Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:AN/B

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

This a centralized page of all discussion pertaining to User:Betacommand and his bot User:BetacommandBot. These discussions were previously on the Administrators' Incidents Noticeboard, but haved been moved here in the interests of space and navigation. This page is for participating and discussing in a civil manner all matters that relate to Betacommand and his bot.

Please do not use this page to attack these users instead of participating in civil discussion.
This is not a complaints department. If you have a private matter that concerns operation of BetacommandBot, please discuss it with Betacommand on his talk page.

All BetacommandBot looks for is the name of the article or a redirect to that page. That is required by WP:NFCC#10c. It doesn't need to be a wikilink, just the name of the article. It doesn't need a template-style rationale, it doesn't need the "article=" parameter, all it needs is to meet one basic part of our non-free policy.

—Betacommand's description of BetacommandBot

Contents 1 BetacommandBot bug - misparsing backlinks 2 Betacommand and SVGs 3 Purpose of this page 4 Betacommandbot 9 5 Betacommand incivility post arbcom 2

[edit] BetacommandBot bug - misparsing backlinks

I just noticed an edit [1] in which BetacommandBot incorrectly tagged an image which already had a valid "Non-free / fair use media rationale". The bug, I suspect, is that BetacommandBot doesn't correctly parse links with underscores. The Wikimedia system considers "Protestant_belief" and "Protestant belief" to be the same article, but BetacommandBot's parsing is apparently inconsistent with the Wiki code. --John Nagle (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be a bug, but I doubt it has anything to do with the underscores or some other quirk in the regex matching. The page had been updated a few hours before; it's possible the bot was working with old data. It's also remotely possible the image was used on some other article at the time. But if you think BCB mishandles underscores, test your hypothesis by watchlisting this or some other image to see if anything happens. Gimmetrow 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Blindly running off of old data would be a bug, and a serious one. A read only sweep may turn up pages of interest in advance, but the actual edit requires a page recheck. As with human users, you read the page and get an edit token, then write the page. If there's an edit conflict, the update fails. There's proper transaction integrity. Incidentally, the MediaWiki API people have finally finished the "Edit" function, although it's not enabled for Wikipedia yet. That's the right way to do future 'bot work. --John Nagle (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think using old data is the case. Could have been anything, an API quirk (the API was acting up the day before), maybe it was something with the underscores (but I doubt it). We would all just be speculating. Beta is pretty good at picking out what made it fail. I know his talk page is being flooded right now, but this should probably be posted there (I am not sure AN/B is the proper venue for a single error). - AWeenieMan (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the bot runs in "batches", so it has a lag built-in. I discussed that with Beta some time ago, and he said he changed some things so the lag is normally under 10 minutes. But I notice there were large intervals separating each edit about that time, so it's possible the servers were preventing the edits and so preventing a data refresh for the next batch. If it were data lag, it's been over a week now so the image would pass. Gimmetrow 05:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. That does make sense. Yes, I would have assumed there was some lag (the term "old data" made me think something a little more grand and problematic). - AWeenieMan (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not strictly the same thing, but I've been working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Images and I noticed that one of the images there didn't get tagged. For example, Image:Eighteenth-century studies.gif passes his tool. I was wondering if there was a reason for this and whether Betacommand will be doing anything about this? If there are a lot more images out there that might be tagged, the claims that the tagging is "over" might need to be re-evaluated. Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why it would be benificial and in Betacommand's own interest if we knew what the code that parses the image page code looks like. As for the lag issue why isn't the bot checking the timestamp of the last known edit before it evaluates the image page? I can understand why Betacommand would want to do things the way he does but checking this is a simple API query before the bot tags the image (or decides to ignore it). I know Betacommand wants to keep the code simple and there are certainly advantages to doing that but a) this isn't complicated to begin with and b) safety checks aren't in violation of the keep it simple principle. If Betacommand would allow more people to work on the code this wouldn't be difficult to do. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The two comments below were refactored and were not in this location originally, and the comments after were replies to EconomicsGuy and not these statements.

