cs.wikibooks policy: removal after 6 months without logged action
en.wikibooks - Expectations (permissions for administrators, bureaucrats, and checkusers may be removed when minimum activity expectations are not met, one month after notifying the person and the community. Inactive bots may have permissions removed at bureaucrats discretion)
es.wikibooks - Inactivity policy (any administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser or oversighter which has gone inactive for a continued period of two years will have all permissions removed. Inactivity is no edits and no log actions for that 2 years period)
zh.wikinews has inactivity removal policy for administrators and bureaucrats inactive for 6 months, and continued to be absent 1 month after notification.
cs.wikinews policy: removal after 6 months without logged action
it.wikinewspolicy: annual vote for confirmation plus removal after six months of inactivity, but it's quite unapplied
ru.wikinews policy: a warning is issued if no logged actions in 6 months, removal after 3 months of inactivity after the warning
fr.wikinews policy: a warning is issued if not logged actions in 12 months, removal after 3 months of inactivity after the warning.
ja.wikinews checks by another discussion. We do the will your administrator of inactivity about more than a year. Or, administrator of inactivity for more than two years will apply for removal of administrator flag. Please look at checklist.
For Checkusers and Oversighters, there is a minimum activity expectation that is reviewed quarterly. The main reason for removal of Checkuser or Oversight permission is inactivity.
eo.wikipedia: 1 year since last contribution (not necessarily administrative), must first be announced on the village pump and the administrator's talk page. eo:Vikipedio:Administrantoj#Maladministrantigo. There is also recall process, which can be initiated by any user, and consists of a vote where eligible users (40+ edits, 3+ months old account, has a userpage) can vote and the admin is removed if more than 50% vote for removal.
es.wikipedia fewer than fifty administrative actions for a period of two years (policy link).
pt.wiktionary inactive administrators lose their rights after 6 months with less than 10 edits per month. The user can request their tools back without the need of a new vote if they wish to return to activity (policy).
Compiled list of wikis without admin review processes
Admins and other rights holders on these wikis probably would be affected by this proposal. This list of examples is incomplete. Please correct any errors.
outreach has no inactivity policy, though bureaucrats can desysop.
testwiki had an inactivity policy, but it was repealed. Although testwiki and test2wiki are technically under the aegis of the stewards, they most likely should not be affected by a global inactivity policy.
de.wikibooks - has a list of inactive admins, but doesn't de-sysop; a vote regarding an individual is possible, though.
fa.wikibooks has no inactivity policy
bg.wikibooks has no inactivity policy
fa.wikinews has no inactivity policy
el.wikinews no policy so far with no inactive sysops either.
bg.wikinews has no inactivity policy
Most or all of the very small Wikipedias
bg.wikipedia - policy has been only under discussion, but never voted and so far has no inactivity policy. All purposes of removing the rights of unactive admins were rejected by the community.
et.wikipedia – desysopping due to inactivity has been discussed several times, e.g here, here and lately here, but no consensus has been reached on whether inactivity is a sufficient reason for desysopping or not.
fo.wikipedia - has no such policy, but it is being discussed now.
hsb.wikipedia - has no such policy
lb.wikipedia - has no such policy but the community discussed the global policy and approved it. You find the archived discussion here
te.wikipedia - no policy has been arrived at though discussions have been attempted. As the very active editor count is only around 10-20, the English language policy may be adopted, as is the practice in general.
ca.wikiquote has no inactivity policy
en.wikiquote has no inactivity policy, but has a Vote of Confidence process.
es.wikiquote has no deadminship process nor tracking of activity.
fa.wikiquote has no inactivity policy
nl.wikiquote has no inactivity policy; no review process; no formal de-admin process
bg.wikiquote has no inactivity policy
fa.wikisource has no inactivity policy
bg.wikisource has no inactivity policy
de.wiktionary has no inactivity policy
en.wiktionary policy: any admin can be removed by vote, but these votes don't happen systematically for inactive admins and therefore do not meet the requirements.
I'd like to mark some of this page (at least the "Proposal" section) for translation. It would help more people to understand what is being proposed. Any objections? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe on a subpage? Marking a page for translation which is also edited constantly in other (the comment) sections is a bit annoying, IMHO, because the page will then always have a notice of having been changed etc. --MF-W 19:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest creating a page called something like Admin inactivity with content based on the proposal. I'd also suggest drafting a message for admins, and getting it translated. Then we should develop tables of inactive admin by wiki with relevant stats, but don't include wikis with admin review policies (we'll need to check every wiki perhaps). PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all we need a list of wikis. :) --Rschen7754 06:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the page can be arranged in such a way that the /Summary translations can be re-used (if we think there are enough that it's worth to bother).
I created a script to check the inactivities and display them in a stylish format . Naturally it should only be run by stewards, as they undertake the review process :P I notice I forgot to upload the list of wikis, but that is easy to create anyway. Of course "all public wikis" should be checked, but some will not be notified if they have users meeting the criteria. --MF-W 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here I now created a page: Admin activity review. It would be very nice if nobody would fuss around with the translation while I figure out for which parts translations can be stolen from /Summary. However, other edits and improvements are of course welcome. I'm thinking that we could plan conducting the first round on Admin activity review/2013, including drafting notifications etc. --MF-W 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a script which looks for inactive users based on the rules of this RFC. It provides an online view of inactive advanced administrative rights holders, so everyone can see who will lose his rights on his project. See for example: User:FischBot/inactive/wikibooks/de --Pyfisch (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The columns don't line up correctly in that example, but I'm not sure how to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have opposed this idea and I still do. I'm admin on some low activity wikipedias and I'm happy to work on them at times or jump in when needed (which could be once every 5 years) but this is another one of those unneeded rules that makes me unhappy about Wikipedia. Guaka (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]