"Bad faith"
If you insist that I quote a lot: who would those alleged "lot of people [who] have a problem with how Ivan does things" be? Can you name fifty people? Can you name ten?
Please avoid using argumenta ad hominem (like "asshole" [sic]) or ad populi (like "a lot of people").
I suppose you don't think that any undocumented brain fart goes. Well, in that case we need to find a better way than blocking new users from adding online documentation.
Re: first paragraph: I'm not sure if I can name fifty, but ten is easy. There are, funnily enough, exactly fifty oppose voters at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian; that doesn't count as fifty people who have a problem with how Ivan does things, first because not all the oppose voters do, and secondly because quite a few of those oppose voters are not actually part of the community, but ten? Fugetaboutit.
Re: second paragraph: Calling someone an asshole is not using an argumentum ad hominem. Saying that we operate by consensus is not using an argumentum ad populi.
Re: third paragraph: I'm not sure what you think this conversation is about, because you clearly are not participating in it.
If naming ten people who share your opinion on Ivan Štambuk is easy, please do so.
It is an argumentum ad hominem, because you attacked the person, not what he said. At this moment //en.wiktionary.org doesn't operate by consensus, it operates by blocking dissent.
Well, your sock/meat/IRC puppet User:Haplology made sure, I didn't participate for 3 days. Congratulations.
You do realize this is a discussion between two individuals about Ivan's behavior and how to refer to it, not on the merits of the issue he was involved with, right? Discussion between people about personalities and peripheral issues on their talk pages isn't the same as participating in the main discussion somewhere else. This isn't part of the debate, so there are no "argumenta" involved at all. As for the last point: I hope you don't inhale too much dust from beating on straw men all the time...
@Ruakh: I have little to say on this matter, except that I personally don't think we should call other editors assholes. Oh, and populi is a genitive, but ad must take an accusative, so you were looking for populum.
Re: calling editors assholes: Well, if it makes you feel better, I really said only that he's frequently an asshole. ("Jerk", however, I posit without qualification.) And I wouldn't have said it if I thought Ivan would mind: I'm pretty sure he's aware that he's frequently an asshole, and he seems unbothered by it. (Of course, it's hard to check, since in the very act of asking someone if they're O.K. with being called an asshole, you're tacitly calling them one.)
Re: populum: Thanks. I thought the anon's populi sounded wrong, but for some reason I copied it anyway.
I don't see two individuals, I see two pseudonymous IRC drones. They may be individuals, but they act like drones (we don't yet have the sense which gives drone mind).
Well, you do seem to have difficulty recognizing boundaries and distinctions. You act as if everyone here and at Wikipedia is all part of some composite entity that thinks and acts and remembers as a unit- except those who agree with you, of course. Haplology and Ruakh have their own areas of interest, and don't really interact much at all. I haven't looked at the details of what you're referring to, but I'm sure his involvement has more to do with timing than with any coordination: because of his time zone, he often has to deal with stuff during the times that most of the other admins are offline.
Not "everyone here and at Wikipedia", just the pseudonyms who block while they "haven't looked at the details".
Wowzers! This is the second time that this guy has referred to someone using a pseudonym as "a pseudonym." The first time was when he used it to mock me.
I still don't understand why this guy was permabanned, though. He seemed more persistant and adamant than a jerk to me.
Though he did constantly point out slight errors I would make when I was typing something and was tired. That was indeed annoying and grasp-at-strawsesque of him.
Still, either I'm missing something here or I'm just less easily offended / more optimistic than most people. I'm not sure which.
This is definitely not the second time. He's done it at least a dozen times on Wiktionary alone, and lots more times on other wiki sites over the years.
So is this just a case of too much WP:PA in his history? The reason I ask is that after taking a quick look through his history, I see that he created some pages, questioned the validity of some pages (as he did with one of mine here) and--in that particular case--actually helped spruce up the page and fix some errors that I myself had made when I initially wrote up most of that page. Additionally, from reading through this discussion, it seems that he was a strong advocate against OR, which (I thought, at least) was one of the big no-nos in the Wikimedia projects. Perhaps that only applies to Wikipedia?
In any case, I'm still unsure exactly why he was permabanned (his past blocks, perhaps?) Would you mind explaining? It's none of my business, I suppose, but I'm still unsure as to why he received such a harsh punishment.
Talk:Srebrenica and User talk:129.125.102.126 would be a good start. That's the IP he used previously (while spouting the same "pseudonym" name calling) and that one was blocked too. So this is in fact his second ban in the past year. Also, in case you weren't aware yet, he's been permanently blocked from English and Dutch Wikipedia already, and I think he even got a global Wikimedia-wide block for his behaviour. So it's not like he came here with a clean slate, even if we did try to give him a chance. He just didn't seem interested in getting on anyone's good side. I don't think he's ever going to change, judging from the longevity and wide scale of his past abuses, so the block is a decision along the lines of "are we going to endure it forever, stop it here and now, or let him do it some more and block him later?"