Requests for comment/

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The following discussion is closed; see Requests for comment for more information. The result was: Solved on srwiki, please request a new RfC if needed or discuss it on your talk pages. --WizardOfOz talk 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use real names nor diff links, but if it is necessary, I'll provide them.

There is a problem at with user:A. Yesterday, he started article Anglicisms in Serbian languages. Among word he mentioned is word gay. He explained that gay means: педер; мушкарац кога сексуално, естетски и емотивно привлаче други мушкарци (A fagot; a male who is sexually, esthetically and emotionally attracted by another male). User:A showed himself as being homophobic, so it is hard to assume good faith, especially in he reverts every attempt to remove word fagot. User:B removed twice or more word faggot, only to be reverted by user:A. I noticed this, so I reverted him. User:B then wrote that homosexual person and faggot (that might have pejorative meaning) are synonyms for gay. I deleted user:B's edit too, because it I felt it is really no need to use pejorative words (even if are used in good faith,as it was in user:B's case) 'cause we had some problems with gay community in past, there is no need for new problems.

Then I got message from user:A that says I (as sysop) must obey Wikipedia rules and if I breach them, he will request my de-sysop (what he unsuccessfully did a month ago) I really don't know what he meant with breaking rules. I replied on this treaten: bo-ho, I'm shaking with fear. I got warned by POV-pusher, by someone who follows his opinion, and not Wikipedia policies. Will you just one day not come in conflict with somebody?

After he got my reply, he turned to sysops C, D and E seeking protection for whom he fells they will help him. I returned back to usual activities, not taking part in conflict. In the meantime, a fruitless stop_trolling,_not_you_are_trolling discussion broke up between user:A and (heterosexual) user:F. Use:F also demanded opinion of sysop:G for whom she thought will support her. At this point, I went out, finishing with Wikipedia for that day.

At the morning, I got message from sysop C who warned me that i should be polite with user:A, but not warning user:A. I replied (if he want to act as mediator): Yeah right, he is just a boy whose intentions are good. He start a fight, and then pretends to be a nice guy. He even dare to tech me rules (while violating them almost every day) and to treat me. Now you can deliver him this message.

Afterward, I looked into our admin noticeboard and noticed what they wrote while i was absent:

  • user:A to user:F That's what should be written, because the word is in the dictionary as a synonym for a homosexual. Also, I usually can use it in a casual conversation with, for example, a friend, and to ask her, hey did you know that X person is a faggot? In a completely normal conversation, where this word is regularly used in Serbian language.
  • user:F to user:A: User:A, maybe this is "normal" with you, but usually, it is not normal to call someone "faggot" and that the person whom you called like this doesn't take this as an offense. In Serbia in "normal" conversation, you would say to your friend: "Hey, did you know that X person is a homosexual (or gay)?. Today, THIS is normal. Faggot is NOT. And for this, you also have a confirmation in RMS (a dictionary published by Matica srpska, the highest linguistical authority in Serbia)
  • user:A to user:F: User:F, stay away of me! Don't mention me! You don't have a clue what is normal where I am cause you don't know anything about me. You don't even know what (word) is used in Serbia, cause you are not Serbia. It is just your opinion. A single drop in sea!
  • User:F to User:A: Ofcource I don't know, You are the one who told that it is normal where you are. And regarding drop in sea... Nor You are whole Bosnia. ;)
  • User:A to user:F: No, I, not whole Republika Srpska, but I'm one of its part! Greetings from a Serb for Mrs Troll-ovich! And stay away of me on talkpages! (user A is a hardline nationalist, hence his reply)

After I read this, I blocked user:A.

Serbian Wikipedia has rule that admins should not use their powers when they are engaged in conflict. He successfully exploits this immunity But user:A is in conflict many other users and majority of sysops had objections on his behavior. He is already blocked 10 times by 6 sysops (5 times by me). I have had enough of this, so I ask what would Meta sysops do in my place. -- Bojan  Talk  16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm user:B, and I can confirm most of this. User:A , however, at first used only this explanation for word Gay - педер (A fagot). I tried to revert him, but he undid my edits. I will came back later to give more detail explanation. --В и к и в и н др е ц и 17:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm here just to mention that user A has been in almost constant conflict with admin Bojan for a long time, mainly regarding sensitive articles. Taking that into account, it is wrong for admin Bojan to block user A: again, because of personal conflict and animosity. Instead of getting some consensus from at least some admins, and letting them block user A if needed, he decided to do it alone. We do have 30 admins on sr wiki.

Admin Bojan has been a great addition to our sr wiki, and amount of time and work he puts into it is phenomenal. He is unfortunately prone to some rash decisions and unwarranted moves. Therefore, I hope that his methods of adminship will change. In last two days, he also blocked users AA and AAA, who were complaining about somewhat related issues.

Disclaimer: I'm not user A, AA, or AAA. I do however hope I won't become user AAAA :) --Мирослав Ћика 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't have 30 administrators (even when we count all administrators, active and inactive) . There is an organised group (a clan) on sr wiki trying to remove that administrator, becouse he is a barrier for their propaganda and their POV activities (especially user A). Members of that group (6 - 8 members) are acting coordinated (you can check their voting history...) If they remove that administrator from their way, nobody else will not be able to stop them. Use of the word Fag as a synonym for gay is only the beginning. --В и к и в и н др е ц и 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
So how many admins do we have? --Мирослав Ћика 01:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an automatically generated list of administrators on Officially we have 22 active and 3 inactive admins. But we have probably less than 10 really active admins. mickit 08:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Even if we had only 20 admins, this would give a 5% chance that admin Bojan will block user A. However, he blocked him around 50% of the time, around 5 times. We know that random probability would give (for 5%) 0.05*0.05*0.05*0.05*0.05=0.000000312, or 0.0000312% chance that he will be blocked by Bojan 5 times. This shows some rather strange interest towards user A by admin Bojan, that cannot be attributed to pure chance. Reader is encouraged to try the above calculation with different number of admins, to prove the point. --Мирослав Ћика 13:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When we're at accurate stats, I am a bit concerned that nobody corrected the initial statement. Bas-Celik wasn't blocked by six but by five sysops (Kaster, Славен Косановић, BokicaK, Laslovarga, Dungodung) in total. The "sixth" sysop (Жељко Тодоровић) actually has lowered one BokicK's block. Beside that, it is notable that the first two blocks occurred back in 2006, leaving BokicaK with five out of eight blocks given since Bas-Celik has come back. The remaining three blocks were given by two sysops. If this is indicative of anything, fine, but lets just make the numbers accurate and well positioned in the timeline. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 07:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you talking about percentages? What were reasons for his block(s)? Why did other sysops block him? -- Bojan  Talk  13:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I just proved that you block him much more often than casual interest would require. Either other admins are VERY inactive, or largely disprove of your actions. I don't currently see any other conclusions. --Мирослав Ћика 14:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There is consensus that Bac-Celik's (user:A) actions are disruptive. They told me I should not take any measures without consulting them, but when I consult them, I usually see no reply, nor their actions. During that time Bas-Celik continues to ride. -- Bojan  Talk  14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You have a valid point here re lack of presence. Inactivity of majority of administrators on sr wiki is a large problem. But blocking a user with whom you are in active disagreement over editing issue is still wrong. He was not an anonymous ip deleting pages or defacing them. Right course of action was to defer question to other admins, and if they are not responding, do nothing. That is my opinion at least. --Мирослав Ћика 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To do nothing when we agree that he acts in bad faith?! Disputes over facts were never reason for blocks. The reason was his behavior (trolling, personal attacks, harassment, forbidding other users to interfere in his work and other ways of disruption). -- Bojan  Talk  16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no agreement Bas-Celik acts in bad faith. It is very difficult to say that somebody acts in bad faith when he restrains from editing the main namespace, regardless of denying the facts presented on the talk page. That is the most weak point of this block. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 07:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? No problem, i can list all what he did in past, and leave meta folk to decide (it would be very long list). -- Bojan  Talk  07:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, the things primarily listed as the reason for block ain't enough anymore, even in the eyes of the sysop who decided the block was justified. Adding to this that BokicaK has a large history of conflicts with Bas-Celik, it was more than inappropriate that he blocks Bas-Celik. I wouldn't really say that the other presently active sysops are passive regarding this matter. We rather didn't see enough reason to block Bas-Celik. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 09:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Where did you get that? Bas-Celik has large history of conflict with many user, not just with me. I can specify sysops and users who said Bas-Celik acts in bad faith but I can't breach conversation secrecy. Together with users who said it on Wikipedia it makes, i think more, 20+ users. Tell me, writing pejorative terms on places where there is no really no need, reverting user who delete it, then inflaming conflict, is not worth of receiving warning? -- Bojan  Talk  10:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear reader, BokicaK here ignores the fact that only sysops can block Bas-Celik and thus only conflicts with them are relevant in this subthread. There is no sysop who is more conflicted with Bas-Celik than BokicaK, and at the time when block occurred, Bas-Celik wasn't really in conflict with any other sysop that I know of. Regarding the meaning of the keyword, see the section below (On pejorativeness of the Serbian equivalent of "faggot"). 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 11:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bojan, personal attacks are only sometimes sanctioned on sr wiki, apparently depending on moon phases, chicken bones, and admin mood to represent judge and jury :) If sanctioning was done always, nobody would object. However, it seems to be concentrated on some users and particular worldview ... At any rate, I did put forward all of the objections that I had re those recent blocks. I have nothing else to add, and leave this matter to Meta arbitration. --Мирослав Ћика 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What particular worldview and which users? Bas-Celik did personal attacks. He acts as bully, always commenting other users, not what they says. Even if we didn't block some users, that doesn't mean we should tolerate him eternally. Many people complained oh him over past two years. If he is really a good-faith editor, why he was blocked by another sysops 4 years ago? Why is he always on edge? Why did he write that pejorative term and then twice reverted user who erase it? Can you find a user that cause as much trouble as Bas-Celik? -- Bojan  Talk  14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There are users who are doing personal attacks also, but they were never punished for that. This time it was pure revenge for request for removing administrator right of user BokicaK that user Bas-Celik open in February 2011. [1] Btw. there are somе facts about serbian wikipedia. Up to now, there were 19 requests for removing administrator right. From this 19, administrator BokicaK is by far the best with 4 request, after him there is only one admin who has 2 requests. Up to now, from 19 requests no one of all votes have positive result, always was majority for administrators. --Alexmilt 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Alexmilt, will I get answer: even if we showed tolerance, should we tolerate it forever? How many times Bas-Celik has to be warned or blocked to improve his behavior? -- Bojan  Talk  10:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the link for what you have block user Bas-Celik. [2] He called other user: "Mrs. Trollovic" which would be family name in serbian language for someone who is trolling. After that, when people were complaining about your decision you said "Trollfest" [3]. So, according to your argumentation you also deserve to be blocked same as you did to user Bas-Celik. Tell me who can stop you when you are showing such an untolerance, double standards, acting as a policeman who is distributing justice to the users with whom you are in conflict? --Alexmilt 19:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Will you say something more about circumstances? What were You doing before I called Your behavior trollfest? Were you attacking another sysop for something he didn't say? -- Bojan  Talk  23:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Whatever they did, it is either to be sanctioned by wikipolitics or left at that. Calling a group of users "trollfest" is an act of contempt. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 10:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not act of contempt. I couldn't sanction them cause my arms were tied at that moment. -- Bojan  Talk  10:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As it can be seen, this sysop obviously believes that if he cannot do anything, the proper response is to go around and insult people.Mihajlo [ talk ] 07:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you steal, you are a thief, right? Explain to us what they were doing. -- Bojan  Talk  07:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I havent took part in that discussion but now I see that insult "trollfest" is designed for me also. Thank you. Maybe you should be punished now, but dont worry, no one here is revenging. Bas-Celik could say a lot about circumstances also, but you havent give him any space for that. You just blocked him without any warning. You used a minor conflict in discussion on one article just to block him and that was act of revenge. There was a lot of small conflicts without any risk for whole project. You are behaving like Wikipedia is your own property and that all should play by your rules. --Alexmilt 11:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Will you tell me, if he says wrote pejorative term, twice reverted user who delete, and then, when other users say that term should not be used, allows himself to take part in above-mentioned discussion instead to step back after all mess he caused, despite fact that he has history of conflict with dozens of users and, and despite fact that he previously got warning? No, he is not allowed to cause another conflict. P.S. I translated whole section that explains circumstances of his latest block, will someone dare to translate "trollfest" part? I have nothing to hide. -- Bojan  Talk  12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to give some background on this matter. Prior to the incident where BokicaK/Bojan bloked three users during a personal argument, he was four times chosen for removal of his administrator rights. More than any other admin on sr wikipedia. During this particular incident, he blocked three users that previously voted against him. On the 6th of March I told him to take more care when making mass editing [4]. I pointed to him that he was making mass mistakes. He replied that that was none of my business (not very friendly). Day or actually hours before he blocked all three of them, he was told to accept the fact that he has the same rights as any other user. I told him that is was not right of him to bully and to impose his way by threatening to block anyone who disagrees with him. I told him that he needs to discuss things on the Discussion. Immediately after I received an attack from him [5]. He called me names and told me to go home (not very friendly). After this another admin warned him to stop missbehaving and try to speak in a normal way [6], but he got into argument with him also. Soon after this he blocked me, which caused others to protest on the admin board. Then Bokica/Bojan got into an argument with the others, and then he blocked a second person. After this he got into an argument with a third user, and then he blocked the third person. Things got so out of hand that other admins were protesting, and then BokicaK/Bojan was warned by a third admin to stop blocking altogether [7]. This is only a part of the story. At the moment, at least half of the people on the sr wikipedia are very unsatisfied with the whole atmosphere. Users who are not admins get treated like lower casts. There is also ganging up of some admins who cover each others backs. --Bas-Celik 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, and I always won trust community on that four occasions (btw, first occasion was started by a POV-pusher who had 4 sysops accounts, see this). The users were not banned because they were in conflict with me. I explained what were reasons for Bas-Celik's block. Other two were banned because of personal attacks, and generally trolling. Alexej fon Grozny once called sysops fifth column, bot he got only harsh warning by me. Second time he accused all those who were against deletion (nominated by Bas-Celik) of redirect 'Косовар' (Albanian name for residents of Kosovo) for anti-Serbian bias (wtf?!) He was warned second time by sysop Djus. Third time (after Bas-Celik was banned because of above mentioned reasons) he again lying hat is allowed to offend Serbs (on Serbian Wiki?) by singing en:Danke Deutschland (song) (in fact, nobody ever mentioned this song in any context). That was last straw, i blocked him for 7 days. The third user was Slayah, who were saying that all sysops contributions are useless 'cause all of their contributions are putting maintenance templates or external links in articles. After explanation what sysops are doing (programing, running bots, taking care on copyright, working in Wikimedia Serbia and that they (nor anybody) are not obligated to write articles; many indeed write articles), I warned/asked Slayah not to call me, nor any other sysop or user, useless. He again called me and another sysops useless, daring me to take next step. Having on mind that he was blocked couple times, i blocked him on three months (his last block was one month long; he was later unblocked with my approval). By the way, i feel obligated to explain what Bas-Celik had in mind when he mentioned mass editing: en:user:Starzynka created many stubs on villages in Serbia and Bosnia that didn't have interwiki links. I noticed that their name match to names of articles on French wikipedia, so I used bot to add interwiki link to articles on English. If article on some village doesn't exist, interwiki bots will remove links that lead to non-existing articles. It indeed happened, but this is result of my actions, too (see changes from March 17). Or this [8]. Btw: I replied him (rough translation): As Montenegrins would say, relax, man. There had to be some errors. (Decide for yourself is it unfriendly or not). As I sad, Bas-Celik warned me that I have same right as every users after I twice removed word faggot from article in question. Otherwise, he will again request my de-sysop. Is sounds like a threat. Actions of Sysop C that warned me for misbehavior I already discussed when I filled this request. For (again partially translated) comment by admin Dungodung that has to stop blocking user with whom I am in conflict (reasons explained) I have only ti say: gladly, but when other sysops finally start to act as they speak other ways I will not allow disturbers. I have to repeat that (from that what i saw) Bas-Celik is in conflict with few active sysops, and exploits this fact. Among user who protested majority are Bas-Celik's army of POV-pushers (except user Slayah, who is not part of the gang, he has his personal grudge against current sysops) -- Bojan  Talk  23:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe that BokicaK/Bojans translations are accurate. In this comment [9], another admin is telling him: "Bojan, this is getting out of control. I beg of you to stop bloking people from now on. It is not usefull to wake up every morning and find that you have bloked yet another user that you are in conflict with. Futher, I ask you to stop doing your own politics on wikipedia and to stay away from this page."[10]. I would say that this comment sums up the whole isue. --Bas-Celik 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See why there were blocked. Hence, I take full responsibility for that. Btw, it would be really interesting to hear from Dungodung on other side. -- Bojan  Talk  11:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

