User talk:Hasteur/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey Hasteur! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

21:00 UTC? I'll be winding down to watch an opera at that point, so I won't be able to drop by. Hasteur (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Darn! Ah well :(. Want me to drop a link to the logs and a link to the prototype on your talkpage when we're done? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind. Hasteur (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Will do :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• logs and prototype respectively :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

I don't believe we've met but I doubt you need templating. Your edit summary was very disappointing, as edit summaries are invariant and should not contain sudden incivility. I think it's also rather obvious that if I'm IAR to add my comment, you're IAR to add yours to mine, and so you have no reason to object to my IAR. Striking or not is not the issue. The issue is that RFC/U often focuses on the situation rather than the individual editor, and often the filers, especially if their contemporaneous behavior is worse than the accused's, are at equal risk of sanction. I have had zero incivilities from Agent00f, he appears to limit himself to ambiguous indirect barbs and the occasional overboard intemperance that, as a newbie, I'm sure he's learning how to control. I would hope the same from you, and maybe you could explain any objection you have to my brand of IAR or, perhaps, some other objection that underlies the first. In short, the five goals of the RFC/U may have already been fulfilled, but the topic-area moving forward is still and always up to the ability to build local consensus. JJB 04:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)I would agree with IAR to the degree JJB suggests here, but I'm more worried that casual reading of the history leads one to overlook the subtle aspects of obstructionism that infiltrate Agent's every action. I don't care for MMA and was there to assist in a transition. Had I not been "involved", poisoning my ability to act, this would have been resolved. There is a very concerted (and not so private) effort by admins to simply avoid anything MMA related, which is part of the problem. Ignoring both the rules and actions seems to be an ongoing theme at MMA discussions, which I have suffered the consequences of, both by those who were trying to help and those trying to hinder the process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 08:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I recognize the risk that subtle obstructionism may be going on and requires subtle review that takes more time, very unlike straightforward reviews such as of diffs. Hasteur will appreciate that there is also a subtle risk of being tempted to immoderation by the subtlety of others, and on that one I believe it's fair to keep reminding all to stay cool. Will keep the admins' approach in mind also. JJB 09:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Everybody loves to quote IAR except they miss the important part of "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it." I found that WP:IAR? is quite helpful in the case where someone casually quotes IAR without considering the reason why the rule is there in the first place. Therefore, JJB, would you consider moving your "Users who do not endorse this view" and response to the talk page like the rest of the responses to views that are not endorsements? Hasteur (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Invoking IAR is a advanced and dangerous precedent as it opens the gateway to other actions being used in the name of IAR. Hasteur (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hasteur, I understand your frustration, but what you might not realize is that sometimes you can make situations worse by being reactionary. Part of my previous frustration was that you and Mtking would get sidetracked on issues of behavior, and interfere with my giving someone a little rope. I think others see the same things that you do, but you have to pull back and allow others to draw their own conclusions. When you spend too much time rebutting, you draw attention away from the bigger problems. This is one reason why MMA related issues get ignored at ANI, because they become too verbose and no one wants to filter through all the conversations. I tend to be verbose as well, which is why I limit myself in the number of times I respond, to balance this. Allow others to come to your conclusions in their own time. It is clear that I would have blocked him had I not been involved and have stated so. The over aggressive actions by others whom I agree with in principal, actually made this result less likely, not more likely. You shoot yourself in the foot when you are so verbose you look to be equally disruptive when the situation is only glanced at. If you want others to do more than glance and to actually dig into the issue deep enough to draw the same conclusion, make it easier by drawing a more stark contrast between your behavior and theirs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, if nobody rebuts assertions the editors treat it as an explicit endorsement of their posting (see Wikipedia:ANI#User:Mtking_and_User:Hasteur as a prime example of this). I'll limit myself to 1 rebuttal with the caveat that other editors (or heaven forbid uninvolved users) step up and call out the falsehoods by the group that is making the deliberate assertions of falsehood Hasteur (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that others may take a day or three to reach your conclusions. And the more neutral the tone, the more likely others will consider your points. The last thing you want to do is look like yet another "fanboy" with just a different opinion. The amount of trust that uninvolved editors put in your words is directly related to the apparent objectivity that goes into it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is all good discussion. Best rebuttals are brief and impassive. And repeated, unimproved charges are effectively rebutted by silence. JJB 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Related queries

