User talk:Herbythyme/Arc5

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

re Aaah[edit]

Dear Herby, kind thanks, all the best to You too :) --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Crat flag[edit]

Would you please come to the IRC wikimedia-steward? THX --WizardOfOz talk 10:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Don't use IRC I'm afraid - mail me? --Herby talk thyme 10:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
[1] Just need to ask on admins noticeboard if this was your own request. --WizardOfOz talk 10:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

BTW you should enable your mail in perferences. --WizardOfOz talk 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Apologies - I don't even remember removing it but it is one again now. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! :) --dferg ☎ talk 11:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

IP block[edit]

OK, I downgraded the blocks to 2 days. I originally didn't check the ISP, so I wasn't aware it was BT. --FiliP ██ 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply


Check mail. Important. Thanks, -- Dferg ☎ talk 16:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Replied :) --Herby talk thyme 17:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Got it. Thanks :) -- Dferg ☎ talk 17:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply


Requests are not "closed". There is no policy allowing it. They can only be marked done or not done. Nick makes it clear that he is letting any other Steward act if they so choose, even though that violates steward standard protocol.

Edit warring, removing sections, and making up things that aren't true is a good reason for you not to be a Steward, especially when you have a long history of abuse of privileges towards me. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You also have a long history of abusing me - any further warnings to me will not be accepted. --Herby talk thyme 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Additionally I have never abused any "privileges" in dealing with you despite considerable provocation. --Herby talk thyme 17:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Threats and the rest are abuse. Regardless: [2] "Requests only need remain listed below for a few days, and may afterward be removed as long as they have been copied to the subpage. Users who archive requests on that page, please check if the request was correctly added to the temporary subpage before removing it from this page." There is no "close" procedure. There is no "no discussion". There is a few days to ensure that the action was appropriate and all information needed. Pointing out that a Steward was referring tot the wrong page and therefore basing something on a policy that does not apply is completely standard. I spent 3 months archiving these kinds of pages at Meta and I know what the procedure is. If you want to be a Steward, competence is required. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
As always you will have your opinion and see evil/conspiracy/idiocy in anyone who disagrees with you as you always do.
Fortunately for both of us I am unable to stand as a Steward this year but I will remain active and interested in issues brought to Meta. --Herby talk thyme 17:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
"and see evil/conspiracy/idiocy" I never attributed any of those to you. I merely stated you were wrong and making things up. Your use of them is an admittance you lack a valid argument and concede my point. You could have just apologized instead. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually I am one of those people who do apologise whenever I do anything wrong and have always done so - I am human.
I would have thought that by now someone as intelligent as you would have started to wonder given the various disputes you have with a wide variety of people in different places, whether it was actually that "wide variety of people" who were actually the cause of the problem... --Herby talk thyme 08:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
"who do apologise whenever I do anything wrong and have always done so" I can think of 4 instances at Commons and 2 here that you haven't apologized for. Like this nonsense: "you would have started to wonder given the various disputes" I'm not the one who started the desysop against Abd, that was Guido. I'm not the only one abused and attacked by Abd. There was unanimous consensus. If it was just me, you might have a claim. You don't. Your argument above is ridiculous and has nothing to do with reality. Now, you have been involved in a lot of disputes on Commons and you made up claims about the permission page that was not true. Based on your logic, all you seek to do is disrupt and make up claims about processes that are not true. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to believe Herby would make ridiculous claims. All I see is someone who's out to get proven right even when wrong and who goes trough great lengths in trying so. Even accusing people like Herby of abuse. That's just nonsense. I suggest you stop it right now. --Erwin 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks Erwin for your kind words. Sadly - as I said above - Ottava is one of those users who does not always read what has been said particularly if it doesn't suit him.
I still stress that to be in dispute with some many people over such an area of Foundation sites as is shown on the RfC (which is what I am referring to) would give most people a reason to wonder about their own behaviour.
An added problem is that because of his approach/behaviour when he does have something valid to say people prefer not to get involved for obvious reason. Regards --Herby talk thyme 15:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

terima kasih ;)[edit]