On pejorativeness of the Serbian equivalent of "faggot"

This too needs to be said: after the ruckus on Anglicisms in Serbian language, Bas-Celik did brought up at sr:Talk:Педер a relevant reference (Rečnik sаvremenog beogrаdskog žаrgonа [Dictionary of Contemporary Belgrade Slang] ISBN 86-902311-6-1), which says that the word "depending on context may or may not have a pejorative meaning" and another user has referenced an opinion by a LGBT NGO which says the same. Furthermore, his reaction to User:F's comment seems to be caused by User:F's violation of POV pushing: "And why should we use a slang dictionary when we have the Dictionary of en:Matica srpska, which is authorised by the highest linguistic authority, Matica srpska, while this slang dictionary, of course, isn't. he DMS says [...] So, it is obvious that this word is exclusively pejorative. I mean, are we going to give advantage of some or another dictionary of slang over DMS?" As of now[11], the article says that the word is exclusively pejorative and apparently no one dares use the supplied references that say otherwise. Nikola 07:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But was it necessary in article on Anglicisms? If someone removes from article, what do you think, why? Will you revert that twice? -- Bojan  Talk  08:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nikola. BokicaK/Bojans way of translating the mentioned word sr:Педер into "faggot" is not appropriate. The Serbian word sr:Педер (short for Педераст) derives from the Old Greek en:Pederasty. It is spelled "Peder" in Serbian Latin script, the same as in English en:Pederasty. By the way, article sr:Педер was written by someone else. In the history of that article, I appear only once simply reverting a vandalism [12]. So, I dont have any contributions in that article. I didnt even bring the mentioned reference up, as the article was written by others. Futher to add, BokicaK/Bojans was already told off by two other admins for trying to divert conversation on this meter that has nothing to do with his actions. Anyway, to get beck to the point, since BokicaK/Bojans blocked three people that he was in personal conflict with, more than half of sr wikipedija users have been protesting every day against his actions[13]. I said more than half of sr wikipedija users, but I can also say majority are against BokicaK/Bojans actions and are calling for cancellation of his bloks[14]. That is why BokicaK/Bojans came here to complain, because majority on sr wikiedija are disatisfied with the way he missuses admin rights. Even this change of subject is another diversion. The main point that is being discussed on sr wikipedia is that of BokicaK/Bojans abuse of admin rights[15]. --Bas-Celik 11:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with naming of this page is that it is turning argument inside out. The conflict between BokicaK and at least half of the users at sr wikipedia is the main reason for this discusion. Users have expressed disagreement with BokicaK actions when blocking Bac-Celik. BokicaK got upset that so many people have protested against his actions and because of that he started this discussion. During this he bloked two other users who were protesting against his previous action. He missused admin rights to block anyone who voiced out disagreement with him. He also insulted others on the admin board. Alexmilt already explained that BokicaK blocked first user for calling someone Trol-ovic, where BokicaK himself called group of people Trol-fest. BokicaK imposes double standards on others. He allows himsef to call others names, and yet he blocks those he dislikes for doing the same. Basically, he is using blocking to get his own way. Alexmilt already explained that the reason for blocking the first user was for using the word Trol-ovic. That is what BokicaK stated on the admin board on sr wikipedia, and he should not invent new interpretations and new reasons. Anyway, a difference in opinion should not be reason to persecute someone. Apart from blocking those who he dessagrees with, he was also insulting us. When I suggested that he cancels the block, Bojan answered with insults, quote: -- Bojan Razgovor 10:42, 12. март 2011. (CET).

If his insult is to do with that I am his grandfather's generation, than his comment says more about him. In all civilisations people respect their elders and do not insult them because of their age. Specially as it was not calfed for.

