< August 30	Deletion review archives: 2008 August	September 1 >

31 August 2008

Wikipedia:Esperanza – Closed per WP:SNOW. Editors that want to continue discussing this issue are encouraged to do so at the Village Pump. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Esperanza (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (restore \| cache \| MfD) Since the deactivation of Esperanza, Wikipedia has become a colder, nastier place. Acrimonious editorial conflict, such as that described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines is commonplace, while even respected administrators are accused of abusive sockpuppetry, forming the basis for nasty mud-slinging matches along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar. If good-faith contributors were encouraged to socialize, if we knew each other as people, we might have a far more harmonious editorial environment. While supporters of deactivation cited our policy that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, the policy is intended to prevent the usage of Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of social networking, not to preclude socialization among genuine contributors, with its attendant salutary effects in terms of reduced editorial conflict. Our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy was also cited, as Esperanza had a central organizational structure. Yet the application of the policy was itself ironically bureaucratic, as the literal prohibition of all structural hierarchy would eliminate the Arbitration Committee, etc. Given the time that has passed since Esperanza’s deactivation, there may be a consensus to reinstate it. Though Esperanza was often derided as a “group hug” organization, in comparison to a group edit war, a group hug doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Bah--start over with a new and much simpler project for the same purpose, if one is really needed. Esperanza was noble in intent at the start but had devolved to little but elections and instructions by the end. Chick Bowen 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] While the above makes a case for the existence of Esperanza (or a similar organization) I don't see that undeletion is needed here. The old content is either out of date or decidedly unhelpful. Just be bold and start a group. If it's successful, then propose moving it to the old Esperanza page. There's no point in resurrecting old discussions or member lists and still less the roundly criticized aspects of Esperanza like the Advisory Council. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] There are no deleted revisions there, and I highly doubt DRV is a good place to discuss the closure of the MfD itself, as a wider consensus would likely be needed to go anywhere on restarting Esperanza itself. Suggest a speedy close and seek another forum. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] No We do not need to bring this back. MBisanz ^talk 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, what Chick Bowen said. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Let's not. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment -- I think that there is a clear consensus here against the wholesale reactivation of Esperanza, as the nominator invites us to do. This discussion would nonetheless be useful if it were to articulate some consensus as to the permissibility of a successor organization without ostensibly bureaucratic elements "like the Advisory Council" -- that is, if it were to answer the question of whether a project to promote social interaction between editors would be viewed as a valuable community-building resource, or a frivolous waste of server bandwidth. Since servers and internet access are cheap to the extent of the usage contemplated here, and since the community-building which might reasonably be expected would be quite valuable, I am inclined to support the former view. John254 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment doesn't appear to be a DRV issue, there doesn't appear to be any process issues, this isn't an article so we can't easily judge if "additions" make it overcome the reasons for initial deletion, nor do I think we should be judge of what the broader community believes is useful. As above sounds better to try and propose something new even if it does overlap then resurect something with in many people's eyes a tranished image. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Either no club or start anew. EA was fundamentally broken and it needed to be eliminated. --harej 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] I've been around before, during, and after Esperanza, and I can attest to the fact that Esperanza not only improved nothing, but they evolved as an exclusive subculture at odds with the rest of the website. --harej 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment in responce to John's question. While I think there is clear-cut consensus against the wholesale revival of Esperanza, I am not sure about the formation of a new group with the laudable goal of promoting wiki-love. Therefore what follows is my personal opinion. I firmly believe that a new or revived group would be "a frivolous waste of server bandwidth" both because it is highly tangential to the encyclopedic buidling purpose of Wikipedia and because it is unlikely to work. Experience with Esperanza has shown that it is much easier and more natural for such a group to evolve into an exclusive and self-promoting clique than a genuine force for the good of the project as a whole. I also believe that the claim that the demise of Esperanza is linked in any way to the current WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues is specious. Instead the problem comes from the increased abuse of Wikipedia sp spammers and POV pushers and the understandable, but unfortunate, effect this has on many long time editors. That said, I don't doubt the good faith of either Kristen Eriksen or those involved in the original creation of Esperana, nor do I wish to minimize the importance of good faith and civility amoung Wikipedians. I simply believe that Esperanza, or an organization similarlyu designed primarily to promote comraderie amoung its members, has no realistic potential of furthering its stated goals, important and valubale as those are. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] --NE2 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Consensus was only to shut down EA as it was, and it wasn't a ban on the concept. DRV is unneeded if you wish to attempt something similar. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] No. Advice to nominator: Find something better to do with your time than give people incentive to find out who you're a sock of. —Giggy 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] No The close was primarily on the basis of "projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical" I think that if anything , the consensus against closed projects is considerably greater now. We've had dramatic further examples of the problems caused by cabals and the like, or things that appear to be such. DGG (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] no' per DGG. Moreover, to be very clear as someone who was around when Esperanza was here: things could get pretty cold and nasty then too. Things might be colder and nastier now or not. I don't know. But I severely doubt the presence or absence of Esperanza has anything to do with that. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose recreating Esperanza as it was, as noted by most commenting here. Please see Wikipedia talk:Esperanza for some discussions regarding reviving the name "Esperanza" for something a bit more basic (also noted by others above). - jc37 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Close I already closed this but was reverted. There si no point to this discussion and the nominator is clearly a sockpuppet having a nice troll at our expense. To avoid drama I'm not reclosing it myself but I still think this should be closed now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure where the sockpuppet accusation came from, but I still believe this is a nice, calm, and healthy discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Esperanza – Closed per WP:SNOW. Editors that want to continue discussing this issue are encouraged to do so at the Village Pump. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Since the deactivation of Esperanza, Wikipedia has become a colder, nastier place. Acrimonious editorial conflict, such as that described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines is commonplace, while even respected administrators are accused of abusive sockpuppetry, forming the basis for nasty mud-slinging matches along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar. If good-faith contributors were encouraged to socialize, if we knew each other as people, we might have a far more harmonious editorial environment. While supporters of deactivation cited our policy that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, the policy is intended to prevent the usage of Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of social networking, not to preclude socialization among genuine contributors, with its attendant salutary effects in terms of reduced editorial conflict. Our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy was also cited, as Esperanza had a central organizational structure. Yet the application of the policy was itself ironically bureaucratic, as the literal prohibition of all structural hierarchy would eliminate the Arbitration Committee, etc. Given the time that has passed since Esperanza’s deactivation, there may be a consensus to reinstate it. Though Esperanza was often derided as a “group hug” organization, in comparison to a group edit war, a group hug doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah--start over with a new and much simpler project for the same purpose, if one is really needed. Esperanza was noble in intent at the start but had devolved to little but elections and instructions by the end. Chick Bowen 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the above makes a case for the existence of Esperanza (or a similar organization) I don't see that undeletion is needed here. The old content is either out of date or decidedly unhelpful. Just be bold and start a group. If it's successful, then propose moving it to the old Esperanza page. There's no point in resurrecting old discussions or member lists and still less the roundly criticized aspects of Esperanza like the Advisory Council. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no deleted revisions there, and I highly doubt DRV is a good place to discuss the closure of the MfD itself, as a wider consensus would likely be needed to go anywhere on restarting Esperanza itself. Suggest a speedy close and seek another forum. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No We do not need to bring this back. MBisanz ^talk 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what Chick Bowen said. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think that there is a clear consensus here against the wholesale reactivation of Esperanza, as the nominator invites us to do. This discussion would nonetheless be useful if it were to articulate some consensus as to the permissibility of a successor organization without ostensibly bureaucratic elements "like the Advisory Council" -- that is, if it were to answer the question of whether a project to promote social interaction between editors would be viewed as a valuable community-building resource, or a frivolous waste of server bandwidth. Since servers and internet access are cheap to the extent of the usage contemplated here, and since the community-building which might reasonably be expected would be quite valuable, I am inclined to support the former view. John254 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doesn't appear to be a DRV issue, there doesn't appear to be any process issues, this isn't an article so we can't easily judge if "additions" make it overcome the reasons for initial deletion, nor do I think we should be judge of what the broader community believes is useful. As above sounds better to try and propose something new even if it does overlap then resurect something with in many people's eyes a tranished image. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either no club or start anew. EA was fundamentally broken and it needed to be eliminated. --harej 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been around before, during, and after Esperanza, and I can attest to the fact that Esperanza not only improved nothing, but they evolved as an exclusive subculture at odds with the rest of the website. --harej 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in responce to John's question. While I think there is clear-cut consensus against the wholesale revival of Esperanza, I am not sure about the formation of a new group with the laudable goal of promoting wiki-love. Therefore what follows is my personal opinion. I firmly believe that a new or revived group would be "a frivolous waste of server bandwidth" both because it is highly tangential to the encyclopedic buidling purpose of Wikipedia and because it is unlikely to work. Experience with Esperanza has shown that it is much easier and more natural for such a group to evolve into an exclusive and self-promoting clique than a genuine force for the good of the project as a whole. I also believe that the claim that the demise of Esperanza is linked in any way to the current WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues is specious. Instead the problem comes from the increased abuse of Wikipedia sp spammers and POV pushers and the understandable, but unfortunate, effect this has on many long time editors. That said, I don't doubt the good faith of either Kristen Eriksen or those involved in the original creation of Esperana, nor do I wish to minimize the importance of good faith and civility amoung Wikipedians. I simply believe that Esperanza, or an organization similarlyu designed primarily to promote comraderie amoung its members, has no realistic potential of furthering its stated goals, important and valubale as those are. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--NE2 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus was only to shut down EA as it was, and it wasn't a ban on the concept. DRV is unneeded if you wish to attempt something similar. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Advice to nominator: Find something better to do with your time than give people incentive to find out who you're a sock of. —Giggy 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No The close was primarily on the basis of "projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical" I think that if anything , the consensus against closed projects is considerably greater now. We've had dramatic further examples of the problems caused by cabals and the like, or things that appear to be such. DGG (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no' per DGG. Moreover, to be very clear as someone who was around when Esperanza was here: things could get pretty cold and nasty then too. Things might be colder and nastier now or not. I don't know. But I severely doubt the presence or absence of Esperanza has anything to do with that. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose recreating Esperanza as it was, as noted by most commenting here. Please see Wikipedia talk:Esperanza for some discussions regarding reviving the name "Esperanza" for something a bit more basic (also noted by others above). - jc37 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close I already closed this but was reverted. There si no point to this discussion and the nominator is clearly a sockpuppet having a nice troll at our expense. To avoid drama I'm not reclosing it myself but I still think this should be closed now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure where the sockpuppet accusation came from, but I still believe this is a nice, calm, and healthy discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.