User:Dev920/Comments on Esperanza

A compilation of my mini-essay replies on Esperanza. They have been lifted from both discussions and talkpages, and thus may refer to the people I was addressing at the time.

Absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devestating delete. I have seen the belief that Esperanzans are superior to normal editors first hand, and I have felt threatened by these attempts to make me a second class Wikipedian. Look at the comments above. Wikipedia without Esperanza is supposedly "cold-hearted" - I am not cold hearted, and neither is any other editor I have worked with, and as half the comments on this thread have been in the vein that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would be a lifeless husk, as someone who has never joined Esperanza, I feel deeply insulted by that. The comments of Esperanzans on this thread have been insulting and demeaning to users who do agree with the existence of Esperanza: their response has been to claim they are justified because it's Esperanza. Again, this demonstrates the feeling of superiority that Esperanzans seem to feel they are entitled to. I am also extremely alarmed to learn that Wikipedians who have been suffering mental health issues have been persuaded to stay online because of begging peer pressure tactics employed by Esperanzans - as someone who suffers from depression myself I find the idea absolutely horrifying - one should leave the Wikipedian community immediately until fully recovered. I have also been deeply worried to discover that Esperanza is being used a a method of votestacking to get more Esperanzan Admins - if Esperanza is not deleted something needs to be done about this immediately. Finally, I think the complete lack of interest of every Esperanzan so far in an honest debate about the merits and otherwise of Esperanza demonstrate that editors who join lose sight of the goals of Wikipedia, and thus Esperanza is a danger to Wikipedia and ought to be deleted. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but no. Esperanza is explicitly an organisation of individuals, which is meant to act as a community and, as has been pointed out, has an extensive bureaucracy to keep its members to the rules, thus if members take from their membership the idea that they are superior to other editors and indispensable to Wikipedia because everyone else is so cold and unfeeling, that is definitely the fault of the organisation because they certainly didn't get from non-Esperanzans. Incidentally, I did not accuse Esperanza of being corrupt. YOU did. In any case, having pointed out these flaws, and you having accepted them, I am at a loss as to why you think it is possible to reform a system that specifically exists to promote itself and its members. Personally, I find it difficult to see how the admin votestacking COULD be stopped without immediate dismantlement of this exclusivist club. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are not a member of Esperanza, you may not have the EA barnstar, you cannot participate in any of the programs if you are not a member, and you will be discrimated against at RfA if you are not a member. THAT is exclusionist. I never said Esperanza itself is corrupt - I assume good faith and the thought didn't occur to me. Now of course, I accuse Esperanza of being corrupt, of using its membership to insinuate itself, however unintentionlly, in the upper ranks of our community, because its true. Your sudden feeling of persecution has come from this MfD because you have finally realised that there are large numbers of Wikipedians out there who do not like Esperanza and do not think it as marvellous as Esperanzans do. I, on the other hand, have been marginalised by Esperanzans for months, because I do not wear a green e in my name. I'm sure you consider this fine, because I could join Esperanza if I wanted to. Finally, regarding the smearing, non-Esperanzans attacked Esperanza, not its members, Esperanzans called delete voters cold hearted, mad, evil, jealous, and people who wanted to suck the very life out of Wikipedia. You cannot claim the high ground on this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I really do think this [Admin coaching] project needs to be deleted altogether. There are Wikipedia wide initatives, such as editor review and adopt a user that perform exactly the same thing. My view is that once an Esperazan program is adopted across Wikipedia, that Esperanzan program should disband, as its role is done. MANY comments on the MfD expressed high concern at Admin coaching, and I don't see why it should contnue to exist as a source of division. Its reputation has been tainted, and if Esperanza is to ever restore its image it needs to be seen to jettison all programs that are disapproved of by the Wikipedia community at large. Admin coaching is one of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde. As I said in my vote on the MfD, the last thing I would recommend to someone stressed out and/or ill from Wikipedia is to remain here. Speaking from experience, having forced myself to stay off Wikipedia when it made me ill, wikibreaks are beneficial when necessary. I fear the Stress alerts, from some Esperanzan's comments on MfD, have been used as a form of peer pressure, however unintentionally, to force people to keep editing. Indeed, from the extremely emotional reaction of some people, including one person who said they were rescued from the brink of suicide by Esperanza, I think some people who would otherwise have left have become dependant on Esperanza and do little else on Wikipedia but chat here. Which is not healthy for either them or Wikipedia. The stress alerts may need to be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Esperanza is necessary because, without it, I seriously doubt that anyone would do what we do without it." Well, I do for start, without ever having been a part of Esperanza. It's this "Wikipedia would collapse without us" mentality that garnered you so many delete votes at the MfD. You keep implying that every editor without the omnipresence of Esperanza is some sort of hardhearted firebreathing deletionist who want to chain everyone to their deasks and have them edit fourteen hours a day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the idea in principle, Doomsday, but I have seen Esperanzan after Esperanzan claiming that Esperanza is absolutely vital to the continuing happiness of editors, and without it we would all be, yes, mean. I can pull out some quotes to support this from the MfD if you would like. And if Esperanzans believe that, then they need a severe reality check. But I wonder where they got that attitude from - and I wonder if any amount of reform can change an Esperanzan's heart. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, every Esperanzan insists on comparing Esperanza to WikiProjects as a justification for their existence, but when it is pointed out that WikiProjects run without any kind of leadership or governance (and yes I am aware that MILHIST has co-ordinators, but they established a need for special roles before they created them), suddenly Esperanzans need to be "kept in line" or be guided in some way that no Wikipedian would tolerate outside Esperanza. The main arguments for leadership is that they "make decisions" "perform maintenence" or "act as spokesmen for us". Why are Esperanzans incapable of doing this for themselves? Anywhere else on Wikipedia, if an editor sees a problem they fix it, or they propose an idea to fix it. That same editor then comes to Esperanza and puts themselves under the authority of the Council, who do everything for them. It is ridiculous. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiZach's reply is just *SUCH* an example of Esperanza being completely out of touch to Wikireality. "I just believe that we cannot all decide policies, we need leadership." Never mind that every other policy on Wikipedia was suggested and accepted or rejected by the communities themselves. Never mind that every day people start discussions that lead to new things on Wikipedia. For some reason on Esperanza, doing things the Wikipedian way is wrong, and yet you say you are just as much Wikipedians first and foremost as the rest of us. "For an example look here. We are talking and debating. We may never finish." Then clearly the discussion needs to continue forever, like the endless debate between deletionists and inclusionists, between WP:Straw polls and WP:Voting is evil, between WP:IGNORE and everything else. This is what Wikipedia is built on, discussion and uncertainty. If consensus is not reached either the discussion continues or the people leave the discussion out of boredom. But on Wikipedia, we don't elect a massive council to let them make decisions for us. You keep insisting you need leadership, but as Brian said "You are all individuals, you need to think for yourselves". You keep wanting governance you do not need. The fact that AC exists was criticised from the very beginning of Esperanza seems to have been forgotten by you: people were objecting from the very first day back in 2005 about incessant layers of bureaucracy, yet you see yourself as part of the Wikipedian community? If you truly want to integrate yourselves, get rid of it. I proposed that you drop the council for a period of a few months back on the overhaul dicussion, to see if you really needed the governance you say Esperanza would collapse without, but funnily enough, it was derailed by two Councillors... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to new Esperanza charter. Esperanza should be no different from Wikipedia, and as such its governance should be the same: decisions should be made by the people, for the people, using discussion to reach a consensus, as established in WP:CONSENSUS. No special titles or committees should be set up to perform maintenence which is easily carried out by any other editor, unless it is for a specific task such as newsletter making and anyone is free to add themselves to the committee without a vote.