I can understand if you've been offended by the past month; I recognize there are a number of personal barbs from another editor. I can understand if you've disagreed with me about the level of those barbs. I can even understand that the admin system has let you down. What I don't understand is why these barbs would rise to the unprecedented level of control of one editor being placed in the hands of his opponents. During RFC/U creation, you would have been warned, "Some examples of impossible or ill-considered goals: We get to revert whatever this editor does if we don't like it." You started the RFC/U with the request that five behaviors would stop. I proposed that Agent00f agrees the behaviors will stop and a third party would be appointed to handle disputes. You rejected that and insisted that "editors in good standing" in plurality get to stop the behaviors themselves, which is different from what you requested. This looks like a blind spot about the effectiveness of Wikipedia's trust in the volunteer community to assist in dispute resolution and will not be helpful to you: it looks like arguing "we get to revert".

Digression: I got involved in a walled garden once. I found an editor who regarded himself a leader in the field, who was much more vituperative than Agent00f, who canvassed offline to defeat AFDs, who had much less regard than Agent00f for policy. I proceeded to inform him of policy and attempt to fit the badly tended article set into compliance. After some discussion and agreement with other editors about notability, I proceeded with some carefully pre-advertised AFDs. When these were resisted with canvassing and nonpolicy argument, another editor proposed ArbCom and we went there. For months I patiently presented and analyzed evidence. In the very last week of ArbCom, the arbitrators themselves and an uninvolved admin both presented late evidence against me that no involved party had complained about and that included evidence about my behavior in other topic areas. I was banned for a year without sufficient time to rebut the sudden charges that were not ever brought up as problem areas during the entire months-long case.

The moral for me: Don't go to ArbCom because nobody has clean hands and their ability to spot dirty hands is untrammeled.

My question above is: How can you find a way to agree with Agent00f on a third-party conduct solution? You seem to be foreclosing third-party solutions from the start, which bodes badly for your RFC/U. (You also foreclosed second-party solutions, viz., Agent00f making voluntary promises of self-restriction.) If "the entire purpose of" RFC/U is going to ArbCom, your foreclosure is explicit and your position will not be viewed favorably. Reconciliation is the aim of RfC/U, not revenge or sanction. This is to say nothing about what would appear if someone decided to list Hasteur's incivilities with the same passion Hasteur did for Agent00f's (I won't take time to do that, but per the above it's easy for you to unwittingly motivate others to). I also dropped a hint by asking the certifiers the same question I asked Agent00f about ability to strike offensive comment. You missed the hint, replying as if the entire question related to Agent00f's ability to strike, not your own. I did not intend it to be ambiguous. "Hasty" AFDs are also bad.

As to content, you are well-describing the solution where the hierarchy is franchise, list of events, events by year, individual event. It was clear to me going in, once I understood the data at hand, that that is a typical solution. It is understood that "events by year" is a summary-style breakdown of "list of events", and "events by year" is not a notable topic. It is also clear from your content answers that, under this scheme, the same detail will occur somewhere in Wikipedia whether a fight is notable or not: notable, in event article; nonnotable, in by-year article. The exact same fight data appear somewhere in each case. This is what led me to consider that there is no special priority to by-year breakdown, and the only objection to by-fight breakdown is that the articles might appear not to be summary articles or appear to be (inherently) notable. But if the project agrees "this is a spinout, not a necessarily notable fight", that consensus will carry over to "keep" solutions in outsider-initiated AFDs and there will not be ambiguity. The hierarchy is simpler too: just franchise, list of events, individual event; no other changes to the summary structure. The only problem is getting over the hump and having the other editors (yourselves) recognize that there is no technical or policy-based reason to prefer one summary breakdown (omnibus) over another (by-fight).

Oddly, something in the way I explained this proposal allowed other editors to read that I was arguing for inherent notability through the backdoor or flouting GNG. GNG is not flouted because it's not an exclusionary principle but an inclusionary one. Other articles can be included that fail GNG, either because they meet more specific notability criteria, or because they are notable considered as a set, like the minor planets sublists. Arguing the first GNG exception has failed us but nobody has crossed the gap and recognized that the second exception might help.

