User talk:Metamagician3000/userbox thoughts

Thinking and discussion about the current userbox problem goes here.

Template speedy deletion criterion
Hello. You've had a bit to say there, I've had a bit to say there, but I want to make sure we cann see the forest for each other's knees. I'll talk in terms of how toxic the box is, paired with the CSD.
 * T1: Divisive - I think it's a silly criterion, and that really far out stuff we should simply delete as vandalism. This would allow us to go ahead and kill off "jews did WTC" while making us think twice (those of us who do think even once, that is) about speedy deleting anything less than the worst material.
 * T1.5: Bad, but not lethal - Err, have we forgotten how to edit? I made some edits to Template:Nazi to take it from "trolling" to a joke.  since no once was using it anyway and thus no one cared, it stuck.  Well, until Cyde deleted it, that is.  Starting howls of protest and rounds of TfD/DRv/TfD if I recall correctly.
 * T2: Pointless - I really don't know why we have them. I reckon that if TfD had not been made into a brain-free zone by the polarising actions of userbox crusaders on both sides, they'd mostly go.  Slowly, but they'd go.  And making something divisive and then deleting it as divisive is just slimy.

So it's not the deletion of the userboxes that I object to. It's the "take no prisoners", "I own wikipedia", "edit war over policy", "admins make the rules", "if you don't like it fork off" methods it's being handled I object to. The claims of "wikipedia isn't a social network" are mostly false anyway, but don't we also say "wikipedia is not a battleground?"

Anyway, I'm leaving this note here because I think that you've been well behaved, and I've appreciated some of the things that you've said on CSD talk. So I wanted to try to let you know where I was coming from, because I think we'd agree on more things than we'd disagree on.

brenneman {L} 08:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making contact. I realise that some admins have been very rough about this, but T2 is not the creation of those people. It was dreamt up by me and Lar, and a few others who wanted a proper reflection of a necessary practice in the written policy and were dismayed at the dubious T1-ing of templates such as "This user is a transhumanist." Very briefly, we seemed to have a consensus for it on the discussion page. Lar actually put the words in there on the project page, but I and some others have to take equal responsibility for his action.


 * It seems you agree that such templates must go, so why not enshrine that aim in written policy? At the moment, the resistance to T2, joined in by some senior people, is giving a false sense of hope that the POV userbox templates can be kept forever ... and they would not actually be deleted by TfDs at the moment because many users have not embraced the cultural change that Jimbo asked for, and are even resistant to it. With all respect, your activism is not helping us actually achieve the goal of getting rid of the viewpoint userbox templates, or the goal of bringing about cultural change. It's not good to take a stand because you don't like the approach of individuals like Tony Sidaway or Cyde, if that's who you had in mind. That really is failing to see the bigger picture. Why not have a talk to Lar as well?


 * Respectfully, Metamagician3000 11:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I talk a lot, so do you mind if we do a little back-and-forth? I know that some people tire quickly of extended discussions, so if you just reply with "Thanks, happy editing!" I'll get the picture.  I'll try to be more brief, though!


 * Putting something into a policy page is never a problem, and I've got no hard feelings to anyone about that. I've had my go at some daring changes to policy before.  It's how you negotiate the afterwards that counts.  With clarity and careful arguements, attempting to listen and respond, or by saying "stuff you, Jack?"  The reason for my stance is not simply that I'm unhappy with the process, it's that I think it's making the problem much worse.  We've narrowly missed broad consensus on proposals with huge participation a few times, I believe largly in part due to "rough" administratorial actions.  It activates enough partisanship to make compromise impossible.


 * Here's what I'd like to see: A total end to contentious userbox deletions for at least six weeks. Anyone who has demonstrated that they can't handle things tactfully told in no uncertain terms to go find something else to do.  A serious slowdown of nominating of userboxes for deletion. Followed by some actual dialog with people who are making user boxes.  (Forget the people who are just using them, by the way.  They aren't a problem.)  Attempt to understand why they love their little boxes so, and actually think about what harm might come of them.  Generate, through good will and dialog, support for a sensible guideline or policy.


 * Does that sound so hard? Really, is there some reason that the "heavy" admins can't lay off and let the "slowly slowly" guys have a go at it?  I mean, they've tried their way.


 * brenneman {L} 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Brenny asked me to pop in here, as he and I talk all the time. I'll have to think on this more but off the top of my head, I think it's possible to support T1 and T2 while not necessarily supporting excessively rash actions. I'm not sure a moratorium on deletions is an idea that would fly. It's been what, 5 months since this started and it just seems to be dragging on and on, it's time to crispen up consensus on what is allowed in non userspace, based on what consensus has already formed (I think it's not just a few rogue (and I don't mean rouge, I mean true rogues) admins here that are unilaterally deleting things... I think consensus has turned), and be consistent in what gets userified and deleted. That may mean wholesale action because retail seems to prolong the pain.  + + Lar: t/c 13:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm really where I was two weeks ago when we were talking about the changes to T1 that ended up becoming T2 ... just feeling frustrated at how it has gone. I'm not a fan of more delays - many people forget how much time has passed. That time could have been spent preparing the community for a new world in which those pretty boxes can no longer live in template space. I think there's plenty of blame to go around for the fact that that has not happened, and that this has not been a good change management exercise, but I'm not into blaming individuals, and we have to get past that. I want to see a solution. Although I'm not wanting more delay, I'm really not gung-ho about it; I'd be prepared countenance proposals that slow things down a little if they accepted that T2 is not ultimately negotiable, that the clear aim is to get the T2-type templates out of template space, and that this requires a definite and short deadline. Mainly, it's just not productive arguing over and over about whether the fundamental aim is a good one, as some people have been doing. Metamagician3000 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, if perhaps we started userfying T2 templates more widely? You've already done a bit of that haven't you MM3K?  -  brenneman  {L} 15:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've helped one user who wanted to userfy some deleted boxes. I'm happy to help out others in that way. I don't mind people having viewpoint userboxes, short of Nazi or pedophile ones, and perhaps within some limits of reasonableness as MartinRe says below; I just want the damn things out of template space.


