Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Razr Nation (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 26 November 2014 (→Question 15). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hahc21

Template:ACE2014 discussion

Comment

Just one comment, without having resaerch the candidate properly: he is writing superbly well. Wow. He makes native speakers look bad. :-) Tony (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Question 15

Thanks for your reply, Hahc21. Unfortunately, I can not support an ArbCom candidate who creates copyright violations and lets them linger (or worse, promotes them as GAs and uses them as evidence of their best work in their RFA attempt) even after the issues have been pointed out and you were clearly aware of them.

You now state that "However, I still believed that I was unable to paraphrase the sources, and so I topped working on these articles. Yes, the castle articles were a very unhappy exception, and I was extremely embarrased about it mostly because I felt I was unable to fix it alone.", which not only doesn't match your use of it in your RFA nomination, but also is not the way to deal with copyright violations. If you create an article where you afterwards realise that you are "unable to paraphrase the sources", you should have asked for its deletion yourself. The initial creation may have been nearly two years ago, but the result was here until today. Fram (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I respect your position with regards to the election, but I strongly disagree with your assessment that I "create copyright violations and lets them linger." Since this is a two-year old matter (in which several users weighted in and helped, and after which I learned and fixed my mistakes) I don't see why I should go back and discuss it once more. Most of my featured articles came after that embarassing event, and you can feel free to go and check them all. → Call me Hahc21 14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you had fixed your mistakes, I wouldn't have deleted the article. You did not fix your mistakes. You may not have repeated them in later creations (only six of those, I believe) or edits. I don't expect you to "go back and discuss it once more", I expect you to go back and get it deleted. If this was an RfA, I would now change my !vote to Strong oppose. Fram (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely forgot about those articles after I stopped working on them. That's the reason why they still stood until today. → Call me Hahc21 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The copyright concerns were raised on 3 January, but your last edit to the talk page was two days later, to nominate the article for DYK. You then edited the article regularly for a few days. You edited the peer review weeks later. You last edit to the article was in July 2013. Worst of all, after the copyright concerns had been raised on the 3rd, you actually added a long copyvio the next day, . I can't find a shred of evidence that you actually cared about the problems with the article, then or now.

So, in three replies, you have switched from "I was extremely embarassed about it" to "I learned and fixed my mistakes" to "I completely forgot about those". Please tell, how would you evaluate an editor presenting this kind of evidence or defense in an ArbCom case? Fram (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It was an isolated event, not a pattern of behaviour. I understood the issues and didn't repeat the mistakes after that. I don't think any user under these circumstances would have to find himself in front of ArbCom. If your point is that I am at fault for not asking for deletion or trying to remove the copyvios myself, then you are right and I apologize, but don't try to make this a bigger problem than what it is. I already said that I learned from it and stopped. → Call me Hahc21 16:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)