Talk:Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies

Patrollers

The current page lists the admin and bureaucrat policies, but not the patroller ones. So even if it's called "Admin activity review", I would like to know if it would be OK to add this group to the automatic reviews please. JackPotte (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@JackPotte: But this is not under the scope of AAR or the Stewards policy because administrators can remove that right. --Rschen7754 00:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's not the case anymore on the French Wiktionary for a few years. And anyway on the other wikis, the administrators doesn't get any automatic review, so the task is quite tedious for a very small result (it's not motivating at all). I think that if a script can provide any pain removal, it should do it. JackPotte (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can remove that right though. --Rschen7754 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Bots

The problem is the same for the bots. JackPotte (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikis with their own activity review processes

What if the wiki decides on the case-by-case basis? E.g., global rules can be easily circumvented by one edit in two years and so on indefinitely.
The bad power user can avoid unpopular, fatiguing and boring actions in regular maintaining processes, and on the other hand, engage in wheel wars.
Therefore, removing the rights to such power users is not just procedural. Kubura (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

minwikipedia

Hi, minwikipedia local policy on admin removal as passed by community consensus in October 2018 do not have any inactivity clause; admins can only be removed by resignation or for abuse of power. However, in February 2022, @Stanglavine: removed the adminship status of @Iwan Novirion: as part of the 2021 AAR. Is there any way to rectify this? dwadieff ✉ 19:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Hi, they could open a new vote, as usual. After a week, please make a request on SRP and the rights will be granted if the request was successful. As a good practice, we do not reinstate rights removed years ago. stanglavine ^msg 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Vague entries

Not sure whether should I also post this thread at SN.

In this list, I can see these entries said either vague "policy" (regareless linked or not), or said something without links (Meta-Wiki not counted):

• Wikibooks:
  • cs.wikibooks policy: removal after 6 months without logged action (unlinked)
• Wikinews:
  • ru.wikinews policy: a warning is issued if no logged actions in 6 months, removal after 3 months of inactivity after the warning (unlinked)
• Wikipedias:
  • bs.wikipedia policy (summary?)
  • cy.wikipedia policy (summary?)
  • hi.wikipedia विकिपीडिया:प्रबंधक नियम व दायित्व:प्रबंधक को हटाना::प्रबन्धक/प्रशासक पद से निवृति/ (summary?)
  • hu.wikipedia policy (summary?)
  • mk.wikipedia policy (summary?)
  • sv.wikipedia has a formal process maintained every three months for admins/crats/CU/OS, which is a part of the re-election-process for all users once a year. (unlinked)
• Wikiquotes:
  • cs.wikiquote policy: removal after 6 months without logged action (unlinked)
• Wikivoyages:
  • sv.wikivoyage policy (summary?)

For unlinked entries, where can we see the relevant links? For those just said "policy", are there useful summaries instead of just one vague word available? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)