Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza

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

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *I have simply expressed my opinion on the the matter, and will not create said section.  Dar-Ape 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: What, even after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school? Don't think so myself. Moreschi  Deletion! 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could also be merged into WP:ADOPT. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 14:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Moving programs off Esperanza

message: 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)
replies: text: lol. Just H 03:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fascinating. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Newsletter on what? Saying what? Moreschi  Deletion! 14:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Newsletter

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

text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Brief review 

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 blahedits 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reopen? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "History" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, too used to FACs... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that means It's okay if this is moved? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 02:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  move? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need to fix noinclude tag 

message: *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)
thread_title: Calendar

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor comment 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Some examples of Wikipedia history 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Esperanza Spirit 

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