Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation

This mediation is about trying to bring closure to Wikipedia:Esperanza once and for all, it seems there has been arguments regarding what to put into the entry on this historical project and it would be best to come to a final agreement about what is best so we can all move on and edit the encyclopedia. Please put your ideas of what you want from the article under your heading. Please note however, after reading through the page numerous times, I am under the impression that the article is stable so please do not suggest massive differences to the page.

Statement by Dev920

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)

Statement by Ed

Hello! This is going to be a very long statement, so be prepared to read for a long amount of time. Save about 5 hours of your time to read this—ha! Just kidding. The main points are bolded, but please read the entire text if you wish to participate in this mediation. Italicized words, phrases, clauses, or sentences are just italicized for emphasis. It doesn’t necessarily signify any importance.

This statement was also prepared on Microsoft Word in my stupid laptop due to the lack of an Internet connection. Also, my laptop tends to skip back a few lines when I type, so don’t blame me if you see some words where they’re not supposed to be. Therefore, there is a likelihood of wiki-formatting errors.

The conflict log that I prepared, since I had a feeling that this was going to happen, is located on User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed. There are several appendices that describe branching discussions. Ongoing discussions, discussions that ended less than 5 days before the posting of this statement, and this mediation are not listed on the conflict log. This is because I’m only logging events after they happened. Any reference that says “note” (example: Note 93} would refer to the edit marked “93”. Because of the stupid way that the editing box works, I cannot start with “1” in each table and appendix. I strongly recommend you to open the conflict log in a separate window, so that you can follow along in the later parts of this statement. If you have any question, comments, concerns, or complains about my ability to create a conflict log, please feel free to send me a message. Thank you!!!

By this time, you might have noticed that I digress too much. But let’s not digress: Moving on!

Basically, what I want is for the essay to:

• emphasize the opinions of editors that Esperanza was a good idea at first, but broke down in the end. Also, I want the essay to not make Esperanza seem like a bad idea, and to encourage future editors to spread a good sense of community.
• stay in check with the closing results of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza (second nomination). I'll get to that in detail later...
• correct any inaccuracies in its factual details.

Esperanza was a great idea at the start; we all know this. When Jcarriker created the organization, a Signpost article was eventually created. Some editors at the time apparently loved the new organization for its goals towards strengthening the community. But then again, we all know that Esperanza became too bureaucratic. Even the first Signpost article listed complaints of bureaucracy! Esperanza was, allegedly, bureaucratic from the beginning! We need to show that Esperanza was, at first, praised as a good idea. This view is supported by the following editors on the second MfD: Merovingian, WaltCip, and Xyrael. In addition, the second Signpost article, located here stated that “Esperanza did have some positive contributions.” The reason I want to show that Esperanza was a great idea at first but then became bad is because future editors need to know that a project dedicated to strengthening the community is still and will be encouraged for as long as Wikipedia is active. The survival of the encyclopedia greatly depends on the underlying community. I know this because of my involvement in WikiProject Foreign relations. Dev herself should realize the importance of community, being the coordinator of WikiProject LGBT studies. Therefore, I feel that despite Esperanza's heavily bureaucratic, exclusionist, (etc) attitude, the concept of community itself should not be degraded.

Please remember that I'm not trying to make Esperanza look in any way “good.” I co-nominated with Dev and Moreschi for a reason. I was against the organization, and only the organization, itself. In no way was I against the goals or ideals of Esperanza. You might not see it, but I can be a really friendly guy in real life. Community is really important to me. Anyway, let’s not digress. IMHO, Dev is presenting a heavily anti-Esperanzian attitude. Her compilation of her anti-Esperanzian comments displays her personal feelings towards the organization. She has clearly been determined to keep Esperanza buried deep within the Earth’s inner core, along with its ideals of compassion, hope, kindness, love, etc. (unfortunately) See Wikipedia:WikiLove for a further explanation of what I feel is important. I don’t intend to attack Dev, but I felt that she has gone too far in her desire to terminate Esperanza in its entirety. She is simply acting stubborn about keeping the essay the way it is.

My arguments that the essay was biased, unduly weighted, etc. were based on the above 2 paragraphs. It just gives too much emphasis on saying that “Esperanza was bad from the beginning to the end”, which is not true!

Therefore, my first proposal for editing the essay (“emphasize the opinions of editors that Esperanza was a good idea at first, but broke down in the end. Also, I want the essay to not make Esperanza seem like a bad idea, and to encourage future editors to spread a good sense of community.”) would be to say that “Esperanza received wide support at first for its commitment to the community through its programs. It was then, however, opposed by an equal number of editors for its bureaucratic, cabal-like, exclusionist qualities.” This proposal is merely a rough sketch of what I want to propose, and I encourage Dev to edit this first proposal if she agrees to it. Dev is also free to make major edits to what the actual sentence is saying (again, if she agrees to this proposal).

My second proposal to edit, which is to ensure that the essay stays “in check with the closing results of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza (second nomination),” is based on the following nomination for deletion review located here. The reason that I think that the essay violates the MfD closure is:

<begin partial quote from second deletion review>

The closing comments on the most recent MfD, which I fully support, stated:

The result of the debate was to decentralize Esperanza. I see this as the only viable way to minimize the pain between all parties involved, and understanding that this MfD will have wider, serious implications for other similiar organisations in future.

What do I mean by decentralization? The one main concern brought up in this MfD is the membership, the structure of this organisation. Its programs are good-intentioned, and they are supposed to be avaliable to any editor on Wikipedia. This is also the cause of the perceived "better than thou" and "cabalism" claimed by members, and the lack of consensus building.

This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similiar fate as Esperanza.

All programs will be migrated to its associated projects and shall be open to every editor on Wikipedia. The existing program pages should be redirected to its new project page rather than Esperanza itself. Tentatively, Admin Coaching to WP:ADOPT as separate program (per request), Stress Alerts as standalone (Wikipedia:Stress alerts), COTM to WP:COTW, Trading Spaces already transferred, and birthday to WP:BDC. They are allowed to survive in their new forms and may be MfD-ed seperately if nessecary.

Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required. Esperanza is too big to be deleted without leaving many red-links and making newcomers wonder. A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page. Its talkpage and archives should be clearly marked that its subsequent discussion is only about the essay only. I do not expect the organisation to revive, but hopefully this result will be something that is progressive and less controversial.

- Mailer Diablo 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The essay on Wikipedia:Esperanza, however, does not fulfill the requirements of the MfD closure, particularly the following sentence: "A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page". The only things to be shown on the Esperanza essay are statements that factually describe Esperanza's history, philosophy, and fate. As I am about to show you, the current version of the essay is in violation of the closing comments of the MfD...

The first paragraphs of the essay say the following:

Esperanza was a Wikipedia project founded on August 12, 2005. Its goals were to support the encyclopedia indirectly by encouraging a sense of community. It was the belief of Esperanza that a friendly, supportive community within Wikipedia would help the encyclopedia by keeping editors happy, productive, and on the project. The name is derived from the Spanish word for "hope," and the original goal was to offer hope for the Wikipedia community and bring it together. When proposing the association, the founder wrote the following:

This particular paragraph describes Esperanza's history, because it describes EA's founding and its original goals. Second paragraph...

