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. :-)
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 2501 different users and renamed 722 other users.
Disputes or discussions that appear to have ended or is disputed will be archived.
InternetArchiveBot marked three links here, all three are alive and kicking. The bot missed their fourth sister. IABot Management says they aren’t in a DB and won’t do anything. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're trying to do with the exception, but I have to say I'm a bit concerned that it means we're going to waste more time on discussions that are artifically extended. Could you monitor the relevant discussions and close them when they meet their "natural conclusion"? (e.g. the Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Maybe_try_a_different_approach.3F subthread)
I added the exception to be fair to Magioladitis so he isn't just cut from the discussions still ongoing. Obviously if he keeps posting and nobody responds, then that would be considered artificially extending the discussion. That's why starting sub-threads are disallowed.—CYBERPOWER(Around) 22:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm mostly concerned about this scenario: We've had a complete discussion. Magioladitis and ~1-2 other editors who agree with him continue to post, so it's not just Magioladitis continuing. Two things can happen. First, those opposing his proposal can continue responding, at which point the discussion continues for an indefinite period of time. Second, those opposing his proposal can note that the same points are being brought up over-and-over and stop responding. At that point, we have an echo chamber of just the couple people supporting the proposal. Someone claims WP:SILENCE or claims the arguments are unrefuted (even though they were refuted previously) and makes a change that we now have to contest at WP:AN etc. The SILENCE thing is what I'm most concerned about. If someone familiar with these concerns were watching and closing discussions when the wheels were just spinning, I'd be a lot more at ease. ~ Rob13Talk 23:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to stay somewhat outside of this particular issue, mainly in an effort to keep someone, as you say, "familiar with these concerns" in an uninvolved position. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, as long as someone's keeping an eye, I'm satisfied. I just want to move on to productive things instead of re-hashing the same thing with epsilon deviations over-and-over. ~ Rob13Talk 23:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)