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)

Also for the notice: 1+1 is how much Ex13? Otherwise, Kubura says that there are others who are involved in his decision without naming them even if I asked several times. Are this two opposers the same two who are involved? In this case that was not a fair move, to judge at first and than to comment with more knowlage behind scenes. That is for sure not a neutral comment. I didn´t request desysoping of those two, but if you are for that Ex13, i am sure there will bi bride support for that. And the protest is a bit wrong, they is just a mass of personal attacks on the people with other wiev without sanctions. Oscar included. When you comment, please take kare of your trustworthy Ex13. @ Oscar: sorry for misusing your talkpage. --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous decider

"It has been decided that stewards want to facilitate your polls on adminship by providing a Special:SecurePoll for hrwikipedia".
Who decided that and when? Kubura 09:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

it has been decided among stewards, some of which will do the actual facilitating of the securepoll for the hrwikipedia community. further questions and discussions please at Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia-misuse of admin tools by User:Kubura. very best, oscar 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Very simple questions ...

How, and why Precaution against abuse comes before Innocence until proved guilty? Does you asked anyone admin on hr.wiki before you decision? This is very big attack on decisions of hr.wiki community and autonomy of our admins. I would be 100% behind your decision after finish of discussion on this case, but decisions in the middle of discussion is very strange and very bad precedent, and a protest against your action against Kubura in Village pump on hr:wiki is absolutely expected, and I think that you should reassess this premature decision! Thanks for you answers. Jure Grm, 20. day of March in Year of Our Lord Twotousandandten, at 18:19 o'clock.

Policy of Wikimedia

Oscare, ljubazno te molim da predstaviš zajednici Wikipedije na hrvatskome jeziku na temelju kojih pravila, glasovanja i odluke is uveo moratorij na predlaganje novih administratora i Securepoll za hr:wiki. Lijep pozdrav. --Roberta F. 15:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oscar, I kindly ask you to present to community of Wipedia on Croatian language on which grounds, voting and decision you made (brought up) moratory on proposing of new admins and SecurePoll for hr:wiki. Regards. --Roberta F. 15:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• dear roberta, not a croatian speaker myself, i will answer you here in english: the decision on the moratorium and securepoll was decided among stewards, some of which will do the actual facilitating of the securepoll for the hrwikipedia community, on the grounds of the stewards' right to make emergency decisions when deemed necessary. i would like to stress that the wmf projects are about knowledge, and not about politics, in the broadest sense. such is also the responsibility of a steward, to ensure assistance and when necessary compliance in enabling projects to keep functioning within the goals and guidelines given by the wikimedia foundation. in this case, securepoll is the proper and available means to achieve elections without people being open to manipulation or improper pressure. it is btw an exception that this is facilitated (n.b. only what each person voted is private, not the fact that a person decided to vote or not), and to do this we do have extra work to do to set it up properly. in view of the problematic situation on hrwikipedia, this was decided upon as both a necessary and generous offer to its community. very best, oscar 15:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)