Which is bahasa Indonesia for thank you. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 10:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No prob :) --Herby talk thyme 11:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply


You are free to handle as you think it is right. My decision was 3 months, and it is still standing. --WizardOfOz talk 17:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hope you had fun reading it :D --WizardOfOz talk 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply


Hi Herby,

With regard to the concern about the emergency stuff raised on steward elections, just wanted to let you know it isn't a problem for me. The "emergency stuff" exists entirely on email and requires no on-wiki action from either account. If any on-wiki action WAS required (such as a checkuser or some such), it would go through my staff account, obviously, and be documented and reviewed by at least two other staffers. I try to be very very careful about mixing my staff and personal accounts, and though occasionally I have a stupid moment and forget to log out of one before posting on the other(easily fixable), I keep a solid wall of separation between my user rights. SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, not all of my cross-wiki work translates well into what is visible with the Steward elections. If you'd like, I can give you a rundown of my cross-wiki work to help alleviate any concerns over inexperience in that area. SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - however my vote will not change I think. Regards --Herby talk thyme 12:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply


Is deblocked per your objections, ant those by Ottava. --WizardOfOz talk 16:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

And then you immediately blocked Ottava Rima. Can you not see the consequences? Guido den Broeder 23:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh Joy... --Herby talk thyme 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the unblock by WizardOfOz was about as weird as the block. He paid no attention to what was actually being said, currently, by other users. Bad Sign, in fact, as to WOO. Unstable. He could have written, "Recuse, another admin may make the decision without consulting me." I think that M7 may have reblocked Ottava to pull WOO out of the hole he'd gotten himself into. That could be the real meaning of reducing the "infinite" block to "indef." In theory, then, to unblock would require consulting him. Which is a very good idea.... Anyway, hopefully, WOO will learn. Fastest way to learn is to make a mistake. --Abd 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed.
  • Herby, please don't make the mistake of perpetuating a mistake that was long ago recognized as an impropriety by a now-disgraced rogue admin. If you need the gory details, I'll supply them in the venue or communication medium of your choice. Moulton 15:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Herby, it's a cross-wiki issue, with parts of the story on the English Wikipedia, parts here, parts on the English Wikiversity, parts on Beta.Wikiversity, parts on WikiBooks, parts on WikiNews, parts on Wikipedia Review, and parts in Op-Ed columns and blog posts. Moreover, the rogue admins have conspired on multiple occasions to suppress the resolution of this long-festering issue on all the venues I mentioned. Currently, the rogue admins have interfered with the discussion of this issue on the English Wikiversity, which is why I am obliged to communicate with SBJ on his talk page here. —Moulton 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Firstly for the sake of anyone interested I and only I decide what stays or goes on here. I think the only other comment for now is that, the last I heard, WR's affiliation with Foundations wikis might be termed somewhat loose... --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, Herbythyme, if you were banned, your mileage might vary. But your position on user talk page content is the norm, for users who are not banned, and I fully respect it. Yes, as to WR. Loose. Good luck. --Abd 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Abd's point, which is valid, is that people of good faith who get on the wrong side of a corrupt rogue admin are likely to be emasculated by a marauding thuggish band (think of WikiCulture as a variant of Zynga's Mafia Wars). Then the marauding thuggish band gets to gleefully deface your user page and talk page with humiliating and undignified scarlet letterings. Chilling examples available upon request. Some marauding thuggish bands hang out on Wikis, others hang out W-R. It's just the Way of the World of Wiki-Warcraft. Blame it on Dopamine. —Moulton 11:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I've been away rather than ignoring you. I do find your languages somewhat colourful at best but I do see what you mean and you likely have a point in some cases. Once on the "wrong" side of folk it is exceptionally hard to get the message of constructive work over to people again. --Herby talk thyme 12:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • In my (otherwise unremarkable) case, it was IDCab who were on the opposite side from me. And, of course, I was hopelessly outgunned at 14 to 1. But then ArbCom independently took up the case of FeloniousMonk and found a pervasive pattern of abuses from his quarters. My case was so far below radar, it didn't even show up on the rap sheet against FeloniousMonk. I had wondered if my case was just a one-off anomaly. Turns out it wasn't an anomaly at all, but business as usual. It's like whacking an opponent in any other MMPORG (like Mafia Wars, for example). Nobody thinks twice about the fact that the project had morphed into a dopamine-driven MMPORG. So IDCab, acting as a gang of unsupervised thugs, whacked me and then blithely labeled it a "community ban" even though the community (outside of 14 allied editors of IDCab) hadn't even noticed what kind of shenanigans they had been up to. —Moulton 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Continued re Guido[edit]

