Meta:Requests for checkuser/Herbythyme

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Herbythyme[edit]

I would like to nominate Herbythyme (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email) for Checkuser on Meta. Herby already has checkuser on en:Wikibooks and on Commons, as well as being an admin on en:Wikibooks, Commons, and here. You can see his WikiMatrix for more information. Since becoming an admin here, Herby has continued to work very hard: (his contributions), (his admin logs). He also is very active here at Meta on the spam blacklist and in other places such as discussing policy.

Herby is an experienced checkuser, already holding the right on WikiBooks and Commons, and is someone that can be relied on to do the job efficiently, with aplomb and discretion. He is especially good at crosswiki work, often bringing thorny items to the attention of many of the rest us to help resolve. He also is one of the folk on the CheckUser mailing list that approves new CheckUser access to the list, showing that the Foundation has a high regard for his trustworthiness. Herby is very active in the checkuser community (on the mailing list and to a lesser extent, via IRC), and often gets involved in cross wiki investigations, as do I, sharing results and suggesting courses of action to other CUs.

Here are links to some of his previous nominations for positions of trust:

Herby and I have worked closely together for some time, (I nominated him for CU on commons (the successful second nomination), and he nominated me for CU here on meta) and I hold him in the highest regard. He "gets it", "has a deft hand" and is "not likely to go on a rampage" :) He often asks me to run urgent checks for him and Meta would be well served if he could run them for himself. He would be our third elected CU, and I hope you will feel, as I do, that he is very worthy of your support. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Acceptance: :oooh - good timing (we really should try working together Larry!!). So at the time I have very limited access he nominates me :-). Thanks Larry, I appreciate your confidence. I am happy to serve in this role on Meta. Dealing with crosswiki issues generally and vandals in particular I do see blocks that to me may relate to issues elsewhere that I am aware of. It sometimes seems more trouble to create a request than is really worth it (& I do ask Larry if it is serious). I feel I could carry out this task appropriate. I do have strong view on inactivity so, while it is included on my matrix page, this statement can be used to request the removal of any additional rights on Meta if I do not use them for a period of three months. Comments & questions welcomed (when I have access) and thanks for your consideration --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and votes

Comment I work with Herby on meta and English Wikiquote. He is energetic and have a sincere interest to cross-wiki coordination, and have a good experience as CU. As English Wikiquote noob CU, I have been helped with his guidance and instruction in several times. Due to the high confidence of data CU should deal with, I am reluctant to increase the number of CU flag holders, and strongly oppose if I think it unnecessary, but sadly we see the requests from local projects increasing, including here on meta, and I see no problem to grant him the flag he wisely uses on two Wikimedia projects already. I wholeheartedly hope he accepts this nomination. --Aphaia 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow you accepted. Fine. So Support --Aphaia 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen this user, and I admire their contributions. I would encourage you to accept if you are interested Herby (if thats what you like to be called...?) Anonymous Dissident 03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for many reasons, user is very trustworthy as well Thunderhead 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not support until candidate has expressed their acceptance - see above. Anonymous Dissident 04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support checker on 2, so what is there to think about :)--The Joke النكتة‎ 07:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel this person would make a great checkuser here on Meta. Anonymous Dissident 07:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support+++--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 11:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} 11:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support without hesitation (well except for the hesitation waiting for you to accept... ^_^) Will obviously make an excellent addition as a checkuser. Good luck! (btw my edit summary was a joke re. his RFCU on commons where I foolishly did not support). Majorly (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support strongly! --A. B. ^(talk) 13:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Trusted and experienced Meta editor/admin with CU experience. No worries at all. FloNight 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grrrr... you had to accept while I was asleep. Of course, strong support ( Support), Herby is an experienced CU and great user, we will all benefit from him having it on Meta. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 13:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the nominator's ~~eloquent and persuasive~~ longwinded statement and the candidates ~~thoughtful and considerate~~ longwinded acceptance. As for the lagtime in acceptance, that's my fault, I slacked on writing this up longer than I had told Herby I would. Sorry! ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --filip ⁂ 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know him from Commons and I'm sure that he can be trusted with the additional CU tools here. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 17:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Experienced and trustworthy user, and giver of ponies.--Shanel 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marbot 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Skilled and trustworthy. Huji 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. --Thogo (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am familiar with the great work Herby does here and on Commons. Clearly trustworthy and already experienced with the checkuser tool. WjBscribe 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Az1568 04:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Herby has more than proved to be both reliable and trustworthy. One of the few times I wish we could speedy permissions. :) EVula // talk // 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herby is an invaluable asset to both Wikibooks and Commons, and can only become a greater asset with more cross-wiki access. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support already has the tools elsewhere. I believe Herby is trusted enough to use the tools correctly here as well. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vandalism on en.wb has decreased by almost a factor of 10 in recent months, a trend in which Herby has played a large part. Beyond that, he's very active on checkuser-l already, participating in cross-project vandalism hunts and discussions. He's cautious too: always preferring to ask myself or other checkusers in advance before making a rash or risky decision. He is the perfect candidate for CU here or anywhere, for that matter. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -of course, none better - Epousesquecido 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No reason not to, since he obviously knows what checkuser is and how it works. --Deskana 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I echo the feelings above. The user is already trusted with private data. A no-brainer. --Gmaxwell 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Is trusted elsewhere. No need not to trust him here. ElinorD 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rights having been granted my thanks to all for their support - you know where I am if I can help --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]