Requests for comment/Conflict of interest and partiality of administrators on Serbian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. Nothing actionable was proposed, community was notified a month before closure with no objections, therefore marking inactive. -- TeleComNasSprVen 06:13, 3 March 2014‎

On Serbian Wikipedia we have ongoing conflict caused by abuse and conflict of interest initiated by one user who wrote a self-promoting article. User registered first with his real name and later changed it to his actual pseudonym –user name. In 2010 he wrote article about himself. In 2012 he continues to advance work on it, but one user discovered what is going on and warned him that he acts contrary to the rules and abuse Wikipedia. Other user also warned him about misleading use of references in the article. User of self-promoting article defended himself, not excusing his behavior but beginning one attack on the user of warning and insisting that he is discovering his real identity whitout his consent. The problem is that administrators on Serbian Wikipedia immediately stand to the band of user of self-promoting article whitout reproaching his behavior and finally one of them blocks the user who warned community about abuse of Wikipedian rules and conflict of interest. What is worse no one of them recognize that the user of self-promoting article have conflict of interest and that he acted in bad faith, even less that they unduly blocked very constructive user and defender of integrity of content of Serbian Wikipedia in many cases. They now use misleading excuses for block with strategies already seen on many Wikipedia projects, discrediting and demonizing user who's intent in these case, was to protect Wikipedia from abuse. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this introduction can give some idea of what is going on and hope some advice of what could be done in these case. On Serbian Wikipedia we don't have a forum for resolving conflicts of interest and whole discussion is on our Village Pump. These request for comment is by former self-resigned administrator from Serbian Wikipedia who has good knowledge of the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I could elaborate better the whole situation. We, on Serbian Wikipedia have a policy to protect user's personal identity, but in case we have a problem with conflict of interest that affect the user who wrote article about himself. Where is the problem? The problem is in the fact that if we stick to the policy —that in this case doesn't cover or even elaborate actual situation with conflict of interest, we than cannot discuss, even touch that autobiographical article. It will stay forever on our Wikipedia because every user who mention it is in the risk to be blocked, that if we accept actual interpretation of the policy in question. Also 31% of votes to maintain article forever isn't difficult to obtain. As Laslovarga already said in this discussion, the only way that we can protect the identity of the user in question —if he insist in so, is by removing the article from Wikipedia. In actual situation, we cannot block every user who ask questions about that autobiographical article or comment accuracy of facts in his content. That will be like resignation to defend the project from abuse. So we need advice from you and conclusions that will in some way obligate administrators in our community to discuss the question and find solution with the user who created this distorted situation. The final solution must defend Wikipedia and not user's personal interest and also serve like barrier to further intents of similar abuse. Thanks again to all of you. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Ooo, this request is 1000 miles away from truth and real events. Anyone reading this should be aware of that. This one sided, untruthful statement is deliberate falsification of the truth. User was blocked after 3 (three) direct administrators warning not to breach wiki rules about OUTING, what happened right after the last one. Source is not important, further usage of those data are important. And article in question was on RfD, and was not deleted. This request is nothing more then a poor way to deal with personal issues, while all of local administrators agreed that block is well deserved and in place. And that "poor, great user" have a vast block log that fill entire page. Local problems should be dealt with on local wikipedias. (unless you ask for a real advice, with neutral question, what you didnt do here). Bad faith request here... --WhiteWriter speaks 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Ooo, here you are. :) OK. Did you wrote article about yourself using your actual pseudonym? Yes, you did. Did you tried to hide that? Yes, you did. So, cause of the whole problem comes from your band. You cannot excuse your bad behavior and abuse of rules of Wikipedia passing the ball to the other side. Even less using classic strategies of discreditation of the other side as your defense. All that is already seen many times and very poor from someone who pretends to demonstrate that he acted in good faith. You are exposing your real personality right now. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I didnt hide anything, and that is quite clear. Your conclusions are quite strange... I created that while i didn't follow guidelines up to the very end, now i wouldn't do that. And that is anyway UNRELATED to the block reason, while you are trying to connect two thing, with no real connection. Local community didn't delete it, and that is it. Several users completely copy edit article, so where exactly is your problem? User in question was blocked per violating several direct warnings, and not because of any article... --WhiteWriter speaks 21:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Your interpretation of local community vote in that case is misleading. You need little more of 30% of votes to keep one article. This is not whole local community. Just your brothers in this war. That doesn't mean anything and also doesn't excuse you from responsability. You and your ego are bad gays in the whole thing. And then misleading interpretation of rules by some administrators of Serbian Wikipedia who are also brothers of you in this war. And I know way. Because some of them know you in real life. But they are breaking the rules and also abusing Wikipedia. So something must be done. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