I notice the image name for Image:Eighteenth-century studies.gif matches the article that includes it, modulo case and underscores. Is that sufficient to keep βCBot at bay? —johndburger 14:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It tagged this one, where the title matches the image name. Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My sense is Beta designed the code to maximize edit rate, a fairly important consideration given the number of images. He may have designed some form of threading where data lag is a consequence. Gimmetrow 23:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If so, there's a serious locking problem in the code. The interface to Wikipedia requires that you read a page, get an edit token, then replace the page using the same edit token. It's hard to get a time-of-check/time-of-use bug with that interface, although you may get a token rejection on the write, which is what an edit conflict looks like to a 'bot. I'm starting to suspect that the main reason the code isn't released is that it may be embarrassingly bad. --John Nagle (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the bot is using threading because that's the only way I've been able to reproduce the speed Betacommand says his bot can edit at. If the bot is doing this in two stages, one to get a list of images to tag and one to actually tag them the bot needs to do a sanity check before it attempts to edit the page even if it is getting the edit token correctly. With the current way that works though I don't quite see the advantage of doing this in two stages because to get the edit token it still needs to fetch the entire page including the image page text so it may as well do this in one stage rather than two. Would be easier on the servers anyway until the edit api is enabled. It does depend on how the threading is implemented though because if he is doing this by having one thread check the page and another actually edit the page he is pretty sure to get into an edit conflict sooner or later, at least without sanity checking. The truth is we really don't know until we see the code, it may be a major design error or a simple bug caused by lack of a simple api query. If more people were allowed to work on the code we could move forward with this rather than having to guess about what the code looks like. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And I know the bot is using threading because Betacommand said so! :-) See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 2#Questions, where computer threading (and its limitations) were discussed in the context of leaving talk page notices. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong here but is he saying his trying to get the threads to work on the same object? If so, the bot is badly constructed to begin with. Two threads shouldn't be trying to work on the same object at once and no "hack" will solve that issue. Why isn't the bot collecting the warning messages and inserting them on the talk pages in one edit? Have the bot tag the images and then edit the talk pages in a more appropriate and from a programming point of view more safe way. This would also greatly reduce the required speed at which the bot needs to edit. Bot needs a rewrite if this is what is going on. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading that description, it does sound like the program has some concurrency problems. It's straightforward to make coordinated multithreaded programs work in Python. In fact, it's easier in Python than in most languages. I have some multithreaded Python programs myself, ones that are accessed through a web server and themselves access other web sites. They run unattended 24/7 with very little attention. You have to do error handling properly, but once you get it right, it just works. (See "sitetruth.com" if you're interested.) For this 'bot problem, I'd use one thread per process and use a local MySQL database for the work queue, interprocess coordination, and logging. --John Nagle (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we now seem to agree on what the problem is I'd like to invite Betacommand to put his code into SVN and let others work on this together with him. This would greatly improve the bot and it would be an excellent learning experience for Betacommand. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Why isn't the bot collecting the warning messages and inserting them on the talk pages in one edit?" - don't know. I suggested that when I said (in that thread): "Can't you just make a list as the bot does the tagging over 10 hours, and then run a program to consolidate the listings, and then do a separate run to notify each user once?" - I see now that Betacommand never answered that question. But let's wait and see what Betacommand says. I do hope he will talk to you two, as you seem to have some good insights here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we now seem to agree on what the problem is. To be honest, several people who have never seen the code have speculated on a likely cause of the problem. We still do not know what the problem actually is. Keep in mind, all this speculation is because one image was retagged, it was speculated this might have to do with data lag, the reason for the data lag is most likely the multithreading, and if that's the case then there is probably an intelligent way to make this to work correctly. I notice Carcharoth has asked Betacommand on his talk page to shed some light on this. I suggest we not put the cart in front of the horse in the meantime (although to be clear, I don't oppose your request to check the code into SVN, I'm just saying that I'm not seeing this thread as any more significant evidence that this should be done than many other threads).