So my second question: Is there any way to conceive of an individual fight article as being a nonnotable summary spinout, similar to many other list spinouts? Obviously we should add "Main article: List of UFC events" to the top of each fight; the lead sentence might say only "UFC 101 was the YYYth UFC event" (using the full numbering in the main list article); the in-article templates already do a good job; and the text would also include "Prior event in list: UFC 100" and next event in list. It's also possible that the main list article, just like TV-show season articles, could contain a box under each table entry with a one- or two-sentence summary of the highlights of the event. But would all this, plus assumption of a new consensus, be enough for others to recognize that fight articles can exist without being notable?

I recognized and defended the principles of the omnibus solution, but I could not defend against the fact that the same content appears in both solutions and neither relies on subarticle notability. Thus I am now working the possibility that the design benefits of Agent00f's solution might tip the scales if other editors recognize that omnibus is nonnotable too. The only benefit of omnibus is that it doesn't look deletable, while event articles do look deletable as is; but this is a WP:SOFIXIT observation. If I could see consensus to fix, I would. JJB 17:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Holy excrement... That's long.I'll try to answer.

In no way is Agent's ability to post being restricted. What we're saying is that a collection (3 or more) of editors in good standing (could be his enemies, could be completely uninvolved editors) all concur that a posting is out of line, it is incumbent on Agent to either refactor or to strike the comments. Individual editor requests to not do certain things are being met with "You're biased because of XYZZY reason, therefore I'll do what I want" type comments. I am open to a currently uninvolved editor agreed to by both sides in the dispute being appointed as a "Judge of Conduct" on behalf of Agent00f. If editors raise a polite request for Agent to not do something that is rejected, the editor may go to the JoC for a ruling to determine if it is a real problem or if it's just the editor being cranky.

As to the question at hand, Civily requesting that Agent withhold from doing certain actions (either in the past or going forward) has not been met with any form of success. Therefore I question the viability of the voluntary promises to discontinue this behavior as there is no demonstration currently that civil requests to discontinue some specific action will be met with anything besides "It's not me"/"Point out where the problem is"/Deliberate obtuseness.

In response to your second question, if an article (be it a MMA event, song, TV episode, Biography of a football (Non-US) player in Brazil) fails to meet the GNG or the SNG for the subject, we have to look at what action serves Wikipedia best. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Your mentor suggestions

I didn't want to prolong the dramaz on Agent00f's RFC, but I would suggest not having Feedback as a mentor, notwithstanding his stance on all PPVs being inherently notable (that isn't my concern), his comment here suggests to me that he thinks that anyone that disagrees with that statement is "stupid", and is more than willing to state as much. That is the sort of behaviour we are trying to avoid, not encourage. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

While advising all to distinguish between calling situations stupid and calling editors stupid, I agree that this link would suggest Feedback does not have the topic neutrality necessary. JJB 23:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, and I have revised my comment on WT:PW a bit, but in my opinion saying that the actions are stupid implies that the person who completed said actions is as well, regardless, the point has been made, thank you both for your time. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mtking

FYI. Mtking ^(edits) 06:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

Stop striking my writing. I don't like it. Factseducado (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Either you've exercised RTV or not. If you have, striking comments by a RTVed user is permitted. If you haven't I'll undo it. Either do it or not. If you still want to claim RTV and post, I may have to bring it up with an administrator. Hasteur (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Factseducado, you are dis-invited from this page until one of two things happens.

1. You rescind your RTV
2. You RTV 'permanantly.

Any posting you make here going forward will be reported directly at WP:ANI for immediate indef blocking. RTV is a gentleman's agreement that you are abusing. Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

