User talk:Oshwah/Archive 1

Protection of CSD templates
Recently you template-protected many CSD-related templates (contribs link, protection log). The rationale in each case was Used by Twinkle and Huggle to tag pages. This is a high risk point for potential large-scale disruption if vandalized.

I feel these templates do not merit this level of protection: the protection seems preemptive. Normally, templates are only template-protected if they have a large number of transclusions. Characterizing these templates as a high risk point for potential large-scale disruption seems misleading because these templates are only used in time-limited increments. These templates are already watched closely by many editors who would revert any disruptive changes (not to mention template-savvy editors using the templates who notice the disruption). It seems extremely unlikely that large scale disruption could ever occur from vandalism of these template.

But while these templates are not highly transcluded, they are used often and are representative of the Criteria for speedy deletion policy. I note that this policy itself is extended-confirmed protected; while I do not think these templates merit template-protection, I think downgrading to EC protection would be appropriate. Retro ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional note: if you think this request to downgrade the protection is reasonable, I would recommend seeking an admin botop to mass change the protection level of the pages; I don't think it makes much sense to try to do it manually again. Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Retro! Thanks for leaving me a message here and for expressing your honest thoughts and concerns regarding the protection that I applied the other day to a list of templates. Each protection that I applied was following a protection request that was filed on Requests for page protection. The rationale for requesting was the same as the one I used when applying the protection to each template: They are used very frequently by users, automated scripts, and many programs to warn editors and tag pages for deletion (some requests included templates that left warnings for users while others were CSD notifications, I described some protection rationales incorrectly on CSD notification templates that they were used for "warning others"). The reason that I agreed and applied the protection on each template as requested on RFPP was partially due to my personal experience having to quickly undo or rollback the vandalism or disruptive edits made by trolls, LTA users, and others a good handful of times, then afterwards having to track down each time that template was used during the time that the vandalism or disruptive edit was made to the template. There was a recent instance where a confirmed account modified one of those templates and changed it to say something quite disruptive and insulting to most people, which if left unfixed, could result in new users being left feeling insulted or offended, and leaving the project as a result. You're right; these templates aren't heavily transcluded to many pages at the same time. However, I felt that the frequent and heavy use of each template (both by users as well as many automated tools and scripts), in combination with the potential for any vandalism made to cause mass damage to many user talk pages if not quickly caught or reverted, or made during a time of extremely high use - was enough for me to justify that the spirit of the rule or guideline for template protection was met, and that applying template protection was a viable option. If you still disagree and believe that template protection is not justified here, please respond and let me know. I'll be happy to get the involvement of other administrators and get their input here regarding my use of template protection in these cases. If necessary and if the opinion of different admins aren't uniform or the same, we can ask for input at the administrators noticeboard (though I'm sure that this can be resolved here). Either way, I appreciate your message, and I'm completely open and willing to make sure that the protection I applied to these templates were justified given the thoughts I had at the time. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about asking for a second opinion yet. I'll put my current thoughts below:
 * I think my problem extends beyond this particular instance, but to a more general issue I see with protecting low-use templates (I will note by "use", I mean transclusion, etc.; I do not say "transclusion" because system messages are widely used, but they may not have many "transclusions").
 * In the abstract, the main issue I have with protection of low-use templates like these is that they put another restriction in place where editing consensus is put to the side in favor of subjecting everything to a discussion-based consensus. It can slow things down, sometimes for a few days or weeks. But I do not dispute that this type of protection is allowed; High-risk templates quite clearly states: There are no fixed criteria, and no fixed number of transclusions, that are used to decide whether a template or module is high-risk.
 * Perhaps this extra layer is a good thing though: the example you give of distorting the message to be hurtful could be overlooked in a cursory review, but would definitely be rejected by a template editor who has to take responsibility for the edits they carry through.
 * And of course, there is no helping my own bias that is inherent to this situation. How could I separate that I happen to hold extended confirmed rights from the circumstance that I am requesting these templates to be lowered to just within my grasp?
 * I will make a personal note here: I have some future plans for revising these templates (in particular I have found the  and   parameters to be inconsistently aliased, among other inconsistencies). I do not think that the template protection will hinder my ability to develop these changes, though. Therefore, I attribute my desire to keep this template at a lower level of protection to more philosophical, rather than personal, reasons.
 * But on the other hand, I will bring up something you haven't pointed out, but I'm sure is in the back of your mind: some of these templates are used extremely sensitively. It could be hugely problematic if the process of tagging attack pages or copyright violations was disrupted while such pages were discovered.
 * So to conclude: I don't know. I'll give it some more thought and might come back in a few days if I think further action is warranted.