BokicaK has taken upon himself the role of a policeman. He believes that he should discipline those who question him. He belives that beeing admin gives him the right to use bloking as an "argument". He is using the block as revenge. If someone protests, he calls them a member of a gang (he used this even here), trol-fest etc. He used his admin rights in this situation to block others for doing the things that he allows himself to do. He carried on blocking three people until he was warned to stop. He imposes different standards on others. And he also made one of the users leave the project The second blocked user actually announced that he was leaving the project because of BokicaK. BokicaK comment was: Serves him right. Over and out. Bojan Razgovor 09:27, 19. март 2011. (CET). I believe that BokicaK is not a good admin. We spend a lot of time on sr wikipedia talking about his actions, double standards, revengefull and biased approach, and that is a handicap. All this was said on sr wikipedia.--Sahara 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are half of the sr.users? -- Bojan  Talk  00:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bojan, you would do well to step down from admin position. You are abusing admin rights to push your own agenda and censorship of those who you disagree with. If needed, I will provide plenty of proofs for your biased approach in many articles. While we are all biased to some extent, in admin hands this is very dangerous. Don't worry: even if we are a bunch of evil POV pushers, there are plenty of sr viki admins left to block us.

Otherwise, you might be the only person left on sr viki. "Сила бога не моли, али бог силу не воли." We are not just a collection of bytes, we are living people. We don't like to be blocked, mocked, and shown into corner when we grow up.

Return to what you like: writing articles, running bots and the like. Admin rights are unnecessary for this. Don't lose your nerves in vain. People will always have differing opinions. But you won't have any nerves left.

Bojan, it would be bad to lose you as sr wiki user. I still think you are a great man. Just channel your efforts away from conflict, and into creation. --Мирослав Ћика 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You have at least half of users on and you are now begging me to step down? You said yesterday really awful things about me (pushing agenda, censorship, etc). It seems that you really believe I don't like my people and that my activity are only to counter you. You personally weren't blocked ever - although you are part of the gang - because, until now, you never gave me a reason (unlike Bas-Celik and Aleksej). Don't worry, I will not vanish just like that, even if I loose admin status. -- Bojan  Talk  18:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not begging you to step down, that would be silly. I'm telling you that stepping down would be the best, since you are causing incredible conflicts with your actions. That is not in the interest of sr wiki, and not in your interest, I hope. --Мирослав Ћика 20:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Find those at least half of users. Then we will see whose actions (or absences of action) are causing incredible conflicts. -- Bojan  Talk  02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Deadminship request was filled. 7 user supported this, 18 were against. -- Bojan  Talk  17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It happened just like I predicted somewhere. This only proves that BokicaK is still too useful for the project to be lost, not that his doings were right. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 12:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And three blocked users did not vote. Justice as always. --Мирослав Ћика 17:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC closed by whom?

Why is this RFC closed? We haven't heard a single word from stewards or neutral parties? I will repeat again, 3 very useful users have been forced away from sr wiki, in 3 days, by actions of admin Bojan. --Мирослав Ћика 18:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are lying, Miroslav. Nobody was forced away forever and stop defending their disruptive actions with their "usefulness". Aleksej could return, but he didn't do that. Slayah wasn't blocked during confidence voting, he is still active, I don't know why didn't vote. And their 3 votes would not change anything. Your filthy campaign showed your real intentions and understanding what Wikipedia and NPOV are. BTW this was request for comments that I submitted, not some official process. For two weeks nobody neutral didn't want to take part in this. -- Bojan  Talk  06:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your actions and words are much more disruptive. I demand a steward intervention. --Мирослав Ћика 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The blocks expire from the software, but the manner they've been committed doesn't expire from people's memories. You, BokicaK, have successfully chased away an user who was writing articles like this one. You could have waited for somebody else to warn/block him, for he was not in conflict with any other sysop.

And he is not the only one. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, excellent articles don't give him right to spread very serious libels nor give him immunity to accuse others (especially because he doesn't (want to) understand what are redirects). He got warnings from me and another sysop few weeks/days prior his block, but he chose to proceed with awful accusations. Now he has to live with consequences. No other sysop was willing to do something concrete to end this pat-position. I took full responsibility and outcome is known. -- Bojan  Talk  19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)