User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/New Archives/2011/November

User_talk:Newyorkbrad
Please read this: User_talk:Newyorkbrad. It appears Mr. NYBrad doesn't have the time or some such to look into this matter in much deapth. Perhaps you'd like to contribute? Chrisrus (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the cavalry isn't coming. Chrisrus (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read it (I read it the first time you posted it). However, there is no way that I can justify CUing everyone who edits a particular article. Can you narrow it down to, say, one editor who you feel is the 'sockmaster'? The Cavalry (Message me) 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To reply, I asked for an across the board one because I know we wouldn't mind, because we don't sock, and it seemed fairer at the time. But now I understand that kind of thing isn't done, for probably good reasons.  To answer your question, look here, at the bottom of the section, there's a little list: User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Oct.


 * 1) User:U21980
 * 2) User:Scholar999
 * 3) User:Verdell2010
 * 4) User:GoCubs88
 * 5) User:Tomohawkmama
 * 6) User:Churchillaroo
 * 7) User:24.177.124.12
 * 8) USER:JamesChambers666, and there are probably more.

They come and go in succession and all behave the same. But no, not really, I can't easily point to one that I'd call the sockmaster, or what ever the corresponding term is for meatpuppets. But USER:U21980 was one of the most active ones, but then s/he went away and, I suspect, "became" the "scholar" and then "Gocubs" and now I think I've scared him off. Now they're probably gearing up to be another one. They make some contributions for some time, which is a good thing, I suppose, for a while and then sort of accidently stumble upon the NXIVM cluster of articles, including the Bromfman sisters ones, which I don't watch but I know they go there also, you'll see the same ones.
 * Please look at an article or two in the WP:RS collection on TALK:Keith Raniere to get an idea of what we're dealing with. I think you might enjoy reading some of the articles; the Village Voice article is maybe the funnest (ungrammatical, but why?) to read.  They'll make a movie someday.  Basically, they are most notable for accusations that they are a cult or cult-like organization in all of these articles.  So true meatpuppetry seems likely with a cult, don't you think?  But they are so parallel it seems sockish.  Also on background, there was a cluster of usernames that turned out to be this one fellow well known around here who has outed himself on his blog who is like us in that he's out to warn the world about this group, but his strategy is to mock, bait and worse at times, see here:, so I'm not outing him to say he's John Tighe.  He seemed to feel justified in socking himself because he felt they were socking him, but he's the one who got caught and banned, but unless the same is done with the other side the job is not finished.  His central "sockmaster" was called "Keiser" somesuch, you'll see if you look into it, and he hasn't been back since under any guise, I can tell.  (I personally understand how he feels but I think the strategy is to simply get a WP:GOODARTICLE written about them and that'll be enough: no tabloids or original research and such.  I want no more than that the rules be followed.  If that's done, my goal of warning the people will be served without breaking any rule or guideline: "the truth, (or at least the "varifiable"), will out.")  Anyway, so that's maybe why they felt justified to "sock back", but it seems to me unfair for him to get banned and they don't even get checked.
 * I don't mind fans editing. I'm not trying to get rid of them as they got rid of Tighe.  I understand that fans are the ones motivated to write articles, but they have to be watched because otherwise they'll write biased articles.  The same with Tighe and I, we balance out the fans.  Sure, it's not ideal, but unfortuately no one else cares enough to write and edit these articles.  If someone would I'd quit those topics but I will not leave it to the fans.  My point is, I'm not trying to get rid of them, I just want them, all of them, to play by the rules, and that includes "DON'T SOCK!" Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2011
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 06:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Chicago2011
Could I please have some information on why user:Chicago2011 was banned? There appears to have been no investigation regarding sock puppetry. This user says that he was a representative of Vector Marketing. Also, why wasn't he picked up during a previous investigation when I accused him of being a sock of User:AkankshaG? Phearson (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I stumbled across him when I checkusered (without a sockpuppet investigation), because of a suspicious pattern of editing. It turns out that the accounts which are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Meghan.reilly, based on technical evidence and account behaviour, are a series of accounts run by several people at the same company (I can't disclose which company, or where they are based, but I can say that it isn't Vector Marketing). As such, I blocked all the accounts under the sockpuppetry policy. I find his unblock request a little disiningenious, as well - I suspect that a single account would be used as a role account for the entire company.
 * In response to your second question: He wasn't picked up as a sock of AkankshaG because a check wasn't run in the previous investigation, but even if a check was run, he wouldn't have turned up as a sock of AkankshaG - he's unrelated to that account, as far as I can see. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will need to speak then to the declining administrator in that case. Even though it says that it was declined, he states that he did a "quick check". Apparently too quick to catch the other account. Additionally, if it is several people, possible sanctions are needed. Phearson (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A picture I'm sure you've seen already
Every time I see your username when I'm bored and reading ArbCom pages, I unavoidably think of this picture. To my surprise, I couldn't find a reference to it in your talk page archives, and I figured that had to be remedied. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10/10. I wish it was cc licenced, I'd use it on my page :( The Cavalry (Message me) 16:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Phearson (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta
Thanks Chase Me! - great username BTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andfinally (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - Newsletter 1
Hey, guys and girls! You're receiving this because you signed up (or manually requested) the Article Feedback Tool Version 5 Newsletter. This is for people who care about making the AFT a better feature, but don't necessarily want to have to participate in every discussion. Instead, I'll be sending a newsletter around twice a month talking about what's been decided and what's still up for discussion - that way, if you're interested in specific features or ideas, you'll know when to jump in :). If you know anyone who fits into this category (or you're a talkpage watcher who does) please sign up here to receive more updates in the future.