I responded to issues you raised at User talk:Guido den Broeder, and Guido again removed the comments.[3][4]. His edit summaries were, (rm, user has no clue and this is not an RfC) and (rv - again: nobody has requested you to comment). The right to remove comments is a red herring; it varies across the wikis and from situation to situation. Personally, I'd prefer to have comments about me on my Talk page than elsewhere, when I've been blocked -- and I do have substantial experience with that! Nevertheless, I did respond to your concerns, there. Guido is not correct, Nemo did suggest I place comments on the Talk page. Guido has also not asked me not to place comments there, though I could assume it. However, we do not "own" our user pages, they are owned by the project and are for project use. It's a routine courtesy that allows us to control them, but in a block situation, a blocked user may attempt to control the information presented, so there are conflicting purposes to be considered. I think that the material removed is adequate, and I'm not going to put it back. Guido seems to be asking for Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder, which would be unfortunate, but I don't think that's going to happen, waste of time. Such RfCs are started for long-term editors who have allegedly become problematic; because of their extensive positive history, they may be relatively "block-proof." Guido is not in that class.

To summarize my comments: Guido made ad hominem arguments in a specific discussion, about two editors who had commented. An ad hominem argument is, by definition, a personal attack, which might be mild or severe. It is an attempt to discredit a comment or argument by discrediting, with irrelevant allegations, the person. Guido did that, clearly, twice. His contributions since his unblock should be reviewed. There is no sign of cooperation in them, it's practically all conflict. --Abd 20:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

If I were smarter, I'd probably be able to come up with a latin phrase meaning "yeah, that guy too". I'm not that smart, unfortunately.
I have, on the other hand, been rather annoyed about you being drawn into this, Herby. I'm fairly sure that I'm powerless to do anything about that, but I really am annoyed, and you have my moral support should you need it. --SB_Johnny talk 01:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • How about, "Et tu, Doofus?" —Albatross 11:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - as with so many problems the obvious isn't always the obvious...! (& I find Abd's postings on a number of matter on Meta unhelpful). --Herby talk thyme 09:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Herbythyme, that's your privilege. I assume you did read the above, so that you are adequately informed as to future actions you might be considering. I presume I'm done for now. Thanks. --Abd 17:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Herby, you wrote: ... I see nothing at all that looks anything like an attack. There is a statement that Abd has been desysopped which is true and the other is nothing like an attack to me.

This is the core of the difference between your view and that of Nemo bis. Ad hominem arguments are personal attacks, by definition. Whether or not a statement is true or not is not the critical factor in "personal attack." Rather, in the course of discussion, and someone makes an argument, if another responds with "your father was a failure," it matters not if the father was or was not a failure, unless there were some specific relevance. Yes, I was desysopped, which is a complex story. It was asserted as if it negated my argument. That is attacking an argument by attacking the person. Ad hominem argument, and what I'd just done, that Guido was trying to discredit, was to note that Guido used an ad hominem argument against DarkoNeko. In my edit, I tried to turn to the matter under discussion, the unblock of Thekohser, where I agreed with Guido on the substance. That's the context in which Guido raised the completely irrelevant issue of my desysopping. And stalking, by the way. I'd long been interested in Thekohser's case and was long involved in issues around his global lock and alleged ban. Accusing me of stalking was also a (mild) personal attack.