MMA results in table format

Not sure if it's on your watchlist. I went through BAMMA Events and put the fight results in the table format that matches what is in 2012 in UFC events. I know it's well past the deadline for a DYK nod. The article could probably use additional prose for each event, which besides helping to flesh out the article a little could help drop the tables to below the infoboxes helping to make them less squished (depending on how wide a person's web browser is). Maybe it could go up for DYK after additional prose is added? (I've never done anything with DYK and only glanced at the criteria for it.) I've also updated the results using the table on UFC 94 and UFC 140. Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on them. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm just really burned on all wikipedia right now (Having to argue that a 1 season sitcom that only has a 3 paragraph description in a 900 page book for a reliable source is not notable enough). I'm probably going to take a WikiHoliday once Agent is dealt with and a RfC is conducted on the MMA page. I'm noticing snappishness in my other wikipedia dealings. Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya. I had my wiki-holiday about a month ago and since then I've only make small forays into the MMA article space. I've been hesitant to jump into many of the discussions going on. Only in the last few days have I been brave enough to attempt substantial edits to MMA articles (including re-adding missing summaries to 2012 in UFC events just now). I've mostly been helping out with the WP:CCI backlog and hoping "my" Texas State University-San Marcos article will get peer reviewed to see what needs to be done to take it to WP:GA. Take it easy. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

TSU... Why does that sound familiar... Oh yea... *giggles* I'm a "Flaming Sperm" Alum myself. Hasteur (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

TSU?! Grrrrrr!!!!! It's "TxSt"! TSU is a different school.  ;) Of course, we like to argue "TxSt" vs "TSU" just as much alumni argue "SWT" vs "Texas State". I had never heard of the "Flaming Sperm" before, but after Googling it that's kinda funny and kinda sad. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually part of the student government that gave the mascot that name... Oh so much sillyness. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. JJB 18:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC Events

I did it the right way, why did you delete it again? Why are you afraid to let the discussion happen? Everyone's knowledge of the subject has increased, we should be allowed to talk about it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdNinja9 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Deletion was moved to the right location. The 3rd nomination for deletion of that article. Go there and see your rationalle there. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD

Hey, thanks for your posting! At AfD I was satisfied that most of editors agreed to keep the article, and backed their reasons up with policies. Also, you have posted a red-link on the decisions page. Is the article created as stated? --Chip123456 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was proposing that it be merged to that location along with the other nominations that were appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok! Also when re-opening, replace the AFD tag on the article and remove the decision tag from the talk, which I have done for you! Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nostalgia Wiki creations and Special:NewPagesFeed

Hey, thanks for letting me know. That's really weird! I wonder if the bug just happens with imports or whether it can also happen with regular history merges? I'll go back and mark the page as patrolled after I do an import/history merge, if need be. I don't do page imports or history merges very often these days, anyway. Graham87 02:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've replied further at Wikipedia talk:New Pages Feed#Graham87's Nostalgia Wiki imports. Graham87 03:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I apologize if I am wrong in this matter, but I do not find your actions correct and have put you on the Admin Noticeboard. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:AuroraTerra on adding contestant's final words in recent seasons of Hell's Kitchen

This newbie user has added contestant's final words in recent seasons of Hell's Kitchen, including season 10 (most recently). These edits did added as no sources or analysis, including [1] and [2]. I did reverted to its original edits and it added back. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've stepped in and given a 2nd point of view. I've also taken the opportunity to welcome the new-ish editor (since late may) and warn them about adding without discussing now that their bold move has been reverted. I hope this has helped. Hasteur (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Douchebag#Article for Tesla Day.3F

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Douchebag#Article for Tesla Day.3F. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please cite which Wikipedia policy states that users "own" user talk pages

You erased my previous post which noted called into question your claim that you can "disinvite" users from editing "your" user talk page. In doing so, you failed to cite any Wikipedia policy that would establish any right you might have to do this. Unless you can cite such a policy, I will not allow you to erase my contributions to this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.95.47 (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK should pretty much cover your question. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Per what I said, 98 IP you have been reported to WP:AIV for posting on my talk page after being asked to not do so. I wash my hands of you. Hasteur (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Article: Zeta Delta Xi

I have performed structural cleanup on the article Zeta Delta Xi. Up to now, my involvement had only been in reversing a defective deletion. I have researched and provided additional content, but non-encyclopedic content created by other editors may remain--I will not apply changes to information I do not have.