AAahhah, this is funny! First, Bad gays? You are insulting? I can report that, you know? Then, ahahha, i dont know anyone from wikipedia! Why should i? That is so poor and wrong statement, in several categories.. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You are again exposing your personality of someone who doesn't have any argument and than laugh, laugh and laugh... And than again "I will report you"... Very poor from someone who thinks that deserve one article on Wikipedia. By the way, that's not your case. Your references are very poor and misleading and you still didn't make enough in your life to say: "I am relevant for Wikipedia". You need much hard work on yourself and still more professional accomplishments. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You are insulting me, writing unsupported claims of personal off wiki attitude, and you are speaking about wiki rules. I am off, this request is a joke, not worthy of a meta... --WhiteWriter speaks 22:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
We cannot speak of you in this case because you -better say your abuse of rules of Wikipedia- are the cause of the whole thing. And than we have some other users, fortunately not majority, who also support that behavior in bad faith because they already hate the user who discovered what you did. You have to shame yourself. All of you. Request is worthy of attention of Meta. We cannot ban constructive users who defend integrity of Serbian Wikipedia, for wrong things done by others who act in bad faith and disrupt the project. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What a construction! Who would say so! Lets be serious. Nobody cares about constructions and personal attitudes between users. Only thing that matters is viki rules, ans better articles. And that's it. Everything else is just wikidrama. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If somebody receives the block because personal attitudes, and because act like a barrier for breaking rules, yes we should care about that. We cannot ban users because they warn us about somebody who plays with Wikipedia open system and then ridicules people who defend the integrity of Wikipedia content and rules. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You both better stick to the facts, refrain from personal attacks and leave people from Meta to leave their opinion. As sysop on, I feel invited to say something This episode is just one in series of unpleasant events in last few years. They both mentioned voting for deletion. In the voting, few users who were for deletion cited policies such as WP:NOTABILITY and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, while those who voted against did not cite any policy. The problem is that is turned into experiment in democracy, what is violation of first Wikipedia pillar. Arguments are not appreciated there, only fact that someone has (or has not) 70%-support. -- Bojan  Talk  01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Facts are that user wrote self-promotional article; that he tried to hide that fact; when discovered he attacked and acused for identity revelation the user who said: "That's wrong, you are playing with the system —your references are misleading, they doesn't come from relevant sources that independently speak about your work, you don't have enough work behind you to deserve one article on Wikipedia and none at all that supports article definition of you as dramaturge and director. The worst of whole thing is that some administrators which are supposed to act in defense of integrity of project, acted protecting the user who broken the rules. In other words, whole thing looks like some surreal playwriting... I agree that people on Serbian Wikipedia plays with the system and that whole thing turned into one experiment, not in democracy but in partocracia, where we have groups that doesn't respect the spirit of Wikipedia and play with percentages of votes to support their ideas and behaviors with whole thing turning out of control and disrupting normal functioning of Wikipedia like one encyclopedia work in progress. Administrators on Serbian Wikipedia must act in protection of integrity of project and not undertaking personal wars against user's that they dislike for whichever reason. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
In this case there is no case. Everything is clear:
  • Fact - Notability of person, not even close
  • Fact - Autobiography, yes in did
  • Fact - Article is written under his (author, heh) real name
  • Fact - Now he need to be anonymous? How? If somebody write under pseudonym and somebody else is give out his real name, that is a problem. But...if somebody write entire article (autobiography) about himself and ask for privacy and protection that is another problem. First we have to delete article and than change a user name and so on.
