Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation

message: I would like the version of the article as written by Moreschi and slightly modified by me to remain as it stands and to be modified no further. I have previously repeatedly argued that the version originally written on the day Esperanza was deactivated is accurate, comprehensive and unbiased. The criticism is there because it is on that basis that Esperanza was shut down - I have comprehensively explained the specific wording of that part on Ryan Postlethwaite's page. I oppose any attempts to change the essay, under whatever pretence, that make it seem like Esperanza was a good, functioning organization that just happened to be shut down one day, or that the criticism and praise of Esperanza were equally weighted, because both perpectives are categorically untrue and misleading to any new Wikipedians who see this page. Esperanza had critical, fundamental flaws that are well and concisely documented in the essay. This is not to say that I wish the entire essay to damn Esperanza, and indeed it does not. Its introductory section does a highly satisfactory assement of what Esperanza's goals were, and what programs it created to pursue them. The middle section explains the history of the first MfD and provides background of the governance of the organization, as well as what measures were taken to overhaul Esperanza. The final section explains why Esperanza was ended for good, listing the most pertinent critcisms that are fundamental to explain its end and to help later editors avoid the same pitfalls in their organizations. I find it likely that this essay has helped the AMA to fully understand what would have happened had they not proposed sweeping reform.
As I mentioned before, I have argued for the past three months that the January 2 version of the essay was the most accurate and helpful to those trying to understand the organization. It is also the version supported by almost all editors to this page, and I have been trying very hard to ensure that that consensus is followed. Ed's proposed versions (and we are up to four so far) that he has touted on the VP and elsewhere are consistently rejected and/or ignored by the community, so I feel I am vindicated in this view. I accepted Moreschi's version, however, which after some editing, I felt fulfilled the same principles as I have outlined above. I am genuinely keen to cease this fruitless dispute, but am not interested in giving in to historical revisionism for the sake of an easy life. Ed seems incapable of making up his own mind on what he wants beyond it has to make Esperanza look good, his edits to the essay have been consistently without merit, consideration for the future, or support from other editors, and it is on that basis that I propose the essay as it stands here which in its fundamentals is no different from the original version supported by most editors, but which was a genuine attempt on editors' parts to compromise with Ed (who, still not satisfied, reverted it repeatedly and was blocked), even though his edits to the page have had no support at all.
In short, I want this one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Dev920|Dev920]]

message: I am sure that the intelligent people reading this page have already worked out what is weak and flawed about Ed's various ad hominems, straw man arguments and attempts to make policy fit his desires. As I have also already written extremely lengthy statements, both here and on Ryan's page, refuting all of Ed's claims previously, I would like to limit myself to some broad comments on my attitude to community. 
I love community. I think community is an absolutely fantastic thing that brings people together and uplifts them. Man was not meant to be alone. But community, to me and I would imagine most normal people, cannot be forced. You cannot put ten people in a room and expect them all to instantly bond, however many little badges you give to them and order them to be a community. It doesn't work like that. Successful, cohesive communities come together naturally and quickly. Bonds have to be forged in the fires of editing hell. You get into a dispute, people support you, you then keep an eye for them and help them them out when you can, they do the same. You leave silly in-jokes on their page when you see them around, you offer them support when they're having a rough time. Multiply by ten and throw in a common cause, and you have a community that genuinely cares about the welfare of each other. If I'm feeling down, I can guarantee someone on Wikipedia will email me to see how I am. That's community, and that's meaningful. 
But if someone had reported me to Esperanza Alerts and I was deluged with emails from people who have no idea who I am who just want to score brownie points with themselves, God, or whatever, why would I feel any better then? Is this community? Is it community to spread barnstars around like water? Every barnstar I have, there's a story behind it, a relationship that I treasure: I wouldn't trade the Elaragirl Barnstar of Defiance for a hundred meaningless barnstars thrown out by some immature users looking to fulfil their quota. This isn't community. Esperanza was not the community, and never was the community that exists on Wikipedia. It was a nice idea, the idea that people needed to be nicer to each other, that morphed into a top down organisation trying to impose its standards of fluffiness on the rest of us who are trying to do our goddamn hobby.
So, while I love the idea of community, the idea of trying to create a community for the sake of it fill me with utter horror. We cannot lose sight of the fact that Wikiepdia is an encyclopedia, and we are not here to network, we are here to edit it. Therefore it is through editing that community should be formed, and any program or organisation that is not related to that goal should be destroyed. As Ed has pointed out, I am the Coordinator of WikiProject LGBT studies, and partly through my efforts there we have formed a close community that looks out for each other, that watchlists each other's articles, that swoops onto AN/I when someone is being harrassed. Maybe this is a cabal, as we have been accused of being - but to me, I simply see it as online friendship. I would certainly go much further out of my way for say, WJBscribe or Jeffpw, then I ever will for Ed. I'm sure that everyone here has had that experience. So why do we need an organisation to fake what occurs naturally?
I love Wikipedia, and I love what it can do, and I love its premise. Long after I have been driven off, my edits will remain, and Wikipedia will live on. The ever changing Wikipedia-wide community, that constantly loses editors and gains new ones, will continue. One of the things I noticed about the demise of Esperanza, beyond a sudden surge of interest in Concordia, was that nothing happened. The utter apocalyptic self-destruction of the Wikipedia community that Esperanzans had predicted didn't happen. People continued to edit, makes friends and argue as if Esperanza had never happened. There was no massive rise in vandalism levels, in incivility, or anything one would expect if people felt they no longer belonged to our community. This, more than anything tells me what I need to know about how successful Esperanza was in its efforts to force people to feel they belonged. You cannot control humanity, it's like herding really perverse, bloody-minded cats. Community is important - but telling people community is important, that they need to feel like they belong to it, that they need to form a community and to participate in it... well, it's a stupid thing to suggest, to be frank. People will connect, bond, love and hate on Wikipedia with or without encouragement: it's human nature. Let accept that, go forth, and edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response by Dev920 