I would like to understand why Cobi's third suggestion would not be workable (log to a database instead of post to talk pages, then post them all at the end). But like so many threads on Betacommand, I fear that we lump so much into one thread that many things get lost and never answered. I'm of the mind that it might be most effective to generate a list of questions (no commentary, just all the tech questions we all might have) and ask Beta to respond one by one. Threaded conversation is good for many things, but one of those does not seem to be getting every question answered (in all seriousness, it's like a second job keeping up with all the Betacommand threads, so it's not suprising things get lost and missed). - AWeenieMan (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I also don't see why logging to a databse wouldn't work. I know there are other issues and these things tend to get lumped together in one thread but the threading issue is serious and the cause is likely to be a common error people make when trying to use threads. The threads shouldn't be crashing like that nor should he be getting "random" server errors. These are general programming issues and we need to start somewhere. Let's see what Betacommand has to say. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

its nothing as major as processing lag, the proccessing lag has two areas, (changing the license template, which can take a few hours to process due to the sheer number of images that need to be gathered.) image processing (at most a few minutes and normally under a minute). The first step gets all transclusions of {{non-free media}} sorts them alphabeticaly and saves that list to a file. (takes about 20-30 minutes if the servers are playing nice and give me all of the images). that step produces ~59 files that each contain 5,000 images. once I have the master list of all non-free media, the next part starts. I load 10 files into memory and then create a processig threads that each check 250 images. it grabs the page text, list of pages using that image, then a set of queries that get redirects to those pages. it compiles all of that into a working regex, and tests it on the page text. (takes maybe a minute). if the image fails the regex it tags the image, loads the uploaders, and artilce talkpages and notifies them. and then moves on to the next image.

in this case it was a minor error in the regex generation, that did not take into account for the mixed use of _ in this case the title was page (disambig_part), this is the first time I have seen this and will fix the issue. β^{_{command 2}} 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Betacommand. Have you tried to put the talk page notices in a queue as suggested above? That would reduce the number of edits you need to do and the risk of the bot getting in an edit conflict. I know there's still the remote chance of an image being deleted and so on while the bot is working but at least it would reduce the number of edits you need to make and thus the need to sacrifice error checking etc. for speed to get the job done. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand and SVGs

Betacommand has been mass-tagging raster graphics with {{Vector version available}} for speedy deletion. As the file formats are different this is not covered by CSD I1. It should be noted that at present Commons hardly ever deletes these images (relevant discussion there). Of course what Commons does is not really relevant to here and with the majority of these images there is no real reason to keep the files. However, it makes me wonder if the current CSD I1 is really an appropriate way to delete these files.

There is one critical case where the original image should be kept even with a perfect SVG replacement: That is where the SVG is a derivative of the raster graphic and the raster is under a license other than PD. In these cases, the original graphic should be kept for licensing considerations. I did a bit of digging and found two sets (PNG/SVG and PNG/SVG) of images with this problem and there are probably more. In fact as it currently stands the first SVG I've mentioned is actually a copyright violation (as the disclaimers have been removed).

The quantity of images tagged (and deleted, mostly by East718 apparently) means tracing files in need of restoration is tricky.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that I wasn't even contacted before this, but what's done is done. I just happened to be working C:SD at the time these images showed up, and plenty of other admins have probably done deletions of this nature too - I know Wizardman (talk · contribs) did a couple hundred of them today too. That said, I'm willing to mass restore images if you can put together a list. east.718 at 01:06, April 2, 2008

Couple hundred's pushing it, I'd say. 'twas closer to 50. If consensus is to restore them then I'll restore them, though. Wizardman 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

when images are re-uploaded to a new title, all information should be contained there. per the GDFL it should contain all needed parts. if an image requires outside sources to maintain GDFL its in violation of GDFL itself. β^_command 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What bearing does this have on the fact that you've been tagging images that aren't covered under any speedy deletion criterion? —David Levy 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Beta, getting defensive and using other people's errors to excuse careless botwork isn't particularly helpful.

