"All the sources say it that the Serbs viewed it that way, because of Milosevic's propaganda aimed to start a war in Croatia and to create greater-Serbia. We are going in circles because you are not willing to discuss in good faith. The bottom line is that you claim the Serbs had and lost constitutive status without being able to define the term or to point to the primary source to sustain your suggestion. The other side on the other hand had both defined the term and referenced the primary source. Since you aren't willing to discuss in good faith and since you provided no new arguments during this RfC I suggest we collect the arguments and the sources like in the 1st post and let other experienced editors decide. It's impossible to reach a consensus with someone who is not discussing in good faith. And you pretty much deferred all other editors from this RfC except for me and Director. If he had not shown up, it would end up your way just because of your disruptive behavior that makes people don't care what the article says, just that they don't have to deal with you. You posted a lot of comments without a single new argument and you are trying to push your way against the sources. Your behavior was so disruptive behavior that people rather left the discussion and left the article says 2 conflicting statements in 2 consecutive sentences, than to discuss with you. And this is not your fist time as I can see. I'm looking at your contributions and almost every discussion involving you ends up with a RfC and you constant disruptive behavior. You are constantly trying to ban other people that don't agree with you. There's a written trace to your behavior and it's a shame no one reviewed it. No wonder Wikipedia in not considered a credible source with people like you editing it.     

 :::::Stop posting.  The previous IPs you used at this discussion were blocked, and now you are using this one, you are evading block, and everyone knows that.  That is why you are being ignored by everyone.  Anyway, this discussion is near over, and it is only Direktor and me still participating.  You desperately called for Joys help but he didn't gave it to you cause Joy is an administrator here and a senior editor who knows to recognize the situation.  Gregor is in my view the finest Croatian editor, initially seems he didn't knew about my sources, but after seeing them he left the discussion by saying that the change in the constitution should be mentioned.  Then Tuvixer who was the editor who first started opposing the denial that was being made by an already senior, but well known as nationalist, editor Shokatz.  And now there is Direktor, my well known college from discussions, the two of us have already discussed here on talk-pages during almost a decade more lines than probably all the books you read in your life. Direktor isn't indeed a Croatian nationalist, and he is participating here because of 2 reasons: he saw here a great opportunity of having a challenging discussion in which he could make use of his argumentative skills which are excellent, and because despite not being a nationalist, he does have some strong pro-Croatian views in the matters of Serbian-Croatian disputes.  He also knows how Serbian arguments about the 1990s are usually weak in sources, not because they may be right or wrong, but because the West backed up quite strongly the anti-Serb rhetoric and, as we are at English Wiki preferably working with English-language sources, that rhetoric ends up usually being easily found.  However, this case is different and the situation was noticed by some editors which know the danger of opposing sources without anything substantial.  You obviously seem not to care about your reputation, otherwise you wouldn't lie as you are doing in this last comments.  Not long ago, you criticized the fact that senior editors have more weight that newcomers (you).  That may seem an unfair situation, but it really isn't, and I will explain you why.  This is an online encyclopedic project.  This is not an online fighting video game as you seem to view it, although confrontations and discussions are obviously an every-day reality here.  However, the winner here is not the one who wins more fights and gets his will and POV included in articles, but the one who knows to be objective and neutral.  Usually those are the ones that become veteran editors.  Experience tell us that no one is absolutely neutral and objective in all issues and absolutely everybody has a dose of POV inside, but the winners here are the ones doing their best to work here always maximally applying the Wikipedia rules and principles which are written in a way to make you become objective and neutral.  Veteran editors also often learn a lesson that trout always ends up having its way.  So, what were you thinking when you tri