User talk:Oscar

archive
----> Leave a new message <-----

---

---

Hi

I'm bothered by your decision, isn't everybody innocent until proved guilty? And please take into consideration that user Ante Perkovic (who accusses me of SpeedyGonsales (who was blocked by ArbCom for slendering other users outside wikipedia) is blocked to equal time period as myself, for almost identical reasons). So his word should weigh the same as mine. And I'm really bothered by you temporary desysoping one of our admins. Is that usual praxis in RFC's on meta? SpeedyGonsales 23:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• hi speedygonsales! (the same i met several years ago i take it) certainly i do understand your point, it was no easy decision either, but in the current situation a gordian knot simply had to be hacked, and my personal explanation to kubura is based upon the assumption and trust that once people together address the common problems in achieving the common goal we all are working on here problems will be solved eventually. sometimes tough decisions need to be taken along the way but i trust your community will be able to solve these together: for this it is not use of admin bits that is needed (as these are primarily for wiki-maintanance) but rather clarity of mind and of communication, openness to each others views and the will to cooperate and succeed together. good luck and thanks for bearing with me, all the best, oscar 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, we met in Belgrade several years ago (if I recall correctly, you had Nikon with rotating objective). Our community made decision (4 admins concluded that Kubura's decision was sound). Secondly, in conclusion is stated following: After more than 7 days provided by rules for admins to write their opinions this page is archived, more so as user who asked for opinion doesn't care for opinion of this community, but before procedure ended he seeks "justice" on other place circumventing procedure. Usually accused is taken into custody if he/she could flee the court, unfortunately I see your decision not as tough but necessary, but as presumption of someone's gilt. Therefore my question: Is that usual praxis in RFC's on meta? SpeedyGonsales 00:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• answer: not to my knowledge; as we dicussed on irc, summarizing: the (possibly temporary, depending on the RfC and a later RfA) removal was done as a precaution against abuse, based on the information currently available. i am looking forward to further comments and answers on the RfC. all the best, oscar 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Oscar.
"as we dicussed on irc, summarizing: the (possibly temporary, depending on the RfC and a later RfA) removal was done as a precaution against abuse, based on the information currently available."
Again I see avoiding the procedures on hr.wiki. Discussions on IRC, Meta, without asking the community concerned (hr.wiki) for the opinion. Again I see some discussions on some pages (even not on wiki.space!) far away from the view of hr.wiki. community.
I was chosen by the votes of hr.wiki. community.
"Precaution against abuse". Have you desysopped WizardOfOz also? I see you haven't [1]. Does Meta has double standards? I've got support of my community ([2]), that works with me every day. WizardOfOz is global rollbacker just by his wish [3] and a decision of a six persons [4]. Six votes is more than 24. Interesting.
I'd like to see which is "information currently available."
Words like "everybody knows", "it's known", "it's a fact", "it's so because said so"? Bunch of claims.
Accusers say something, and they're right by default, but on the contrary, when I reply, than those "informations currently available" are invisible?
Have you ever read why is that user blocked? Everything is explained in long messages here [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
Obviously I've put that effort invain. I gave those links also on Meta [11] (bottom of the message). But it looks like I was barking on the moon.
Oscar, this was not OK from you.
Removing the tools to an admin that got support from the community [12] (24:5) is blatant ignoring of that community.
You've desysopped an user by a wish of single person. It may be even 5 of them. It's still the fact that I have 24 votes for me.
This time it's me, so my comment might seem biased. But point is that you've desysopped an user by force, not by having background of community that gave him/her the sysop tools. You've desysopped an admin by informations that are bunch of accusations, etiquetting, blatant lies, attacks of type "just to attack and to say something". Kubura 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for your notice. There is a protest against your action against Kubura in Village pump on hr:wiki. On croatian RfA 4 admins agreed with Kubura's action of blocking WizardOfOz. If you desysoped Kubura, then please remove admin access to those 4 admin too.--Ex13 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)