Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. (Closed by: User:Bucketsofg)

User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns
Yet another userbox to get Esperanza restored. This is not the why we go about these things. If you feel you can overturn the consensus, then make a DRV. It was speedied a while back, and restored. The box only creates drama, thus I am formally listing it here for deletion. My friends, you need to get out of denial and move on. Esperanza is not coming back, and it never, ever should. "''Denial - The "This can't be real" stage.: "This is not happening to me. There must be a mistake." This is you right now.  This is where you need to be.  Acceptance - The "This is going to happen" stage.: "I'm ready, I don't want to struggle anymore.''" (from the five stages of grief).  Dooms  Day349  17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would we accept a userbox saying "This user calls for the reinstatement of X" for anything else which was deleted? No. Should we make an exception here? No. -Amarkov blahedits 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Esperanza was originally a good thing, or so I'm told. Who's to say they aren't calling for the return of that form of the program, or even the ideal itself? Besides, we keep stuff like userboxes of things like thinly veiled mockery of religion all the time. No point persecuting the refugees here. Definitely remove the category though. --tjstrf talk 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But you see, it's not the proper way to go about this. They should create a deletion review instead of creating private sects and drama.   Dooms  Day349  20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd think that any DRV with a chance of success would have to be scheduled for early 2008. However, that's not the point. There is no rule that this box breaks, expressions of belief, stupid jokes, whatever are all allowed. And we assume that the creator doesn't intend to abuse it until proven otherwise. --tjstrf talk 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be no specific rule that it breaks. But a userbox made to protest against deletion of anything else would be pretty much immediately deleted. Why is this different? -Amarkov blahedits 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The user concerned was warned by an admin that the userbox was likely to create Wikidrama, but they went ahead anyway. The userbox is extremely divisive and so far, with the exception of the creator, is being used by people who are actively trying to bring Esperanza back against consensus. Really not something that should be kept on Wikipedia - it's intensely ironic that Esperanza is now causing exactly the kind of divided and stressed community it sought to help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a userbox and userboxes are allowed. I've seen alot of userboxes that are way way worse than this, but i didn't say anything because, hey, 'it's just a userbox!!! --Why1991 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As unnecessary trollbait. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't the most devisive userbox on Wikipedia, Look at This user's Userboxs, such as "This user enjoys being white". I see nothing wrong with this user box, it should be allowed. RiseRobotRise 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, this is sort of a reply to the aboves. I'm saying that the userbox says that they believe the MFD was conducted wrongly, and it wasn't.  We had consensus.  But whatever.  They wanna have the box, whatever...Esperanza's not coming back.   Dooms  Day349  04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If they want Esperanza, thats their deal. Just because that project is null, dosn't mean they can't have their own userbox. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with the project itself. RiseRobotRise 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You've won the war, now let them have a little fun. Xiner (talk, email) 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, userbox – Gurch 05:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per nom —Jfowler27 07:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the user who created this userbox, I think I should clarify a few things. The Userbox was created without consulting any admin and was my own initiative. It was later deleted by an admin without any explanation. Only after another admin pointed out that the userbox was potentially devisive that the admin who deleted it posted a talk about deleting it. I offered a compromise to the admin to no avail. I later recreated the userbox with a rewording. It was later blanked by another user and a concensus was reached to have it blanked for a week and then have it reinstated after the dust settles. The conversation is archived here: User talk:Feureau/Archive/2007/Jan. The userbox was never meant to be divisive and the initial intention was good. Esperanza was a fun organization to be part of. And I miss it. The purpose of the userbox is not to cause dissent or calling the MfD of esperanza was mishandled or unjustified, but instead, its purpose is to let some former Esperanzians to express their opinion, which calls for the return for Esperanza, peacefully. Having a userbox on the user's page does not spam any talk page or village pump or any other users with shouts of dissatisfaction of the decision to delete Esperanza. (It would polarize users and cause drama/cliques wouldn't it?) Instead it lets the users to vent their dissatisfaction in an expressively quiet and peaceful manner. (hey, it's just a box in a user's page) I hope that any misuse of the userbox by trolls or other irresponsible users wouldn't be attributed to the purpose of this userbox. Do it the Esperanza Way. ;) ~ Feureau E.S.P. 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Esperanza is dead, dead, dead. We do not need divisive calls for reinstatement in the form of userboxes. Even when dead, EA still causes wikidrama. Quite apart from anything else, if this calls for the full reinstatement of Esperanza, do we really want the Coffee Lounge back? Moreschi Deletion! 11:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - How does a userbox cause wikidrama? Even worse then the nazi userboxes that are still floating around? What is a wikidrama anyway? WP:WIKIDRAMA redirects to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not a wikipedia official policy.  Stop citing them on your deletion reason. XIZIX 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I understand the nominator's sentiment. I don't exactly like this userbox and agree that it may be divisive. However, unlike a template (such as Greene, which is serves somewhat the same purpose as this userbox and which I've nominated for deletion), I think the consensus has been to be a bit more lienient with userboxes that are based in user space. Agent 86 21:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep vote from an old userbox deletionist It's in userspace. It's not doing any harm. It takes up a fraction of the server space of this debate. If he wants to call for the return of the dodo, let him. If it annoys you /ignore it. -Docg 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree that this userbox could be divisive, and the Esperanza juggernaut isn't coming back. But I've seen userboxes out there expressing much more offensive personal opinions than this. If you start deleting userboxes like this, where do you draw the line? What if someone simply writes "This user calls for the return of Esperanza." on their user page, and adds a picture of a green ribbon? It's a slippery slope. Quack 688 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting the box will create far more drama than keeping it. I see no reason not to allow people a box to mourn and remember a deleted project that positively contributed to WP for so long. There's no point in forcing them to go to DRV when you know it will fail. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mourning and remembrance is different from calling for the return of something which was deleted properly. -Amarkov blahedits 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, CSD Templates-1, divisive template. (Yes, it is a template. A template is "a page which can be inserted into another page via a process called transclusion" (Help:Template), and this is made for transclusion, see what links here. No wikilawyering about where the page happens to be, please.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrmm...an interesting point indeed, but we'd have to prove it was divisive, and that would be very, very hard to do.  Dooms  Day349  01:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may counter with "The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive." Charon X /talk 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Per Quack 688. —Jfowler27 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Guess I'll chime in too. I agree that the category should be removed. But aside from that I fail to see what greater harm this userbox threatens to do. So far I count 5 transclusions from userpages, which does not summon any worries of campaigning, should this become an issue then we should look into this again. Charon X /talk 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep while I disagree with the userbox, I uphold the user's right to have a userbox that says that... especially since it's in userspace. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.