Template talk:Template editor granted

Spam to me

Yuck. WP:AGF would assume an editor read all the stuff before they requested the right; so slapping them with a preachy wall of text is unnecessary. In addition, folks who don't read directions don't read directions, so repeating them won't help much anyway. NE Ent 13:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit it however you want - I won't be offended. :) It should probably be merged with Template:Te-granted anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'd edited it, it would probably end up -- You're template editor now, don't fuck up. and then someone would say WP:POINTy ... More seriously why create more work for admins? If an editor makes the request, they ought to be willing to check the page for the answer. I mean, I don't get a notice when an AIV vandal gets blocked or a RFPP gets approved or denied, so why should this be different? NE Ent 23:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why all the hate for this. I think it's presumptuous to think people have already read through and know the key points of WP:TPE, even though we'd like to think they do. I'm sure there are more than a few editors who might've applied without realizing it would give them the ability to alter edit notices, for example, or who didn't realize that sandbox tests are required for anything beyond the most minor edit. The requirements for applying and granting don't actually state that people need to know things about the right beforehand -- they're just designed to make it likely that people who get it can reasonably be expected to understand and follow the guidelines once they've been informed of them. There's nothing wrong with running down a few of the more key points to know and remember; and personally I'd actually appreciate getting a nice little clue outline like this, rather than my only option being to skim TPE myself. Posting it really isn't any significant added effort for admins (besides which, they can choose not to) and I don't find it excessive in length or spammy either. equazcion → 03:08, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Also, sometimes admins might give users the right even if the user hasn't made a request at WP:RTE. (I've done this for three users so far, including Equazcion.) This probably won't happen so much after all the existing template gurus have the right, but it's worth keeping in mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't (gasp) template a regular, would you? tongue-in-cheek Ent 22:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hate??? It's not about hate, it's above love. Love for the wiki way -- WP:BOLD and not a bureaucracy. It's about concern that "recommendations" and "optional" things have a way of creeping into rigidity and rules. WP:NOTBURO says "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected" ... and we'll already writing rules for something for which there is no practice. NE Ent 22:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you're vigilant about rule creep, and that's generally good, but I think your red flag may be getting set off by something fairly innocuous here. Some of this may be about "rules", but I see it more as a helpful intro to pertinent information than a warning that presumes people will be doing wrong. If the content here makes you concerned about rule creep, I'd go to the source and complain about WP:TPE itself -- but I think the only reason we have the user right now is 'cause we proposed just enough rules to satisfy those who were skittish about granting it at all. equazcion → 23:14, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Temporary

I've added a paragraph to the text in the sandbox outlining the process for renewing a temporary grant. Request comment from Primefac (granted the temp permission which prompted this), Xaosflux (who stated the requirements), & Ergo Sum (the ummm, guinea pig?). Cabayi (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging folks from the previous discussion at User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 38#Trial permissions - I think this strikes the right balance between making the process easier and yet not automating it. At least that was the message I got from that discussion. Alex Shih, clpo13, DoRD, Kudpung, Mz7, Nakon, TonyBallioni, MusikAnimal -- Cabayi (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK to me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am supportive. Alex Shih (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Seems fine, go ahead and merge it in. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the input. Next question, for which other permissions would the extra text be appropriate? Cabayi (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought. Is there a way the editor given the right on a temporary basis is automatically pinged 2 days or so before the right expires? This would conceivably minimize the number of situations of people forgetting to renew the right. Ergo Sum 16:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am supportive as well. Granting temporarily as a "trial" makes a lot of sense, possibly for other rights as well. I wouldn't worry about the user forgetting to renew the right -- they're very likely going to figure out that they no longer have it :) I should probably update the bot such that when a request is made, it checks if that right was previously granted but has expired, and comment with relevant information (as suggested by Xaosflux). That way if a different admin comes along, they have a link to the old request, and can act accordingly. I'll make it mention the admin who granted it too, but use {{no ping}} to avoid spam. Putting this on my to-dos! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]