Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr

*For me, the main point of the recall process as being able to desysop admins who are potentially driving off good editors (or better yet have that potential encourage thoughtfulness without the need to use it.) That's not the case here so I won't sign. I don't find this petition procedurally inappropriate though, I just happen to disagree with the reasoning.- [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 21:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

*For me, the main point of the recall process as being able to desysop admins who are potentially driving off good editors (or better yet have that potential encourage thoughtfulness without the need to use it.) That's not the case here so I won't sign. I don't find this petition procedurally inappropriate though, I just happen to disagree with the reasoning.- [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 21:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

*Given that Night Gyr was about to be desysopped for inactivity through our established procedures, this petition was completely unnecessary. It took years of wrangling to bring community-based recall to the English Wikipedia, and those of us who supported it should have no patience for this foolishness that gives ammunition to the anti-recall crowd. I hope we won't see more half-baked petitions like this one in the future. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 15:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

*Given that Night Gyr was about to be desysopped for inactivity through our established procedures, this petition was completely unnecessary. It took years of wrangling to bring community-based recall to the English Wikipedia, and those of us who supported it should have no patience for this foolishness that gives ammunition to the anti-recall crowd. I hope we won't see more half-baked petitions like this one in the future. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 15:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

*While I'm sympathetic to the idea that admins barely above the inactivity threshold with possible conduct issues should be more susceptible to be recalled and having to defend their adminship, this case can be distinguished from the previous two similar cases. Those both involved admins who had already previously been desysopped for falling short of community activity requirements as well as some combination of allegations that they were more clearly gaming inactivity, that they were out of touch with community norms about admin tools, and had more clearly violated [[WP:ADMINACCT]]. While technically, a request to resign the bit does fall within the letter of ADMINACCT's "Wikipedia-related conduct", it is outside the spirit of the section. Without something more, these kinds of recalls that are basically ad hoc, de facto tightenings of the inactivity threshold are not a good use of community time. The proper venue would be to start an RFC to change the inactivity threshold. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - ^{[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]} 16:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

<!--Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization.

<!--Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization.

<!--Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization.

<!--Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization.