Requests for comment/Include interface administrators for AAR

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)[reply]

Proposing close date

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

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

Discussion

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)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 04:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per Vermont. Catherine Laurence ^discussion 03:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Krd 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 16:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Vermont. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per intention of AAR --DannyS712 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --~ℳɑrio (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely 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)[reply]
Support per Tony. ~riley (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support I think it's a natural change without argument. --Sotiale (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Vermont. --Esteban16 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Vermont of course. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support Pretty simple. --QEDK (talk 桜 enwiki) 17:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bencemac (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Turkmen ^talk 19:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support okay tufor (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interface administrator surely is an "advanced right", and is needed to be in the policy. Ahmad^talk 20:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support natural and logical evolution of AAR policy. Linedwell ^[talk] 07:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 08:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Holder (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Minorax (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per Vermont, Tony, Krd, etc... MrJaroslavik (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 11:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Udo T. (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. /Julle (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 09:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Masum Reza^📞 06:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. J 947 03:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, closed as successful — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
policy updated special:diff/19682136/19774754 though put subsequent to administrators, rather than second to last. Marked for translation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]