Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor

Template editor

(add request · view requests)

User:DannyS712

• DannyS712 (t · th · c ^{(template space · edit requests)} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · templates created · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I've made almost 2 dozen requests at Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case, a number at Module talk:AFC submission catcheck, and many others. I'm primarily asking for this right for the SCOTUS template, but have other edits in mind in the short term: I recently found out that most of the icons at Template:Done/See also don't have "alt" text, and, pending discussion, want to add some (most of those templates are template-protected). I was unsure if I should apply for this right, since I have not been here for more than a year, but discussions at User talk:Alex 21#A barnstar for you! and User talk:DannyS712#Template editing prompted me to give it a shot. I have read through the guidelines, especially the part about seeking consensus (the last edit request to the AfC catcheck, for example, should have been discussed, but edits such as this and this almost never do. When in doubt, I'll post on the talk page and wait a few days. In short, I plan to be conservative with the use of this right if granted, at least until I am more experienced. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Standard Guidelines review:

1. N (guideline: >1 year, applicant: 7 months)
2. Y (guideline: >1000 edits, applicant: ~42k)
3. Y (guideline: >150 template edits, applicant: ~1800)
4. Y (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: NA)
5. Y (guideline: 3 sandboxes, applicant: >5)
6. Y (guideline: 5 requests, applicant: ~5 to the same template, a few more elsewhere)

Primefac (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment, I'm going to let someone else process this (unless noone shows up for a while) - but I suggest not approving of this at this time. Most of DannyS712's requested edits are syntactically sound, however some seem unnecessary and some premature, basing this primarily on the this edit would have been made if I had permission model I think this should be delayed for at least 6 months (coincidentally the reason for guideline #1) to allow them to gain more experience in to learning norms and expectations. With time will come experience to when one of these edits needs more than "post on the talk page and wait a few days" and when they don't (e.g. they may deserve advertising the discussion at different venues). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: can you explain what you mean? What edit requests were premature, and what norms and expectations have I violated? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The latest one was here. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll note that that request wasn't template-protected, but I understand your concern. If Alex 21 or FlightTime is willing, I'd be willing to undergo a "mentorship" and get guidance before using the right. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Sorry, I'm not experienced enough to mentor anyone and I'm feeling a little responsible for your denial here by starting that thread, I did say however Xaosflux would "steer you in the right path". Sorry again, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Xaosflux as far as suggesting to not approve. I have nothing against Danny specifically, but there's something about a brand-new editor coming in and immediately racking up 42k edits (over 200 edits per day) and getting through two dozen BRFAs in the same timespan that makes me nervous. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but I hesitate to grant TPE in this case; I just have this gut feeling like they're too interested in fixing everything and serious mistakes will be made. I firmly believe that Danny is a boon to this community, but at this time patience is needed. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree that Danny is a hard worker here - and if he has the acumen and desire for it may find that contributing as a volunteer developer could be right up his alley (there are SO many phab tickets just waiting for someone to submit patches for!). Not to derail this, just suggesting other avenues where skills can be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

See gerrit for a few commits I've already made. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: I saw that you did the guidelines review. Can I ask why you put {{hmmm}} for the last one? I've made more than 5 to that specific template, and more than a dozen elsewhere. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Because I forgot to change it after I found the others. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done Other than the SCOTUS template, a lot of the template editing (not /doc or /sandbox editing) that has been done is able to be considered not absolutely necessary, but more cosmetic. I also see that Danny has made several edits to templates that have required more than one edit because of a mistake. On a high-risk template, that needs to be avoided as much as possible to lessen the load/refreshes needed on the server. I would like to see more high level thinking changes to templates on several templates before putting this through. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  Please provide edvidence to back up your claim about impacts to server resources. Your current claim is pure FUD. Legoktm (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  Also, if this is still open for discussion, and you would like to see edit requests to templates other than the SCOTUS template, see User:DannyS712/sandbox3 - I have successfully requested one or more template-protected edits to every page that has an "implemented" icon next to it. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user does not appear to have the permission template editor. — MusikBot ^talk 20:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Forcing archiving as not done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is disheartening, but unfortunately not terribly surprising. There's an eager volunteer donating his time and doing thankless template maintenance. We should be encouraging this, not making the person fill out paperwork to make basic edits. The comments from Primefac (who readily acknowledges that this user has performed thousands of edits, before somehow holding that against him), from DeltaQuad (that try to spread "server load" FUD), and from xaosflux (suggesting that this volunteer instead donate even more time and energy by submitting Gerrit changesets) are particularly baffling and disappointing. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: please note, I was just identifying an area that I thought they might be interested in, not meant in any way as a prerequisite. My suggestion of working on those type of requests was also that it could provide an opportunity for collaborative improvements in ways beyond the traditional content development path. To be clear: I don't care if anyone that wants to be a template editor or even a sysop has ever submitted a patch. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't interpret your comment to be a prerequisite. I expanded on my thoughts here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&oldid=891469863#Server-load_FUD%3F>. But in short, it's a very small number of people willing to do this free work, so we should be quickly embracing them in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)