Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship/InvisibleSun (inactivity discussion)
I was disconcerted to see this closed by the requestor.13:24, 6 February 2015. That's an involved close, but was not signed. The rights were removed based on the requestor here, going to meta and pointing to the discussion. That request was at 00:57, 5 February 2015, and the removal was noted there 20:23, 5 February 2015.
I have closed Wikiversity discussions while involved. I always announce it, including stating my involvement, and giving time for objection.
Normally, removal discussions on a wiki with 'crats will be closed by a bureaucrat. I've gone to meta for an emergency desysop close, as an ordinary user, but there was no emergency here. A request like this at meta should be actioned with permission from the community, which can be expressed in various ways. A close that stands would be a non-crat way.
Normally, though, a crat would decide when to close the discussion. Not the requestor.
This is a technical procedural point. I believe that consensus was adequate for the close, but activity like this can set poor precedent.
The closer's reason for closing was that the time had elapsed. I have always understood those times to be minimum times, not maximum. Had I been inclined, I'd have requested a 'crat close the discussion and take it to meta. I've also served crats by taking on that task for them. Always with the understanding that I was only a messenger. I think it a (minor) error on the part of the steward that it was actioned, and then that it was actioned without noting that locally. --Abd (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. There are several active 'crats who did not participate in the discussion; I think any one of them would have closed it if asked, and it would have come out the same way, but avoiding the appearance of an overzealous push to achieve the goal. Worth noting for future reference. BD2412 T 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- After further consideration, I have reversed the close and asked an uninvolved bureaucrat to close the discussion officially. BD2412 T 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)