Requests for comment/Self-promoting Корисник:Боки on sr.wikipedia

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

---

Account under username Боки at the bottom of his user page, translated into english, wrote: This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of service, discloses that he is paid by Brisk Web for contributions to Wikipedia's member(s). WHOIS Domain Lookup does not provide information about this site, but Company Wall business claims that the owner of the company Brisk Web Services is Bojan Cvjetković (Боки). Also, in his biography on Wikipedia, under the external links section, you can read that his company's website is Brisk Web Services. In this way, it turns out that Bojan Cvjetković, through his company Brisk Web, pays himself (Боки) to edit Wikipedia. He is essentially self-promoting. According to all policies, rules, and guidelines applicable to Wikipedia: self-promotion is strictly prohibited.
Nota bene. This user groups is: autopatroller, check user, interface administrator, patroller, rollbacker, autoconfirmed user.
Question: What is the point of discussing wikipolicies, rules, and guidelines when they are not respected by accounts with sysop privileges or people close to them?
Зорана Филиповић (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Have you notified Bojan as the RfC policy is requesting? Furthermore, you're blocked on srwiki as a sockpuppet of Zoran Filipović, could you perhaps give some comments regarding the block? Thanks, A09|(pogovor) 12:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@A09: This is not for an RfC. The user (Zorana) didn't even raise eventual concerns locally first, which is a prerequisite. Kizule (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

How not? If the RFC concerns one party or a few parties, the initiator of the RFC must notify them on their talk page, either on the wiki in question or on Meta I still cannot see any notification on either of their talkpages (metawiki and srwiki). Furthermore, UPE is a serious allegation, especially for an editor who tried to widen their contributions field recently in this and last U4C elections. My question to Zorana still stands. A09|(pogovor) 13:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not an accusation, this is a fact that anyone can verify. I have pointed out the irregularities I observed, and according to the rules, I have the right to do so. The user Боки in question is being discussed here, not me. However, I will provide a brief clarification.
My main account Filipović Zoran has been on permanent wiki leave since August 19, 2024. On this account, I have publicly declared myself as a non-binary person who prefers to be addressed as a male (Zoran). I opened the account Зорана Филиповић on the local wiki on February 14, 2025 and I have publicly declared myself as a non-binary person who prefers to be addressed as a female (Zorana). I publicly declared the account Зорана Филиповић as an additional account of the main account Filipović Zoran. After a discussion that should not have been a topic on the local wikipedia, on March 8, 2025, my account Зорана Филиповић was permanently blocked, and the account Filipović Zoran was blocked for a year. The discussion about the block lasted almost all week and there was no consensus for this decision because 6/14 admins voted for the block. The reason for the block is trolling. I did not read the rule, especially not on the local wiki that trolling is the reason for the block. The blockade was carried out by Filip Maljković (dungodung) using his discretion, calling me: a cow that gives milk but spilled the bucket with his foot. I submitted a request for multiple removal of admin rights for admins who voted to block my accounts (because there is no substantial reason for blocking) but the request was deleted by admin Ranko Nikolić. I submitted a request to unblock my main account Filipović Zoran since a permanently inactive account cannot be a troll, but Sadko rejected this request, stating that trolling was not the real reason for the block but not stating what the real reason for the block was and additionally requested that I continue to contribute from the account that is on permanent wiki vacation. More details on this request for comment.
Nota bene. On this request, I present the claim, supported by confidential data, that the user Боки uses Wikipedia for self-promotion of his services, which is prohibited by the rules. I invite everyone who is ready to participate in this discussion to focus only on this topic.
Зорана Филиповић (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Question for Боки: Are you the founder and owner of the business BRISK WEB SERVICES is registered at the address Andje Ranković 10, 35230, Ćuprija, Serbia and has been operating since August 13, 2024? Зорана Филиповић (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This user has engaged in repeated and targeted campaigns against several sr.wiki editors, including Боки, with the apparent aim of discrediting or discouraging their participation. Following a prolonged pattern of stonewalling, trolling, filing false reports, and gaming the system, the user escalated their behavior by publishing photos and private information of other editors on Instagram (the user has confirmed this himself by posting a link in a response to one of our editors). Subsequently, they changed their social media name and profile picture — seemingly to conceal their involvement in these actions. Similar posts have continued to appear on other platforms. If you look more closely (his most recent post), he appears to have potentially doxxed this editor by disguising it as publicly available information. This matter should be dismissed, and a confidential internal note documenting the case should be made. Thank you in advance. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Hello everyone~, I can fully confirm this statement above, ^ from @Sadko: my fellow Serbian sysop Sadko. Additionally, @Filipović Zoran and Зорана Филиповић: user Filipović Z. (*I will use only their name initial here, as I'm still not sure what [user]name they're currently going by on Wikimedia projects, 1) has used at least 5 (five) different social media to target a multitude of Serbian Wikipedia administrators and various other local editors as well. You see, one of the posts of user Filipović Z. on a social network even contains the so-called "list for liquidation" – a list of editors designated to be eliminated. Yes, you read that correctly (unfortunately...). So, if you need any of those links for verification, then please feel free to reach out to us via email. Tyvm in advance, the fake Arab dude. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I find these claims worrying and confirm the existance of the screenshots. A09|(pogovor) 10:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Confirming the existence of the screenshots as well. Publishing the "list for liquidation" (initially made by Vladimir Nimčević/Velimir Ivanovic LTA) on a social media network is utterly unacceptable. – Aca (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, confirming the existence of the screenshots as well. Боки ✉ 19:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The lists for liquidation were published publicly, on the local wiki, by Vladimir Nimčević, who was the administrator of the serbian language wikipedia for almost three and a half years from 2016 to mid-2019. Anyone could read it and share the material on their social media profiles in its original form. In fact, I don't know that there is an obligation for anyone, including editors, not to publish on their social media profiles exactly what is publicly available in the same form on Wikipedia, which anyone can access and read at any time. If anyone has proof that the accounts Filipović Zoran or Зорана Филиповић were uploading identical content from the local wiki to their social media profiles, feel free to post the link. Regarding the issue of me being a troll, Sadko himself, while rejecting my request to unblock the inactive Filipović Zoran account, stated that the account was not blocked for trolling. I suspect that the reason for the blocking is my participation in discussions and voting contrary to the tendencies advocated by a certain group of administrators, which are in contradiction with the rules and guidelines. I had no intention or need to post this comment just for the sake of other editors participating in the discussion. I don't pay any more attention to the comments of the administrator Sadko, especially since two of his accounts — Sadko — permanently blocked on sh.wiki and his account — Садко — permanently blocked on ru.wiki for vandalism? Зорана Филиповић (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