  • Fact - Another user got block because of all this things mentioned above? No, she just ask for deletion of this article and mention name of person who wrote that autobiography. Whose fault is that, now, everybody can see through article history who is who? All the facts are here above and just have to think about. Only solution for his privacy what I see is article deletion, and than some of his requests going to be legitimate.--Laslovarga (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all blocked person with very big list of blocks and disruptive behaviour was warned by 3 Administrators not to tease and call some person by real name, especialy since that person asked several times not to be mention by real name. Here Kosanovic argument of some groups that disrupt wiki is nonsense, since 2 of of these 3 Admin according to Kosanovic classification dont belong to so called disruptive group. Several other Administrators later that dont belong to so called disruptive group told that blocked perseon realy deserved block, including LasloVarga and Bojan that made commenta above. Bojan blocked during past many times blockedperson for trolling project, but now he is in good terms with her. Disputed article voting for deletion happen to be 35% not to delete and therefore article still stays according to policy. Just to mention I was not participated in that voting. What is worse Administrators on wiki are realy partial, but not in direction where Kosanovic mentions. After blocking Корисник:Maduixa they blocked on same amount of time User BasCelik just as retribution and under false pretext and without warning. --Miut (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Miut mentioned that I had blocked the User Maduixa, yes, I blocked her, but this was long time ago, and I can say that the person from that time and two different persons. Only she should be thanked that now Sr Wikipedia has BLP rules, many different rules on Reliable sources and how to identify them and how to use them. So, as I firmly protected Wikipedia from her four years ago, now I support her in her intentions to fulfill all those rules that she translated. And one of them is Wikipedia:Autobiography.-- Bojan  Talk  10:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is completely unrelated to OUTING. OUTING is strictly forbidden, despite the source. If user doesn't want to share his identity to entire community, that must be followed. She didnt follow that, after 3 direct warnings, and was blocked after 11 other blocks before. And that is fact. Other fact is that she will not be unblocked, as local admin community agreed about that. Third fact, article will not be deleted, as AfD process's was closed as "not deleted". That is facts. The rest is trolling. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Bojan, it's better that we all stick to the facts in ongoing discussion. Please, leave out of discussion things that are not related with concrete case. On Serbian Wikipedia we have the problem with situation were administrator blocked the user because she defended integrity of project. Other side defended and still defend's his personal interest. This is not about justice, this is about respecting or not Wikipedia which purpose is to be an encyclopedia of human knowledge and not private site for some privileged who play with the rules. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything that Miut and WhiteWriter has said. User that has been blocked for revealing another users true identity, has been blocked just a day before for disrupting, reverting (roll back) and so on. She was warned several times not to reveal a person's real name, but she ignored it and carried on attacking on a personal level. Attacks on a personal level are a very common thing on sr wikipedia, and they are usually one way, because admins support some problematic users and literally support those attacks on the ones who do not belong to their group. As per comments of BokicaK, Slaven Kosanovic and Laslovarga, they are users who are closely connected and you could say friends of the user who is in question. BokicaK was the subject of complaints here on Meta, a couple of years ago, when several admins and users came here to complain about his actions and the way he treated some users. On sr wikipedia friends of the user in question literally every day bring up the same subject, constantly promoting verbal fights. When I supported blocking the user in question, I was immeditely blocked by one of her friends. As per BokicaK, Slaven Kosanovic and Laslovarga, all three are hardly ever active on sr wikipedia, and usually come only to things like this, to arguments and to support their friends. Slaven Kosanovic himself only comes to argue on the talk pages, and in the last three years has probably not written 10 articles. To add, after the person in question was blocked, many users expressed their relief. Also, the user in question made a promise about three or so years ago not to use wikipedia to write articles, and every day we had arguments and personal attacks from her. And to return to the point in question, the blocked user was personally attacking WhiteWriter for several weeks and admins who are her friends, always ignored the breach of rules. I should mention that the person in question also threatened the admin over email. Previously when she was blocked, she gathered all her friends and requested removal of admin rights to those who blocked her. Sr wikipedia is generally deeply in problems because of different treatment by admin subgroups who are very biased. And I should also say that group of users on sr wikipedia ran their personal websites and promote them on sr wikipedia, but because their friends within the admins, they are allowed to do so. --Bas-Celik (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment I have I guess two edits on Serbian Wikipedia, all made earlier this year. I returned to check next day whether everything is fine with the edits, and noticed that BokicaK made minor improvements to one of them twenty minutes after my edits. (Nobody ever edited this article after us). The contribution log confirms indeed that they make a number of edits basically every day. Thus, saying that they are not active on Serbian Wikipedia seems to me a gross misrepresentation of actual reality.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Yes, user's that maintain this type of argumentation or better say no-argumentation at all, are user's that defend position in which personal interests of some are above Wikipedia's interest as encyclopedia of knowledge. That type of behavior we also try to address in this discussion and in some way make conclusions which will obligate all administrators on Serbian Wikipedia that they must respect the fact that Wikipedia is not site to defend interest's of friends or user's that you like for whichever reason, but to defend Wikipedia from that type of disruptive behavior. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have worded things in a different way:

  • Fact: Since 2010, Slaven Kosanovic has written 11 articles: [1], but however has made at least thousands of edits on the talk pages. [2]
  • Fact: user BokicaK in the last several month has been very active on SH wikipedia, and visits SR wikipedia only some times [3]. He has dedicated most of his time to SH wikipedia.