Esperanza or Esperanza Association is a proposed association of wikipedians dedicated to strengthening wikipedia's sense of community through establishing a support network for wikipedians in an environment that is often hostile and apathetic. Esperanza takes its name from the Spanish word for hope. We have taken this name the in spirit of offering hope to wikipedians who feel isolated and ignored. Spanish is used in the hope that a segment of the wikipedia community will never again feel so isolated that it breaks away from the community as did a portion of the Spanish wikipedia community did to form Enciclopedia Libre.

This paragraph touches lightly on philosophy and history. The founder was describing his intentions for the organization. Third paragraph...

Towards those goals, Esperanza attempted a number of initiatives, such as:

• A stress alerts page that would alert Esperanza if someone was ill or feeling highly stressed due to issues on Wikipedia or in real life, or if someone left Wikipedia.
• Admin Coaching, where newcomers could get assistance from Wikipedia administrators.
• Reach Out, which provided consoling.
• Tutorial Drive, which aimed to write a series of tutorials for using and editing Wikipedia
• A calendar for members to list their birthday, first-edit day, etc. Esperanza tried to send out birthday wishes to Wikipedians.
• The to-do list.
• Trading Spaces, where Wikipedians could request help for designing their user page.
• The coffee lounge for casual discussion.
• The User page awards for well-designed user pages.
• The Barnstar Brigade which gave out barnstars to users for good work.
• Stressbusters, which investigated the source of wikistress.

Some of these programs survive as independent projects.

This particular section describes Esperanza's history. It talks about what Esperanza attempted to do in order to fulfill its goals. Fourth paragraph...

Esperanza was governed by a charter, which stipulated an Advisory Council with staggered terms, as well as an Administrator General who was selected by the council to lead the project. Amendments to the charter could be made through week-long discussions held on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. This was criticized as being heavily bureaucratic; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

This describes Esperanza history, talking about its bureaucracy. Fifth paragraph...

Esperanza was first nominated for deletion in November 2006. Critics of the group argued that Esperanza distracted people from contributing to the encyclopedia proper by providing an environment for social interaction. Esperanza was also criticized for having regular Council elections, which were seen as nothing more than popularity contests. Following a no consensus result in the first motion to delete Esperanza, the organization engaged in a series of reforms, which resulted in the deletion of the coffee lounge, the user page awards, Stressbusters and the Barnstar Brigade. The group also attempted to promote participation in the article namespace by creating an Esperanza Collaboration of the Month. While most of the reform discussions ultimately reached a consensus, the overhaul discussions related to Esperanza's goals, its charter, its governance, what constitutes membership, and the noticeboard weren't completed.

This paragraph discusses Esperanza's history, since it talks about the first MfD and attempts to reform afterwards. Sixth paragraph...

A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:

• The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza.
• Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior.
• Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.
• The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event.
• Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer.

The first sentence says, "A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion." IMHO this and only this sentence describes either Esperanza's history, philosophy, or fate. (In this case, the sentence describes history, since it talks about the second nomination.) The rest of the paragraph, however, describes arguements during the debate, which does not provide useful information that would adequately inform readers in an unbiased tone. The bullet points represent public opinion, and are not based on factual information. This slightly touches into my second arguement later on, which we'll get to soon. Seventh paragraph...

After long discussion, it was ultimately decided that Esperanza was to be decentralized and disbanded; see above for a list of now-independent projects. Other pages about Esperanza themselves were redirected to this page, which was replaced with the summary above.

This paragraph discusses Esperanza's fate, describing the close of the very same MfD debate we are describing! Eigth paragraph...

More debates followed on various pages in the Wikipedia namespace, including on a deletion review filed to review aspects of the MfD closure. The closing admin declared the consensus to be that the original MfD decision was endorsed.

This describes Esperanza's fate after the closure of the MfD.

As you can see, the sixth paragraph does not comply with the closing decisions of Mailer diablo. The original DRV even declared that his closing comments should be implemented! Now, on to my second arguement in this debate...

The essay in its current version is also in violation of WP:NPOV. I know...I know...WP:NPOV only applies to Wikipedia articles. However, let's take a look at the following comments written by Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, taken from this page.

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

The majority viewpoint is obviously that of the people who voted delete for Esperanza during its MfDs. But what about the other viewpoints during the MfDs, such as those that supported Esperanza or its ideals and goals? Or what about the viewpoints supporting the general idea of a community? Shouldn't we be able to "address the controversy without taking sides"? Let's take a look at the comments on the second MfD by Fang Aili...

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.

There are obviously mixed feelings over this situation. Therefore, I strongly suggest that Wikipedia:Esperanza be edited to reflect the closing remarks on WP:MFD/EA and in the interest of keeping an NPOV.

<end partial quote from second deletion review>

As I have already stated, there was a small dissent among the community during the second MfD. Shouldn’t the essay take that into account? I have also stated that the quotes placed on the paragraph in question on the essay has a biased tone and violates the MfD. The reason I say that the essay is biased is because, again, it makes Esperanza look like it was bad from the beginning to the end, which is wrong! Granted, the arguments that I provided on that second deletion review might not apply; the circumstances have changes, due to the large amount of edits that have occurred since then. However, the sixth paragraph still talks about opinions. The fifth paragraph might be touching a bit on opinion as well, but at least they’re limited to two sentences.

Another issue, which I now see last minute, is the verifiability of all of the statements on the essay. Since Esperanza was so controversial from November to January, there is the likelihood of false or biased statements floating around those eight paragraphs you see on Wikipedia:Esperanza. For example, in this edit, I have removed the statement saying that “Amendments to the charter could be made through week-long discussions held on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza.” This is obviously false; as far as I know, amendments were made by straw poll, not discussion. Therefore, I feel that there is a need to verify that the essay is verifiable due to the presence of reliable sources. You can also consider the proposed attribution policy. Given the fact that no parties other than Wikipedia editors have written about Esperanza, there is probably only a need to link to diffs and discussions.

I have recently added references to my edits, as you can see here. However, Dev is simply not able to accept the fact that my edits are supported as much as hers are as shown in this edit. Dev has never showed that her edits are in the interest of other editors at large—I’ll get to that in further detail later.

Due to the above, I also feel that the essay should be stripped of any opinionated statements ’’unless’’ they can be supported by a reference. Also, the essay’s statements should only be limited to those about Esperanza’s history, philosophy, and fate.

Now, lets move on to the conflict itself. As I said before, the conflict log is on User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed.

Dev and I have been in a slight “disagreement” if you will sometime during the overhauls that took place after the first MfD. This was circa November to December 2006. If you want to look at the discussions that took place during the overhauls, you can go to User:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review; you’ll have to go to the pages prefixed with “Overhaul”. Anyway, it seemed like we were on good terms when I co-nominated with Dev on the second MfD (see User talk:Ed/Archive Jan 2007#Just wanted to say..., User talk:Ed/Archive Jan 2007#Wikismile). We were obviously on different agendas...

