• 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

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

Sorry to bother you again. Can you have a look at my settings on my talk page for archive and see why you think its not working. Thanks.Blethering Scot 16:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no clue this time. You'll need to click on Cluebot III's talk link and ask the operator why Cluebot III isn't doing it's job.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a hunch, but try manually archiving this edit and see if Cluebot III fires up.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it, do you think i should remove the other suggestbot ones added later as well.Blethering Scot 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a bit first and see what happens.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Cluebot III can't archive to a page that big. The connection will time out before a result is returned to it, so no effort is made to do it. You can however manually do it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be set it to have two archive pages a year in order to reduce potential page size.Blethering Scot 21:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. What size limit do you want?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really just whatever the maximum is. It seems to have stopped archiving at around 910,659.Blethering Scot 21:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]