Wiktionary:Votes/2016-09/Adding "template editor" group

Adding &#34;template editor&#34; group

 * Voting on: At Wikipedia, they have a user group called "template editors" who can edit protected, high-visibility templates and modules. More information on how they handle it can be found here. This seems like it would be a useful thing to have here, because someone shouldn't necessarily become a sysop because they're technically adept, and the technically adept shouldn't necessarily have to wait on sysops to carry out their edits for them. We would add editors to this group like we add autopatrollers, at WT:WL.


 * Vote starts: 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:Beer parlour/2016/August
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]]  (the vote over at 'pedia)
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-09/Adding &

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  --WikiTiki89 02:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Benwing2 (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  — Kleio (t · c) 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  -Xbony2 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  — Eru·tuon 21:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 9)  tentatively. One question, however. We have protected templates/modules not only for boilerplate (e.g. ) or data manipulation (e.g. ) purposes, but also for storing various data (e.g. Module:families/data). Would this editor group be intended to include also editors who may have some need to edit the latter, even if they do not have particular familiarity with template coding etc.? --Tropylium (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently, template editors would be able to edit with all protected templates and modules, because they would be trusted to either understand what they are doing or not do it... If someone does not know Lua, they would not edit modules, or they could start learning with simple modules. If someone breaks something, it's reversible anyway and if it's in bad faith, we could consider taking template editor rights away. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, is that it's a sort of whitelist where we grant this permission easily, but also revoke it quickly if abused. Like Daniel said, users with this privilege should be trusted to know their own limits, and if they don't we'd have to revoke the privilege. --WikiTiki89 16:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  DerekWinters (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * , even though my vote will probably be one of the only opposes. Why do we really need this? If a user can be trusted to edit high-traffic templates, they should also be able to be trusted with sysop tools. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  — Superfluous to the administrator privilege. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  Equinox ◑ 16:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  - I don't see why they shouldn't just be a sysop if they are trusted enough to change high visibility templates.  Other than community trust what are the prerequisites for being a sysop? - TheDaveRoss 19:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I found it hard to articulate why I didn't agree with this proposal but I think it's what you just said. Equinox ◑ 00:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, despite most people who voted not thinking that Dan Polansky should be an admin (me included), I'll wager that a supermajority (me included) would be happy to have him as a template editor. Trust is not quite so simple as you make it out to be. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe we need people who are admins but aren't allowed to touch templates. I vote for CodeCat. (Just kidding! maybe) Equinox ◑ 00:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Looks like a good idea; I don't have the time or energy to have a deeper look, hence abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Decision
Passed: 10-2-3 (83.3%-16.7%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have filed a request: T148007 (hopefully correctly, as I've never done one before). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)