Where to gather together userboxes? Should we just add them to Wikipedia:Userboxes as usual, or will we be forced to create a new place?

Is it OK to put userboxes under User:Userboxes, or are they more likely to be deleted by rogue admins? User:Userboxes/Satanist got deleted once already. —Ashley Y 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the idea is to move userboxes to user space to get them out of the clutches of deletionist admins, as many (including more than a few deletionist admins) have claimed, and if Jimbo endorses the solution, then on what grounds are they deleted? If userboxes can be deleted by admins even in user space, then why bother? Let the admins have their way, and us peons will know exactly where we stand - nowhere at all. Jay Maynard 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them on your personal pages (check my sig). If they keep deleting them there (usually claiming the Jimbo hates boxes et al) whack them with the following: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." State that they are not following Jimbo's suggestions as they claim, they are not following policy or consensus, and that they basically vandalize your pages. If they do it again, start an RFC or RFA. Let's see how they talk themselvs out of that one. CharonX talk Userboxes 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Let's see how they talk themselvs out of that one.' They do it by being 'right' in the eyes of Tony Sidaway et al - someone has already tried to RFAr Cyde over this issue (worse than simply deleting userboxes - Cyde was actually vandalizing the templates), and it was rejected. Cynical 10:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still believe in the community. While they have Jimbo's words and T1 as an "argument" they could always say "I only did what was 'right'". However Jimbo explicitely mentions the methods known to us as 'German solution' and says it was implemented with great effect. So they cannout say "We only did what Jimbo said". And they cannot use T1 since T1 is not appicable in userspace. They have bent T1 in templatespace against its spirits (a means to kill hatespeech etc.) but there is no similar policy on userspace to bend. So they would have to act outside policy without the tinyest figleaf. CharonX/talk 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few admins may still try to use T1. I've seen the claim made that any transclusion is considered a template and thus fair game for T1. Should that interpretation to all the way to ArbComm I'm not sure how it would hold up but it would be interesting. In the interim, I've started converting my own on page userbox code over to an archive of userboxes. The next task will see if starting a conversion of Wikipedia:Userboxes will work to allow people to find these user page hosted transclude boxes. --StuffOfInterest 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said above the transclusions in userspace are templates argument does not have the support of Jimbo. See my Jimbo-quote above. I too would be curious how ArbCom rules there, but I think we have a better chance with Jimbo having suggested that way.CharonX/talk 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best defense will be to get enough peopple creating their own archives that it will cause too much of an uproar if one admin decides to go on a deletion spree. To that end, I've created a cross link from my archive to your archive. If I see anyone else out there starting their own I'll add links for that as well. Oh, and sorry to say this, but I really don't like how you have the page name ending with a slash. It just doesn't seem to follow usual Wiki naming practice. Could you at least create a redirect from the non-slashed version to that one? --StuffOfInterest 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a link to your archive, and I moved the Userboxes/ to Userboxes (leaving an redirect). I really didn't notice that till you said it. oops. CharonX/talk 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would list them in the Wikipedia:Userboxes area (not the user account). If the admins start deleting the boxes from user space then they will be commiting vandalism in the absense of any dictates or concensus established policy. The problem with User:Userboxes is that it is more or less a puppet account for an archive. The boxes should be in a user's account and just a listing of them kept in the userboxes project page. --StuffOfInterest 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the effort organized. I'd suggest each sub-page of Wikipedia:Userboxes end up archived on the same group of pages.

I can easily see a later move to have Wikipedia:Userboxes eliminated because it seems "like an endorsement". Be prepared to replace it in user space also. GRBerry 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by your reference to sub-page archives. Could you please expand on that a bit. I'm concerned about someone going after Wikipedia:Userboxes as well. All we can do is have some level of cross linking between personal archives to help any future browsing users find what they are looking for. In the meantime, I've decided to be bold and try listing one religous and one political user box of mine out on Wikipedia:Userboxes sub-pages. We'll see if anybody notices, expands on it, or tries to kill it. At least now there are a few words from the benevloent dictator to backup this sort of presention of userboxes.

The funny thing is, I don't really like userboxes that much. The only thing that made me put more than language and skill boxes on my page was when a few admins started saying we could not have them. I just want to see some solution come around which puts an end to the war. --StuffOfInterest 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this really be called the German Solution? Isn't this a bit offensive to Germans? Why not the German Wikipedia Resolution?--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this be offensive? If anything it is a compliment. The editors on the German Wikipedia came up with a solution to the userbox issue without it degenerating into the sort of warfare we've seen here. --StuffOfInterest 21:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tree Biting Conspiracy says the name makes it sound like the german Final Solution--Rayc 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuk! Hopefully not too many people make that connection. If too many complain then this page may have to be renamed but I'll leave hope that most people can see the naming for what it is, a compliment. --StuffOfInterest 02:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to call it "The German compromise" but this name was already out there. Having "German" in the term clearly alludes to Jimbos' 5/27/06 comment, which is a good thing. Rfrisbie^talk 03:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like the name of a famous movie or something. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]