Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:43, 29 December 2006

No more co-noms, please. 2 is quite enough, though thanks to Ed for adding his relevant and accurate summary. Just vote. Moreschi 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Section?

As I think much of the debate is going to center around delete v. some sort of historical preservation, I will create a subsection for this discussion unless anyone objects. Dar-Ape 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let's get the actual discussion over, then decide whether to historic or not. DoomsDay349 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• It might be best to simply decide now as part of this MfD. I could be wrong, but I don't remember participating in any XFDs that had a "part two" which decided between historic tagging and deletion. Dar-Ape 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't really mind either way, I guess. Go ahead. DoomsDay349 23:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Really, the closing admin (whoever that lucky person is :)) should be able to obtain the consensus for historical-tagging or for outright deletion from the comments. I suggest that we leave it to that person, who can ask for help/clarification if unsure. Martinp23 (who likes his new sig) 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have simply expressed my opinion on the the matter, and will not create said section. Dar-Ape 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark as historical rather than delete

Because you can only avoid the mistakes of the past when you learn from them.

If all is well, this is procedure for all projects that have actually been operational.

Kim Bruning 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think people are going to to be able to learn what they need to from the MfDs... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Maybe not. I agree with Kim. Mark as historical. Don't delete stuff that has a history. Carcharoth 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And then of course there are the 100,000 archived redlinks to it that would be created... definitely agree with historical tagging. --tjstrf talk 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what is so dreadful about red links? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks which are not supposed to be created are considered inherently negative. Their presence will result in huge numbers of talk pages and archives with broken context. --tjstrf talk 12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If every single Esperanza page was deleted and salted there would be no redlinks. What is more, we will cope with whatever redlinks there are by doing what we usually do - that's removing them. Moreschi 12:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary salting is even worse than redlinks, and redlinks in page histories are not removable. And are you seriously suggesting we have someone (a bot most likely) go remove all those little green e's from everyone's talk page archives? Because that's what would be necessary to fix the problem. --tjstrf talk 12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Redinks are not my concern (as Morsechi says, simply remove them). However, seeing as Esperanza does have so much history, and, more importantly, ended in a mistake not wanted to be made again, I believe that it would be best to mark as historical. And the arguement that rouge editors would just start it up again (apart from being bad faith) is also rather weak. Yes, Concordia started up again, but do you know how many pages and ideas with Historical tags have not? More to the point, most, if not all !votes agree that Esperanza was of some good once. If an editor can truely get Esperanza back to being good, rather than bad, then great, that's what Misplaced Pages is all about. The Historical tag was made for this sort of thing, so let's use it. Thε Halo 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the post above is kinda what my nomination was all about. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of the arguments in favour of complete deletion rather than historical tagging are that somebody could just come and start it up again, but surely this is just as likely to happen if you delete the page. (more likely in my opinion)  YDAM TALK 12:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but to retrieve a deleted page, you have to have a discussion about why you want it resurrected. A historical tag can simply be taken off, and consensus about the end of Esperanza thrown to the winds. And it will happen, if we don't delete it all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to remake a deleted page you normally type its name into the box on the left of the screen, click its name on the resulting search page, type something there, and hit enter. To remove a historical tag from a page you have to make a substantative effort to revive discussion about the idea it expresses.

For instance, there used to be an essay called Misplaced Pages:I have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada. It was deleted. I could go retype it from memory, most likely no-one would notice, and if I added an extra paragraph or two I could bypass the CSD criteria for recreated content. Poof! Valid essay page. If it were instead historical tagged, then I could not validly have it as an essay without trying to revive discussion about the page and the talk page and page history would show this to anyone who glanced at them.

Given that Esperanza is of necessity a public operation, paranoia about it being secretly revived is just that: paranoia. --tjstrf talk 12:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(Total tangent.) I just had to know what this page was. It's now at User:Pmanderson/I have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada. - BanyanTree 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting and salting means that it would be impossible to restart. Alternatively, I quite think idea of deleting all the subpages and rewriting the main page as a historical-tagged essay saying why Esperanza failed, so that in future people will know what mistakes to avoid, is just about acceptable, but deleting and salting is my preferred option. What is wrong with salting to prevent recreation? Moreschi 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SALT: "Pages that are repeatedly re-created after deletion" may be salted. Until someone does recreate Esperanza after deletion at least once, preferably more times than that, SALTing is unwarranted and against the SALT policy. Plus, salting is supposed to be undone after a couple months anyway. --tjstrf talk 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides, isn't making it impossible to restart a bad thing as well? A fresh look after some months might enable the reform that was mandated but found impossible after the last MfD. --tjstrf talk 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting and salting means that it would be impossible to restart Surely the exact same result could be achieved by tagging and protecting. Devs suggestion that retrieving a deleted page involves a little process is only applicable for resurrecting a specific page. There's nothing to stop someone creating a new incarnation of a similar organization completely a fresh. That's something that I would really like to prevent in the future.

