Requests for comment/Stewards ignore - Don't override consensus

The following request for comments is closed. No policy violation found.

Unfortunately we didn't go discussion Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements. And in such conditions stewards violate the rule - Don't override consensus [1]. In my case which I want that discussed stewards even refused consideration by other steward. Though there is a rule "If a steward has doubts about a request, they should let the other stewards know so the request will not be granted by another steward." Here my inquiry Steward_requests/Permissions/2013-05#SSJ@ruwikiversity, which the steward closed not the answer not on one matter of substance. The main thing that disturbs me this that that - in IDENTICAL cases different decisions would be made.

I gave two modern examples (all of them were after discussion Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements), which were ignored

And here the recent example [2] - as only 4 voices and to the participant is appropriated a flag of the bureaucrat.
And here still a clear example where the steward wrote "Done. 10 votes in favor and none in opposition after nearly two months is good enough for me. --Daniel Mayer" Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-11#Akishin_D..40ruwikinews.

I consider that it is impossible to make such decisions as the steward wanted. --SergeyJ (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I apologize for machine translation, but I don't know English. If the problem isn't clear - ask again, and I will try to explain details) --SergeyJ (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are many cases when everything depends on that what steward makes the decision, even in 2013... though situations identical in one case of the bureaucrat I approve in other isn't present. It is difficult to me to speak about reason it is well all this badly smells. --SergeyJ (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is your complaint in this RFC. The steward did not override community consensus, instead the steward said that the size of the community is not sufficient to make the determination. There is no set of definitive numbers on what constitutes numbers to reach consensus, there was an attempt, to which you point and it provides guidance to stewards, but at this stage there is no policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the big deal is. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]