The actual conflict began, in my eyes, after the edit made by Quadzilla99 (note 1). Hiding then reverted the edits, which I then reverted, which Dev then reverted. The conflict continued as an edit conflict between Dev and I, (Hiding left) where I was trying to make edits per the reasons above, and Dev kept reverting because she simply had to make Esperanza look like “it was bad from the beginning to the end”, which is wrong. In addition, she objected to attempts made by me to add comments about improving the community here. I have said this before: “Community is important!” We must encourage editors to spread a sense of hope and good cheer; Dev’s actions are stopping these efforts of encouragement.

I have tried to discuss this situation by means of the Village pump (see Appendix A of the conflic log) and the Help Desk (see Appendix C). However, all attempts have failed to produce useful results. Other than Dev and Hiding, only one user, Xoloz, has responded to my request for feedback. I feel disturbed by the fact that people are now saying that the “community” is getting tired of this. The “community” was never involved, and the “community” only chose to intervene just now! How can the “community” have their own opinions now when they haven’t even tried to send comments on the VP and HD earlier???

Dev's continuous reverting until recently shows that she has never had any interest to find a compromise with me, until now. She has always wanted to keep her version of the essay! She ignored the dispute resolution process by:

• Continuous reverting instead of compromising. You can clearly see this on the conflict log. I, however, have by now offered four different compromises.
• Ignoring a proposed truce. See appendix D. The conditions of the truce were as follows:

1. An admin will remove the current timed protection and implement a permanent protection. I will agree not to post of WP:RFPP until we sort this out.
2. We will ignore any past conflicts, discussions, warnings, warrings, personal feelings, etc. I will act as if I never met you before, and vice versa. (well...we can try!)
3. We discuss on neutral ground. (DoomsDay?) You agree not to remove my comments. I will agree to stick to the topic at hand, and will avoid digressing into other topics.
4. If you can convince me that the essay at its current state is acceptable to the general Wikipedian population, (i.e. people that did and did not have affiliation with EA or its debates) I will promise to remove EA from my watchlist and to terminate any interest in the essay.
5. If you cease to discuss with me, revert my actions, etc. I will return to editing Wikipedia:Esperanza, and this "truce" is off.

Dev agreed to fulfilling the terms of the truce within a week. However, a week and a half has passed when I exercised my right to edit Wikipedia:Esperanza again. Note that the last bullet point of the truce said “If you cease to discuss with me, revert my actions, etc. I will return to editing...” My edits were, in fact, allowed according to the truce that Dev agreed to. Nevertheless, Dev's ignorance of the dispute resolution process shows that she is incapable of having a civilized discussion.

In addition, Dev's continuous reverting to a version that she likes, along with prohibiting me from even making the most minor changes to the essay (example:[ http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Esperanza&diff=121812158&oldid=121811257]), shows that Dev is expressing ownership over the essay. This is in violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The editing box clearly states “If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.” WP:OWN also states “If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so.” Dev is also not assuming good faith that I’m trying to help improve the essay, not trying to make Esperanza look good. (I said this earlier...notice how I’m repeating myself???)

In summary, I want the essay to emphasize the importance of community, show that Esperanza was good before, stay in check with the MfD closing results, and be verified by diffs and discussions. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I just thought of this now...

I would also like to point out that Dev has never proven that...

• the article is not biased
• the article satisfies the community at large
• the article follows the MfD closing comments

For example, when I wrote a freakin' 50-paragraph explanation of how the essay violates the MfD closure (only an exaggeration, relax!), Dev replies with this one paragraph response saying that the essay does satisfy the MfD. I find it disturbing to discover that Dev clearly has no basis for any of her edits, and cannot justify any of her edits to the essay by means of diffs, consensus, discussion, or policy. None of her comments have been based on reasoning...--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Response by Dev920

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)

Response to Dev920 by Ed

I would have to disagree with Dev on this one. I believe that a community doesn't occur naturally. Instead, it only occurs when there exists a unified institution, a common interest, and a desire to work together in harmony and peace.

Think about it this way: Does the entire human population of the world exist in one community? I don't think so; there is too much hostility in the world to call ourselves "one community". There are, however, several small communities that, if combined together, form the entire human population. Examples include: American community, European community, Christian community, Arab community, Asian community, etc. Likewise, Wikipedia itself is not unified under one community; there's simply too much differences among all editors. There's too much debates and disputes to call ourselves "unified". There are however, several WikiProjects that can be considered "communities", such as WP:LGBT, WP:FR, WP:FOR, WP:UN, WP:MMOG, WP:CVG, WP:PINOY, etc. Sure, these WikiProjects can be called communites, but can we really call the Wikipedian population at large "unified"?

Dev should have realized by now that we have opposing differences. Dev believes in the naturally-occuring community, whereas I believe in the unnaturally-occuring community. In addition, she edits gay-related articles, calls herself the "leader of the gay cabal", and is the coordinator of a WikiProject for LGBT (gay) articles. I, however, am a Catholic who does not like anything to do with homosexuals. I am straight, want to be straight, and will be straight for the rest of my life.

I joined Esperanza for a reason. Esperanza didn't care if you were straight, gay, transgender, of a woman with a penis. It also didn't care if you were Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, atheist, agnostic, or whatever deity you prayed to. Esperanza didn't favor one editor over the other, no matter who you were or who you were affiliated with. I joined Esperanza because I thought that it could spread peace and goodness throughout the Wikipedian population. I also thought that Esperanza would be able to provide a common place where Wikipedians from all walks of life could come together and discuss in harmony.

Remember that many editors liked the idea of Esperanza. Go ahead, read the first Signpost article on it. We did not delete Esperanza because we hated community; we delete Esperanza because we did not want the bureaucracy, among other things. Therefore, I think that we need to send the message that Esperanza was bad, but encouraging a sense of community is still good.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now would you write "I am straight, want to be straight, and will be straight for the rest of my life."? You think I'm going to try to turn you or something? Oh, and you don't have to be gay to join WP:LGBT - I know we have several straight members, at least. So I'd appreciate it if you could keep your bigotry to yourself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Really??? Now I'm the guy who's being a bigot! Last time I checked, you have displayed an intolerance towards teens three times! What, you don't remember? Let's go see the diffs:

• [1] "I am not in favour of chnaging history because some thirteen year olds are still heart broken over Esperanza"
• [2] "how can someone assume good faith of a little boy who is edit warring over spellings"
• [3] "by pathetic teenage losers I can't stand anymore"

In the first two diffs, you clearly show an ageist attitude towards me. (BTW I'm 14 now). Your 3rd diff shows ageism towards teenagers in general. And you know what's funny? You're article here says that you're 17! (If your name isn't Sarah, then please tell me now...) According to teenager, you are a teenager! So I'm not the bigot here. You've been the bigot from the beginning! But why exercise bigotry against a society that you yourself are a part of??? *Ed is confused* --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, if you haven't worked out now that I said those things because I consider you the most immature person I have ever met (responding to your bigotry by making up some nonsense about me being ageist indeed, it's laughable), there's no hope. How much longer have I got to talk to this person, Ryan? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I thought we were trying to discuss Esparanza? Not throwing insults at each other, both of you calm down, and go to the bottom of the page. Ed, Have you got the proposal ready? As I said, no big changes. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan, for the "intervention". Dev, I hope that you don't take serious offense against this; I have my own set of religious beliefs for a reason.