First off, editors have already been picking at the basic design, and I've forwarded their suggestions to the devs. Those ideas which are worthy of further investigation (or being programmed into the software) are listed in the status box at the top of the talkpage. Community suggestions that the devs like include: So already there's been some great ideas - I was in a meeting yesterday in which they confirmed that the developers are actively looking at how to include Utar's suggestion pretty quickly. There are still a lot of open issues, however; most pressing this week is what level of access IPs should have to submitted comments? The Foundation's plan calls for IP addresses to be only allowed to read the comments, but not to vote on or comment on their priority - this is intended to reduce gaming - but editors may have different opinions. If you like this level of access, want something more open, or want something more closed, please drop a note here.
 * Allowing for up and down-voting of comments to indicate priority (suggested by User:Bensin)
 * Having comments link to the version of the article (as well as the article) that they refer to (suggested by User:RJHall)
 * Including the AFT box as a hidden drop-down from a "feedback" button on section headings (suggested by User:Utar)

Hope to see you all on the talkpage soon, with any developments, ideas or suggestions you may have. All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh - and the next Office Hours session will be held on Thursday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Give me a poke if you can't make it but want me to send you the logs when they're released - we'll be holding sessions timed for East Coast editors and Australasian/Asian editors next week. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Salted Article for Angel.com
Hello there--I was pointed here by Phearson and JohnCD. I work for a marketing firm that's representing Angel, of Angel.com (full disclosure on my user page). In 2009, you salted Angel's article (it was Angel.com) because it had been recreated frequently by Kazuwiki, a user with a spammy history. JohnCD userfied the old article for me at User:Socialmedia2011/Angel.com and I'm just starting to work on updating it so that it lives up to Wikipedia quality and COI standards. It's nowhere near ready to be restored, but I wanted to reach out to let you know that I'm approaching this again and trying to get as much help from the Wiki community as possible to get this back up. Angel meets notability requirements with press from places such as Forbes and Information Week so it definitely merits a page. Would you be willing to provide feedback and, when it's ready, restore this article? Let me know, and thanks for your time!

Socialmedia2011 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguably, yes, but I'm not sure I have the time - I'm heavily involved in our fundraiser this year and I can't guarantee I'll be able to help quickly enough for you. If you're willing to wait a few days after asking, then by all means I can help :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 13:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, a few days response is pretty much what we're dealing with too--it's time consuming to sift through old press to form these articles, I don't know how you veteran Wikipedians do it! If I get help from a few other editors to get the article up to snuff, would you be willing to simply restore it? Let me know and best of luck with the fundraising.

