dar-Ape 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Going along with this idea for a moment - to hide the contents of the old subpages from non admins, we cold delete them and create redirects in place (which would then be protected). I have a feeling this goes against MessedRocker's original idea, but I'm throwing it in anyway. I'd also like to see the main ESP page deleted and a short piece of info provided in place, which would then be protected (again, hiding past revisions from users). Hopefully this would take away some of the cannon fodder for those who may wish to recreate ESP in the future, yet avoid nasty redlinks. Martinp23 23:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that the EA pages should be saved so that future users can see why Esperanza failed and not restart Esperanza again, but so that future users can see why Esperanza failed and not create any organization that is basically the same, regardless of a new name. The underlying chemistry of the group was what caused the problems, and the equation will not be different with a new name and new members. Only if the pages are saved can we ensure that the same equation will not be tried again. I endorse the "Messedrocker Solution." Dar-Ape 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the peace! frummer 07:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Esperanza was a hive for on wiki drama. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Subsection 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stress alerts are no longer used, admin coaching, as mentioned above, is going to be moved, and the calendar will no doubt by taken over by the Birthday Committee if Esperanza is deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The stress alerts are used on a nearly daily basis, and the nom does say all subpages except the smilies. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• Keep - there are a few specific points I'd like to address.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The programs like the Coffee Lounge are well and truly gone - does anyone have specific complaints about the remaining projects? If so, then discuss that project, or nominate it for deletion.

If there are users who are behaving inappropriately, deal with those users. You mentioned the namecalling in the last MfD - “obsessive nerds”, “geek”s, “stark impersonal monolithic bureaucracy”, “A soulless coldhearted group of people”, “emotionless editor”s, “made of stone”, “have no feelings”, “robots”, etc. Have there been instances of that since the last MfD? If so, deal directly with the users who behave like that.

On the other hand, there are some useful programs that originated from Esperanza, and there are some Esperanzans who uphold its ideals, and carry themselves with dignity. When you have an object that does some good things, and some bad, it needs to be fixed. It doesn't deserve a "smash delete rip maim kill destroy burn with fire and brimstone delete". Quack 688 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To be a deletionist or inclusionist, you simply call yourself one. It's a philosophy, like soemone calling themselves conservative or liberal. To be "Esperanzan", one needs to be a member of Esperanza, and that's the problem. No-one calls themselve a MilHistan, because we are all Wikipedians, just with different interests. The namecalling was taken not just from the MfD, I took them from the Overhaul pages as well, after the MfD. One was even made by a council member. Your argument, Quack, is that one cannot blame the organisation for some bad eggs, or some bad projects, but the fact is that those bad eggs picked up their attitude from Esperanza, because they can't have found it anywhere in the rest of Wikipedia. And if we cannot blame the organisation for anything it creates, what can we credit it for? Either Esperanza is responsible from everything that flows from it, or it is an ideal only to be invoked by the wishful thinking. We tried reform, and it didn't work. Esperanza tried discussing and developing its goals, and it got nowhere. Let those Esperanzans who carry themselves with dignity, carry themselves with diginity as Wikipedians, and let Esperanza rest in peace. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

-To be "Esperanzan", one needs to be a member of Esperanza, and that's the problem.

Agreed. We need to change what being "Esperanzan" means. How about this:

Esperanza is a philosophy of XYZ.

Here are a few Wikipedia programs that try to implement the ideals of XYZ.

If you like the ideals of XYZ, jump in and work on a few of these programs.

If you really like the ideals of XYZ, you can add yourself to a list of editors, publicly stating that you support this philosophy.

-Your argument, Quack, is that one cannot blame the organisation for some bad eggs, or some bad projects, but the fact is that those bad eggs picked up their attitude from Esperanza

I don't see how you can prove that claim. Were they bad eggs who joined Esperanza, or good people who got "converted" into bad eggs after they joined? Also, who do you blame for the bad eggs on Wikipedia who have nothing to do with Esperanza? Did they pick up their attitude from Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia itself bear the responsibility for them behaving badly?

-if we cannot blame the organisation for anything it creates, what can we credit it for?

Why not its programs? If a program's useless, delete it. If it's growing, keep it as an Esperanzan "work in progress". If it's widely accepted by the community, then Esperanza's done its job. So move it off Esperanza, find another good community-oriented project that needs work, and improve it. Quack 688 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"We need to change what being "Esperanzan" means." Why? What matters on Wikipedia is not what a project's name means, but what it is perceived to mean. Look at what happened when Concordia was called Community Justice. Esperanza as a philosophy is simply another attempt to monopolise - because ultimately, the message of Esperanza was "Be nice", and that message is spread and lived by thousands more non-Esperanzans than Esperanzans. My point about bad eggs is that I have never, ever, seen anyone outside Esperanza advocate giving up our right to discuss and reach consensus, in favour of an elected council. Esperanza gave them those ideas, and that is dangerous. That's what I mean. Your point about the programs is exactly what I originally proposed at the overhaul, but, like I said above, if Esperanza gets to take the credit for the successful programs, it has to take the fall for the bad ones. There have been many more bad ones than good, the good ones have been moved off Esperanza anyway, and there's been something of a crisis of imagination since. The good side of Esperanza has self-destructed, and so it needs to deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving a program off Esperanza is no reason to delete Esperanza - if anything, it adds to Esperanza's credibility. It shows that Esperanza has managed to create a program that has received wipespread community support, and can be promoted from an Esperanzan program to a Wikipedia-wide program. All Esperanza needs to be is a "breeding ground" for community projects. Good ones grow up and move out. Bad ones get dismantled.