However, would you please express your ideas about my interpretation of community, or the rest of the issues at hand?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Look, you just can't enforce community top-down. It doesn't work. The failure of Esperanza, and to a certain extent Concordia and the AMA, shows that. The Wikipedian community is united by its aim of producing high-quality articles: anyone trying for that aim can understand the purpose of another doing the same. That's why I support BDJeff's RFA, though we're invariably on the opposite sides of XfD debates. That's why I can walk into any peer review and get on with and support the people working there already. That's why Dev can peer review my articles on operas and I can copy-edit her gay-themed ones. This community includes most of those who work at Wikipedia, for all the spats. We can, and do, all BarnRaise together. That's why EA was redundant. Moreschi ^Talk 08:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Moreschi

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)

Statement by Radiant

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)

Statement by Kyoko

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)

Statement by User:bibliomaniac15

I also believe that Ed was originally working in good faith, but it went a little out of control because both sides were being a little stubborn. At the end of an edit war, nobody wins, but everyone loses. It really does make you wonder: what will become of the Simple English Esperanza or Esperanzas on other Wikipedias? Will they learn from the deletion of the English one, or will they continue to support it? bibliomaniac15 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what you're saying bibliomaniac is that if you're faced with a disruptive user determined to force his ideas through, you should let the person trying to subvert consensus do so in order not to appear stubborn?

The Wikiquote Esperanza was deleted (though that was more because Sir Jame Paul tried to force it on everyone), the Simple English did very little anyway, but morale died after what happened here and it remains largely a list of members. The Norwegian Esperanza never really got off the ground (again, the MfD put a check on everything) and the most recent section on talk is a proposal to close it that's been open a month and has three votes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Response by Ryan Postlethwaite

All statements made extremely interesting reading, all with some good ideas of where to go with the page. I've looked over the diffs and I see it as pointless edit warring over minor grammatical differences, so if all are agreed, I suggest this ceases immediately. All people who have commented have suggested that the page should stay the same, apart from Ed. Now, with Ed's proposal, it seems to suggest he wants an essay that glamourises Esperanza, makes it look good, and I'm sorry to have to say, that this does seem to be very much POV-related. The essay should explain exactly what the organisation did when it was active, and also the reasons why it went to MfD and subsequently became historical. After reading it and reading it, the essay does seem to do that at present. The major changes that Ed made seem to try to make the reader ask, why was this organisation brought down? This is not what the essay should do. Now, to what we do now, are there any minor changes which any party would like to make to the essay? I am very much open to suggestions, but please, no major changes, the essay is very stable in it's current form. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have explained why I feel the essay should remain in its current form, and so I have no desires to make any further changes, minor or major, to it. Thank you for expending what must have been ages on this - it must be a thankless task. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I already have explained my reasons for editing the essay in my statement. As I said, I want to make sure that the essay emphasizes the importance of community. The essay in its current form simply does not say this. As I have said before, the ideology of the Esperanza community should not be brought down, but the organization itself. Also, I have already stated that I don't want to make Esperanza look any good at all. The essay in its current form passes on the idea that Esperanza was a bad idea from the beginning to the end. But was it? That itself can't be verified; the creator of Esperanza had good intentions and its members themselves said that the organizations was great a year ago...it just collapsed into major bureaucracy several months ago. We need to portray the history of Esperanza in a completely unbiased manner. Do you notice how I've said this multiple times before???

Seriously...did you read my entire statement? After taking a look at your response, I can see that you haven't replied to my other arguements as well. You haven't responded to my comments about the MfD and the RS (to name a few), plus all of the arguements I have made. I worked my ass off for 2 days writing up a 20+ paragraph statement for a reason. One would at least expect to try to make a decent discussion here.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I keep returning to this issue, because it only adds to my stress.

I think that Ed's statement that he wants the essay to "emphasize the opinions of editors that Esperanza was a good idea at first, but broke down in the end. Also, I want the essay to not make Esperanza seem like a bad idea, and to encourage future editors to spread a good sense of community." is effectively admitting a desire to slant the essay towards a pro-Esperanza POV.

I understand that Ed wants to "portray the history of Esperanza in a completely unbiased manner". I just feel that the explanation of Esperanza's various programs is sufficient to describe the good that Esperanza tried to accomplish. The other 700+ ex-members of Esperanza (not to mention the thousands of active Wikipedians) would seem to agree, or they too would have tried to edit the essay over the past several months. Continuing to edit war over this is just disruptive, and distracting from the whole reason Wikipedia exists, i.e. the encyclopedia. --Kyoko 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember that by the time the MfD ended, most active Esperanza members have left. They simply didn't have an interest in writing the essay, not because they agreed with it, but because they wanted to just move on and not deal with EA.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal be Ed with explanation of proposal

Proposal

Esperanza's logo was a joint effort by multiple Wikipedians.

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/sandbox|2005-09-19|Esperanza group|New group aims to promote Wiki-Love|2007-01-02|Experanza|Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion}} Esperanza was a Wikipedia project founded on August 12, 2005. Its goals were to support the encyclopedia indirectly by encouraging a sense of community. It was the belief of Esperanza that a friendly, supportive community within Wikipedia would help the encyclopedia by keeping editors happy, productive, and on the project. The name is derived from the Spanish word for "hope," and the original goal was to offer hope for the Wikipedia community and bring it together. When proposing the association, the founder wrote the following:

Esperanza or Esperanza Association is a proposed association of wikipedians [sic] dedicated to strengthening wikipedia's [sic] sense of community through establishing a support network for wikipedians [sic] in an environment that is often hostile and apathetic. Esperanza takes its name from the Spanish word for hope. We have taken this name the in spirit of offering hope to wikipedians [sic] who feel isolated and ignored. Spanish is used in the hope that a segment of the wikipedia [sic] community will never again feel so isolated that it breaks away from the community as did a portion of the Spanish wikipedia [sic] community did to form Enciclopedia Libre.

Towards those goals, Esperanza attempted a number of initiatives, such as:

• A stress alerts page that would alert Esperanza if someone was ill or feeling highly stressed due to issues on Wikipedia or in real life, or if someone left Wikipedia.
• Admin Coaching, where newcomers could get assistance from Wikipedia administrators.
• Reach Out, which provided consolation.
• Tutorial Drive, which aimed to write a series of tutorials for using and editing Wikipedia
• A calendar for members to list their birthday, first-edit day, etc. Esperanza tried to send out birthday wishes to Wikipedians.
• The to-do list, where editors could request Esperanzians for help.
• Trading Spaces, where Wikipedians could request help for designing their user page.
• The coffee lounge for casual discussion.
• The User page awards for well-designed user pages.
• The Barnstar Brigade which gave out barnstars to users for good work.
• Stressbusters, which investigated the source of wikistress.

Esperanza received wide support at first for its commitment to the community through these programs. It was then, however, opposed by an equal number of editors for its bureaucratic, cabal-like, exclusionist qualities. Some of these projects now survive independently.