1) Thank you for publicly admitting that you were posting sensitive information and a "list of folks who need to get murdered" on your social media, regardless of "who posted it first." This is very important, thanks.

2) You were not unblocked because you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge the reasons for your block. It seems you have not clearly read what is written on your profile.

3) Last but not least, this topic is not about editors, especially those who never had an account on ru.wiki, such as myself... To sum up: a discreditation campaign, posting personal information on social media and pictures (boldly), attacking other editors, refusing to acknowledge the reasons for your ban, and trying to present yourself as a dissident/victim — this entire topic is not aimed at making Wikipedia a better place (which it might end up doing, ironically), but rather at targeting senior sr.wiki editors. Other steps will need to be taken. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment by Боки

 Comment I would like to respond clearly and firmly to the ongoing claims that I have engaged in self-promotion on Wikipedia. These accusations are both inaccurate and unfounded.

1. Transparency and Disclosure

I have openly disclosed that I receive payment through my company, Brisk Web Services, for certain contributions to Wikipedia. This disclosure appears clearly on my user page, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use on paid contributions. I have not hidden this fact, and I have followed the policy to the letter.

2. The Link to My Company Website

The website for Brisk Web Services appears only in the “External links” section of my biography — a standard practice on many biographies where the subject is affiliated with an organization or business. The inclusion of this link is for identification and context, not promotion. There are no calls to action, no spam, and no promotional content on any article I’ve edited relating to the business.

