Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns
Doomed venture, unlikely to cause anything but pain to those advocating return since (a) it's not going to happen and (b) the bitterness over its closure lingers even now. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You might as well add User:Abd/Userbox/Esperanza returns. to the nomination. --Calton | Talk 10:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns and what I like to call WP:STOPBEATINGADEADHORSE. -Nard 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's at WP:STICK - and actually it's precisely the point. Esperanza ain't coming back, so there's no point having a userbox advocating it coming back.  The last MfD was a year ago, I think we have moved on since then. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Says who? There was never a mandate or community decision that it could never come back; just not as it was. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Esperanza was ostensibly crushed because of the bureaucracy. It is possible it could come back without that. Leave it alone. However, if JzG has a crystal ball, I could certainly use some information from it. I just put that userbox on my User page. No obligation. And I'm not feeling any pain. If I do, I'll take it out. Thanks for the thought, though.--Abd (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the the above editor is the creator of the identical User:Abd/Userbox/Esperanza returns. --Calton | Talk 10:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. I bet he didn't even have to checkuser me. All he had to do was read the above, look at my user page, and see that the ugly MfD message wasn't showing. Actually, it's not identical. The message is unique to each instance, all that is identical is the image and the link to WP:Esperanza. Now, folks, have you thought this through? Fastest way to get Esperanza back: delete the userboxes. Seriously. I don't like wikidrama, but it does one thing: it gets people's attention. The fuss over WP:PRX, and, in particular, the failed attempt to MfD it, has done more to spread the idea than simply leaving it alone would ever have done. People do not like to be censored, it wakes them up, causes them to seek out support from the like-minded, which is why settled societies have generally established freedom of speech. It allows the majority to prevail without causing continual disruption. Defy the laws of social interaction, suffer the consequences. There is very, very good reason for the precedent that we leave user space alone, absent necessity. Want to find out? Be bold! Delete the userboxes. But you might not like the result.--Abd (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way. Still no pain. No bitterness either. Apparently the diagnosis was incorrect, I can tolerate supporting Esperanza without side-effects. Or, more accurately, the "side-effects" are better than the status quo, I realize how effing depressed I was without my Esperanza. (Which was "killed," or so they thought, before I was truly wiki-born.) . I'll let you know if that changes, that is, I will notify anyone who asks to be notified by comment on my Talk page (response there or by email) or by watching User:Abd/Notices, which I just created.--Abd (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is much analogous to if the pro-choice movement were to propose forcing the removal of all pro-life bumper stickers from cars that use the public highways. Would that be an effective way of shutting down the debate and putting it behind us, or would it be more likely to cause the whole thing to flare up anew? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This MfD is displaying on user pages. It should be speedily closed and the notice removed to fix them.--Abd (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Or at least it should be. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 05:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, fixed. Thanks.--Abd (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of a terse but very eloquent remark which my colleague and esteemed fellow contributor uttered not so very long ago, and which I believe is quite apropos to this discussion and therefore bears repeating; and without objection, I will now read that quotation before the assembly: "Keep and butt out of people's user pages. Geez." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Other people's user pages? Last I checked it is not their user page. Greeves (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! Greeves, if you are saying that it is your user page, you are violating policy by commenting here as a sock puppet, or if you mean it is the user page of the nominator, you should file a report at WP:SSP. Which is it? Or was your comment merely in error? Any other possibilities? Ah, perhaps you mean, yes, don't touch Feureau's user page, it's not yours.--Abd (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct; it is not their userpage. But, another analogy one might use is that userspace is like an apartment. The landlord rents it out, and has a provision in the lease saying that he can inspect it, do work on it, etc. Is it wise for him, though, to intrude on his tenant in a dickish manner? If he makes enough of a pest of himself, the tenant is unlikely to stay. Similarly, our users "rent" their userspace by making productive edits, with the understanding they do not own it. Just because we can intrude on them doesn't mean we should, though, and we may lose editors if we do it too much. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and find something better to do. Maybe wishing for free ponies for everyone, for example. --Calton | Talk 10:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's dead, it took a lot of effort to kill, it's not coming back. -- Fredrick day 11:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nice to have the enemies of Hope self-identify. Let's just say that we won't be canvassing Fredrick day. (In fact, we won't canvass at all. Hope has no need to violate policy, it is policy.) Esperanza never died, they never killed it, but so it appeared to them. it is sleeping, and it is waking up. Watch. (Geez, this is an old message, from a member banned long ago, is this sock puppetry? I hope so.) --Abd (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You might feel it took a "lot of effort to kill", but I recall that Esperanza members were also involved in that final MfD and conclusion that the project (as it was, at that time) should be shut down. That's not a "kill". -- Ned Scott 03:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if it is dead and not coming back, it doesn't mean that someone can't hope for its return and express it. Eh, let people have their wild hopes in their userspace, it's not hurting anyone for it to still be up.  Why do some people advocate Communism in America even when it's most likely not going to happen?  Let people have their hopes if it's not offensive to anyone.  Red phoenix 526  (Talk) 15:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Would anyone care to cite a policy or guideline justifying this page's deletion? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're thinking in reverse. Policy or guideline doesn't come about arbitrarily, it is brought about by consensus. If a consensus exists to delete this page, there may be a need for a policy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete project Wikilawyer should stay dead - it was nothing but a hive for trolls and people needing "just one more chance". This box is just a magnet for wikidrama and should be deleted - it adds nothing to the project. --88.105.110.62 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is very similar to having a bumper sticker on your car. Even though we have "settled" the issue that abortion should remain legal, people still have pro-life stickers on their cars. I'm not offended by it. I respect their wish to express their opinion. The majority has the right to rule, but the minority has the right to express its opinion. And if we're going to thwart their political objectives from being realized, the least we can do is allow that one small protest. We all pay taxes to support the public highways, and they are communal property, so we can express whatever opinions we desire (within reason) while we're driving on them. Similarly, we all make contributions through our productive edits to support the encyclopedia, and we should be able to express our opinions in userspace, especially Wikipedia-related opinions.