In addition to having programs to improve the community, Esperanza was governed by a charter, which stipulated an Advisory Council with staggered terms, as well as an Administrator General who was selected by the council to lead the project. Amendments to the charter could be made through week-long discussions held on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. This was criticized as being heavily bureaucratic; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

Esperanza was first nominated for deletion in November 2006. Critics of the group argued that Esperanza distracted people from contributing to the encyclopedia by providing an environment for social interaction. Esperanza was also criticized for having regular Council elections, which were seen as nothing more than popularity contests. Following a no consensus result in the first motion to delete Esperanza, the organization engaged in a series of reforms, which resulted in the deletion of the coffee lounge, the user page awards, Stressbusters and the Barnstar Brigade. The group also promoted participation in the article namespace by creating an Esperanza Collaboration of the Month. Two Miscellany for deletion nominations were submitted here and here due to the overhaul discussions; these resulted in "Delete" consensuses. While most of the reform discussions ultimately reached a consensus, the overhaul discussions related to Esperanza's goals, its charter, its governance, what constitutes membership, and the noticeboard weren't completed. In the end, the Esperanza Reformation ultimately failed in fixing up the organization as a whole.

Exactly six weeks and two days later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints against the organization included:

• The overhaul proved to be unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza as a whole. The participants in the discussions promised to fix Esperanza: this, however, was felt to be done purely to avoid deletion, and not out of conviction. Little reform took place.
• In addition, its members also believed that Wikipedia depended wholly upon the existence of Esperanza, and would break down without it.
• Likewise, there had been other comments that Wikipedians who were not members of Esperanza were treated as inferior by those who were. Officially, members and non-members alike were invited to participate in Esperanza's programs; in practice, non-members had been set apart through Esperanza's activities, such as the Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.
• Esperanza was a well-intentioned idea but hard to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer.

After long discussion, it was ultimately decided that Esperanza was to be decentralized and disbanded; see Wikipedia talk:Esperanza for a list of now-independent projects. All Esperanza-subpages were redirected to this main page, which was replaced with the summary above.

More debates followed on various pages in the Wikipedia namespace, including on a deletion review filed to review aspects of the MfD closure. The closing admin declared the consensus to be that the original MfD decision was endorsed.

Footnotes

Insert links and diffs here as references OR use <references/>.

Comments

This is basically what edits I want done to the essay, per my statement above. However, I still can't figure out how I can try to make sure that the essay conforms to the MfD closing comments. Anyway, you can see my edits here. Tell me what you think!!! --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Call me a fool for continuing to deal with this but:

• "Esperanza received wide support at first for its commitment to the community through these programs. It was then, however, opposed by an equal number of editors for its bureaucratic, cabal-like, exclusionist qualities." No, from what I understand, Esperanza started very small at first, and almost even from its conception, there were concerns about it being too bureaucratic. This entire statement should be struck out.
• the list of initiatives is too wordy in this version
• "The group also promoted participation in the article namespace by creating an Esperanza Collaboration of the Month." This is incorrect, because there was very little actual participation in the ECOTM by self-identified members of Esperanza, and it can't be said that the ECOTM actually "promoted participation in the article namespace". The prior version where it said "attempted to promote..." is more accurate.
• "While most of the reform discussions ultimately reached a consensus, the overhaul discussions related to Esperanza's goals, its charter, its governance, what constitutes membership, and the noticeboard weren't completed." From what I recall, very little was actually agreed upon, other than the general sense that Esperanza needed to change but nobody knew precisely how. I see that this text is in the current protected version. I suggest rewording the paragraph to say that following the first MfD, Esperanza attempted a series of reforms, none of which were fully implemented.

I don't want to comb through the rest of the essay right now, but I just want to point out once again what a bad effect Esperanza is having, at least on me. Ed, I know that you've worked hard trying to get the essay to say exactly what you want, but your repeated efforts to rewrite the essay go against what had been agreed upon by many editors, yourself included. --Kyoko 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I second Kyoko's points, with the exception of the paragraph change proposal (if you read the overhaul comments, a majority did come to a consensus decision - just not the really important ones. :) ) and would like to point out that once again, criticism has been removed and new stuff inserted to subtly and not-so-subtly promote Esperanza. To be honest, this version is, like the second one, really badly written and I think any English major would agree with me on this one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking again at the text, I see now that Esperanza reached consensus regarding the disposition of its various programs (stress alerts, barnstar brigade, etc.) but failed to reach consensus regarding issues like governance, membership, and guiding principles/charter.

One change in Ed's latest version is one that wouldn't be noticed unless if you were familiar with previous versions. He deleted the following MfD complaint:

Esperanza was governed by an elected "Advisory Council", whose goal was to discuss any major issues that would affect the organization as a whole. The bureaucracy of this is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations on IRC which were only made available after the event. Although these decisions could be overturned by the general Esperanza community via straw poll, this decision-making process did not follow Wikipedia's traditional consensus-building processes.

Deleting that section is an important change, because it is effectively hiding one of the key complaints made by those who opted to delete Esperanza. As such, this revision tilts the essay into an elegy to Esperanza.

I did some checking, and I found some confirmation that from Esperanza's beginning, there were charges of too much reliance on bureaucracy, as seen in the very first Signpost article about the group. This means that contrary to Ed's latest revision, Esperanza wasn't something that was initially widely supported but only later became opposed for being too bureaucratic. It was controversial from the very beginning.

After reading and rereading this material, I'm inclined to endorse Radiant's view that "this is a rather obvious case of a consensus with a lone dissenter". I'm sorry, Ed, but it has only become more and more obvious that you are the only one who wants to rewrite the essay, and thereby rewrite history. Everybody else involved has just been restoring the essay to its consensus-approved version. --Kyoko 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The section removed about the AC was redundant. Look at the current essay, and you will see that the Advisory Council is discussed thrice in three different paragraphs. That was why I removed the AC criticism.

In addition, the Signpost article also states that there was a wide community support for Esperanza. This establishes my arguements that there are opposing viewpoints about Esperanza. If you would look at WP:MFD/EA, you will see that the concerns presented expressed differing opinions. If I remember correctly, one of the Councillors said, on November or December, that Esperanza lost the full "spirit" that it used to have. Now I know that this might not pass as evidence here, but I'll go and look for a diff.

Nevertheless, there were clearly differing opinions during the Esperanza Reformation and debate. Should we not acknowledge these differences in order to provide a full, complete, and unbiased explanation of how people felt about Esperanza?

I would like to point out to you, Dev, that, being an "immature teenager", my writing style is probably not favorable to you, being the upperclassman with the "freshmen suck" attitude. Let me point out to you that you neglected to add sics to grammatical errors on a quoted statement. (one would expect that from a Latin student who claims to have perfect English witing abilities...) However, you do have the possibility of improving the compromise to better meet writing standards. I'd be happy to look for an English major for you, if you'd like. I'm not in college, so I really don't personally know any English majors; I'm too scared to ask my English teacher as well. I'll see what I can do to correct my grammar. Would you please explain what errors you can spot off hand?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of proposal

It now seems like Dev and Kyoko both have grossly misunderstood my proposal. Therefore, I feel that I should be able to explain myself before we start making any inaccurate assumptions.