 * Right now, T2 is our best hope of achieving that. I really think that it has to be part of any eventual policy and all you guys seem to sort of agree with me, whether or not you actually want it to be a category for speedy deletion. Metamagician3000 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just a followup on your comment of "such as a short phasing in period during which admins should delete only new userboxes that fall under T2", as this is very similar to the idea I put forward at WT:MACK, because I believe before we can reverse the tide, we have to first stop it. If anything, I was proposing a more extreme speedy delete criteria than T2, requiring a claim of "usefulability" for the creation of new templates, but it would only apply to new templates, with a suggested method for userifying/deleting the existing ones gradually. I also suggested tightening up on the WP:USER guideline by mfd'ing excessive userpages, as I also think a user page full of 100's pretty boxes (even userified and non-polemic) doesn't give a good impression. (++Lar (above) seemed to like this idea a lot, but it didn't receive much other feedback.) Individually, I have no problem with most userboxs, even trival ones but it's the excessive use thereof I personally find unappealing. For example, you have several userified userboxes but the page looks balanced (thanks to that useful last userbox :) and "wikipedian" (if there is such a word). User:Jmaynard's page, on the other hand would be one that I would consider excessive (although he's now removed them all - orig version ), even though individually many of the userboxes might not be classed as polemic. I did mention a couple of other ideas to try and reduce the increase in userbox template creation and user, e.g. putting a large pointer to the User page guideline on top of all WP:UBX pages, and suggesting that the list should be written using subst by default (so that those who only know how to cut and paste, get it pre-subst'd, lessening the potential tantrums in the future.

So, to summerise, my thoughts are that
 * 1) Templates designed for user space must have a clear usefulability claim (i.e. must have consensus to create, not delete)
 * 2) Devisive/polemic templates speedy deleted as per T1.
 * 3) Categories remain, but aren't hardcoded to any one box.
 * 4) Non-polemic templates without clear project usefulability, userified, either by full subst to raw html, or using Userbox format for neatness. (in a step by step process, not by speedy deletions, even though they will end up deleted eventually)
 * 5) User that abuse the userpages guidelines are asked to change, and if not, are sent to mfd. (userpages are a privledege, and if abused, should be taken away)

Anyway, didn't mean to ramble on for so long - I knew I shouldn't have kissed the Blarney Stone all those years ago! Regards. MartinRe 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. I just think that this is probably too complicated to get a consensus. ;)


 * OTOH, I do wish that some admins had been (a lot) more sensitive about the issue. Hell, I got involved in this from the other side to the one I am now taking. I was originally furious when my userpage was broken by unannounced deletion of some templates I was using. People must be getting upset in the same way all the time. Once I understood the issues, I fairly quickly came to the view that template space was never intended for POV userboxes and should not be used in that way, but getting people to understand that has been very hard - there has been no campaign to explain it to new or relatively casual users. People just see things like their userpages being wrecked, their religious beliefs being mocked, etc. Then there is the claim that all POV userboxes are "divisive and inflammatory", which I just cannot accept.


 * All I can say is that the people who initiated T2 are a different group of people from the small group of admins who have upset people. Speaking for myself, I want to be able to speedy delete a userbox under T2, and I don't want to be bound by a lot of red tape, but I am not out to hurt feelings, act rashly or whatever. I'd like to see other sensible admins and senior users sign up to an approach that involves having T2 there to fall back on, together with a commitment to the aim that it enshrines, but with some understanding that mass speedying is not the right path, that we should be educating people, helping them userfy their pages, etc. If you don't want T2-type boxes in template space, please don't give succour to the people who oppose you on this - and their are plenty of them - no matter how much some actions may have been disruptive or upsetting (e.g. the insensitive handling of the "User Christian" box). Metamagician3000 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you have this on your watchlist, but I'll reply here anyway to keep it tidy. I would wholeheartly agree that it's complicated! It also doesn't help when the words used are unclear, when someone mentions "deleting userbox templates", the userbox supporter assume that means deleting the userbox from their page, where it might really mean "userify". I've found the discussion quite fustrating as a result, when you explain your points and someone refutes with I can't support that because of X, where X would not happen. As for T2, I think it's important to divide this by date, speedying deleting a template that was created against policy is a lot different to deleting one that's been in existance for months and used by multiple people. I can understand not wanting to be bound by needless red rape, but you also have to be careful that that doesn't look like ignoring policy. Some of the more extreme comments I've seen made (not by you btw :) could easily be interpreted by "stuff policy, I'm going to do what I think is right regardless", which no matter how noble the goal is, is quite harmful to overall community trust.


 * However, even as it stands, I think T2 has two problem, it's too vague, and it applies to all userboxes, no mater when created. I would support a harsher T2 that applied to newly created templates. the harsher T2 I would support is that "no templates designed for userspace may be created until they pass a 'reverse tfd'" Thus, any new templates created that didn't pass a tfd are zapped, no judgement on content required. If a user template is designed that is useful for userspace, it must first be created in userspace, and pass a tfd with a consensus to move into template space, and the template is then protected (as high risk) and a link to the tfd is included on the page, to show that's it's okay. The same latter process applies to existing templates, so they all end up either userified, or remain in template space with an "approved" sticker. Regards, MartinRe 11:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether this issue is now going away. I'm happy enough with the German solution, in so far as I understand what it really means. It seems to achieve the aim of getting T2 boxes out of template space, without going too far beyond that modest aim. Metamagician3000 13:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)