If there is a clear, established need for a co-ordinator, one may be appointed in an election style process for a perod of six months. This co-ordinator may have no decision-making powers, no right to guide discussions, particularly those regarding his own position, s/he may only co-ordinate the project. Programs may not have their own appointed "leader" though some members may contribute more than others.End amendment.

I have tried very, very hard to get them to see they are no different from the rest of Wikipedia, but their arrogance and determination to set themselves apart astounds me. Have you noticed that they deleted their programs on the basis that Esperanza would be deleted entirely if they didn't, not because they accepted our criticisms? How can they continue to believe that without "strong governance", Esperanza would collapse? Do they even edit Wikipedia? How can they claim Esperanza is an inviolable part of Wikipedia, when no-one, with the exception of Doomsday, displays any of the attitudes that characterises Wikipedians? What Wikipedian would tolerate being told what to do by a supreme council? What Wikipedian, or indeed, democrat for that matter, would argue that decision-making should taken out of their hands whenever possible? Why, when a similar program to one they have is set up for all Wikipedians, separate from Esperanza, do they actually suggest that they merge to Esperanza, and are actually surprised when their proposal is rejected? The mind boggles at just how insulated Esperanzans are from the rest of us.

I'm not sure they can do anything that will get them out of this uniquely Esperanzan rut. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. Have you noticed that most of Esperanza appears to be under 18?)