Look here:

• Addition of sics on the quote, 2nd paragraph - Wikipedia should be capitalized in all cases
• Consoling→Consolation - The nominalization sounds better than the gerund form in this case.
• Addition of "where editors could request for Esperanzians for help - Because a to-do list is normally used for displaying tasks for a certain project, the lack of an explanation would give a false perception of the project. It actually was for other editors to ask for help.
• Addition of "Esperanza received wide support at first for its commitment to the community through these programs. It was then, however, opposed by an equal number of editors for its bureaucratic, cabal-like, exclusionist qualities." - See the Signpost article, but I think that I might want to change this part of the proposal per Kyoko below. However, the Signpost does point out that the bureaucracy was decreased at the time of the writing.
• Addition of "In addition to having programs to improve the community" - Transitional phrase between paragraphs.
• Removal of "proper" - Improper usage
• Attempted to promote→promote - AFAIK we were already working on an ECOTM at the time of the deletion
• Addition of "Two Miscellany for deletion nominations were submitted here and here due to the overhaul discussions; these resulted in "Delete" consensuses." - Everyone needs to know about the MfDs, right?
• Addition of "In the end, the Esperanza Reformation ultimately failed in fixing up the organization as a whole." - just for clarification
• "A month"→"Exactly six weeks and two days" - self explanatory
• Removal of "governed by an elected "Advisory Council", whose goal was to discuss any major issues that would affect the organization as a whole. The bureaucracy of this is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations on IRC which were only made available after the event. Although these decisions could be overturned by the general Esperanza community via straw poll, this decision-making process did not follow Wikipedia's traditional consensus-building processes." - redundant statement about the AC
• nice→well-intentioned and impossible→hard - verified by MfD comments from Dev920 and Yuser31415, respectively

--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I didn't grossly misunderstand. Can we bring this mediation to a close now, Ryan? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh...I don't think we can close the mediation yet. We haven't resolved our issues with the page. Could you please explain why you oppose to each and every section of my proposal?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of the explanation - maybe I should explain why the AC statement is redundant

“ Esperanza was governed by a charter, which stipulated an Advisory Council with staggered terms, as well as an Administrator General who was selected by the council to lead the project. Amendments to the charter could be made through week-long discussions held on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. This was criticized as being heavily bureaucratic; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
- 4th paragraph ”

“ Esperanza was also criticized for having regular Council elections, which were seen as nothing more than popularity contests.
- 5th paragraph ”

“ Esperanza was governed by an elected "Advisory Council", whose goal was to discuss any major issues that would affect the organization as a whole. The bureaucracy of this is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations on IRC which were only made available after the event. Although these decisions could be overturned by the general Esperanza community via straw poll, this decision-making process did not follow Wikipedia's traditional consensus-building processes.
- 6th paragraph ”

Because there are 3 statements about the AC and its bureaucracy in 3 different paragraph, at least one of them should be removed. Perhaps we can combine the three statements into one separate paragraph, if you'd like.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal by Kyoko

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Conclusion

Ed is clearly determined to change the essay to what he wants, and nothing I nor Kyoko nor Moreschi, nor indeed, Ryan, can say is making him cease. Given that it has become clear that the positions of Ed and I/rest of Wikipedia are utterly unreconcilable and Ed seems willing to keep up his ever-shifting arguments, false accusations and wilful misunderstandings indefinitely, it seems futile to continue this mediation. Ryan set the boundaries at basic grammatical or minor changes, but Ed has zoomed straight past that and posted only another variation of his desire to make Esperanza look good.

I have, as I explained on Ryan's page, been deliberately pursuing a policy of non-engagement with Ed since mid-February, when it became obvious to me that Ed wasn't actually paying any attention to what I was saying nor what anyone else was saying, even when we went to extraordinary lengths to dig up the evidence he keeps demanding (like the massive six screen long message Hiding wrote to him proving the essay was unbiased... which Ed completely ignored). Ed's apparent inability to actually understand anything anyone writes on the subject, (such as claiming that my comment that he is acting like the fourteen year old boy he is is somehow an attack on teenagers everywhere, which is just silly, especially if you knew that I used to campaign offline for youth rights), struck me of being exactly like something I read in The God Delusion:

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questined concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed papers, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he still insisted this was not sufficient evidence of evolution, and this was not "good enough".

I fear Ed will remain as obstinate in his desire to see what he wants to see, and more importantly, dismiss what he does not.

I entered this mediation on request of Ryan, who indicated that this dispute is going to end, one way or another. This I welcome, because I am utterly sick of editing this page, as I have been since mid-January, but I am not prepared to allow one user to subvert the majority just because he is more persistent. If all mediation between myself and Ed is doomed to failure, and I am taking a wikibreak for exams from May til mid-June, than the easiest option seems to be to just leave the page indefinitely protected - I do not want to disrupt my revision because Ed has taken to revising the text again and, frankly, I don't think anyone wants to continue this but him. Does this seem acceptable to everyone else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the only person who truly wants to continue this, as far as I can tell, is Ed. To quote Radiant, "this is a rather obvious case of consensus with a lone dissenter." Given that nobody has found a way to make the essay acceptable to all parties, even after all this time, it is probably best to leave the page indefinitely protected. --Kyoko 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I refuse any protection of the essay per Dev, and I recommend that the essay be unprotected once this mediation is declared "concluded".

I have been compelled to continually edit this essay because Dev has constantly showed a stubborn attitude against Esperanza. She has never considered any other POVs other than those that were anti-Esperanza or anti-community. Even as I took the time over 2 days to write my first statement above, Dev still has not responded to all of my points in favor of editing the essay. In fact, she has never responded to my concerns about the MfD closure since January. She has also never responded to any of my points about needing sources to back up any of our statements, such as diffs. Although Hiding did provide arguements to show that his arguements are supported by quotes (see note 77 of my conflict log), Dev won't accept the fact that I was able to provide references to equally back up my statements. (see note 72 on the same page)

Dev has made it clear that she doesn't want to edit the essay. Why? She says that the essay has been supported by the community. How? She has never bothered to show anyone how the essay has been approved by the community. In a truce that we agreed to, Dev was supposedly going to provide evidence that the essay has been supported by the community. As you probably can tell, this has never happened.

Dev's policy of non-engagement is not recommended per dispute resolution policy. Such a policy (Dev's policy, that is) should not be exercised on a mediation. In a mediation, it is expected that all parties provide arguements and cross-examine the other parties arguements. IMHO, we are making some progress here, with Dev's arguements about community etc. However, one would expect Dev to at least try to respond to all arguements made against her. I recommend that we continue this mediation in order to give Dev a chance to explain herself.

Dev putting herself on Wikibreak should not be counterproductive to our attempts to mediation. Dev already has other users in support of her arguements who could easily continue this mediation.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring this up, but as the second or third most active contributor to this discussion, I guess I have to, following Ed's last sentence. I won't be able to continue participating in this mediation due to medical reasons that will keep me offline, at least for the near future.

Like Dev, I don't want to see Ed's viewpoint prevail solely through his persistence, especially at a time when the two other people who have been most active in this discussion will be away for unavoidable reasons. Furthermore, I question the point of continuing this mediation, when Ed insists on going far, far beyond the boundaries set by Ryan ("minor grammatical changes") and instead proposes major revisions that seem to both blunt criticism of Esperanza and sing praises to it. Despite his claims of other editors wanting to edit the essay, nobody else has come forward to do it. Contrary to what Ed says, we're not making progress at all. Dev says something, or I say something, and Ed ignores it. From his viewpoint, he must surely feel the same way about us. This mediation is getting nowhere, and indeed would not even have existed if not for Ed's continuing desire to rewrite the essay. --Kyoko 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that??? Unlike the two of you, I'm actually verifying all of my statements with factual evidence, whereas you really haven't been providing any proof to verify anything. I've responded to most of your concerns above, especially the concern that I was removing extra criticism from the essay and the concern that my proposal was poorly written. You can see proof of that here--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

“ Dev already has other users in support of her arguements who could easily continue this mediation. ”

I have spent the past six hours trying to think of a response. But, for once, I am genuinely lost for words. I don't know what to say to someone who thinks my presence is superfluous in a mediation between us. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, your proposed text totally eliminates the fact the Advisory Council and much of the Overhaul discussions took place on IRC, which is counter to the open and transparent idea of a wiki.

You do realise that people have other things to do besides digging through the history of an inactive project, just in order to satisfy your challenges, right? I'm not commenting on your age but rather your priorities. --Kyoko 23:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the AC text because it's redundant. There's already a few sentences about the bureaucracy a few paragraphs before.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Messedrocker

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)

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)

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)

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)

2nd proposal by Kyoko

I'm sorry about the ongoing dispute, MessedRocker, but you do realise that the conflict has been continuing solely because of Ed's desire to change the essay, and everyone else's desire to revert it back to the way it was, the version that was supported by community consensus. Evidence for this can be seen in the edit history of both this page and the edit history of Wikipedia:Esperanza, despite Ed's claims that there are six other editors who want to change the essay.

A pared down essay might be the best solution if this is such an intractable issue. How about the following as a start:

Esperanza was an association founded on 12 August 2005. Its goal was to indirectly support the encyclopedia by providing support and other assistance for Wikipedians in need, and by strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community. By doing this, it was hoped that editors would be encouraged to stay with Wikipedia. Towards this end, Esperanza attempted a number of initiatives, including:

• A stress alerts page to inform others when a person was stressed, ill, or considering leaving Wikipedia.
• Admin Coaching where less-experienced Wikipedians could receive advice from administrators.
• Reach Out, which aimed to provide advice and consolation.
• Tutorial Drive, which provided a series of tutorials for using and editing Wikipedia
• A calendar for celebrating the birthdays and first edit days of Wikipedians.
• A to-do list of tasks.
• Trading Spaces, where Wikipedians could seek help in redesigning their user pages.
• A coffee lounge for casual discussion unrelated to Wikipedia.
• User page awards to reward well-designed user pages.
• The Barnstar Brigade which sought to recognise people for their work.
• Stressbusters, which investigated the source of wikistress.

Some of these projects now survive as independent projects.

Despite its goals, Esperanza quickly became controversial. As soon as 28 August 2005, there were charges that Esperanza was a cabal or insular group, seeking to set itself apart from the rest of Wikipedia. While people were welcome to join the group, many non-members felt that they were seen as somehow inferior or that they were being excluded. This perception was supported by the Esperanza barnstar, which could only be awarded to members of Esperanza. Accusations of cabalism continued to be levelled against Esperanza throughout its existence. Indeed, these charges were one of several raised during attempts to shut down the group.

Another charge against Esperanza was its focus on bureaucracy. Esperanza was loosely governed by an Advisory Council, made up of three tranches and an Admin General, elected three times a year, who made binding decisions on IRC. This was felt by many as being counter to the open and transparent spirit of a wiki.

It was also felt by many people that Esperanza only distracted people from working on the encyclopedia proper, by providing environments unrelated to the encyclopedia, such as its coffee lounge and pages of games such as "Hangman".

Points that were raised in Esperanza's defence were that Wikipedians needed a support structure to help them when they were feeling ill or stressed. Some felt that Esperanza provided a needed escape from the stresses that editing disputes can create. Certain editors felt that Wikipedia depended on Esperanza as a bastion of civility.

Contrary to popular belief, Esperanza was actually nominated for deletion three times. The first was a malformed nomination in July 2006. A formal deletion request in November 2006 failed to reach consensus. A second deletion request resulted in a decentralisation of Esperanza, where those programs which were felt to be of merit were spun off as independent projects, and the main page was to be made into an essay about its fate. This result was upheld in a deletion review in January 2007.

OK, that's a start. This ended up rather more than the "few sentences" that I envisioned. I'm not content with what I've written right now, because much of it sounds like so many weasel words ("some", "many") when not supported by diffs. To be quite honest, I don't want to look for diffs right now, as this is not how I want to spend my Saturday night. The points in Esperanza's defence could be fleshed out a bit, or better yet, supported by diffs. The criticism also could use diffs. Some of the material, notably the intro, is actually taken from things I've written for Esperanza in the past, under my prior name "Tachikoma". I've just been improvising, so the text could use some polishing.

I hope this whole debate ends soon. It's stressful--ironic, given Esperanza's founding goals--and distracting from the encyclopedia, only proving the point of those who wanted to delete the project. --Kyoko 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with this proposal. It cuts to the chase (in some ways) without having to go into detail about every single aspect about Esperanza. It also gives equal weighting to both sides of the debate. Although the prose could be polished a little (besides the fact that the todo list bullet point still causes some confusion), I agree with the general wording to Kyoko's proposal and would like to implement the "grammatically-improved" version into the page.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm willing to help out with finding diffs if necessary. I'm really busy right now, so I can't do it until whenver (Monday, maybe?)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy you like the proposal. I tried to make it so that you have 3 points for and against Esperanza. Now let's see if Dev and the others like it. The diffs can wait. I don't want to spend my first night out at the computer, you know. If it helps, I think WikiZach was the one who said something about Wikipedia depending on Esperanza for civility or community or something like that. I forget exactly which games were on subpages, and I'm not sure if they need to be spelled out. I think it is very important to retain the content about the Advisory Council. You will note that this is structured very differently from the existing essay, because it tries to mention complaints that have dogged Esperanza since 2005, long before the MfDs. Some of them, like the coffee lounge and the games, might have been addressed before the MfDs (I forget, actually). But please, I've spent enough time on this for one day. I hope this proposal works. --Kyoko 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that having the list of projects just after the first paragraph could be construed as being overly favourable to Esperanza, and that it may also be redundant if the current header box of existing projects is still used. If other editors feel it is necessary, the list could be deleted and the first paragraph could be changed to end as "Towards this end, Esperanza attempted a number of initiatives, some of which now exist as independent projects. These projects are listed above."