Socialmedia2011 (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've made a few edits. It's shrunk down. Let me know if you see anything/the lack of anything that would stand in the way of getting this back up.

Thanks!

Socialmedia2011 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, just wanted to note that Phearson has moved the article here Articles_for_creation/Angel.com. I'm not sure if you have to play a role in getting it restored or what. Thanks for any help in advance! Socialmedia2011 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Typo in navbar?
Hey, I was trying to go through your archives to get to that image I linked you a while ago (it was surprisingly hard to find it the first time). I notice that the image link in your navbar points to "/Archive," not "/Archives," so that it takes a user to the first entry in the archive, rather than the index. (The text that says archives goes to "/Archives" and thus to the index). A bug perhaps? Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

ps i'm not stalking you i swear

Re: Chris Butler (private investigator)
Hey. I see that you removed a vast majority of this article saying that it was unsourced and possibly libelous. In fact i took the time to reference several different sources including published first-person accounts in a magazine. I also referenced the recounting of said story on the radio and attributed some of the facts to other main-stream media sources. I'd be fine if you believe that certain facts taken from those two sources are not sufficiently reliable, but essentially blanking the page as if the sources don't exist doesn't seem to be very fair. Please let me know your rational. --Mblumber (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are entire sections in the article that are libellous and unsourced: for example, the PI Moms section and the Dirty DUIs section doesn't have a single reference. Likewise, the 'Informant Carl Marino' only has a single reference to the Internet Movie Database - which isn't a reliable source. The article paints the man as a criminal when the sources only say that he was arrested, but doesn't seem to have been convicted. The entire article seems to be based off a single reliable source - an article in Diablo Magazine. The article uses words like 'notoriety', implying that he is 'notorious'. Finally, Marino is mentioned at the bottom without any proof that he's linked to Mr Butler whatsoever. Policy - and common sense - means that we remove any negative unsourced information in a BLP, and that it's not put back until it's properly sourced. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As Carl Marino, I can assure you all the information was correct and accurate. If you can't find sources that link me to Chris Butler and what was written, you aren't looking very hard.  Keep watching the news magazine shows in the near future if you want to see everything confirmed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlmarino (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok buddy. I went through and only included stuff that was specifically cited. If you decide to delete the information again without utilizing the talk page, I'm going to be upset. --Mblumber (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming on Sunday!
Thanks for coming on Sunday, was good to see you = ;) Mthe (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of LGBT subsection
Hi there! My name is Andrew, I'm on the current committee for Unity Bangor (LGBT) and I'm the previous Sexuality Equality Senator for the Student Union.Please forgive me if my formatting or mode of response is not in the correct style for Wikipedia (I have just made the account to comment on this specific issue).

I agree with your statement that the LGBT society is "no more important than any other society", as all societies should be equal. However, each society has the option to create a post in this page and (on a personal note) I believe the post to be informative and valuable (this being a personal note because the Section on this page was one of the very first things I looked at when considering Bangor University) I have reinstated the section, as I believe its entry to be valid.

May I make a request? I value your opinion and I'm more than willing to discuss this issue with you, however my familiarity with Wikipedia comments etc is really lacking. Would it be possible for you to email me personally and we can discuss any problems you have or arrange a compromise that should satisfy both parties? Before any further edits or removals that is. :) My personal email is: Psub25@bangor.ac.uk