Brisk Web Services is a legally registered company in Serbia. Inclusion of its website is appropriate and does not violate any guideline — especially when the editing history shows no abuse or link spamming.

3. Compliance with Paid Editing and COI Policy

I fully respect and follow the paid editing guidelines:

I disclose my relationship when relevant.

I follow neutral point of view and reliable sourcing.

I do not edit promotional content or insert spam.

I do not “pay myself” to edit Wikipedia — that is a mischaracterization. I work professionally on Wikipedia-related tasks, and those are conducted transparently and ethically. This is not a violation of any Wikimedia policy.

4. Procedural Irregularities by the Claimant

User Зорана Филиповић who raised the claim, did not notify me at the time of opening the discussion, which violates the basic principle of fair engagement and contradicts the requirements of an RfC, if that was the intended forum. I was only notified of this discussion on my Meta talk page nearly a week later, leaving me no opportunity to defend myself before assumptions were made.

5. Questionable Motivation of the Claim

The claimant is currently blocked on the Serbian Wikipedia for disruptive behavior and is using a declared alternative account. The background of the user and the lack of procedural fairness calls into question the motivations behind this entire accusation.

This appears less as a good-faith inquiry and more as an attempt to discredit my reputation without basis in policy or community consensus.

6. Focus on Actual Policy

Let us stay focused on what matters:

Wikipedia and Wikimedia policies do not forbid paid editing.

They require transparency and neutrality — which I have practiced.

I do not promote, do not spam, and do not misuse Wikipedia.

If I have misunderstood any part of the policy in good faith, I welcome constructive feedback. But to date, I see no evidence that I have violated any rule.

Conclusion

I respectfully ask that these accusations be dismissed as unsubstantiated and procedurally flawed. I have complied with all relevant policies, including disclosure and neutrality.

I will not engage further unless presented with new, policy-based concerns. I wish to continue contributing in peace, based on Wikimedia values.

Thank you. Боки ✉ 16:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I would also like to point out a clear double standard in this accusation. The user Filipović Zoran, who now operates under the name Zorana Filipović and has made these claims, had multiple external links to their own websites and related sources in their userpage and biography section during their active editing period. This can be clearly seen in the page history of their profile on Serbian Wikipedia. Given that, I find it hypocritical and selective to accuse me of self-promotion for simply listing a link to my agency’s official website in the External links section of my biography. The link to Brisk Web Services was not inserted into any article about third parties or clients, nor was it used to influence article content or promote paid work. It merely reflects transparent authorship and disclosure — which is fully in line with Wikimedia’s Terms of Use and the paid editing disclosure policy. If anything, I have followed the community expectations more rigorously, including full disclosure, whereas the complainant is using a double standard to try to undermine my credibility after having been blocked for disruptive behavior and sockpuppetry. Боки ✉ 16:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Боки You have tried to promote Brisk Web Services on the English Wikipedia (see BetterSleep where you dumped a bunch of hallucinated references, which were removed at [1] and did not follow the WP:AFC procedure laid out by the enwiki COI editing policy). I follow neutral point of view and reliable sourcing... They require transparency and neutrality — which I have practiced....I do not promote, do not spam, and do not misuse Wikipedia. is blatantly untrue atleast in the context of your promotional activities for the company on enwiki. Sohom (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta Thank you for raising this concern. I would like to clarify that Brisk Web Services has no affiliation with BetterSleep as a company, organization, or product. The only connection is that I was compensated to write a draft article related to BetterSleep — a fact that I have openly disclosed in accordance with Wikipedia’s paid editing and disclosure policies. To be fully transparent, I did not include any links to Brisk Web Services, nor was the company name mentioned anywhere within the BetterSleep draft article. If there is an instance where this was unintentionally included, I would be more than willing to correct or remove it immediately.

