User talk:Jess Key/Sandbox/Proposal: Overhaul of user rights/Feedback

If you have specific feedback or criticism of the proposal, please post it in this area by clicking the button below. In order to not drag out differences of opinions I shall limit myself to only replying to each user once in this area, and only if I do not believe that it is something I have not covered in the main proposal. If you have questions or want a more prolonged discussion, please use the questions area. Feedback in this area should definitely be considered when deciding whether to support the proposal

The proposal is not yet finished. Please wait until this notice is removed before posting detailed feedback or criticism. In the mean time, please feel free to use the questions area for any comments or questions.

CLICK HERE TO ADD YOUR FEEDBACK

"Emergency reserve"

Do consider a "contingency" assignments of rights, for experienced Citizens who may no longer have a right ex officio, but might retain a privilege for which they have demonstrated competency, to be used only in situations such as the usual people with the right being unavailable or overloaded. Yes, I know this violates the Principle of Least Privilege and needs to be used with discretion.

For example, as current Secretary of the comatose Editorial Council, I have sysop, principally to be able to protect and unprotect. In practice, I use the delete privilege for my own articles, or, in a few cases, when either I've been asked to help in a situation where a great many articles needed to be deleted, overloading the Constables, or where I've been asked to unscramble badly confused metadata.

If the system permits, just as we've talked about using karma to rate-limit imports or moves, deletes might fall under karma. It would be helpful if it would be possible to restrict the granularity to articles that the Citizen created. A much smaller group, which I'll tentatively call "user support", might have more extensive privileges for situations such as metadata and misnaming cleanup.

Especially when we have a limited number of people, various support capabilities might be given on a case-by-case basis. For example, while I'm not doing day-to-day *IX administration, I will probably be doing so again, and in the past have even done kernel hacking for routers. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The delete right is given to the following:

Right	Visitor	Citizen	Est. Cit.	Editor	MC	EC	Cop	Ombud.	Man. Ed.	EPA	Snr. Tech	I/face Dev	Larry	Bot	Bot /w Del	Works on Live CZ?
delete																Yes

My own feeling is that between the Constabulary, MC, EC, Ombudsman, Managing Editor and Senior Technical Staff there are enough people with the delete right to be able to help out the Constabulary in the rare event that they are unavailable or overloaded. The delete ability is powerful, and an automatic karma system does not seem appropriate. Of course, the MC may decide to officially create a 'User Support' role and assign people to it. This proposal allows for the MC to create new roles such as this at Creation of New Groups. --Chris Key 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that "user support" or equivalent might be in supplementary notes, if the MC proper doesn't have people with the security and administration people to suggest it. I had missed that the EC and MC themselves would have the authority.

Incidentally, during the painful period in 2007, before my time, far more vandalism was caused with move than with delete. I've certainly spent a lot less time, in general system administration, restoring files than munged directory and naming structures.

Keep going; this is valuable thinking. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)