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew gadie (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Chris Butler (private investigator)
Hey. I see that you removed a vast majority of this article saying that it was unsourced and possibly libelous. In fact i took the time to reference several different sources including published first-person accounts in a magazine. I also referenced the recounting of said story on the radio and attributed some of the facts to other main-stream media sources. I'd be fine if you believe that certain facts taken from those two sources are not sufficiently reliable, but essentially blanking the page as if the sources don't exist doesn't seem to be very fair. Please let me know your rational. --Mblumber (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are entire sections in the article that are libellous and unsourced: for example, the PI Moms section and the Dirty DUIs section doesn't have a single reference. Likewise, the 'Informant Carl Marino' only has a single reference to the Internet Movie Database - which isn't a reliable source. The article paints the man as a criminal when the sources only say that he was arrested, but doesn't seem to have been convicted. The entire article seems to be based off a single reliable source - an article in Diablo Magazine. The article uses words like 'notoriety', implying that he is 'notorious'. Finally, Marino is mentioned at the bottom without any proof that he's linked to Mr Butler whatsoever. Policy - and common sense - means that we remove any negative unsourced information in a BLP, and that it's not put back until it's properly sourced. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As Carl Marino, I can assure you all the information was correct and accurate. If you can't find sources that link me to Chris Butler and what was written, you aren't looking very hard.  Keep watching the news magazine shows in the near future if you want to see everything confirmed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlmarino (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok buddy. I went through and only included stuff that was specifically cited. If you decide to delete the information again without utilizing the talk page, I'm going to be upset. --Mblumber (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Meghan.reilly/Chicago2011/SquarePotato failling to grasp the nature of their block
You may wish to take a look at User talk:Chicago2011 and this comment on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Meghan.reilly isn't my account. Chicago2011 is my account - I've had it for almost a year. It's now banned, so I created this one. I've never had access to meghan.reilly. SquarePotato (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware that Chicago had his right to edit his own talk page revoked. Why is he now appealing from another account? Phearson (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Related ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming on Sunday!
Thanks for coming on Sunday, was good to see you = ;) Mthe (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of LGBT subsection
Hi there! My name is Andrew, I'm on the current committee for Unity Bangor (LGBT) and I'm the previous Sexuality Equality Senator for the Student Union.Please forgive me if my formatting or mode of response is not in the correct style for Wikipedia (I have just made the account to comment on this specific issue).

I agree with your statement that the LGBT society is "no more important than any other society", as all societies should be equal. However, each society has the option to create a post in this page and (on a personal note) I believe the post to be informative and valuable (this being a personal note because the Section on this page was one of the very first things I looked at when considering Bangor University) I have reinstated the section, as I believe its entry to be valid.

May I make a request? I value your opinion and I'm more than willing to discuss this issue with you, however my familiarity with Wikipedia comments etc is really lacking. Would it be possible for you to email me personally and we can discuss any problems you have or arrange a compromise that should satisfy both parties? Before any further edits or removals that is. :) My personal email is: Psub25@bangor.ac.uk

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew gadie (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Office hours

 * Hey; once again, office hours for the article feedback tool! These will be held at UTC this evening; logs from the last session can be found here. Hope to see you there :). Do drop me a note if you can't attend but would like the logs/have some questions for me to pass on to the devs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A Blintz for you!

 * I need one of these. It's on my list for cooking next week! The Cavalry (Message me) 20:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel

 * - Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel

Hi Chase -User:Jabbsworth - It's been mentioned that you were involved in allowing this account to edit, as your name was mentioned in this SPI perhaps you would read and comment if  you feel it's required, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it...
I found your closing tag in the source when I was about to add my own. You're a brave man. I'll leave office now, but will be online and home again in an hour. If you want to discuss the close, I'll be available. If we'd find a common outcome, the blame universal praise would have two sets of shoulders to rest on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer; you can ping me on gchat using chasemewiki@undefinedgmail.com. As it stands, though, don't feel like you have to get involved: I'm quite happy for it to rest on my shoulders. I'm an arbitrator after all, making difficult decisions and justifying them is what I was elected for ;-) The Cavalry (Message me) 20:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good close. I would have been more verbose, but come to the same conclusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Missed one. WikiProject English/WPPolicy ;) -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

HMS Porcupine (G93)
Hi Cavalry, Am glad to see that someone is working on Porcupine. When I came across the tidbit I thought it was too good to throw away, so I put it into the disambig page where someone could easily find it later. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a great deal about it in reliable sources, sadly, but there's a lot on uboat.net, which is sort of reliable. I have Ben Warlow's book here, which skims over things but is quite helpful. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK is needlessly complex
In an edit summary (in connection with a wonderful candidate hook for DYK), you wrote "DYK is needlessly complex. I have spent more time finding this page that I actually spent writing the article." You may or may not be aware that DYK has been under persistent attack over roughly the past year, and that many changes have been made to the process in knee-jerk fashion (i.e., often without much forethought or discussion) as attempts to deflect the criticism. Many regulars have abandoned DYK, and those who continue to contribute generally feel embattled. In this circumstance, isolated criticisms like the one in your edit summaries are either ignored (at best) or only add to the defensiveness of the users who created the current systems and structures (which several users have complained about).

If you could go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know and politely document the challenges you had in finding Template talk:Did you know in order to post your nomination, and other issues you perceived in submitting a nomination, your insights could be helpful in improving the situation at DYK (which actually is much better now that it was a couple of months ago). --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I must admin that I was overwhelmed with frustration, and had to call over to show me how to even get to the nomination page. I'm aware that DYK has come under criticism recently, and rightly so: arbitrary rules abound, the standards keep going up and up, and no-one except those who frequent DYK have any idea what to do or how it works. I will consider writing a post at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, but I'm not sure if it will help (certain users will come along and smack my ideas down with mocking laughter). I have half a mind to wait until it collapses completely, and then help rebuild it from scratch - that might be easier. DYK is where new and current users should be able to post articles they write - it should not have the same standards as FA or GA, or even close. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the attack on DYK has been from a few users who have been determined to eliminate DYK due to what they represent as intolerably low standards. The standards keep going up in reaction to these users -- whose participation in DYK is typically limited to criticizing approved hooks, pulling hooks out of approved queues and occasionally off the main page, impugning the intelligence and education of the people who submit and review noms, etc. In one recent example, Template:Did you know nominations/Dominica tea culture was nominated over a month ago, and has now been pulled out of a prep area once and pulled off the main page once over some now-subtle issues of "close paraphrasing." --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds all too like other areas of wiki, sadly. Pumpkin Sky   talk  19:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Scott Viking 1
I believe you know something about the British military. I know US military photos are PD. But I do not know about Brit military photos. Can you do a quick google search for Scout Viking 1 photos and see if any are PD? Tks. Pumpkin Sky  talk  19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * commons:Template:PD-UKGov is the place to look for copyright here. There should be some PD ones around... but finding them will the issue. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What about this then?
Here's an idea --> The Core Contest - why not have the WMF stump up a few hundred dollars in prizes for best improved core article over a set period? Revive this for,say, first fortnight in January? Maybe I'll post on Sue's page.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very slippery slope towards paid editing... I doubt you'll find the WMF willing to do that. But maybe they'd put up book vouchers, or the like as a prize instead? The Cavalry (Message me) 23:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, vouchers are a much better idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First fortnight in January might be a bit of a pain, too, as most people will be away for a bit of that week (holidays). Second fortnight might be more sensible. Certainly post it on Sue's page, if she says no then I'll raise it with the WMUK board and we'll see if there's anything we can do. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have done. We'll see what goes and thinktank some more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Not as if it's a new idea - see Reward board (Bounty board directs money to WMF, so goes all ways). Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie
I saw you blocked for sockpuppetry. I recall blocking that account years ago for extensive sockpuppetry - in fact, I strongly considered an indefinite block, because it was basically unmitigated abusive socking, but chose to let him/her off the hook with a final warning. If they're clearly back to socking, then personally I'm tempted to just indef the account and be done with them. But I haven't followed the account at all since I blocked it, and I'm not familiar with the current sockpuppetry situation, so I'll defer to you. I just wanted to give you that piece of background. MastCell Talk 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind dropping a comment at this ANI thread? If concensus seems that indef is necessary - and it probably is - I'll "upgrade" it. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks. MastCell Talk 01:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou! The Cavalry (Message me) 01:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * All articles related to the subject of Abortion:
 * shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
 * shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
 * are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:
 * 1) Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
 * 2) Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
 * 3) User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
 * 4) User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
 * 5) User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool newsletter
Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing.

So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).

For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A week has gone by
You made this comment a week ago. Did you forget something? The case is completely stalled.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel
7 days out, any change? (also were you looking into this CU wise or did I misunderstand?) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  06:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Elen grabbed it. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)