|
Just one comment, without having researched the candidate's suitability properly: he writes very well. Tony (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Hahc21[1]. 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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[2]. You last edit to the article was in July 2013[3]. Worst of all, after the copyright concerns had been raised on the 3rd, you actually added a long copyvio the next day, [4]. 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- If you hadn't stopped, you would be at WP:ANI now for a desysop and possible block. As it is, the way you handled this and replied here is sufficient to not trust you as an ArbCom member. Fram (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. If I hadn't stopped, I wouldn't have passed RfA in the first place. → Call me Hahc21 11:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that no one noticed this copyvio at the time of your third RfA, I fail to see why my claim is "incorrect" or why you are so sure that more recent copyvios would have been detected. But seeing how little content work you actually still do, it is only logical that the chance of further violations has been reduced considerably. Fram (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is one thing I have learned from this interaction with you, and that is that there is no benefit at all to continue this conversation. Think what you want about my contributions, open a CCI if you so desire. I have nothing to hide. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When we take the time to ask questions I think it is appropriate for a candidate to answer them. You have ignored mine which is a shame since it related directly to your candidate statement. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Leaky caldron: Wow. I completely missed your question. I'll answer it later today. Apologies. → Call me Hahc21 18:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to the talk page. Mike V • Talk 10:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: when no answer was forthcoming here, I asked Hahc21 about this protection on his talk page in User talk:Hahc21#The 1989 World Tour. He first made up a completely incorrect reason to defend his action, and when I pointed out that reality and his response had very little in common, he removed the move protection but didn't leave an explanation for his change of mind or his earlier statements. The page history, where he deleted an older page to move a newer one on the same subject, has not been restored either. These two situations (my first question, and his reply here and the discussion at the talk page here; and my second question and discussion) have left me with the distinct impression that Hahc21 is not fit to be an ArbCom member at the moment. Fram (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading this and the Wikipedia:ANI report,[5] I have to strongly oppose Hahc21. These AFDs[6]-[7]-[8] are questionable, they had to be relisted, but Hahc21 deleted them. Since some of them are notable, and the speedy deletions made by Hahc21, I don't think that he is aware of Wikipedia:BEFORE. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is serious. The courteous thing to do would be to withdraw before the close of the election. Ignocrates (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
