Talk:Stewards: Difference between revisions

→‎Confirmation: discussion headers
imported>Joe G
(→‎Confirmation: re and close)
imported>Joe G
(→‎Confirmation: discussion headers)
 
Line 8:
 
== Confirmation ==
{{Discussion top}}
I would like to re-evaluate some users here. Could you please re-evaluate kudu and Dusti? --[[User:NargoSte|NargoSte]] ([[User talk:NargoSte|talk]]) 19:39, 18 July 2015 (BST)
:I do not know if that is possible. {{Ping|NDKilla}} Do you have any idea? --[[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 19:46, 18 July 2015 (BST)
Line 14 ⟶ 15:
:I second the request mostly because it seems some people are using the rights. Since this is a "community-driven" network, I see no reason to deny a request to re-evaluate. Also I can't reset my password or create a new account because the captcha boxes don't appear. [[Special:Contributions/50.7.138.125|50.7.138.125]] 01:45, 22 July 2015 (BST)
::I'm sorry, but this discussion is '''closed''' and is not open for further discussion. As I stated above, there is not a legitimate reason presented for their re-evaluation and Kudu and Dusti are the project leaders and do work behind the scenes. I'm not trying to take away the "community driven"-ness of anything, but there does have to be a bit of staff discretion on this matter. If you can provide a legitimate reason, beyond inactivity, I invite you to do so in a new section. At that time, if the un-involved staff feel that re-evaluation is necessary, then protocol will be established and enacted. Thank you for your understanding, -- <font color="blue"><b>[[User:Joe G|Joe&nbsp;G.]]</b></font> ([[User_talk:Joe G|Talk]]) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (BST)
{{Discussion bottom}}
Anonymous user