User talk:Cyberpower678: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:10, 19 July 2013

This user is offline, or has forgotten to update this message since starting a wikisession.

_{(If there have been multiple edits from this user in the last 60 minutes and the most recent one wasn't to activate this template, it is safe to assume that this user forgot.)}

Senior Editor II

—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas)Click here to find out why my signature changes color.
This signature was designed with a font that has been discontinued. You can however download the font pack necessary to view how the sig is supposed to look like here and here.
Be sure to download both fonts from both links. The sig has also been designed to look good for people who don't want to download the font packs.

Hello!! I am Cyberpower678. I am an administrator on Wikipedia. Despite that, I'm still your run of the mill user here on Wikipedia.
I specialize in bot work and tools, but I lurk around RfPP, AfD, AIV, and AN/I, as well as RfA. If you have any questions in those areas, please feel free to ask. :-)
For InternetArchiveBot matters specifically, please see meta:InternetArchiveBot/Problem for common issues or meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot to leave a message
I also serve as a mailing list moderator and account creator over at the Account Creation Center. If you have any questions regarding an account I created for you, or the process itself, feel free to email the WP:ACC team or me personally.
At current I have helped to create accounts for 2512 different users and renamed 793 other users.
Disputes or discussions that appear to have ended or is disputed will be archived.

All the best.—cyberpower

View my talk page Archives.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

This user is busy doing other things and would like a {{talkback}} notice at this time.

Cyberpower678, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Internet Archives for his contributions to Wikipedia. This funding is for the ongoing development of InternetArchiveBot.

Xenophrenic

Seems to be in "amok mode" at the TPM article. I would commend you to examine his behaviour quite closely, and to make such findings as you think proper. Collect (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is most likely going to be topic banned at ArbCom (current vote is 2-0 for that remedy), and has definitely accelerated the behavior that's bringing about the topic ban. See this diff[1] where I reverted a huge edit that didn't have consensus according to Moderated Discussion rules, and he reverted me saying no consensus was claimed. Another one of the Moderated Discussion rules is that we don't make major edits without establishing consensus first, and there's also WP:BRD. That was the opening shot in a revert war, but I'm not taking the bait. I recommend an immediate topic ban until ArbCom posts its final decision. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grunt. Poorly timed for real life. I'll have a quick look, but I'm still trying to get settled in as moderator and get that huge discussion about grass-roots closed. Also today I am getting ready to travel to Germany, where there I'll have a lot of time to be on Wikipedia.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, cyberpower. It appears you were fed some inaccurate information that resulted in you making the following problematic statement on the discussion page:

"It has been brought to my attention that major anti-consensus were being made and reverted, twice."

I made no edits against consensus; the only edits I made was to non-consensus text already in the article. (See this discussion, where your predecessor clarified that consensus only if he declared it, or if "all" agreed to it.) Also, I only reverted once. (See EW report for details.) I have absolutely no problem with your request that I not edit the main article without clear consensus, as long as you mean that to apply to the other participating editors as well -- in which case I would ask you to remove or reword that "Topic Ban, sortof" wording to make that clear. Some editors are already trumpeting your choice of words in other venues, and I see that as a bit of a problem. Anything you can do to help with that would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading changed. Please point to where people are question my choice of words.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the header change. They aren't questioning your choice of words, but repeating them or misstating them as an attack on me, like in this edit here. See where that editor says you stated you would block me if you could, and that you topic banned me? I'm sad to say these kind of shenanigans go on frequently in this environment you've volunteered to moderate. Thank you, by the way, for volunteering -- hopefully we can generate more progress than discouragement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork has allowed me to file violations to ArbCom as moderator to be enforced and logged. I have not once mentioned blocking. It was a merely a request. I do not like to issue any kinds of bans or blocks without wolving the conflict verbally. I might put in a request for semi-protection if the grass-roots thing clears up, which is looking to head that way now, hopefully.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing Xenophrenic's known OWNership issues -- Good Luck! †TE†Talk 01:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your proposal

I appreciate the time that you've obviously needed to invest in getting up to speed on the Tea Party movement discussion. With all due respect, your proposal concedes to Xenophrenic that a minority viewpoint ("TPm is partially grass-roots and partially Astroturfed") is actually the majority viewpoint, or at least co-equal with the "TPm is 100% grass-roots" viewpoint. Only the majority viewpoint belongs in the lede per WP:WEIGHT and Wikipedia practice, as demonstrated by the lede of the Waterboarding article.