Personally I quite like messedrockers suggested compromise of replacing the front page with a description of why it failed but keeping the history so that it's available to be cited to newbies to illustrate why a future incarnation is a bad idea.  YDAM TALK 13:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Also, can you imagine the edit warring and arguments that will take place if we try to write an essay, or describe how it failed? Esperanza needs to be fully deleted so everyone can properly move on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"People who want to create another Esperanza will not be deterred by what went wrong." - Nor will people who really want to create another Esperanza be deterred by salting Esperanza. You can't salt an idea Dev, so once again, your arguement is flawed. If people, as you believe, are so hell-bent on recreating Esperanza, they will do so anyway, with names like Misplaced Pages:Hope, Misplaced Pages:Let's be nice etc. Thε Halo 16:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are simply arguing with me now for its own sake, so I'm going to stop replying. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...interesting idea, but in fact I'm arguing with you because I believe that I am right, and that you are wrong. Thε Halo 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Further more, your bad faith has shown that you don't wish to contribute to this discussion, you mearly want your own way, no matter what anyone/everyone else wants/thinks. Thε Halo 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I leave because I can't be bothered to fight with you over petty details, and you launch a personal attack. Really mature, Halo. Dev920 (Have a nice day!)

Hmmm? Personal attack? You better read WP:NPA before you start throwing out accusations. Thε Halo 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Read it. Also read WP:AGF where it says "There will be people on Misplaced Pages with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project." But what am I saying? You know this. You're simply trying to provoke me, and I won't bite. Good day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you can't salt an idea, but you can come pretty close. Salting would carry a definitive message that this was a really bad idea that you really don't want to restart. I do not see a viable alternative that will not wind up wasting everyone's time with attempts at recreation and/or restarting.

Re the spat above, all I will say is that there is no need for everyone to go batshit - quoting from someone's RFA - and that Dev comment "arguing with me now for its own sake" was not exactly the most civil: Halo labelling that bad faith was perhaps justified. The rest of his comment was not and was in itself bad faith.

Even when dead, Esperanza still does not fail to cause wikidrama. Sigh. Moreschi 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on the essay idea

Take the good ideas and core inspiration for Esperanza and turn it into a philosophy essay. I'm really starting to like that idea and think it would be a less negative way to "end" the project. People could still rally the idea of esperanza (sig links and all), but instead as general good advice to promote wiki-love and community to all, rather than being the community itself. Keep the hope but remove the membership. We could see this as Esperanza's true form, rather than "deletion". Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In my discussion with Dev920 in section 2 of the MfD, I thought of this alternative:

Esperanza is a philosophy of XYZ.

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

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

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

I like your idea of making the distinction between "being part of the community", versus "being the community itself" - that "being the community" approach leads to the isolationist mentality that's brought it here in the first place. The main thing with the programs I mentioned above is that they're not Esperanzan programs - they're Misplaced Pages-wide programs. Some might have been originally suggested by someone with an interest in community-building, but at the end of day, they're for the benefit of all Wikipedians.

I also asked if the MfD is being considered because a group that promotes community-building is inherently wrong, or because of Esperanza's specific history and bureaucracy. SCZenz replied, "In my personal view, this is about any group that attempts to use bureaucracy and exclusion as methods to improve the community." If that's the case, I don't see why Esperanza's original community-building ideals can't be kept alive in some form or other, while deleting the bureaucratic side. Quack 688 06:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The majority of votes are currently for total annihilation. If that is the end result, I ask that you respect that instead of trying to keep Esperanza alive in another form. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And it just occurred to me that anything in this essay would basically a rewrite of Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers and it's associated pages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Dev, I don't think an essay would really be the right thing to do. If your want an essay about Esperanza, and what it was supposed to achieve, I suggest that you create one in you user space. That's what I'm going to do :) Thε Halo 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dev, you never answered this question that I asked in the MfD: "Do you believe it's wrong for any group based on community-building and kindness to exist, or is this MfD about Esperanza's specific bureaucracy and history?"

I've already quoted SCZenz's response above. Quite a few of the delete comments say that Esperanza might have been a good idea originally, but that it's too far gone to be salvaged. I haven't seen many comments that say community-building, in and of itself, is inherently unWikipedian. Therefore, I don't see why people can't have another go at the community-building aspect down the road - after some quiet time to reflect on Esperanza's downfall, of course.