I think Esperanza had noble, laudable goals, but the way that it sought to reach those goals was flawed. Looking through the history of the project, some of those flaws go back to the very beginning of the project, when the first eight members were to assume governmental positions, and later, when there was a dispute over the naming and structure of Esperanza's hierarchy, a dispute that eventually led to the departure of its founder. I can't speak for other people, of course, but I once counted myself as part of Esperanza, and I ended up disappointed at the gap between what Esperanza aimed to do and what actually took place both during its existence and after its closure. It's sad to see how divisive and inflammatory it became. This will smack of hubris, but I hope that my proposed essay will be acceptable to all sides of the debate, and start the healing process for those who are still mourn its loss. --Kyoko 06:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK (though the reference to the malformed nomination is a bit pedantic), but I'd like to point out here that the primary aim is not to have an accurate, objective and balanced essay on the front page (that will have to wait until someone objective comes along - most people contributing at the moment are too involoved). THe primary aim is to come up with a text that both Ed and Dev920 can agree on, so they can both get on with more productive things. Carcharoth 11:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point about other people being needed for objectivity, but I'm concerned that a truly disinterested person may also be an uninterested person who won't bother with the essay at all. The corollary also applies: those who are most interested in the essay (myself included) are also those who have some personal connection with Esperanza. --Kyoko 13:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, Carcharoth, but is it really possible to have an uninvolved editor try to come here and edit the essay in a favorable manner? Think about it this way: I'm a guy. Would I edit topics about the feminine side of things, like...let's say - makeup? Even if I tried my best, I wouldn't be able to write an accurate article on makeup, mostly because I don't wear makeup, am not interested in makeup, and don't care about makeup. The same applies here: a previously uninvolved editor will not be able to portray ESP correctly because he/she was never part of the debate before. The only material one could be provided with would be page histories, diffs, and discussions. The reason why Dev, Kyoko, and I are debating over this is because we were involved in ESP before, so we actually have formed opinions about the organization through experience, not by reading material.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 14:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring up an archived discussion regarding a previously removed paragraph here.

“ Aside from participating in the group's official programs, members of Esperanza were also encouraged to show support to other editors through such methods as awarding barnstars for good work and supporting other editors with kind words during hard times. Even though Esperanza has been closed down, some of its former members continue to advocate the need for supporting other editors in this manner. It is worth noting that these goals were not unique to Esperanza; several other community groups were also founded on the principle of supporting fellow editors, and some of them are still active. ”

As you can see in the discussion, there was a consensus to approve the paragraph by EWS23, DoomsDay349, me, Wiki alf, Natalya, and Elaragirl. Hiding did not indicate a support or opposition, and nobody else indicated an opposition to the paragraph. Is there a way in which we can implement this paragraph into the essay somewhere?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best first to see what Dev thinks about my proposed text before considering adding more paragraphs. We need to find some common ground to work from before expanding the essay further. --Kyoko 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the following edit here by Picaroon9288. In his edit, he removes the list of EA projects. While I realize that the currently active projects are on the top of the page, the disbanded projects are not linked on the essay itself. The events showed on the essay needs to be in chronological order; Picaroon's edit removes the chronological order already established here. Shouldn't we at least try to show all of EA's programs all together in one list?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that the list of Esperanza's projects (both active and inactive) should be included in the essay. I also think that the games subpages should be included in the list, for the sake of being complete. --Kyoko 12:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I think that having the games subpages would be nice. Now that we're going to put the list of programs, I think that we really do need sources just to be on the safe side.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, at what point did we agree that exactly? I don't want a list of programs or games - there's already a list of what happened on the talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the only text we have collectively agreed upon is the text submitted by Hiding, I strongly feel that any further discussion should deal solely with that text. Trying to discuss two different texts will only confuse this already tangled mediation even further. While I said that I would have liked to include the games subpages in the list of programs of my text, there is no such list in Hiding's streamlined version. I don't feel it necessary to list the programs in Hiding's text, especially given Dev's objections. Because the only text we have agreed upon is Hiding's version, any further discussion of the essay should probably fall under the header "Statement and proposal by Hiding". --Kyoko 13:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement and proposal by Hiding

Late to the party, apologies. I want an essay which reflects the closing admin's statement, that "A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page." I want an essay that remains stable and is not constantly edited. I want people to move on. I would see something like this as ideal:

“ Esperanza was an association founded on 12 August 2005. Its goal was to indirectly support the encyclopedia by providing support and other assistance for Wikipedians in need, and by strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community. By doing this, it was hoped that editors would be encouraged to stay with Wikipedia. Esperanza was loosely governed by an Advisory Council, made up of three tranches and an Admin General, elected three times a year, who made binding decisions on IRC. This was felt by many as being counter to the open and transparent spirit of a wiki. Esperanza was nominated for deletion twice. A formal deletion request in November 2006 failed to reach consensus. A second deletion request resulted in a decentralisation of Esperanza, where those programs which were felt to be of merit were spun off as independent projects, and the main page was to be made into an essay about its fate. This result was upheld in a deletion review in January 2007.

This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similar fate as Esperanza.

”

I don't see a need for listing all the projects, that's already done in the box at the top, but if people really want them in the essay, list them after the above text as a "List of Esperanza Programs". Hiding Talk 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed text is fine with me: short, sweet, to the point. If you want to stress the bureaucratic part of Esperanza, you could mention that the AC members were elected in staggered elections, but the insertion of this text is no big deal. Mention of the inactive programs might serve as further reasoning why Esperanza was controversial, but I'm not going to press the issue.

Did you just shorten my existing text to get this version? If so, I'm genuinely flattered that you didn't rewrite the sections that you used. --Kyoko 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suits me, if you will add "about Esperanza" between "who made binding decisions" and "on IRC" (as a purely grammatical point). Go for it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Wasn't the AC made up of two tranches with two elections each year? Other than that, I think that the essay's fine. With this version, I don't see the need for footnotes anymore.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, Ed, it was two and not three tranches. I'm not sure about the number of elections, and the partially-deleted history of Esperanza makes it difficult to verify. I'm sorry about my mistake. --Kyoko 13:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Now that Dev, Ed, and myself seem to have agreed upon Hiding's text, as modified to list 2 and not 3 tranches, I move that the text be moved to the main Esperanza page, and more importantly, that it be indefinitely protected to avoid any future edit wars. I know that the idea of indefinitely protecting a page may be controversial. As an alternative, I'm willing to banned from any future editing of the Esperanza essay once the mutually agreed upon text is posted, if that is what it takes to conclude this dispute. I can't speak for Dev or Ed if they would be equally willing to walk away once the essay is posted.

I know that I said on Ed's talk page that the mediation can wait, while he has insisted on mine that it can't. Considering that this mediation would seem to have fulfilled its purpose, i.e. finding a mutually acceptable essay to describe Esperanza, I am convinced that we (Dev, Ed, and myself) would likely be unable to develop the essay any further without disagreement. Ed is determined to make further changes to the Hiding text; Dev is determined to leave it as is, due to academic demands. Both editors are equally convinced that they are upholding what they see as community consensus. I see no possible compromise between these two positions, which is why I am now advocating posting the mutually agreeable text and protecting it indefinitely. --Kyoko 20:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more change: can we add something that says "A list of Esperanza's programs can be seen on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza"? What's the point of having the list on the talk page if editors can't easily see it?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello???--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)