 * Also, I appreciate your receptiveness in hearing me out. Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Retro! Please accept my sincere apologies for such a delay responding to your message here. I've been quite busy lately with work and other matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, pings, notifications, emails, etc that I received while I was offline. First, I have to commend you on such a neutral and honest response here, acknowledging that you have your own bias and personal thoughts with the protection level I applied to those templates, and that the reasons I stated above felt to be sufficient to you. That takes a lot of self-reflection, critical-thinking, honesty, and humility - along with a very high level of neutrality, emotional awareness and emotional intelligence, logic, and overall intelligence to do, and I respect you greatly for that. If you get nothing else out of this discussion, please know that your degree of thinking, honesty, and neutrality is something that grows more and more rare to see around here, is absolutely something you should cherish and never change about yourself - no matter who tells you differently, and is what I personally look for when deciding on candidates for administrator rights in RFA on Wikipedia. That personality and level of intelligence and thinking, above all else, is what makes a user a good administrator on Wikipedia, and aren't things that are easily taught, nor learned. Cherish it... seriously. :-)
 * Honestly, if your ability to modify, update, discuss, or improve these templates without the need for red tape, discussion, or approval from another user first is what's mainly poking you to push back and express objection - you're more than welcome to come to me directly with such requests, and I'll be happy to move those changes forward. I also recommend that you consider simply applying or going through the process to request the template editor user rights. This way, the protection levels I set on these templates won't affect you at all, and you'll be free to move forward with modifications as you see necessary or fit. I completely understand your thoughts regarding how protection may force discussion, bureaucracy, and unneeded process when such things aren't necessary at all, and I'm honestly inclined to agree with you. Really, I kind of do agree with you. I've been left in that position and sitting on your side of the table many times in the past; it doesn't necessarily feel the best. This is why I try to impose the least restrictive protection levels possible on articles and pages, and with the shortest duration of time that I think are necessary. There are many requests for page protection due to an extremely sudden and high level of vandalism (as if 20 people decided at the same time to go and vandalize a specific page) where I just apply semi-protection to it for maybe six hours... just enough time for each person to see that they can't vandalize or disrupt it anymore and simply move on. Works like a charm. ;-) Unfortunately, in this situation... The high level of abuse that both can occur and has occurred with these templates, the fact that numerous scripts, programs, and bots (including ClueBot NG, who makes a very high level of reverts and warnings for users) use these templates regularly, and the fact that many new users are affected if such templates were to be vandalized or abused - prompted the need for me to accept the protection request of each template and carry out template protection on each one. We must also realize and understand that even good faith mistakes on these templates can potentially have a very large impact if not carefully tested, implemented, and monitored for any unforeseen problems. Template protection was the logical choice at that point.
 * Again, I have to commend you for such an honest response above. It took a lot of self-reflection upon yourself, and a lot of humility to do that. I'm here, available, and more than happy to help if you have any more questions, thoughts, concerns, or if you have any questions about the process regarding how to be approved and granted the template editor user rights - please don't hesitate to respond! I'm sorry for the delay responding to your message here, and I hope that you understand. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem in the delay responding. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia so delayed responses are entirely reasonable, especially when you're writing detailed replies like this.
 * I appreciate your offer to help with implementing edits. I'll probably end up requesting template editor rights at some point, but I want a bit more experience. In particular, I want to gain more confidence that the process I use for making changes to templates has no errors; recently, I've broken a few templates through carelessness, so I want to avoid that in the future. The ideal method of avoiding mistakes seems to be sandboxing and testcases, but that isn't always straightforward. Even a simple linter would probably help, though, so I'll probably be looking for one of those.
 * I also appreciate your compliments (though who doesn't appreciate compliments ;-). Self-reflection is something I try to use in my process (and meta-process) of Wikipedia editing, especially since I've recently resumed editing. One of my core beliefs is always keeping an open mind, but, as is sometimes said, not one so open that one's brain falls out. Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Retro - Does your process for making changes to templates include testing it on the Test Wikipedia or the Beta Wikipedia Cluster first? If not, you should definitely take advantage of one of those projects and use them to test your changes. I use them for testing my scripts all the time, and I catch the majority of stupid mistakes and errors that I make by doing just that. The Test Wikipedia will be the easiest place for you to get started, as it uses the global WMF account sync and you can just log into it like you log in here - no need to create a separate account or anything. No problem; I understand your thoughts and I'm happy that you're seeking to become as experienced as you can before requesting the user rights. Keep up the excellent work that you're doing, and I doubt you'll have any problems being granted the rights when you're ready to go through the process. ;-) If you have any more questions or need anything else, you know where to find me... ;-) don't hesitate to let me know. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)