Content deleted Content added
SRP: new section
Line 8:
 
Please do not revert stewards' closures on steward request pages. That page is not intended for (long) discussion, and we have the right to close sections at our own discretion when a request has been accepted or denied, which is your case, after being told 'no' for three times already. Feel free to use the talk page to continue the discussion if you want to. Thanks for your understanding. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|talk]]) 14:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
:[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] fine, I'll continue the discussion elsewhere. 'No' for three times?? That was the first time I requested the crat right.
:So far, I've successfully countered every single argument that was thrown at me. Give me a valid reason to 'why' my request was denied in face of clear ''local'' consensus + I meet other factors stated in the guideline.
:And what's the plan to solve the dilemma? The dilemma is that we have 1 crat that doesn't communicate for many months, and we have elected multiple new sysops. When I made a request of adminship for another elected user, [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Permissions/2020-12#TheHighFighter2@vi.wiktionary.org it was rejected] on the basis that there is already a crat on vi-wiktionary.
:Why do we have to wait a year or longer with other solutions (inactivity policy or de-crat process) when you guys can simply solve the problem by granting me the crat right? I'm a highly trusted user and a long time admin in Vi Wiktionary and Vi Wikipedia. [[User:Nguyentrongphu|Nguyentrongphu]] ([[User talk:Nguyentrongphu#top|talk]]) 14:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)