  • Fact: Laslovarga only comes for a couple of minutes every other day and usually only to talk pages: [4], he has writen 4 articles since 2011.
  • Fact: user Maduixa [5] mostly edits talk pages. Since 2011. she has created 2 articles [6], and these two are not made by her, but only moved from student area to the main space and got registered to her name.

This is mentioned by me to highlight the practice of only using wikipedia to come to vote, argue, support friends and so on. For example user Maduixa has 70,705 edits, out of which she has less than 40% article editing. Some users on sr wikipedia just argue all day long. At one time, this group of users were attacking me, after that they were attacking WhiteWriter, after that they were attacking Sahara, after that they were attacking Miut, and so on. I am talking about personal attacks where they comment the person instead of the article. In my view, this is an attack on WhiteWriter as we have seen many times before on sr wikipedia. --Bas-Celik (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I am afraid you will have a hard time to convince people around that someone with 70K edits is not active on the project - unless all these edits are fully automated and pointless. I consider myself an active user of English Wikipedia, and I only have 15K in a year. In Russian Wikipedia, I got less than 100K in four years basically spending on it all my time. I suggest you better talk about the real problems, not really referring to such statistics.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators on Serbian Wikipedia have done a right thing to block the user Maduixa. She should be blocked for far longer ... She was divulging personal information even after repeated requests to stop. She is in very bad relations with majority of editors. She deletes other people's comments in discussions and on her talk page. She archives active discussions. She was involved in countless edit wars and revert wars. She drove away a number of good editors with her "my way or highway" style. She was blocked around 10 times, for all this and her generally abusive personality. For once, admins at sr wiki have done a right thing. --Мирослав Ћика (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly this is the way which in past two and some years we are battling with cancer in sr.Wikipedia. There is group of users which constantly are pushing there common interests. Complain against others, try to minimise and made wortless other contributionsAfter all this time I just felt betrayed by Wiki-community. How we can let this kind of behaviour to overpower common sense. Luck of interest, loosing focus and so on. After almost 7 years being in Wikiproject and with total of over 60,000 contributions from which half is in sr.Wikipedia and from that is 72,9% in articles [by the way check it here], over 13,000 articels on sr.Wikipedia. I decided to leave, why? By the way I am not the only one. Why should I spend 1,000 and 1,000 of hours and after that when main frame is done somebody come and take over? I think that everybody with honest Wikihart should check what is going on with this disruptive group which is trying to take over one common project. Group with self promoted leaders are already came out and give there comments on this page. By the way one of them is talking about another user how bad is and himself is already blocked 13 times from 8 different administrators on sr.Wikipedia and still is under the block.--Laslovarga (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bojan and Slaven here. Laslovarga also made some good points. The question is whether a wikipedia user can escape into anonymity to avoid examination of his past work and possible sanctions for violating text and spirit of at least one serbian wikipedia policy (sr:Википедија:Сукоб интереса), and at least one serbian wikipedia guideline (sr:Википедија:Аутобиографија). He didn't hide his identity during the voting in serbian wikipedia AFD process. He even used that fact in his favor, because all of his "wiki friends" voted for keeping the article (including Alexmilt, administrator who later blocked Maduixa for alleged outing). The article is kept because 7 users (35%)voted that way (including Whitewriter, who voted for himself). 13 users (65%) voted for deletion, but that wasn't enough. Serbian Wikipedia has one bad policy which says that "explanation of votes in AFD is recommended" which is interpreted as not being obligatory. So, every comment vote has the same weight, regardless of whether that vote is explained or not.

