Requests for comment/Include interface administrators for AAR

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. unanimous support


AAR was adopted in 2013, and Interface admins were introduced in 2018. Currently AAR in scope does not cover INTADMIN, and that is just against the spirit of AAR. While most INTADMINs are also admins, so we can monitor them for inactivity, but there is no grounds for removal of INTADMIN in AAR, because INTADMINs are not (in text) within the scope of AAR.

The current wording as of the latest revision is —

The maximum time period of inactivity without community review for holders of advanced administrative rights should be two years.

For clarity, holders of advanced administrative rights in this document are defined as

  • administrators
  • bureaucrats
  • oversight
  • checkusers
  • stewards

I propose this to be changed to — (addition underlined)

The maximum time period of inactivity without community review for holders of advanced administrative rights should be two years.

For clarity, holders of advanced administrative rights in this document are defined as

  • administrators
  • bureaucrats
  • oversight
  • checkusers
  • interface administrators
  • stewards

There were other suggestions about applying AAR on INTADMINs (Talk:Admin activity review#AAR for Interface-admin), but I'm trying to get it passed before AAR2020 starts, therefore I am trying to make it as simple as possible. — regards, Revi 02:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposing close date[edit]

The proposal though started in October 2019, was not promoted to the community until 5 January via the main page. I propose close date of 1 month after that, so closing: 5 February 2020.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I second the proposed closing date of 5 February 2020 (at the earliest) due to the lack of promotion to the community. ~riley (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • I think this is a pretty noncontroversial change, and see no reason why not to support it's implementation. Vermont (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Rschen7754 04:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support add to the letter of the law that which is obviusly in the spirit of the law. —Ah3kal (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Vermont. Catherine Laurence discussion 03:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Krd 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 16:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support but I'd honestly just rebundle it with +sysop to make this easier, even though that has no chance of happening. Most projects give it out like candy to anyone who is a sysop, and the only real security improvement is automatically cutting down the attack base. Anyway, yeah, no problem, but the hysteria over IADMIN is a bit silly in general. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Vermont. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support * Pppery * it has begun 01:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per intention of AAR --DannyS712 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --~ℳɑrio (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • absolutely Support Support My original proposal was advanced administrative rights, and these exactly fall under that definition, so should be specifically noted as now within scope.

    I would also suggest that when new rights are introduced within the Mediawiki infrastruture that each should be considered for whether they fall under this policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Support per Tony. ~riley (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support But I want to point out that doing this admin activity review once a year takes a few hours of life, so it will take even longer due to this change in the policy. Respecting the time of people preparing the review and carrying out the next stages of the AAR process, maybe we should think about some technical improvement? Openbk (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I think it's a natural change without argument. --Sotiale (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per Vermont. --Esteban16 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per Vermont of course. –MJLTalk 05:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Of course, I will like to extend to some other rights too, but that's for another RFC.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Pretty simple. --QEDK (talkenwiki) 17:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Bencemac (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Turkmen talk 19:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support okay tufor (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Interface administrator surely is an "advanced right", and is needed to be in the policy. Ahmadtalk 20:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support natural and logical evolution of AAR policy. Linedwell [talk] 07:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 08:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Holder (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Minorax (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support of course. — xaosflux Talk 15:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support makes perfect sense - removing the admin bit and not iadmin when iadmin was split for "security" reasons makes little sense. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Vermont, Tony, Krd, etc... MrJaroslavik (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Obviously.--AldnonymousBicara? 11:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Udo T. (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Of course. /Julle (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Alaa :)..! 09:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Meiræ 23:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Masum Reza📞 06:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Makes sense. --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support per above. J947 03:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)