I'm not sure I intend to devote more time to this article, but I invite you to take a look at it and provide feedback. I have removed the tags {citation style}, {notability}, and {ref improve} per Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. While no one is saying the article is complete or exemplary, it now contains seven proper citations of four separate sources--three with proper ISBN/ISSN's. Patronanejo (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Couple things, It's always better to name the references to unify them. I'm still not sold on ZDX's notability without having to hook the historical info. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that--corralling those refs was the one thing I was certain I was going to have to figure out. So every time you cite the same publication, you just enter the same value in...it's the refname field? This is going to sound backwards, but the cite template is more ambiguous to me than just looking at the source of a properly-cited article and cargo-cult'ing it. Patronanejo (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to DRN

Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 11)

Hello Hasteur. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 11), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I moved it to the right namespace. Thank you. WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If you had looked before you moved it, the "article" is a completeley unreferenced article. Please stop being less than briliant. Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about that. WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sundostund Arbitration enforcement appeal

I'm not clear as to why this was being copied to AN, but it does not belong there and I have closed the section. Admins cannot simply overturn a arbitration enforcement block as they would another appealed block so carrying on at AN as though it could be resolved there would be a waste of time and effort. It needs to be handled over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that AE appeals were supposed to be discuesed at AN per WP:AEBLOCK Point 1 Subsection B following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Therefore I request you reverse your closure as it is the right venue for this discussion to occur at. Hasteur (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be what point one subsection B says, but I don't believe it is usually done that way on actual practice. The page may need updating. Tell you what, I will ask ArbCom directly and see what they say as I don't believe I have ever seen an Arb enforcement block appealed in this manner before. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering that I've seen this route being used multiple times (with that exact template) I have undid the closure. The blocking admin was notified of the relocation. This keeps all the information in one tidy bundle rather than scattering it across 12 different noticeboards. Considering that the AE enforcement request started in an "out of process" location I challange the necessity to constrain the response to the ArbEnforcement page. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, you asked me to reconsider and then before I even had time to do so you reverted anyway, so I am left wondering why you even went through the pretense. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Because Admins are supposed to be above reproach and are supposed to respond immediately. I'm done with this conversation. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, me too, since apparently you expect me to be perfect and to respond to your requests within five minutes. I don't get paid any more than you do for this you know. Beeblebrox (talk)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider, please

As one Metroplexian to another, I'd like you to reconsider sticking around at DRN. Things really haven't changed all that much there, the changes are really just more bells and whistles than anything of substance. (And, heck, I was thinking of having a Cabal meeting at Caelum Moor at midnight on the autumnal equinox or some such and you were going to be the first one I invited.) If you don't want to soldier on, though, it was good to have you around and thank you for your work and input, either way. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess the thing that has really chapped my hide about this case in particular (in additon to the "No posting in the comments section untill every party's had a chance to speak") is that the volunteers are looking more for the magic check boxes than considering and trying to help editors. I don't want DRN to be a formal process that people get their punch cards stamped at on their way to the courts of last resort (MEDCOM, ARBCOM, and UT:Jimbo). If anything Ebe's saving over my attempt at corrections and pushing on got on my neves. They edit conflicted and went ahead because they thought they knew best. I edit conflicted over their close and when I tried to revert my save as the dispute was "Done" they went back in and restored my sleuthing to put some people with the issue. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever going to be a mere waypoint. It's become too important to just let it be a requirement to be fulfilled. Except for 3O, where there's still a lot of good being done, most of the DR work being done at WP is being done at DRN. There's a new crop of volunteers at DRN and new folks always want to spiffy the place up (I've gone through 2 or 3 rounds of it at 3O since I've been working there), but us old-timers are there to keep them reasonable. You and I haven't always seen eye to eye on things there, but we've managed to get along just fine. (I hope you feel that way, too.) One good thing about DR volunteers is that they're generally able to work together. C'mon back and let's keep a Texas twist on the place, how about it? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you are staying at DRN. I do not think that I know best for anything, and is always ready for discussion. I do make a lot of bold edits though. I am not sure to understand "they" and "If anything Ebe's saving over my attempt at corrections and pushing on got on my neves." Could you clarify it for me? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Me, too, obviously. Very glad you reconsidered. See you around the 'plex. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the portion where we edit conflicted and was referred to in the "If anything..." statement. This is where I tried adding the users after you (Ebe) closed and I didn't see it. The next diff is where I undid my changes as it was evident that the doorway was going to be cemented in place. This is where you (Ebe) undid my removal to re-insert on a request that was closed. I hope this gives you (Ebe) enough of a window into my mind to see why I became hot and bothered by the actions. Hasteur (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifing. I hope we can turn the page on this one. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!

Hey there Hasteur, I noticed you've listed yourself as a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard but you haven't been very active there lately - I was hoping if you had some spare time if you could take a look there and offer some assistance. Thanks again for your help :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I subscribe to the philosophy that unless another volunteer needs help, I stay out of other DRN threads as it makes the conversation difficult to figure out the answer. I haven't been able to get the first post on one of the threads for a while so I'm really hesitant to jump in the middle of another volunteer's efforts. Hasteur (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough - sometimes disputes are kinda opened and left, though. Wherever you can help is welcome - but I know you've done a lot of DRN in the past, so thanks again. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Adnews page name needs changing

Hi Hasteur,

I created a new page called Adnews, but it needs to be changed to AdNews. I didn't realise it had a capital N when creating it.

Thanks,

Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke.battersby (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article for you, but upon looking at the article I noticed several fatal problems. As such I have proposed that it be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and will be editing to make sure it isn't deleted Luke.battersby (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hunkering

Talk restored too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

IE at DRN

Hello!

Dimitrij, can we have time to let others speak up?
— User:Hasteur 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I thought the question was supposed to collect answers from everyone including me. I would appreciate if you would specify the editor you are asking, if you believe that some disputants shouldn't answer it. Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm specifically asking you to back off from the rapid fire responses that leave no room for compromise. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please give some more exact suggestion? Should I respond last? Or not before 12 hours since the question was asked? Or may be avoid participating in this thread at all? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you want exact... You got it. Until another editor responds to my question regarding the MS-EULA, I'd appreciate it if you would restrain yourself from making absolute statements that leave no room for compromise or posts in this thread. So far the entire thread's been alive for less than 24 hours and you (in my perception) have made the significant amount of content posting to it. Therefore I'm requesting that you ease back from the keyboard and give other editors who probably aren't active during the USA based business day an opportunity to respond. Ok? Hasteur (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problems. I'm not going to overwhelm discussion, and I want to thank you for pointing this issue out. I just thought that if you indeed wanted to say something like that, you would do that on my talk page, not in DRN case; probably we have different opinions on such points. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the pitfall. Best regards, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

--Andromedean (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Technologies used for Olympic sports

Sorry I was responding to this statement "if RfC won't help with dispute, feel free to file another request" Could you please describe how asking for an independent ajudicator is soliciting for outside help? I am very concerned about the misuse of rules. No doubt the RFC was placed on precisely so a user could just childishly keep reverting an article rather than providing valid well researched reasons. Please don't encourage this behaviour and support people attempting to write unbiased articles free of political bias. It takes me ages to keep replying to the same insane arguments and one member is oblvious to reason. --Andromedean (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP defines exactly what we've been asserting. Furthermore your badmouthing annother user in the debate and your suggestion that it's user conduct as a problem suggest that perhaps it's a conduct and not a content problem. If you think it's a conduct problem, raise it at [[WP:WQA] or WP:AN/I. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur This is the latest link with the references

Technologies used for Olympic sports--Andromedean (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Again you're missing the point. The discussion on the talk page is moving along and the 88 IP does make a valid point about Synthesis of statements. Keep discussing it there and working to a solution. Please feel free to not post here as it's not a DRN or involvement with me issue. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Engelham

As the original blocking admin I responded only to circumstances at the time - am happy for others to revise on new info (a longer block does seem justified but I'm not around much today.) Orderinchaos 23:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

You've hit the nail on the head. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Saint Seiya

I would just like to apologize for the mess that has evolved from the DRN posting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally change anything in the header as far as I am aware.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Steeler Nation

Hi there. It sounds like you may have had some concerns about my conduct in the DRN. I've been trying really, really hard to keep it calm and civil, but I'm apparently falling short. I'd like to keep my words and actions above reproach in the RfC, so if there's anything specific you can point to that was out of bounds, I'd appreciate hearing it. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess the main problem I have is that the behavior in the thread was abysmal and would have landed a few people in time out. Only advice I can have is to keep your comments to the point. Use formatting as a expletive to attract attention, and to explain calmly your view. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I was staying on point (with the exception of the comments I later retracted), but I'll try a little harder. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites Dispute

Hello, where should I go if the Dispute resolution was the wrong place to resolve an 8 year long topic dispute which is being made worse by those whose idea of re-factoring a talk page is to hide or remove relevant content? Kaz 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the closing comments I made? Did you put your stick down for 2 minutes to understand Beeblebrox's posting on the talk page. If you can't see beyond these then it might be best for you to depart the article with your pound of flesh. Looking at the talk page I see no 8 year long topic dispute. I see you throwing every single elbow you can get in (in language that is highly prejudicial) to try and refactor it to your thinking. In short, this dispute (as I can read it) is on the edge between content and conduct disputes. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN, DID and Tylas

Hi,

I have no objection to the DRN posting being closed, my issue is Tylas has in the past made similar pronouncements of departure and, obviously, not left. I'm assuming DRN is not the place to address something like this, so I'm kvetching here instead. I know some editors, deliberately or not, have used the right to vanish as a way to dodge criticism within the larger community. I dislike going to boards in situations like this, and that dislike is exacerbated when that situation is gamed.

Anyway, not really your problem unless you have some sage advice. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Tylas is the wrong person to edit the article - she struggles to depersonalise, it becomes a crusade. At the same time WLU, you do come over as inconsistent in your approach. I am aware that it has become mired in a controversy about recovered memory and child sex abuse, and that one does therefore have to watch out for partisan sources on both sides, but both the overview and the references linked to here seem more than sufficient to support the notion that the mainstream view is that childhood trauma (broadly construed) is the major cause of DID. Perhaps if you don't have a crusader breathing down your neck, you could expand the article yourself in this direction. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you have a sealed endorsement that MEDRS will be followed. I would present Tylas' actions as a continuing pattern at WQA or RFC/U the next time they get into a personal issue with DID. I know it's in the WP:ROPE school of thought, but there's only so many bridges you can burn before you no longer have support. Hasteur (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen, though the common perception is that it is due to abuse, there are many sources, and an increasing number of recent one it seems, that question that school of thought. I can provide lots of them. In fact, part of the reason I am so obstinate on the page is because I keep finding them. Though normally I would use a source like Medscape without question, for this particular topic I think that it, like many quasi-popular sources, is not addressing the issue with sufficient depth to go beyond popular understanding. I would welcome the chance to change your mind on the DID talk, and main page - it does still need work, and I would love to have another experienced editor on hand to help unwrinkle the nuances. In fact, helpful would be such an editor who was willing to "specialize" in the traumagenic position - if nothing else it would cut down on the reading I would have to do for a position that I now find, for reasons unrelated to whether I agree with it, holds rather distasteful associations. I don't have an issue with the traumagenic position being represented, but I do have an issue with it being represented as "the" expert consensus.

Thanks Hasteur, that's pretty much what I expected but sometimes I learn something new. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like I'll have to do some reading up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A lot are available as full-text articles (linked on the page), there are a lot of google books with previews, and I've a lot I can e-mail as well, please feel free to ask! The fifth and sixth editions of Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis are both used on the page, and represent substantially different takes on the subject (published a year apart). Both also have partial google books previews, and would probably represent a good starting point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

yes, I started out questioning WLU's position, but looking at the sources, journal review articles, the traumagenic model seems to hold no interest for researchers. They seem to dismiss it as unsupported by reliable research and are looking at other avenues of explanation. It is only one advocacy organization, ISSTD and its members, that seem to support this position, and their "guidelines" don't contain a literature review, nor is it generally peer reviewed by those with alternative views. Only believers publish in their journal. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the split is along clinician versus researcher lines; think I saw that in a reference somewhere, might even be on the page. But now I think I'll stop hijacking Hasteur's talk page... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the lack of research into DID is due to the lack of testable models, the lack of reliable assessment measures of DID, the inability to operationalize DID, the lack of any agreement over the meaning of "dissociation", etc. How can even epidemiology be addressed if there is no reliability in diagnosing?

Researchers study disorders relevant to clinicians. I think there's not enough mainstream clinical interest to encourage research. Even clinicians become disinterested when there are no agreed upon definitions, as evidenced by the terminology in DSM-IVTR.

Although much of the ISSTD traumagenic model rests on Attachment theory where there's been quite a bit of research (e.g. Attachment theory in adult psychiatry. Part 1: Conceptualisations, measurement and clinical research findings), none of it appears to address DID for the reasons listed above, I believe. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to my talk page being the location for the summit of DID minds, as long as it keeps moving forward Hasteur (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, just a note that there is a good chance DID will be revisited at the DRN - thus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Please do the low levels first (Talk page discussion, RFC, etc.) and don't rez the original DRN posting from the archives. File a new one and in the "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" reference the previous DRN case (and link to it) so that people can see that the user is going back on their agreement. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the advice. Though I'm not sure what the RFC would be on. An RFC/U? I also would say this isn't someone "going back on an agreement", I would say it's more the application of WP:DIVA.

Fixed your bullet in your facepalm; you may also be interested in {{facepalm}} WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

An RfC at the article talk page about inserting the content. It's probably a case if IDHT, but by demonstrating you've tried other mechanisims, Administrators can consider conduct based remedies to resolve the dispute. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Ummmm....neither WP:WQA nor its talk page has space for making requests (that I can see). Artsygeek (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hrm... They finally kicked that bucket... Take a look at Wikipedia:DR#Resolving_user_conduct_disputes and think about what size of WP:BOOMERANG you're willing to take. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Hasteur. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC endorsement choices

Thanks for providing input at the DRN RfC regarding bot reversions. The choice D ("do nothing") you added: it seems like that is the same as choice A ("Vols must add name"). Could they be combined? or is D somehow different than A? --Noleander (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Option D expresses a "I'm tired of the endless debating and proposals and modifying" position. I'll clarify the option with a description. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 23:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Grave dancing is not what passes for flowers here

...and I was doing nothing of the kind. I am posting this final line for a reference of my own when I look at my contribs page. I like to keep a record of who's whom around here. But I want you to know that in spite of your fall from your tree, I like you and have no hard feelings. Someone who comes out in the open and posts "Keep away" has a little more honour, wouldn't you say?~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

So you want a blatent statement. I formally request that you ceace posting on my talk page. Your continued and enlarged indignation at being called out for was originally a minor WP:BITE violation has demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding of a colaberative environment.Hasteur (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It will be done as you asked. All I can sadly add is, I hope that wasn't a veiled threat.~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Reddit r/mma Authorship

I claim credit for the following thread on the MMA subredit [3]. I am doing this in an attempt to try and recruit editors who care to be productive wiki-citizens. Hasteur (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Curate Tool Assistance

Hi. Thank you for unreviewing my mistake. I have not used the NewPagesFeed/Page Curation tool before. Regarding the article, 2012 A-Division, what would be the correct action to take? What tags should be added? Thanks. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO I would hit it with the "needs references" template and get in contact with the creator to try and get some cited facts in the article. Hasteur (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Kashi Samaddar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kashi Samaddar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashi Samaddar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

I am notifying you as I noticed you requested speedy deletion of this article shortly after it was created. -- Patchy1 03:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

From pillar to post

You state that DRN is unable to consider my dispute over Microsoft Security Essentials can't be considered once it has been to FAR. However, FAR was a procedural close because they are unable to consider challenges of that nature. When I asked about that one of the delegates at FAR advised that DRN is indeed the correct forum for that kind of dispute.[4]

You cannot both be correct. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read the entire comment you'll see that she is reccomending that content issues be directed to DRN. You named 19 other disputants for this issue in addition to lobbying that the article should be removed from FA status. Featured Article Review is where you bring challenges to the FA status of an article. Since you've listed one of the FA Delegates as a disputant the next place to appeal should be to the FA Director as listed in WP:FAC. Administrators Noticeboard is where you bring challanges regarding the conduct of users. WP:MEDCOM is where you go if you can't get an agreement on content. And finally a minority of 1 raising a complaint is just that a minority. The consensus is to let the article move forward as a FA and be featured on the 23rd. At this point I invite you to review WP:CON, WP:FAC, WP:DR and find an appropraite way to express your objection to the FA status of the article. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)