Another problem here is that administrator who blocked Maduixa is obviously involved. Even if we ignore the fact that he voted for keeping the article, Alexmilt has close ties to Whitewriter. Whitewriter is prominent editor on en wiki (his primary project is en wiki, not sr wiki). He mainly edits articles from en:WP:ARBMAC area, and has pretty long block log there. This is important because he uses sr wiki as a starting point in his canvassing campaigns aimed at gathering support for his positions on various en wiki RFCs. Alexmilt is not very active on en wiki but he is almost always there when Whitewriter needs him (check his contributions there). It is not unreasonable to conclude that there could be some form of offwiki or mail communication between them.--Wikit 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That is very much not true. As you may know, i inform users publicly on the sr square about some relevant topics on other projects, as i did in the past, and several users always respond from there, you included, WikiWind. That does not mean that i have off wiki conversation with anyone! It is bad faith to discredit relevant admin for your POV. I almost dont use e-mail option at all, except for Wikimedia Commons Discussion List. And admin was not involved, he didn't even participate in discussion, up to warning. And you may see that vast majority of comments votes are unexplained, from both sides. Represent facts as they are. Once again. OUTING is forbidden, in every way. Especially when users explicitly say so. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
At least 7 delete voters gave policy based explanations for their votes, on the other hand, I don't see any policy based keep votes. One user argues that "every information is relevant", and that's pretty much everything from keep side. I didn't participate in deletion discussion, and I don't have any negative POV toward you that affects my opinion.--Wikit 19:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Oo, i was not talking about negative POV toward me, but toward blocking admin's connection with other users. Sorry for misunderstanding. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The article in question was for speedy deletion if we have in count that you wrote it for yourself without respecting even the basic rules of every Wikipedia. Problem with notability in the first place, misleading definition (sorry you are still not any director, less more dramaturge, because you don't have any work behind you to support such claims), misleading referencing and so on. Try to write it on English Wikipedia and you will soon see that it will be nominated for speedy deletion. Please try to play with the Wikipedia system on English, or some other larger Wikipedia project, in the way that you did on Serbian Wikipedia. Call your friends on Serbian Wikipedia to support you in your endeavor to ridicule some other Wikipedia project and constructive effort and contribution of thousands of disinterested users that every day work on Wikipedia. I would like to see the whole situation. Votes for keep in nomination for deletion on Serbian Wikipedia are not unexpected in any way. The user's who voted keep, simply voted against the user who made nomination, without having in count any Wikipedia rule. We can see in actual discussion that arguments, as they call it, point to ridicule contribution from other users's on Serbian Wikipedia which are against abuse of Wikipedia for personal interests. That's whole repertoire of arguments, as they call it, that come from them all the time. There is no more. They use those method's all the time on Serbian Wikipedia and Serbian administrators permit them to do so. This is another large problem. They don't care about Wikipedia as encyclopedia of knowledge, they just care for they personal interest which is, in this case, pointed to eliminate user who is actually opponent to their goal of Wikipedia free of people which maintain that Wikipedia is not project for self-promotion and many other types of abuse that they usually orchestrate to make their point and say, "we are here and we do whatever we like" and then laugh in our faces. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I support what Miut, WhiteWriter, Bas-Celik and Miroslav Cika have said. Many other comments are exaggerated. Many of them are accusations that are more to do with those who accuse. It is very irresponsible of Laslo Varga to talk about take over accusing most active users. Laslo Varga is not honest in his view of this problem. He was a bad admin as he was always doing what Maduixa asked him to do. Especially when Maduixa wanted to take away admin rights from Zeljko Todorovic, and when Laslo Varga blocked one user for one month and then removed the block a couple of hours later. When Laslo Varga says that someone wants to take over wikipedia from him, that is suggestive of what he is thinking. Wikipedia should be for all and not for one group that another must take over from.

User Maduixa was constantly breaking wikipedia rules. Even though she was three times warned that she would be blocked if persisted, she still carried on. She ignored all warnings and was blocked.

