Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Libertyville/USCongress

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Libertyville/USCongress
Relisted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clear violation of WP:BLP, WP:UP. The existence of this cannot be legitimated by any encyclopedic goal, it does not serve in any way to build a sense of community, quite the opposite, it has no project benefit; wikipedia userspace is not a free speech zone, extreme political rhetoric has no place there. (Creator is inactive.) Cenarium (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me preface this by admitting my general bewilderment at the stupidity and utter uselessness of 90% of userboxes. So I might not be the most impartial judge in this affair. Yet I don't see any way to reconcile this userbox with the Userboxes guideline. This is divisive and polemical. I thinks there's a big difference between "I believe in party X" (political, non polemic) and "I believe party Y sucks" (political, looking for a fight). I'm sure some will argue that the userbox is necessary as a way to disclose a bias. No, it's not. If you feel so strongly about politics in your country, then just create a userbox that reads "This user has such strong feelings about political issues in country X that he will not touch these articles with a ten-foot pole." You get the full effect of disclosure without antagonizing anyone. Pichpich (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe userboxes are an important outlet for editors to express their personal POVs. I'd much rather a user had this userbox on their userpage than edit the article 111th United States Congress with an undeclared bias. Buddy431 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are acceptable manners to express one's POV, this one is not. Cenarium (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 11:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is precisely what userboxes are for, yet this issue keeps coming up. Everyone should have a few userboxes (if they want) with a little about themselves, stating their POVs, and what they like or dislike whether it's recycling, cats, or Dick Cheney, and go edit. This is all in compliance with every policy. It's good that people tell us their biases. For the record, I disagree with the userbox and believe the worst Congress (I won't tell you exactly which because this isn't a userbox) was somewhere between 1850 and 1880.  EdEColbert  Let me know 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * delete I'm troubled by the polemic language used here and the fact it points to specific people. It suffices to say your party or philosophical alignment rather than attack specific politicians.  Not useful for colaboration. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, this is the perfect implementation of the German userbox solution. Uncontroversial, wikipedia related userboxes go in template space, controversial or un-Wikipedia-related userboxes go in userspace.  And I disagree: I think this type of admission is useful for collaboration.  I guess we must disagree. Buddy431 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2011 (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.