That said, if none of the images that were tagged for deletion were in use, I would consider that a likely sign that the editors had decided the SVG was better, so there probably wasn't any real harm to content done here. We probably still need to double-check the licenses though. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what the issue here is. Why do we want to keep duplicate images? We don't need two versions of every image, so whats the problem with basic performing housekeeping tasks and deleting one of them? - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the community hasn't been given an opportunity to review the images and determine that the vector version is comparable or superior to the raster version. —David Levy 04:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be happening at each article where a Vector version replaced a raster, and in those cases where the vector was found superior, it remained, allowing the raster to appear to NOT be in use, and thus easier to delete? That is, although wiki-wide consensus for a policy level decision was not determined nor sought ,the relevant articles, on a case-by-case basis did create consensus for those images relevant to their articles? ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless an actual discussion has occurred, it isn't safe to assume that anyone other than the user responsible for the replacement has compared the two images. In fact, it isn't even safe to assume that the user responsible for the replacement has compared the two images. Some people believe that vector images are automatically and unconditionally superior to raster images, so they indiscriminately perform such replacements en masse. Sometimes (especially when it comes to articles with relatively little traffic), these edits remain unchallenged for months before someone notices that the vector version is an inferior substitute. That's bad enough, and deleting the raster versions without review makes matters worse. —David Levy 05:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that SVG vector images can still be problematic because different rendering engines display them differently. The Mediawiki SVG renderer messes some SVG images up pretty badly. Whenever I upload SVG graphics of my own making, I usually upload a PNG duplicate for safety. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting PD media that is no longer in use needs to be justified, as it makes viewing old versions of articles difficult, and prevents people from checking the SVG image, from seeing what the SVG is a derivative of, and verifying that the licensing is all in order. Deleting them breaks the process of continual review. IMO, they were badly tagged; was this an approved task?? John Vandenberg (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this was Betacommand himself, probably running a script over a list, not the bot account. Whether this sort of thing needs approval is debatable, but what is clear is that, like any semi-automated process, once issues arise, tagging should stop and those who did the tagging and deletions should participate in the discussion and help clear things up. Simply participating briefly and then forgetting about it, or hoping others will clear up the mess, is not an option. Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right; from Special:DeletedContributions/Betacommand, I count 550 that have been deleted. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Diamond road sign junction crossroads.svg is a derivative of the (deleted) Image:Diamond road sign junction crossroads.png. The SVG links back to the en page, but GFDL requires the author to be identified. If any of the SVG are derivatives of a copyleft work, but are not copyleft themselves that is copyright violation, but are there any? These things were not taken into consideration before tagging, and need fixing. Likewise is the SVG actually better than the deleted file? Definitely not always: Image:AOCWorldMap.png was tagged two days in succession and was declined the first time for that reason. Discussion of each of these images is needed, and wasn't carried out. I think the best course of action would be to restore them and possibly send to IFD en masse.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with restoring them, but I dont agree that an IFD for them all is desired. I dont want any deleted for the reasons I gave above, and afaik, there is no benefit in deleting them - they take up just as much diskspace when deleted as they do when visible to non-admins. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never quite understood this idea of deleting non-attack/spam, free images. Their staying on the servers forever regardless of if their deleted or not. But as mentioned, it does make it harder when your viewing history versions or if you need a certain format for a certain use (not everything can handle svgs). Orphaned free images aren't bad, its only attack or spam images, regardless of use that are inherently bad. And of course there is the argument that even a duplicate free image could be useful in different contexts (as in a svg for a thumbnail and a png download for an MS Publisher document). MBisanz ^talk 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I'm against the deletions of these sorts of images in general as well. I can restore the files, or post a list somewhere if others wish to do so.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too, oppose the deletions and think the images need to be restored. The deletions were completely unnecessary with no benefit to the project, and we already have a process for leaving pointers to improved versions of an image. Are there people who just get a kick out of clicking the delete button? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I briefly mentioned this thread at the arbitration case, and one of the arbitrators has requested a layperson's summary. See here. Can anyone oblige? I'm afraid raster and vector image stuff goes over my head a bit too, though I remember it being not too difficult to understand one you stip away the jargon. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created a list of the files that were tagged for deletion with this rationale - the list is here. In total there were 711 deletions (not ~550) stemming from these events. The blue links on the list are from Commons images showing through, some of which are the same as the WP file and some are not. Probably easiest just to restore everything and for those files with Commons duplicates check CSD I8 is met before redeleting.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

East718 can undelete those in a second with some tool he has. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But nothing has been done yet. Did anyone ask him? Also, could someone tweak the list to show which ones have Commons images? Otherwise the link being blue is misleading in those cases. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is User:Nilfanion/SVGlist comprehensive? If so I'll ping east, but someone will still need to remove all the db tags. MBisanz ^talk 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand could remove the db tags, surely? Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you probably should ask him at his talk page, this page has died down over the last week or so. And yea, East should time his undelete with Beta's availability so that admins do go trigger happy. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I will go and ask him, though he may be involved with something else at the moment (involving talk page redirects). Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of this page