Bas-Celik was blocked without any warning, and without any reason, so that they achieve some balance. And that is not good for relationships amongst the users on sr wiki. All I can see are personal attacks against me as well, even though I only write articles. Those users that declare themselves "protectors of wikipedia", actually do exactly what they are accusing others of doing.--Sahara (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about users, but about free knowledge. Many problems rise as consequence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia purpose, that some of you promote all the time. In this discussion we also try to address that problem, which have very connection with many abuses on Serbian Wikipedia that come to light in this concrete case. You cannot make decisions on Wikipedia articles and content based on your like or dislike toward user X. We discuss that question all the time on Serbian Wikipedia and more of you largely ignore that fact. But everybody can have friends on Wikipedia and that's fine. No one question that. What we discuss here is that users cannot use their friends for illegitimate purposes as is case in question. In other words, you cannot use Wikipedia for self-promotion, less more in the way that user WhiteWriter did. No one of you said nothing about reproachable behavior of WhiteWriter in this case. You largely ignore all arguments as you do in discussions on Serbian Wikipedia.There are many users on Serbian Wikipedia that have a problem with your's understanding of Wikipedia which is not in accordance with their definition as encyclopedia of free knowledge. Some of you use it for whichever purpose you like. You have to understand that purpose of Wikipedia cannot adapt to your idea, but you have to adapt to idea of Wikipedia. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
O, c'mon, stop making drama of this. This is wikipedia, not central prison. This is minor thing, and should be regarded as such. Blocked user deserved to be blocked, and article is sources, and is open for new RfD after time lapse. There is nothing so dramatic or disastrous as you imagined, or try to present here. So what, article? Numerous users edited it, and totally change it, it is not the same article anymore! Dont create wiki drama, that is disastrous for the project. As i said, this request here is very pointless. Those are inner questions of sr wiki, and all of those are already answered. Only trolling will continue here. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you speak in that relaxed way if we block you from editing Wikipedia? Let's say some six moths. It's not dramatic, just some six months for disrupting the Wikipedia, making the point, and playing with the rules. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I would ask you the same. trolling, personal attacks, outing, etc, etc... There is no way i can be blocked, as i didnt do anything worth punishment. And you are obviously not hearing anything except your POV. I am not writing to you anymore, and dont insult me nor mention me anymore. This request is not about me. nobody knows what is this about anyway. admins, blocked users, articles... Everything that someone have problem with. Again, not wordy of a meta... --WhiteWriter speaks 23:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
White Writer, you are right. All this is about you, the way in which you created the whole situation and how you gained support from some administrators to play with the Wikipedia rules. All these resulted in inappropriate block of user who warned local community about abuse. We cannot accept this abuse and in one way or another things must be put in their place. If someone deserved the block thats you, in no way user that is blocked because your ego cannot accept that your behavior was very bad. If we accept this, than everybody has the right to the same in the future. Thats not what is appropriate and is against all policies of Wikipedia. Lots of users do serious work on Serbian Wikipedia and is not fair to them that anyone have privileged status to waste their time. If you came to Wikipedia to play a little and for you Wikipedia is a game, something to play with, for many other users that's not the case. Many users on Serbian Wikipedia rest their time from other important things to do some contribution to Wikipedia and many of them consider that they do some serious work. They also have a fun editing Wikipedia, but not in a way that you understand the whole thing. Users like you don't have any right to come and say: I am playing a little whit all of you, just for fun. Slaven Kosanovic (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. This is how lately things are happening on sr. Wiki. You come out with two simple and clear problems (in this case privacy of self promoted user and block of the other user) and group of destructors jump in and made mess to push focus away, out of sight and made megabytes of pointless discussion, and of very end everybody loose interest about to discuss and to try to solve a problem. By the way some of discussants over here has no clue about English language and everything is done by central source. This users just paste and copy whatever is written for them and put there's signature. Can we continue to discus about only two problems what we have?--Laslovarga (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

Since there has been no discussion after July of 2012, and more importantly there has been no actual actionable request made (i.e. request for something specific to be done like desysopping) I move to close and archive this RFC subpage within a month. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, unless they will specify exactly what they want done and clarify that this is still relevant. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)