Xenophrenic has relied upon three WP:SCHOLARSHIP type sources which are referred to by the names of their authors "Skocpol," "Formisano" and "Zellner." Skocpol doesn't actually say what Xeno is claiming, Formisano has a pro-Obama bias, and Zellner was a mere law student; the rest of the authors we'll discuss here are all professors, in some cases the chairs of their departments. It's up to the editors to carefully weigh the context behind each source and determine how much weight to give them, and a consensus of editors hasn't disagreed with Xeno's claim that this trio of sources has enough weight the majority viewpoint.

Because on the other side of the scale, there are 18 fact-checked WP:NEWSORG sources, two WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources ("Foley" and "Walker"), and several Tea Party websites that must be accepted as reliable sources for this limited purpose according to WP:SELFPUB.

Only by placing a thumb on Xenophrenic's side of the scale, and pressing down very hard, can anyone agree that Skocpol, Formisano and Zellner are the majority viewpoint. WP:WEIGHT and the lede of the Waterboarding article are telling us very clearly what to do here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section of interest

Would you be so kind as to take a look at this section I have just opened at WT:RfA? Based on your earlier post in the prior section, I think my idea may be of interest to you. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout ? 18:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As much as that idea appeals to me, somehow I have doubts of it ever becoming reality.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ::::::SilkTork has allowed me to file violations to ArbCom as moderator to be enforced and logged.  I have not once mentioned blocking.  It was a merely a request.  I do not like to issue any kinds of bans or blocks without wolving the conflict verbally.  I might put in a request for semi-protection if the grass-roots thing clears up, which is looking to head that way now, hopefully.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline</sub> 21:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 :::::::Bypassing Xenophrenic's known OWNership issues -- Good Luck! [[User:ThinkEnemies|<big><span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans">†'''TE'''†</span></big>]]<u>[[User talk:ThinkEnemies|<small><font color="black">'''Talk'''</font></small>]]</u> 01:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
+===Regarding your proposal===
+I appreciate the time that you've obviously needed to invest in getting up to speed on the [[Tea Party movement]] discussion. With all due respect, your proposal concedes to Xenophrenic that a minority viewpoint ("TPm is partially grass-roots and partially Astroturfed") is actually the majority viewpoint, or at least co-equal with the "TPm is 100% grass-roots" viewpoint. Only the majority viewpoint belongs in the lede per [[WP:WEIGHT]] and Wikipedia practice, as demonstrated by the lede of the [[Waterboarding]] article.
+Xenophrenic has relied upon three [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] type sources which are referred to by the names of their authors "Skocpol," "Formisano" and "Zellner." Skocpol doesn't actually say what Xeno is claiming, Formisano has a pro-Obama bias, and Zellner was a mere law student; the rest of the authors we'll discuss here are all professors, in some cases the chairs of their departments. It's up to the editors to carefully weigh the context behind each source and determine how much weight to give them, and a consensus of editors hasn't disagreed with Xeno's claim that this trio of sources has enough weight the majority viewpoint.
+Because on the other side of the scale, there are 18 fact-checked [[WP:NEWSORG]] sources, two [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] sources ("Foley" and "Walker"), and several Tea Party websites that must be accepted as reliable sources for this limited purpose according to [[WP:SELFPUB]].
+Only by placing a thumb on Xenophrenic's side of the scale, and pressing down very hard, can anyone agree that Skocpol, Formisano and Zellner are the majority viewpoint. [[WP:WEIGHT]] and the lede of the [[Waterboarding]] article are telling us very clearly what to do here. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 19:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 == Section of interest ==