 * They might say that in addition to their own votes, there are also the votes that the unborn children would cast if they could speak. Similarly, in addition to those who speak in favor of Esperanza here, there are some who have left in protest who would speak for it if they were still around; and who might return if Esperanza comes back. Lastly, there is always the possibility that the majority is simply wrong. I'm thinking of adding some remarks about userboxes to WP:WIKIDRAMA. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's a bad analogy. It's more like driving through California with a bumper sticker saying that homosexuality should be re-criminalized.  We got rid of a bad thing, and advocating its return is not in any way helpful. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a "bad thing", it was a project that didn't work out (at the time). The concept and original goals were very much a good thing, and that is something that some people who supported the final MfD (including myself) had stated. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then try going to the Village Pump and starting the project again rather than have it hidden, inconspicuously, in a userspace.--WaltCip (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you refuting the claim I made, that the concept and original goals were good things? -- Ned Scott 09:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There's nothing wrong with the concept of Esperanza, and even during its MfD/shut-down we often discussed ways for it (or a program under another name) could learn from its mistakes. Esperanza shut down only because the current version was seen as "beyond repair", not because the core concept (a project to encourage community) was bad. There were many positive things about Esperanza, and I don't see any need to fear the idea that it might come back. In any case, regardless of how you feel about the situation if Esperabza, it's related to the project, it's not offensive, and not much different than any other userbox that is promoting a proposal. -- Ned Scott 02:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * keep, why not? -- Naerii  21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ned Scott said it all. There's nothing divisive or inflammatory about the userbox.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Midway upon life's journey... 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing resembling a valid reason to delete.  People are allowed to have opinions about Wikipedia, including whether or not Esperanza should be revived (and whether or not that happens, I couldn't care less). --JayHenry (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If people want to say this on their user page there is no good reason to stop them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as not inflammatory, but a message to the user whose userbox this is: Esperanza isn't coming back. --Core desat 07:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not devisive or polemic. Perhaps it is a futile effort but not harmful to the project.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It to soon after St. Patrick's Day to delete a green ribbon. And, I suppose, weirder things than Esperanza returning have happened. None come to mind right now, though. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, and realize that it ain't coming back. The idea of hope is a good one to apply to interactions onwiki, but the scars left from the collapse of the organization run too deep for us to be naively anticipating the return of an unfortunate chapter in Wikipedia history. May as well let the not-yet-disillusioned Esperanzans have their fun and keep the userbox; I do object to the proposal, but I suppose they have enough of a right to state their support of it as I do to object. I'd like to think we've moved on as a community, although it appears this isn't quite the case. Grace notes T § 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As mentioned, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns gives us some precedent, here. It's one thing to stop massive use of resources from being put to use for iffy benefits to the project, but something else entirely to go around performing a coup de grace on any lingering remnants, slapping users who dare to even mention the name of Esperanza. We needn't deny our rich history to achieve our ends. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So have a userbox that says "this user fondly remembers Esperanza", not "this user wants Esperanza back" since the latter is never going to happen. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that, too. Is plausibility a requirement, in userspace? – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The userbox has a field that customizes the message. Unless it's contrary to policy, the user can say what the user likes. Some here might like to put "Esperanza Sucked. Get Over It." Does anyone imagine that I'd MfD it? The big secret, though: Esperanza is back. Without the bureaucracy and vulnerable centralization. Hope is alive. Pass it on. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing the failed project Esperanza with the noun "hope" meaning "wishful thinking."--WaltCip (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least this is related to the project unlike so many of the political ones. gren グレン 14:59, 20 March 2008 (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.