requests For Permissions/Template Editor

User:Nihonjoe

• Nihonjoe (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)

···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). — MusikBot ^talk 17:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only because it was part of the admin package. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be controversial, but pinging JJMC89 for comment as they removed this permission earlier today — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please run through WP:TPEGRANT 5 and 6. I'm not seeing the need based on their recent template edits. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are willing to grant it it to me, fine. If not, fine. It's not worth my time to argue with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done per JJMC89. -Fastily 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this decision. The user easily meets criterion 5. There is nothing in the guideline that says the edits need to be "recent". I don't see how criterion 6 can apply because an admin would not usually be requesting edits to template-protected templates? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would be willing to discuss your decision, or would you mind if I overturned it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JJMC89. Rights are assigned on as-needed basis. Given that OP's admin/crat bits were just revoked for cause, I think it's completely appropriate to be discerning here -Fastily 03:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other interpretation of the ArbCom case is that the community has trusted Nihonjoe to, among other things, edit high-risk templates and the reason for desysopping gives us no reason to think Nihonjoe has lost that trust. Undecided on this request myself, but the alternate perspective shouldn't be ignored entirely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I stick my neck out any further, Nihonjoe can you tell me if and how you are actually planning on using this userright if granted? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited many different templates, and even created a bunch of them. I know some of the templates I've edited have been protected, so this right would be used to edit them when necessary. I understand being cautious, but I don't plan on doing anything controversial or against policy with this right. I'm always very cautious when making any template edit, whether the template is protected or not, because such edits have the potential to affect many articles all at once. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe's competence in editing templates, and his caution in making (or not making) breaking changes was not a factor in his desysop. Let's not add unnecessary grief to the situation. Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching what's happened recently and believe that people have been unduly ostracizing Joe. Even though I recommended the removal of 'crat and sysop, I had no issue with the rights he gave himself. Considering the arbitration committee was aware of this fact (per an arbitrator comment at the proposed decision) and didn't take action simply proves my point. Joe lost the trust of the community to be a 'crat and sysop but the same can't be said for the usage of these other rights. The removal of these rights shouldn't have occurred in the first place since there wasn't a breach of trust related to their usage. If the committee had an issue with Joe granting himself these rights, they surely would have acted before closing the case. Noah, AA^Talk 18:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grufo

• Grufo (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)

Hi. I am the creator of Module:Params. Recently the module's permissions have been changed to “Require template editor access”, which means that I no longer have the rights to improve the module and add features to it, or – most importantly – fix possible bugs. Being able to continue working on Module:Params is the reason for which I request template editor rights. --Grufo (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Grufo (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On hold reviewing ((c.f. Module_talk:Params#growth_and_sandboxes. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done primary concern has been addressed at Module talk:Params. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good then, thank you. Somehow I have the feeling that I will have to be back here at some point in the future for the same reason… Well… See you again when that happens ;) --Grufo (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly this is without prejudice for a future use-case. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]