Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Skyeking (talk · contribs) 08:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article "On Hold"

Note 5 (refer link): "[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

Current "unstable" situation is explained at Skyeking's User Talk Page (refer here).
Skyeking (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skyeking, the instructions at WP:GAN say that articles should be "reviewed by [a] registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article". Since you have significantly contributed to the article I think it is inappropriate for you to review this. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the content of the article has been stable since the edit war ended midday on the 17th. But if anyone else wants to fail this for stability issues, I'd appreciate if you could give a thorough review of the content, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SKYEKING reply:

Mark Arsten, my fellow Editor,

First, did you read my notice “IMPORTANT – Skyeking’s Declaration of Protest and Dispute” (refer here)?

In said notice, Skyeking clearly stated a serious disagreement with at least (probably more) sixty-seven percent (67%) of your “draft” – and he/she will edit (revise) a large portion of your “draft” to ensure accuracy, phraseology, validity, formatting, resources, neutral point of view, balanced weight of content, original research, and so on. Of course, my preceding statement means collaboration (suggest / offer / discuss / consensus) with all fellow Editors.

Second, are you aware that we (Mark Arsten / Skyeking) are currently in a Dispute Resolution discussion (refer here) – an active editor disagreement. And, least you (others) forget, my “IMPORTANT – Skyeking’s Declaration of Protest and Dispute” (refer here).

Third, at this time, Nuujinn (primary Editor) is on vacation (User Talk Page - notice posted) and you (we) should be aware that he too may have comments, edits, and so on.

Fourth, I not agree with your interpretation of WP:GAN – which clearly states:

“you should not pass an article that was put on hold by another editor without assessing the problem.”

And, my interpretation about this statement,

(WP:GAN) “....user who has not contributed significantly to the article....”

— is that said statement not applicable to our Dispute Resolution situation because your “draft” was a complete overwrite of the “original” version (refer here).

My viewpoint about your complete overwrite (draft) is that, as of this date, I have contributed one edit (refer here) to said article, yes only one edit (not your context of a continuation) – which you reverted – in turn, I opened a Dispute Resolution discussion.

Fifth, I don’t understand your statement, (Arsten) “....edit war....” — What edit war?

Two Administrators reviewed the article edits and they not find any evidence of such.

And certainly it is obvious to me that the article is “not stable” (merely a draft currently under revision) vs. your proposition that said article is stable.

Mark, as stated before (refer here), I not ignoring you or your “draft”, but I have a permanent medical condition, and due to such my editing and communications could be delayed 72-hours or more. Thank you for your patience.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any specific issues with the article please let me know and I will work with you on them. I understand that you are upset that I added to the article, but I have asked you several times what it is specifically that you object to but you seem unwilling to say. I nominated this for good article because I believe that it meets the standards and would like a review. Note that the reviewers feedback may help the article become more suited to your preferences. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion - Hi all, just happened to see this page, so I thought I'd chime in. I'm an admin, not that it matters. Anyway, I feel that is is absolutely inapropriate for Skyeking to take on this review. Skyeking, you claim not to be the/a primary editor of the article, but the edit count clearly shows otherwise- you are the most frequent editor of the page by almost a factor of 4, and you have almost 8 times the edits to the page of Nuujinn, who you above claim to be the primary editor. You also have been complaining on the talk page ever since Mark Arsten began changing the article that you dislike his changes- you are certainly not a "neutral reviewer". Thirdly, you say that your illness prevents you from putting in the time to say what, precisely, you take issue with in Arsten's changes- how then do you have the time to review the entire article and say what needs to be changed? Note that you haven't actually reviewed the article yet, which is what you are supposed to do before placing it "on hold" - you just said it was unstable, and instead of failing it tried to keep it "under your control" by remaining the reviewer.

I suggest that you put the article back in the queue, or that y'all get another reviewer. I'm willing to do it, if you want (I don't do enough reviews outside of my usual interests), though if so I plan to wait a few days- while the article was certainly stable from the 17th until this review was started, since then there have been a lot of wording and phrasing changes that I would like to see diminished in order to review the text for grammar issues as well as substance. In any case- Mark Arsten, if you're not aware, note that while it oversteps propriety for another reviewer to "steal" this review without Skyeking's permission, that you can always escalate to WT:GAN if you feel that a reviewer is not conducting a proper review. --Pres N 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments PresN. I had planned to completely disengage from this article since I felt like interacting with Skyeking at all was a waste of time and energy. After all the work I put into it though, it would be nice to have a GA review at least. I guess I'll request a second reviewer at WT:GAN, you're more than welcome to review it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raised the issue at WT:GAN. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Opinion (Clarification by Skyeking regarding the above "Opinion" by PresN)

S>(PresN)”...inappropriate for Skyeking to take on this review.”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking is currently and constructively editing a major portion of said article – and due to such, notified others about an “On Hold” situation:

Note 5 (refer here):

“[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.”

S>(PresN)”Skyeking, you claim not to be the/a primary editor of the article.....”-------Skyeking's response to:

PresN’s statement is erroneous and “out-of-context”.

