Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
See Wikipedia:Template editor for the granting guidelines. Applicants should show some evidence that they generally meet the guidelines outlined there, and have a demonstrated need for the right.
My main reason for requesting is that I would like to maintain a bot which has to edit pages which are restricted to template editors. But before you deny me for not having a need for the tools, let me tell you a few things about my experience with templates. I have made just over 400 edits to templates, and I have good knowledge of parser code. See this, this, and this. PhilrocMy contribs18:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Philroc: Would you object to sending a bot through BRFA before receiving the right if that's the main purpose? I'm guessing the community would be highly skeptical of a bot editing template-protected templates, so it seems to make sense to tackle that first. ~ Rob13Talk20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I want to get the bot through BRFA after I become a template editor because if you have to be an admin to make your bot an admin, then I would assume it's the same for template editor. PhilrocMy contribs21:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I suggested the bot (which will need template editor access to create edit notices) would need to be operated by someone who repair/correct any issues caused by the bot, thus the operator would need to also be a template editor. — xaosfluxTalk21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux and Philroc: Could you link to the discussion relevant to this bot? I'm highly skeptical of a bot editing complicated templates, but it sounds like you're talking just about edit notices? ~ Rob13Talk21:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Philroc if the bot job will be a one-time job, I'm OK waving this part - if it will be recurring you will need to be able to clean up after it if it goes awry. — xaosfluxTalk23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I'm making this request because, as I said before, if you have to be an admin to make your bot an admin, I assume the same is true for template editor. Also, I think I should prepare for the job to be recurring. PhilrocMy contribs23:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the examples Philroc mentions, these templates were certainly not wanted as they are not compliant with MOS:RJL, and nobody asked for the templates to be created. I am personally unconvinced at the editor's maturity to handle such an advanced and wide-ranging right, as evidenced at Talk:North Carolina Highway 13 (1935–1951)/GA1. I am also unconvinced at the rationale for getting the right, which, to be frank, is to make a bot to do a task simply for the sake of doing a task and running a fancy bot, and which has little support. --Rschen775407:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: In this scenario, it doesn't matter wheter the templates were actually used or not, it just matters that they have good parser code, because I'm trying to prove that I know how parser code works. The GA review you linked might've proven that I'm bad at reviewing GANs, but it has absoluetly nothing to do with being a template editor. If you intend to come in and link that review every time I try to get a permission or be anything, then please don't. I don't want the review to ruin my chances of ever being anything here. Also, as swpb (talk·contribs) said on the bot requests page, the editnotice has remained up on every page in the category with no opposition. Do you have anything else to say? PhilrocMy contribs13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: Indeed, Rschen7754's complaint seems irrelevant and prejudicial, and not worthy of consideration in the matter of conferring the template editor right on Philroc. —swpbT14:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technical skills are only one factor in whether the right (or any right) should be granted. The ability to collaborate and communicate effectively with others is also very important, and I have concerns here. --Rschen775415:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: That GA nom does not appear to me to demonstrate any shortcomings in that regard. You're free to have concerns, but IMO you haven't supported them. —swpbT15:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to support. They come close to the guidelines intended to identify "need" but don't quite get there. On the other hand, their bot idea shows a clear "need", so that's satisfied as far as I'm concerned. ~ Rob13Talk04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of objections, I will grant this right in 24 hours. The editor may not have the technical abilities characteristic of others granted this right, but he has a clearly demonstrated need and the clue not to use the right in situations where he doesn't understand the template code clearly. He's also aware to edit in sandbox, etc. on high-visibility templates. ~ Rob13Talk02:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(guideline: >1, applicant: >3)
(guideline: 3, applicant: 2)
Done — xaosflux Talk 04:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)