As for the article’s content and references, I acknowledge that some of the sources may not have met English Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing, and that is something I accept and am always trying to improve on. However, this is unrelated to promotional intent — it was an attempt to create an article on a notable app in good faith, based on the information I had at the time. I take Wikipedia’s core principles — neutrality, verifiability, and transparency — seriously. If there are any specific points where I have fallen short, I am open to feedback and willing to address any valid concerns in good faith. But I respectfully disagree with the characterization that I attempted to promote Brisk Web Services through the BetterSleep article. Боки ✉ 08:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Боки You literally made up the content of sources. Your citation for this article read "How to get your best beauty sleep ever, according to Relax Melodies". Elle Canada. 2020-01-20. Retrieved 2025-05-14., which is not what the title of the source says. (Not to mention that one look at the source would have told you that is a paid ad placement since it says "Created by ELLE for RelaxMelodies" -- something that you should never be citing on wiki). How am I supposed to read this behavior as anything other than a attempt at trying to compromise Wikipedia's neutrality ? I find it extremely troubling that you are a interface-administrator and a checkuser on Serbian Wikipedia when you clearly don't understand our neutrality policies. Sohom (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta I understand the issue with the Elle Canada source — that was my mistake, and I appreciate it being pointed out. The article was based on content the client wanted published, and I tried to adapt it, but I’m working on fixing the parts that don’t align with Wikipedia’s policies. To be clear, I never linked or mentioned Brisk Web Services anywhere in the BetterSleep article, nor did I try to promote my agency. If I’ve missed something, I’ll be happy to correct it. Боки ✉ 15:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Боки Could you list all articles that Brisk Web Services or any previous employers asked you to write (both on srwiki and enwiki) ? Given my concerns above, I'm having a hard time believing your purported lack of participation in promotional activities and statements like The article was based on content the client wanted published - are digging the hole deeper. I don't know Serbian, so maybe @Sadko and @Novak can help out here on the Serbian side of things. Sohom (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta I only recently started receiving requests for paid editing, and as advised by administrators on Serbian Wikipedia, I’ve disclosed that information clearly on my user page. To date, the only articles on English Wikipedia for which I’ve received payment are BetterSleep and Sleep Apps — both of which I have already acknowledged. I’m open to reviewing any concerns about those pages and making adjustments where needed to comply with Wikipedia policies. That said, I believe we’re going off-topic here. The issue raised was about me allegedly promoting Brisk Web Services on Wikipedia — which I firmly deny. I haven’t added any promotional links, nor have I used Wikipedia to market my agency. If anyone finds evidence to the contrary, I’ll gladly address it directly. Боки ✉ 15:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Боки While I understand that you want to specifically focus on the concerns at hand (and I agree that it does not appear that you have specifically promoted Brisk). However, even then, I don't think my concerns are invalid. You are a checkuser, a userright that implies that you are highly trusted by the community at sr.wiki that allows you to view other people's private information and is explicitly used to target (undisclosed) paid editors. Engaging in paid editing (even if disclosed), reference fabrication (note that Draft:Sleep app still contains hallucinated references despite multiple rounds of feedback) and in general POV editing (even if not particularly for Brisk Web Services) while in such a position of power is incompatible with our core values. I don't know what the srwiki community's policy on paid editing and POV editing while being a CU is, but I think your contributions (post being employed by Brisk Web Services) should be scrutinized and the srwiki should take a community decision on the appropriateness of your cross-wiki actions. (particularly surrounding paid editing as a CU) Sohom (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Боки, Also, while we are at this, I would strongly urge you to voluntarily resign your Global temporary account IP viewers permission. Your paid editing on enwiki is fundamentally incompatible (imo) with holding a global user-right that allows you to access non-public data on all wikis. (cc @JJMC89, the steward who initially granted you the user-right). Sohom (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta Before they can resign Global temporary account IP viewers, they must resign from CheckUser first. This global userright is granted to certain user groups per WMF policy. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 04:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta I appreciate your concern. However, I’d like to clarify that the checkuser role is strictly technical and unrelated to editorial activities. It’s used only to investigate potential abuse like sockpuppetry and is governed by clear privacy and accountability policies. I have never used checkuser privileges for any paid work, nor would I ever consider doing so. All paid contributions have been disclosed transparently, and I remain committed to respecting Wikipedia’s editorial standards and community trust. Боки ✉ 10:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment @Sohom Datta: Hello, user Sohom Datta, concerning the Serbian Wikipedia specifically, I'm not aware of any explicit and/or obvious spam/promotion by @Боки: user Boki there. Although it should be public knowledge that user Boki has his own company, 1 I can't now recall any (undisclosed) paid editing (UPE) from user Boki on sr.wiki. However, I'd kindly suggest moving this discussion here to an appropriate local venue instead, 2 + 3 + 4 where we can receive feedback from other Serbian editors as well, and perhaps to achieve some actual results there (of course, with your help, too), instead of being limited on this global RfC page. Tyvm in advance, Novak Watchmen. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@نوفاك اتشمان I've been mulling it over, I think there are two disparate questions here, one for the global community to answer, particularly "Is paid editing on any wiki compatible with holding CU permissions on any other wiki (or global temporary account viewer on all wikis) ?", and one for the local community: "Does Boki's actions on enwiki create cause for concern on srwiki regarding his Checkuser permissions?" I'm happy to kick/post the local community concerns onto a srwiki-specific locations, but I think for the global questions, it might just make sense to start a new global RFC. Lemme think this through. Sohom (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