Mark Arsten was aware of who the three primary (core) Editors are (refer here).

And yes, Skyeking had previously welcomed Mark Arsten as a fellow Editor, and as of January 16, 2012 Arsten is surely a primary (core) Editor of the VHEMT Article.

S>(PresN)”...but the edit count clearly shows otherwise, you are the most frequent editor of the page...”-------Skyeking's response to:

In some situations (i.e. Skyeking's), merely counting the number of edits can be misleading (inconclusive / questionable) – and regarding Skyeking; doing such not offer valid evidence, and not a valid explanation about the article's (VHEMT Article Page) edit history.

Skyeking’s permanent medical condition precludes him/her from participating at-length in more than one Wikipedia Article – so, on October 13, 2009 (refer here / Skyeking’s first edit as a newcomer) Skyeking chose the VHEMT article due to its lack of oversight (interest) by experienced Editors, rampant vandalism, and the article’s poor phraseology.

As a newcomer (October 13, 2009), Skyeking not aware of an “edit counter” (or how to edit properly) so he/she merely started editing "one-at-a-time" (edit one word "Save Page" / edit one word "Save Page" / edit one word "Save Page" / so on, and so on, and so on, etc.) – hence, the large number of current day (January 24, 2012) “edit counts” (VHEMT Article Page).

S>(PresN)”...Nuujinn, who you above claim to be the primary editor.”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking’s viewpoint about Nuujinn is that he saved the VHEMT article from deletion (refer here) – took pity* upon Skyeking (newcomer) – and Nuujinn provided rewrite of VHEMT Article(refer here).

-*-(Skyeking’s viewpoint, not a statement about the actuality of Nuujinn’s “course of reasoning”.)

April 9, 2010(refer here)

(Skyeking’s version as a newcomer, October 13, 2009 – April 9, 2010)

April 30, 2010(refer here)

(Nuujinn’s version – saved the VHEMT Article from deletion)

S>(PresN)“You also have been complaining on the [Article] talk page ever since Mark Arsten began changing the article that you dislike his changes – you are certainly not a ‘neutral reviewer’.”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking offered Arsten a full explanation about his/her viewpoints regarding Arsten’s complete overwrite (draft) of the VHEMT Article (refer here).

There not any gradual “changes” (quote PresN) – instead, there was a complete overwrite (draft) by Arsten, and he chose to not notify the three primary (core) Editors (Nuujinn / Mitch Ames / Skyeking) about said major edits (refer here) until after-the fact.

Once again, Skyeking is currently and constructively editing a major portion of said article – and due to such, notified others about an “On Hold” situation:

Note 5 (refer here):

"[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

S>(PresN)“Thirdly, you say that your illness prevents you from putting in the time to say what, precisely, you take issue with in Arsten’s changes – how then do you have the time to review the entire article and say what needs to be changed?”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking is currently and slowly using WP:CYCLE to define his viewpoints about the article issues (quote PresN, “…say what, precisely,…) vs. (versus) an inappropriate “complete overwrite” of Arsten’s complete overwrite (draft).

To use the words of Edmund Spenser, “Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold” – but, “Be not too bold.” (refer here).

S>(PresN)“Note that you haven’t actually reviewed the article yet, which is what you are supposed to do before placing it ‘on hold’ – you just said it was unstable, and instead of failing it tried to keep it ‘under your control’ by remaining the reviewer.”-------Skyeking's response to:

At this time, Skyeking reserves his Editor's prerogative to respond again at a later date.

Yet, I offer this, why should I fail it? - the article is currently being revised and could pass at a later date. I am doing my best to act in "good faith" - not upset Mark Arsten - and trying to collaborate with all of my fellow Editors.

At this time, how could a different "Good Article" reviewer (experienced Editor) "Pass" (approve) the VHEMT Article - full well knowing the amount of upcoming Dispute Resolution discussions ("unstable" situations)? (refer here)

S>(PresN)"I suggest that you put the article back in the queue, or that y'all get another reviewer. "-------Skyeking's response to:

Who is “you”? — Skyeking’s interpretation of “you” refers to Mark Arsten.

S>“I'm willing to do it, if you want [...], though if so I plan to wait a few days...”
AND
S>“...it oversteps propriety for another reviewer to ‘steal’ this review without Skyeking's permission...”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking not grant permission to PresN or another reviewer to “steal” (quote PresN) Skyeking’s “On Hold” review status. This section should be maintained (kept-in-place) to inform other Editors about the probability of upcoming Dispute Resolution discussions ("unstable" situations).

Skyeking is currently and constructively editing a major portion of said article – and due to such, notified others about an “On Hold” situation:

Note 5 (refer here):

"[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

Also, Mitch Ames (core Editor) is actively editing the VHEMT Article.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the nom, I'd hate to see PresN to waste his time here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your call, can't blame you. Consider it an IOU for a review; hit me up if you ever want one in the future- GA, FA, whatever. --Pres N 22:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]