Now, regarding the philosophy outline - you know, you're absolutely right. One thing I hate on Misplaced Pages is duplication. You mentioned one page, but there are several others that I think are also applicable: Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, and m:Don't be a dick, to name a few. If there's a point Esperanza thought up that should be mentioned on one of those pages, but isn't, then a discussion to add it should take place at that page. That's the best way for Esperanzans to "re-integrate" with the community - improve what's there, don't make a separate version. That's prompted me to think about the programs as well - I started another post below about that topic. Aside from the programs I listed there, there are two "discussion points" that I don't see a specific home for:

1. What can we do to encourage Misplaced Pages readers to make that crucial first edit?

2. What new projects could be started to benefit the Misplaced Pages community?

Those two questions are related to community-building, and important for Misplaced Pages's future, but I don't see anywhere where such issues are discussed - they're not exactly kindness or civility issues. Don't forget that even if Esperanza's deleted, it did manage to come up with a couple of good programs during its time. Is it wrong for a group to exist which promotes discussion of those questions among the Misplaced Pages community? Quack 688 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I see where the objection is for this idea. Most of the !votes do not specify "total annihilation", only that the closed community is put to an end. I see this as less an idea to keep esperanza (the sub-group) alive and more an idea to keep it "dead". A duplicate essay of sorts, maybe, but the main idea is to not turn esperanza into a four letter word. This would be a small effort that could reduce a lot of negative tension surrounding the issue. I see no harm in an essay called esperanza. -- Ned Scott 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. A sense of community should be built from the ground up, not imposed by some incredibly bureaucratic organization. Or indeed, possibly, by any organization, which is bound to morph into a cabal. Moreschi 14:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Do you believe it's wrong for any group based on community-building and kindness to exist, or is this MfD about Esperanza's specific bureaucracy and history?" The fact that I also nominated Concordia for deletion should help answer that. Basically, I think any organisation that thinks it can encourage an abstract idea through physical action are wrong and are going to go off track. It didn't work with Esperanza, it hasn't worked with Concordia, and all it does is waste everyone's time. It's like the war on terror, you cannot stop or encourage what is not a real tangible objective. That's why these community building ideas never work - let it happen organically. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"any organisation that thinks it can encourage an abstract idea through physical action are wrong"

Isn't the Kindness Campaign doing that, by spreading the abstract idea of kindness through physical methods like user recognition messages? Actually, stop and think about what you said for a moment - doesn't every active group on Misplaced Pages (indeed, in the world) fall into that category? If the group's doing absolutely nothing, it's inactive. If the group's doing something, then by definition, it's taking some sort of physical action. The only question is, how "physical" is it getting? If it's forcing its values onto the community, then I agree it's gone too far. All I'm saying is that there should be a clearly established place where editors can discuss the community issues I mentioned, collectively work on new community-related proposals which address these issues, and look at ways that existing programs can be co-ordinated to avoid duplication of effort. It doesn't need to issue decrees, just think up some suggestions. If the suggestion isn't practical, and doesn't receive consensus support, then it doesn't happen. Done.

Do you want to know a secret? That's basically how research works in the real world as well. Scientists come up with lots of ideas. Most of them are crap. But some have potential. You take the ideas with potential, expand them, and you end up with something useful. Something you didn't have before. Quack 688 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant through starting programs that never moved out into the real world and expect the world to come to them. I think you need to stop attacking me because you are upset. You don't want Esperanza to go, and as can be shown all over this page, you are trying to rescue as much of it as you can. This is why I want the entire thing deleted, so people like you will stop trying to get around it with "essays" and rescuing the programs, which, btw, were agreed upon by the Esperanzan council and which you now seek to foist upon Misplaced Pages without ever bothering to ask us. That's what I mean when I say everything should be deleted and individual prgrams can be proposed elsewhere, so they can have the discussion that they never had. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have nothing to do with the little dispute you two are having, and I would certainly not try to start something like Esperanza again (I nominated their game pages for deletion and am supporting a delete here), but I think the essay idea is pretty good. Like I said above, such an essay could actually be used to keep Esperanza from "coming back" (at least like how it was). Such an essay wouldn't be an encouragement for a closed inner community, but rather it would also mention that an inner community is generally not a good idea. So I fail to see how this idea would aid someone in keeping Esperanza alive. The idea in my head is much simpler than Quack's, in that it would just be a simple and short essay. No need to link to stuff like "programs" and all that. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving programs off Esperanza

Since it looks like Esperanza's going to get tagged historical, or outright deleted, I think there should be some discussion about the remaining programs - are any of them good enough to be kept? If so, where's the best place to put them? These are my suggestions:

Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Happy Birthday -> merge with WP:BDC, never saw the need for two
Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Tutorial Drive -> move to User:The Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom, perhaps? However, If the tutorials are of high quality, and the Misplaced Pages community approves them, they should be allowed to exist in main-space somewhere.
Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Alerts -> move to Misplaced Pages:Kindness Campaign (Dev920 mentioned this might be an appropriate place for it)
Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Reach out -> ditto (This page strikes me as a more informal version of the stress alerts. Someone might be reluctant to make a formal "Stress Alert!" post, but prefer a forum where they can quietly ask a question or two about whatever's giving them WikiStress.)
Any thoughts on these destinations? Any other programs you think should be kept in some form? Quack 688 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am doubtful of the value of keeping Stress Alerts in its current format. Quite often it is used simply to rant about how awful Misplaced Pages and its community are, and the page is pretty much dead anyway. What life there is is too often used up by people who are permanently on that page and never take themselves off it. Moreschi 14:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually support this. As well as Misplaced Pages:esperanza/Admin coaching move to Misplaced Pages:admin coaching. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 15:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What, even after Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school? Don't think so myself. Moreschi 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should transfer the images on WP:EA/I to the WP:BDC--Ed Reviews? 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after taking a look at WP:EA/I, maybe we should just keep the smile templates, the coffee mug, the cake, and the wine glasses and give them to the BDC--Ed Reviews? 15:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have said in the MfD, not a single program has unanimous support to be rescued. We should not save an Esperanzan program because Esperanzans want them saved. It should all be deleted, and any programs you think should be recreated should be proposed in the normal manner, as any other Misplaced Pages proposal. Any infrastructure you require can be retrieved by admin. Either it all goes or bad Esperanzan ideas are going to live on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Errmm, actually, a lot of non-esperanzians have expressed interest in keeping certain programmes. It's important to remember that. Thε Halo 17:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We should not save an Esperanzan program because Esperanzans want them saved. By the same token, we should not delete an Esperanzan program just because it's got a history with Esperanza. Do you want these specific programs deleted because they're too bureaucratic, or because they're Esperanzan? Anything that gets deleted on Misplaced Pages should get deleted on its own merits, not due to guilt by association. Can you honestly look at programs like the Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Tutorial Drive and tell me they have no place whatsoever in Misplaced Pages, and more than that, that they damage the community? If there's a Misplaced Pages-wide tutorial program they could be put into, great. If not, I'd suggest that's something that's missing from Misplaced Pages. Quack 688 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These programs are part of Esperanza. They were thought up by Esperanza, agreed by Esperanza, and run by Esperanza. What normal Wikipedians thought of them was never taken into account, and thus it is perfectly reasonable to include them in the deletion. I am going to say this once and I hope you will actually read this: If you think an individual program ought to be recreated outside of Esperanza, propose it so people can debate its merits. Don't say "Oh, well, it's a good idea, we just need to move it". There are people who do not think those programs are a good idea, and have said so on this MfD. Please stop trying to unilaterally create programs in Misplaced Pages without any kind of consensus. An MfD is not the place to start a consensus building discussion so please, I beg of you, hold your fire until the the MfD is over and then propose whatever programs you think were a good idea, and establish a consensus for their creation before proceeding. Thank you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As you once said Dev, Esperanzains are Wikipedians, so all the programmes that might be saved have been used by "normal" Wikipedians. And, I think that if every programme or every article had to have a discussion with consenus before it was made, we'd all be here a very long time. Rather, make something and if it doesn't work, or isn't wanted, it is quite easy to delete it. That's what's great about a wiki, nothing's set in stone. Thε Halo 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with some programs being moved to new locations. I would point out to Dev920 that several of those programs include large amounts of good-faith edits contributed under the GFDL. To simply recreate them from scratch somewhere else is akin to a cut and paste move, and the original contributor loses the credit. You do know that cut and paste moves are bad, right? In general, umbrella nominations like this are notorious for being blunt instruments that sweep out the good with the bad. Trust the Misplaced Pages community to get this right and allow the moving and integration of various parts as needed. Consider it step two along the road. Step three can be to come back and do MfDs of various parts if anyone thinks they haven't reintegrated back into the wider Misplaced Pages structure. At the moment, your "delete all" approach is coming down more on the side of destructive deletion, rather than thoughtful deletion, in my opinion. If you read up on examples where the historical tag has been used, and where the move function has been used to properly move page history and pages to subpages of other pages, you will see how careful reconstructive surgery is possible, rather than using a blunt scalpel to hack everything out. Carcharoth 22:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)