👍 --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I've forked this RFC into two: Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed regarding the question of "paid editing + CU" and a call-to-action and a post at [2] (the other languages forum on the Serbian Wikipedia) regarding concerns wrt this instance of problems. Sohom (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @نوفاك اتشمان! Undisclosed paid editing by Boki on sr.wiki has indeed been previously noted, for instance at sr:Википедија:Администраторска_табла/Архива_48#Плаћени_доприноси. While I do understand that some aspects should be discussed locally on sr.wiki, the issue of cross-wiki UPE is something that would more constructively be discussed here on Meta, especially since it involved advanced permissions and access to non-public information.

Furthermore, multiple discussions that took place on sr.wiki have been summarily closed (e.g. the aforementioned one, or sr:Википедија:Трг/Други#Concerns regarding @Боки's conduct on enwiki) with an indication that it was either being discussed through private channels, or not seen as a major issue by other administrators. While off-wiki private channels can be used by CheckUsers, the intent is to protect non-public information which they might have to discuss, and not to refrain from public accountability of their own behavior. The way in which paid editing is being dismissed is worrying when seen under the lens of the UCoC, and certainly warrants further discussion here at a more systemic level. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Chaotic Enby here, I've read through sr:Википедија:Администраторска_табла/Архива_48#Плаћени_доприноси (using Google Translate) and this feels like a systemic failure at sr.wiki. A clear violation of wmf:UCoC (Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view) by a CU was identified by a user and the response from administrators was to the effect of "just documenting it is fine", "he know what he is doing", "don't worry about it -- don't over-exaggerate" even after Boki admits to having a relationship with the company of whose article he is creating/editing and shows a misunderstanding of basic wmf:Terms of Use guidelines (like disclosure of clients). I will note that by feigning ignorance and not taking action the admins in srwiki are ignoring UCoC 3.3. I'm seriously considering converting this into a U4C case given the evidence of cross-wiki paid editing and inaction from srwiki admins. Sohom (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Chaotic Enby; full support to @Sohom converting this into a U4C case. Зорана Филиповић (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment @Chaotic Enby: Hello, user Chaotic Enby, oh, wow, incredible, thank you, because I completely forgot about that previous local discussion on sr.wiki... Although I think that the mentioned old topic was mostly handled, by having @Боки: user Boki add a public disclaimer on his local user page, and potentially by making some additional changes to those articles listed there. But yeah, go ahead and bring up your new findings on that page on sr.wiki, while notifying all participants of the archived discussion in your comment. Tyvm in advance, Novak Watchmen. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment From above comments, Боки looks like did some paid editing, later disclosed, so I don't know why this is a further problem, is sr.wikipedia always prohibit paid edits regareless of disclosed or not? And Боки, please remember to do so (in case srwiki only consider undisclosed paid edits bad), past, current and future, paid editing without disclosing is usually a bad behavior. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)