message: I would like my compromise version to stick, seeing as I think that works well. I think Ed's behaviour here has gone beyond AGF: he appears purely interested in reworking this essay to make it appear as though another organisation like Esperanza could, potentially, work in the future. That does not reflect community consensus and should not be permitted. This is pretty accurate. Ed's disruption must stop. Moreschi  Want some help? Ask! 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Moreschi 

message: This is a rather obvious case of a consensus with a lone dissenter. I don't think page protection is needed, just tell the dissenter that he'll be blocked if he does that again (i.e. page-ban). Ignoring consensus is disruptive. >Radiant< 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Radiant 

message: The essay about Esperanza was stable for about a month, until Ed started to change it. While I believe that he is acting in good faith, I also think that by this point, months after the closure of Esperanza, his continuing attempts to tweak the essay are only having a disruptive effect. --Kyoko 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Kyoko|Kyoko]] 

message: I suggest keeping the early January text (or the Moreschi compromise, whichever you prefer), and sticking on some statement at the end, like "Despite Esperanza's ultimate fate, the former members of Esperanza, like all Wikipedians, hope that people from all backgrounds can successfully work together to build the encyclopedia."
I hope that a "mission statement" like that will address Ed's desire to talk about community, while not slanting the essay towards an elegy to Esperanza. --Kyoko 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Moreschi compromise, I like it! Is that the one that accompanies the end of the dispute with an aria da capo? To me, that sounds fine. Anything to end the wrangling. Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Because it's not the former members, it's just Ed. And people who were once known as members of Esperanza should no longer be idenitifed as such - they are Wikipedians, like the rest of us. And we shouldn't be hoping, we should be out there doing it - and indeed, most Wikipedians are, so it's a moot point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly I was trying to get something that Ed would be willing to accept. I was personally happy with the essay without his various tweaks. --Kyoko 16:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you're trying to broker a compromise, but you have to wonder, why do you need to compromise with one person when everyone else thinks the page as it stands, or stood before Moreschi's edits, is fine? And when I say everyone, I mean me, you, Moreschi, Radiant, Bibliomaniac15, Hiding, Steel359, and Physicq210, and those are just the people who commented in the past few days. Personally, I think we should either leave this page protected indefinitely or propose a page ban for Ed, as he's the only one driving this. If he stopped, that essay would, in all probability, never be edited again. My "edit warring" has consisted solely of maintaining the essay as the consensus version - Ed stops trying to change it, I have no reason to edit it. I certainly don't want to. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you never proved that the essay reflects community consensus before. Had you done so, I might have stopped. Also, you have ignored all of my reasons for editing the essay, which led me to think that you have repeated reverted multiple edits just so that you can maintain the version that you want.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah. But what appears to have escaped you, Ed, is that the version I want is supported by everyone else, and that is in fact why I want that version. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you never actually provided the evidence for it...this is mere speculation. In our first discussion on the Village Pump, I established that six editors were in favor of changing the essay in some form. You, however, with Hiding, still refused to recognize this desire to edit the page. You have never actually proven anything in this mediation; you say that you have talked about these issues with Ryan, the mediator in this mediation. But have you actually provided diifs and links to that effect? Have you actually ever responded to my concerns about the MfD comments with valid reasons? No, you don't have a single thing to back your case up: no conflict log, no supporting evidence, nothing...--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal by [[User:Kyoko|Kyoko]] 

message: This is stupid. Esperanza has been deduced to an essay and there's still fighting? Let Esperanza die already! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it is because of your proposal that this essay was written the first place instead of deleting it all like I originally proposed, you bear some responsibility for what has happened, so please don't act like you've only just walked in on this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The essay at its current form does not reflect various consensuses from the MfD. For example, it is not limited to EA's fate, history, and philosophy. In order to verify the essay's reliability, we must add diffs or discussions to back it up.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 23:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was responsible for coming up with the idea that there should be an essay, and I am responsible for the original essay itself. The idea of the essay is a historical reminder to those who were not around during Esperanza on what Esperanza was about and why it was deleted; it would then serve as a warning against overly-bureaucratic organizations on Wikipedia. I did not anticipate people edit warring over the essay; the essay is not supposed to be a big deal. At this point, I am interested in cutting down the essay to a few sentences -- something so minimal, no one could disagree. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Messedrocker