Have a look at the core ideas expressed in Esperanza's FAQ. You say it's wrong for a group to claim a monopoly on those ideals - to set themselves up as a moral authority - a "Vatican of Positive Values", for lack of a better term? I totally agree. But is it wrong for points like those to be published somewhere on Wikipedia? Are those ideas valid? Or should that FAQ be deleted along with Esperanza?

I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you believe it's wrong for any group based on community-building and kindness to exist, or is this MfD about Esperanza's specific history? If this is about Esperanza's specific history, or, as you say, "what Esperanza is perceived to mean", fine. The group might end up as deleted or tagged historical. But that shouldn't be used as a precedent to speedy-delete any effort by its former members to start again from scratch, with the same community-building ideals. Quack 688 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In my personal view, this is about any group that attempts to use bureaucracy and exclusion as methods to improve the community. -- SCZenz 02:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

On the issue of Esperanza itself, I have been following the reforms and have been rather disappointed on the constant debates about the charter and the incessant proposals for more bureaucracy and complicated governance that would seem to detract from what Esperanza should be. I was also quite disappointed that my proposal to get rid of the membership list and therefore get rid of the perception of cliqueness was not supported by as many as I had hoped. Esperanza had its time, but now I'm afraid that time has passed. It no longer seems to reflect what wikipedia is in its approach and has gone from something that was at first quite popular to something that many would not want to be associated with.  YDAM TALK 00:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion Subsection 3

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

This came up once I think. If someone is stressed about the encyclopedia, they should leave. Keeping someone here will give them more stress, possibly causing them to do horrible things, such as suicide attempts. Do you want someone to kill themselves because they couldn't take Wikipedia anymore? TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is support for the program, I see no reason why it should not be proposed as a separate project in the Wikipedia: namespace. Possibly even started a project of the Kindness Campaign, maybe? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It may seem crass, but Wikipedia isn't here to make people feel good; it is here to be an encyclopedia. Stress Alerts should be deleted along with the other arms of Esperanza because of this plain fact. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't used the Stress Alerts page but it could be preserved elsewhere (perhaps userfied) if people wish. Editors I respect have found it useful, not just for posting "I'm stressed," but to specifically describe the reasons for their wikistress and to obtain concrete suggestions for dealing with the problems. To TeckWiz's point, of course you are right, but there are a lot of wikistressful situations that fall well short of making one feel suicidal! (No !vote and no opinion on any other aspect.) Newyorkbrad 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I am very sad to say this, as a former member of Esperanza myself, but I think it is time to take Esperanza out to pasture. It had potential that failed to materialize, even after years and many, many, second chances. I even invested a significant amount of my time in the overhaul process earlier this month, but I still do not feel like Esperanza was redeemed, and thus, I think it should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, aye. I'm afraid that I was never convinced that Esperanza wasn't the start of the formation of political (or, perhaps worse, and as turned out, apolitical) parties here, and its time has certainly now passed. James F. (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Having an exclusive club, whether intentionally or as a de facto happening, is not keeping with the Wikipedia ideals of a place where anyone should be able to feel welcome. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Subsection 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Very well said. I like the idea for the page describing Esperenza, so other people don't get the wrong idea about the group or why the pages got deleted. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Aw, thanks. It might even be a happy ending if the Wikipedia:Esperanza page is rewritten as a tribute to organization's ideals, rather than a stark gray {{deletedpage}} template. If Enciclopedia Libre was the "object lesson" that motivated the founding of Esperanza, what will the object lesson imbued in Esperanza's end be? The less obfuscated Esperanza's past is, the better (without going into loads and loads of details, of course). --Gracenotes ^T § 07:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• Delete. Dev's nomination hits the mark exactly; the attempts at reform have been couched not in terms of "how do we make this useful to Wikipedia", but rather in terms of "how do we save this from deletion". The "separate subcommunity" aspect of the organization, its most troublesome aspect, has not been addressed. --Robth^Talk 06:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The MFDs and Overhauls have disrupted Esperanza's ability to provide hope and build community. They have led to the deletion of useful programs and the increasing stress of some valued contributors, who have left Esperanza and Wikipedia as a result. Take a look at Tachikoma's comments about Esperanza on her user page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply If by "harm" you mean "purge the earth of", I think that was rather the point. --tjstrf talk 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the strong arguments of deletion. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm extremely impressed by the depth, sincerity, and accuracy of Dev920's nomination. Esperanza has become a large, unwieldy bureaucracy that does little other than segregate itself from the community. True, it's important to create community...but not in the sense that such a community separates itself. I admire the objectives on which Esperanza was founded, but it seems to have deviated quite far from those goals. I would certainly support further attempts at the development of such an organization, but this one appears to be beyond hope. alphachimp. 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per strong arguments by noms, in this and the previous MfD. —Quiddity 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Admin Coaching section; it is useful and still very much active. Keep Wikipedia:Esperanza/To-Do_List and Stress Alerts. Someone above said these pages aren't being deleted, but the nomination says all sub-pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible, if there is community support, to propose the creation of the program in the Wikipedia: namespace. I am advocating deletion of all pages because not one program has unanimous support as a separate project and thus, if they are to be recreated, they need to establish consensus on their own merits. And the place to do that is a Proposal page, not an MfD. If there's important infrastructure you really need, an admin can get you what you want, but generally speaking, everything has an Esperanza stamp all over it. Best to get rid of all of it and start again, with consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Subsection 5

