User talk:AlbinoFerret
This my Talk Page. Leave a message and I will get back to you. If I left a message on your talk page , please respond to me there as I will be looking there for the response. AlbinoFerret 13:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Serbs of Croatia consensus
I'm sorry for bothering you again with the consensus you established here. You said that "There is also consensus for the wording used in the Croatian War of Independence article.". I put a request to apply this consensus and my request is being denied with the reasoning that they can't see the consensus. The user who was discussing in bad faith and who "lost" the RfC is trying to prevent the implementation of this consensus and he seems to have the support of one admin who now restricted the talk page because I put a request to implement that consensus. I honestly don't know what to do. Was that whole RfC in vain? Am I understanding that quote of yours in some wrong way? Have I don'e something wrong with my request. Could you please review my request here and determine if it is according to the consensus you establised. What would be the possible reason to deny that request? I'm for the first time put in a situation where I feel that 2 admins are participating in bad faith. One of them keeps denying my request with no reason stated, and then he goes to protect the page so I can't reopen the request. The other one claims that he doesn't see the consensus and when I point to him to your closure, he completely ignores that. That second admin who ignores me was called by this first admin. He requested of him to deny my request. You can go to the talk page of the first admin to see that. I'm really confused to why 2 admins are reluctant to apply the consensus. Not only reluctant but openly hostile. I hope you can help. Who knows, maybe I misunderstood your closure when you said that "There is also consensus for the wording used in the Croatian War of Independence article.". If I haven't misunderstood it I will consider to make a report against the admin who protected the page although I just asked a valid request, for a consensus to be applied to the article. 94.28.177.61 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- First off, I didnt establish the consensus, the discussion itself established it. I just closed it and described the discussion. There is consensus for that wording, there was little discussion against it, and more for it. I think your correct that there is a problem here, and some steps have to be taken. Please keep me informed if you do go forward so I can comment if needed. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try to reach to that admin again with this response of yours. If he will again reject the request, then I really don't know what else to do, than to report him for disruptive behavior. I've never seen this kind of behavior, where an admin refuses to apply a consensus established in the RfC that was formally closed by another admin. 194.152.253.48 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I will point out that I am not an admin. But I am an established editor closer who has closed 187 RFC's. I think one of the problems is that the RFC box was messed up and the whole discussion was not boxed. I have fixed that issue. The admin probably thought the RFC was smaller and the other editor commented about some discussion and said consensus had changed. But I cant seem to find any other discussion for that to happen on that page. AlbinoFerret 14:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try to reach to that admin again with this response of yours. If he will again reject the request, then I really don't know what else to do, than to report him for disruptive behavior. I've never seen this kind of behavior, where an admin refuses to apply a consensus established in the RfC that was formally closed by another admin. 194.152.253.48 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Albino, just thought I would add some context here. The reason this IP is having such a tough time is that they are a chronic sock puppet evading a block and are thus getting re-blocked all the time. They were blocked when they created the RFC, they were blocked when they made the edit request. Please don't think that this IPs difficult times are anything to do with the content dispute, if a user who is not blocked from the community wishes to pursue this matter they will likely get further. HighInBC 14:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- HighInBC I am not going to go into this sockpuppet thing. Way to involved for me, I try to stay out of drama if I can. But the IP does have a point. A RFC was started, all the editors had a chance to discuss it. I counted the IP's as one commenter because the style of replies, and even if I take the IP out, it looks like its closed the same. There was a determination of consensus. That consensus should hold until a new discussion/RFC is closed. So the edit should probably be done, and if the IP is a sock, SPI should be opened and the IP blocked. Then if someone thinks consensus has changed a new RFC should be started to find out. AlbinoFerret 15:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- HighInBC, I'm here to edit wikipedia and not to battle empty allegations. I hope this comment by the editor who closed the RfC convinced you to accept my valid request. I'm not the one who established that consensus, but we all did.212.15.179.167 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the RFC or the edit. HighInBC 16:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- HighInBC, AlbinoFerret much like no one else saw anything wrong with my edits nor had anyone else in all the discussions I participated and you have them listed all on your talk page. Even you and that other disruptive editor had not pointed to any misconduct of mine. You only keep repeating I'm a sock, and I really do not have to answer that. As long as I'm editing in good faith like I edited so far, your allegations are empty and I won't answer them. There's something I really do not understand. An editor who clearly opposed the consensus to be applied to the article (thus clearly disruptive) called you to reject my request and he somehow convinced you I'm a sock. I really don't know why you wish to believe a clearly disruptive editor, who didn't try to block only me in that RfC but one other editor as well, only because he (and me) opposed him. I already went and looked at his past and I see he constantly tries to block people who don't agree with him. Go and look for yourself, I don't know why you haven't already. And to stress, I'm not the only one who complained about him not discussing in good faith. Here's something from the other discussion, another well established editor complains about him not discussing in good faith [1]. If you don't have nothing against the consensus, they accept my request, and let's be done with this already. I haven't yet seen a disruptive admin. 212.15.179.167 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, my talk page isnt a place to discuss this. But consensus is consensus. So I am going to take one step further. I am going to post on the articles talk page and ping the editors involved in the RFC and clarify the RFC and if one of them wants to make the consensus edit, then it will be done. AlbinoFerret 16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank, you, and forgive me I had to post on your talk page. I really don't have anywhere else since this admin had protected the talk page. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, my talk page isnt a place to discuss this. But consensus is consensus. So I am going to take one step further. I am going to post on the articles talk page and ping the editors involved in the RFC and clarify the RFC and if one of them wants to make the consensus edit, then it will be done. AlbinoFerret 16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- HighInBC, AlbinoFerret much like no one else saw anything wrong with my edits nor had anyone else in all the discussions I participated and you have them listed all on your talk page. Even you and that other disruptive editor had not pointed to any misconduct of mine. You only keep repeating I'm a sock, and I really do not have to answer that. As long as I'm editing in good faith like I edited so far, your allegations are empty and I won't answer them. There's something I really do not understand. An editor who clearly opposed the consensus to be applied to the article (thus clearly disruptive) called you to reject my request and he somehow convinced you I'm a sock. I really don't know why you wish to believe a clearly disruptive editor, who didn't try to block only me in that RfC but one other editor as well, only because he (and me) opposed him. I already went and looked at his past and I see he constantly tries to block people who don't agree with him. Go and look for yourself, I don't know why you haven't already. And to stress, I'm not the only one who complained about him not discussing in good faith. Here's something from the other discussion, another well established editor complains about him not discussing in good faith [1]. If you don't have nothing against the consensus, they accept my request, and let's be done with this already. I haven't yet seen a disruptive admin. 212.15.179.167 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. It seems your post at the talk page got someone confused. HighInBC thinks it's a consensus review and FkpCascais sure acts in that way. I complained about FkpCascais because he keeps preventing the implementation of the consensus with his last comment and HighInBC doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that comment, because he thinks it's a consensus review. Now I'm totally confused, are they both kidding me around or am I misunderstanding you? You just pinged involved editors to introduce the consensus to the article, right? You didn't invite them to review the consensus? If that is correct, maybe you could stress out that I provided a concrete request that would apply the consensus, in "replace X with Y" form. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)