Stewards/Confirmation: Difference between revisions
→Kudu: re
imported>Joe G (→Kudu: re John) |
(→Kudu: re) |
||
Line 42:
:Public note: I am discussing this with Dusti. Consensus for is granting; No consensus and against consensus means revoking. Dusti's decision here is one I disagree with as looking at how supports and oppose are placed; I do not believe there is consensus to keep Kudu as a steward. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 22:25, 3 September 2014 (BST)
::For the record, I disagree with John and am in agreement with Dusti's decision to allow Kudu to retain his steward flags. It is not clearly stated what shall happen in the case of no consensus and the wording of the confirmation description offers no assistance or guidance to whether a candidate need to attain an affirmative vote for keeping the flags or just not get a majority negative one. In the case we have here, I agree it is the correct decision to allow Kudu to keep his flags given he has provided an explanation for his activity levels and there are no other reasons brought to suggest the need to remove his steward flags at this time. -- <font color="blue"><b>[[User:Joe G|Joe G.]]</b></font> ([[User_talk:Joe G|Talk]]) 01:10, 4 September 2014 (BST)
:::Dusti and I discussed this and he decided when he gets back; he will change to the statement I used. This is an election type thing. There is no consesus here to promote as is the point of a reconfirmation here. I don't get the fuss; Kudu does not use the rights actively at all (3 steward actions this year) thus removing him is not going to invoke hell. It just carries out the consensus. Dusti's original close was discretion based; of which he has a major COI as we all do. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 01:15, 4 September 2014 (BST)
== Joe G ==
| |||