I've raised my concerns at Random832's talk page about this already, but I think some wider input would be nice. Currently, pretty much every thread about Betacommand is moved to this subpage. Is that what we want? Initially, this page was created because issues surrounding Betacommand took up half of WP:AN/I at one point, after all. I don't think this was intended by anyone to be a permanent subpage of the noticeboard, but that's what this'll turn into if the threads continue to be moved here. There's no real need for that, IMHO, as WP:AN/I can handle the recent threads about Betacommad just fine. So, should we keep this page active? --Conti|✉ 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A reason I can think of is the proposed remedy in this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2/Proposed_decision#Review_and_future_remedies. If the Arbcom is stating that if future disputes occur, it will look at future patterns of behavior, having all the "evidence" in one place would make it easier to document.MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we could do it the other way around, then, and link from this page to the corresponding WP:AN/I threads. It shouldn't be too hard to collect/find evidence either way. --Conti|✉ 17:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I'm probably too involved to make a decision in this case and would defer to more uninvolved opinion. MBisanz ^talk 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just keep discussion on AN/I. If people are concerned about evidence collection for ArbCom this page could link to the appropriate threads on AN/I and when the discussion is archived there as normal, either link to the AN/I archive or mirror the content over to this page. Mind you recording everything even tangentially related to Betacommand could give the appearance of a witch-hunt, in expectation of a future arbitration - which is probably not a good thing to be doing.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I didn't intend for this page to be a permanent location for all BetaCommand related issues forever. It might be useful to give it another 60 days, so that all the edits are in a history that is easier to review than AN/I. On the other hand, WP:AE serves roughly the same purpose once the current arbitration case is closed. When the case is closed, I think this page can be archived (but not deleted of course). Avruch ^T 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am interested to find out just now there was such a page as AE, and I wonder who knows it is there, as considering there was a betacommand1 case relatively recently, I never saw a single ANI thread moved or transd to AE in the last few months. It might have prevented case 2. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no required enforcement for the case Betacommand (unlike, say, Highways here), so there was never any real need to move threads related to Betacommand there, unless he violated another Arbitration case. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All the admin noticeboards are linked to from the top of the WP:AN page (The template). Avruch ^T 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This one {{Editabuselinks}} MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Correct, the matters of the last several months, have nothing to do with the BC1 arbcom, so AN/I was the right place. And a witch-hunt is a concern, but I suspect that 60 days would be a reasonable time to keep this page open and then archive it/courtesy blank it. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Realy? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Mistakes, incivility, poor judgement, poor communication... You could even look at Unsatisfactory communication regarding image deletions and compare with the SVG discussion above. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, BC1 dealt with his de-sysopping for those issues. Admins are held to a higher standard of conduct IMHO, so what might be poor judgement and poor communication for an admin, might not be the same for a non-admin. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The the indefinite loss of gregs the baker for snapping at the mackem sock, and my ban for 6 days for challenging DCGeist with consensus, without any reply from the blocking admin, and now the above comments about bc1, I pretty much have no clue as to what any of the blocking standards or norms are. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gregs has sent me extensive and difficult to understand evidence, as well as invoking his RTV. I'm presently trying to make sense of it all, but if he does not, I may just forward it on to arbcom. And, well, yea, things happen the way they happen, if everyone was going to AE for BC, then we'd have an AE subpage, but people went to AN/ANI, so we have this subpage. I sincerely doubt the current situation would have been different based on which page it was sub'd to. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE is only for the enforcement of Arbitration cases, i.e. the Enforcement section. I don't think it's meant to act on violation of Principles or Findings of Fact. Actually, I would be quite miffed if we started sanctioning mistakes - we are humans, after all, aren't we? x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommandbot 9

For all interested parties who haven't noticed, this to note that betacommand has applied for approval for a new function for betacommandbot [2]. Speak now or for ever hold your peace. AKAF (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand incivility post arbcom 2

For the archive Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Immediate_incivility_from_Betacommand_following_arbcom_case_2 MickMacNee (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)