On the subject of Esperanza though, as I have been made very aware by other editors, including Elaragirl, and as I have noticed myself by perusing the member list, not all Esperanzans can be tarred with the same brush. I could never, for example, accuse Essjay on working on Esperanza at the expense of the Encyclopedia, or Angela of being completely against Wikipedian norms, or Kirill Lokshin of not contributing enough. :D And I would not want to.

But I would venture to say that these people are not massively involved in Esperanza on a day to day level(I don't know how Essjay ended up admin general, so I may be wrong on this one). And the people who are... let's say they don't have the experience of editing as a Wikipedian. No, that's not right, because I believe that a lot of Esperanzans are perfectly competent editors - but for some reason they switch their caps when they enter Esperanza. What works for Wikipedia suddenly does not work for Esperanza. Wikipedia has virtually no decision makers, only a process to guide consensus by: on Esperanza, this somehow evolved into a seven member council who hold closed meetings on IRC. It is actions like that that cause me to wonder at what point Esperanzans began to believe themslves different from the rest of us. And why they think this is OK.

Esperanza only has 700 members (and I bet under half of them are in any way active) but Esperazans believe they are completely indispensable, and insult the rest of us accordingly. I am "robotic", "cold-hearted", "heartless", "made of stone" and in some way inhumane because I do not agree with Esperanza's existence and do not participate in it. I cannot do anything about this, just like I cannot do anything about Esperanza's constant belief that bureaucracy is good. And that, I think, is the true problem. I can advocate deleting the council, but I cannot stop an Esperanzan thinking it is a marvellous idea. I can insist massive disclaimers be put everywhere saying "ESPERANZA IS NOT BETTER THAN WIKIPEDIA", but I cannot stop an Esperanzan thinking me "made of stone" because I act on my beliefs rather than join an organisation that stands for them. I can change Esperanza, or try to, but I cannot change an Esperanzan. I can edit their pages, but not their hearts.

On a more personal note, I do not recall saying it was arrogant to propose a merger. I did however say it was arrogant to suggest that the Birthday Committee should merge to Esperanza than the other way around, so I assume it was something like that. What I meant by that is that, in my view, if Esperanza, or any other organisation, sets up a program, which is then consequently developed on Wikipedia as a standalone program, then Esperanza should give that program up: its job is done. What others, and I assume you, were suggesting, if someone sets up a program, than it should be brought under the jurisdiction of Esperanza, which I utterly disagree with. Esperanza is, and by its existence always will be, a part of the community, rather than the community itself. If the community undertakes to run its own program, than Esperanza should not muscle in and claim a monopoly, or a merger. Using the Birthday Committee as an example, the letter sent to BDC was dismissive and basically said "We're better at this than you, give in to us". As I have mentioned previously, Esperanza carries far more bureaucratical baggage than any non-Esperanzan would be prepared to tolerate, which is why the Kindness Campaign have consistently turned down the prospect of a merger, and will always do so - they cannot stomach the concept of having decisions made for them. You may notice that they have absolutely no leadership of any kind. Why would they want to merge with an organisation that insists on elections every four months, totally distracting them from the main purpose of their membership? I do not know why The Kindness Campaign was set up, but I strongly suspect it was because Esperanza does not spread Wikilove, only green "e"s, and insists on stifling bureaucracy. You should notice here, that an Esperanzan posted asking if the project was dead, because he couldn't understand why he was seeing no activity on the talkpage - it took a KC member to remind him that KC members carry out their campaign into Wikipedia, rather than build an insulated sub-community.

I suspect this was somewhat longer than you intended, but I really wanted to explain in a compassionate way where I think Esperanza is going so very wrong, and why I think it would take an act of God to change it. I hope He has mercy on all of us. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's role, as you define it, is to spread hope and love among editors. Can you do that if you keep all your programs internally? If something's a good idea, someone outside Esperanza will set something similar up outside Esperanza. In that case, it is better to accept that Esperanza has achieved its goal, hive off that program and come up with something else. You did it with Trading Spaces, I see no reason why a similar cannot be done elsewhere. By keeping things in-house, only Esperanzans will be interested. You can talk about opening it up, or promoting it outside Esperanza, but it won't work. people will see that Esperanza label, that trademark green, and turn off. Moving the idea out, into the community, to bring happiness to the greatest number, that's where you will find true Esperanzan ideals - not the monopolist insular trend that currently prevails. If Esperanza is meant to promote WikiLove, then it will continue to do so, with or without programs, just as the Kindness Campaign does. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)