Talk:Admin activity review/Archives/2019
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
AAR for Interface-admin
Should we apply AAR on Interface admin? Currently, by definition, IA is not included. — regards, Revi 08:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Logged actions=edits in sitewide js,css?--Cohaf (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would support that. Trijnsteltalk 13:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support too but since the dangers of IA is more than a regular sysop, the criteria can be stricter but not all sites have massive deployment of css, js, so that must be accounted too.--Cohaf (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- We can track all edits to css and js pages across all wikimedia wikis. With this feature, I think we can just apply same restriction like admins. After all, current AAR rules are no contribs and no log actions whatsoever, and I think getting new restirction for Interface Admin will need to be implemented as a full RfC because that's going to be more controversial than applying AAR to interface admins. — regards, Revi 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, got your point. Shall we have a mini-Rfc that simply reads: IA shall be subjected to the same inactivity standards as normal sysops.?--Cohaf (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- We can track all edits to css and js pages across all wikimedia wikis. With this feature, I think we can just apply same restriction like admins. After all, current AAR rules are no contribs and no log actions whatsoever, and I think getting new restirction for Interface Admin will need to be implemented as a full RfC because that's going to be more controversial than applying AAR to interface admins. — regards, Revi 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally I think that AAR could probably be made more strict. For example, a local wiki can choose a policy of "no inactivity removals" and AAR has to respect it... even if the user is gone for 10 years. It's also a crapload of paperwork. Regardless of whether we want to change that for admins/bureaucrats, I don't want to see an interface admin removal go the same way. --Rschen7754 20:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
PSA: Requests for comment/Include interface administrators for AAR. — regards, Revi 04:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
hi.wiktionary
hi.wiktionary is unique in that bureaucrats can desysop on that wiki, so traditionally it has been left off of AAR (as are all such wikis) even though it may not have an activity policy - see User:Openbk/list2. However, there is only one bureaucrat who has been inactive for 3+ years: see statistics here. Could it be added to the Admin activity review/2018/Data page for this year? --Rschen7754 07:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MarcoAurelio: --Rschen7754 19:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Policy do not exclude wikis with bureaucrats able to desysop (and in the case of hi.wiktionary, this is absolutelly abnormal that this wiki got such a thing) so I'd say yes to adding it to this year set. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'll do that later today. When I was a steward, I generally left those wikis off because if a removal was required, a steward would be doing it, which would be a violation of steward policy. But since AAR is a global policy too, I'm not sure what takes precedence. --Rschen7754 19:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Policy do not exclude wikis with bureaucrats able to desysop (and in the case of hi.wiktionary, this is absolutelly abnormal that this wiki got such a thing) so I'd say yes to adding it to this year set. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)