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

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

If redlinks are really such a problem, I can make a new bot to remove all links to everything in a given list of pages. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That might create more problems than it solves. Ideally, it would be good if there was a way to distinguish between redlinks where a page existed and was later deleted, and redlinks where a page never existed. But, hey, what colour would it be? Green? :-) Of course, if you implement the messedrocker solution, there would be no redlinks and all the page history and contributions history would still be available Carcharoth 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

And who is going to write this essay? How much arguing and debating will simply shift to this essay instead of the council? What would it say anyway? "Be nice"? I really don't think this is a good idea, there's too many what-ifs around it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Did you mean blank and redirect? Delete, recreation, and redirect makes the page history less accessible (admins-only), but avoids redlinks. Blank and redirect avoids redlinks, discourages people from reading the old pages (though the history is still there and diffs can be used to show people what it looked like). Deletion and nothing else, creates redlinks, causes people's contributions to Esperanza to disappear from their contributions list, and means that people can't provide diffs to old discussions. In all three cases, protection prevents people from ressurecting Esperanza. Carcharoth 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

I would have preferred not to know about this—most certainly while it is in progress. Unfortunately, even though I am retired from actively editing Wikipedia I still have regular social interactions with wikipedians, even more so than when I was a regular contributor, and could not avoid hearing about this. Since Esperanza was originally my idea and was originally housed in my user space, I feel somewhat obliged to comment on its end.

I am not surprised by this outcome. Despite the good intentions and great efforts of many wikipedians, Wikipedia has become an increasing uncivil and uncooperative environment, and it is no surprise that Esperanza—as a part of wikipedia—fell pray to this spirit and was unable to change it. Esperanza has failed, and if the community feels that it has become a burden rather than a boon to the encyclopedia then it should be shut down.

Those of you that think this is the end of such things are sadly mistaken, the sense of community here is broken and the factionalism will continue to harden. One needs to look no further than the above; in between the well-reasoned votes one finds votes that take a line of incivility that at once would never have been tolerated here. This unnecessary vitriol has increasing crept into wikipedia, not just about the deletion of Esperanza but in nearly all major policy disagreements and article disputes. There will be other fights, other words, other recriminations, and accusations of attacks that will only grow in their scale so long as this behavior is tolerated and encouraged.

Reading over the previous nomination, I find myself shocked and ashamed by the behavior of many on both sides. Looking over other pages, I find examples of similar behavior. Wikipedia can easily survive without Esperanza, but it cannot survive without civility and the sense of community cooperation that the building of this encyclopedia is founded on. -JCarriker 13:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (No, I never liked or used a green sig)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Subsection 6

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

Since the last MfD, the project has fallen apart. Some users above noted that Esperanza's Overhaul had stalled. That is true. Some of the more influential members (Ed, Natalya, Kyoko, etc.) have left Esperanza as a direct response to the overhaul. The Wikipedia community has made it clear that many of the programs are not acceptable on Wikipedia. As EA has been forced to delete many of its own programs, the projects ability to satisfy its goals are severely limited. I do not think that we (as Esperanzians) should be given another chance to "comply with" Wikipedia regulations, because these regulations only serve to destroy and prevent the possible fulfillment of Esperanza's goals.

Therefore, I grudgingly would support the deletion of EA, but with the placement of a "historical" tag or per the essay idea above. Also, I think that a few of the current programs should be taken out of Esperanza and still used. Although I still think Esperanza could help the Wikipedian community, I think it is more important to keep the programs that have already been created. (If Esperanza is deleted, I would appreciate a little time to be able to move the calendar system out of Esperanza.)

I still believe in the ideals of Esperanza. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  18:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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