This type of argument is highly disruptive and offensive. I hope you will reconsider your view, because the use of ad hominem argument is a common problem on the wikis, it's highly disruptive. --Abd 19:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that is not an attack. It is a statement of fact. To say someone's father is a failure requests some proof or definition of what a "failure" is and may well be offensive or an attack. You were de-sysopped at the request of the community - that is not speculation, untrue or indeed even personal - it is simply a fact. --Herby talk thyme 19:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Herby, you are obviously assuming that a fact cannot be an attack. I was desysopped, that's a fact. To assert it in a discussion where it is irrelevant can be an attack. That is the meaning of "ad hominem argument." This may become a point for discussion, because of this. If you like fuss, there may be some coming. Not from me! --Abd 23:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
As I have said before - I see you as part of the problem not part of the solution. --Herby talk thyme 08:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nemo bis[edit]

Hi Herby, please take a look at [5] where Nemo bis incorrectly closes as resolved and subsequently archives the request re Thekohser shortly before my block expired. I'd appreciate an undo or reopening. Guido den Broeder 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the time to read this fully. I can see arguments on both sides. However the combination of time and the subject matter means I am unable to deal with this matter myself. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I hope you are doing fine. I was just passing by and decided to say a small hello; unfortunately this message will probably be erased pretty soon. Bye, take care!Capsot's ghost 18:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

why on earth would that happen... --Herby talk thyme 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply


Check mail, please. Important :) -- Dferg ☎ talk 07:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yup, check it again, not really that important, but still ;-) -Barras 18:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply



I didn't do anything the last days besides chilling with the girlfriend. (!/Huib_L/status/87418643926888448) I give you my word I didn't create any accounts :S

Best, Huib talk Abigor 19:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply



Did my mail arrive? I got a Wikimedia has a problem page :-s

Feel free to re-add the block if you want, that will keep me out of Meta and this whole thing is taking to much energy from me. Maybe I just have to give up and let it be.


Huib talk Abigor 11:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Replied thanks - I was away from the keyboard for a while. --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request for checkuser information, per user consent[edit]

Herby, please see the steward request. You previously commented, confirming what you could confirm locally. Abigor has requested the relevant checkuser information, and has consented to disclosure (as noted and linked in the steward request). Privacy policy clearly allows disclosure of otherwise private checkuser information upon permission from the affected user, which has been given, see the steward request. It is possible that the information you reviewed, with your meta checkuser privilege, is adequate for what Abigor needs, so would you consider disclosing the information, either on the checkuser request page, or on Abigor talk (or privately to him)? I'm trying to handle this at the lowest and simplest level possible, this is not about any unblock effort, and the results would almost certainly have no bearing on unblocking Abigor. This are to treat him with consideration based on his prior service, and, my opinion, in addition, he has, under the circumstances, a legal right to that information. You have no personal legal obligation to disclose it, but it would be a courtesy and avoid any further need to attend to this matter. Thanks. --Abd 16:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply


Hello. I fail to understand what Emilylongstaff (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has posted here though ring bells it's somewhat innapropiate? I should improve my English :) Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not too bad but not showing much sign of being a real contributor I think... Looking at it - it might even relate to recent emails . Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Message on Dferg[edit]

Perhaps it helps [6] for CU if you didn´t saw it. --WizardOfOz talk 13:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes - that is why I posted as I did :) --Herby talk thyme 13:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Spam on en.v[edit]

Hello, Herbythyme. I see you blanked a spam page on userspace at en.wikiversity. Is it some local rule? I've sent to deletion as it is related with all these spam accounts created there, here and other wikis and we normally delete pages like this. I thought I should notify you. Regards.” Teles (T @ L C S) 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing it. I was short of time and had just found the same junk elsewhere via CU. Equally en v can have some odd ideas about what should be around ;). --Herby talk thyme 15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you[edit]

For your help in dealing eith that usrr. Unfortunately, as I told Vituzzu, he's a serial sockpuppeter so I'm not sure he can be stopped from doing that again and I don't have time to deal with his spamming (he send almost 100 emails at a time, with a new comment everytime, some were direct personal threats before too which got little response at wp:ani at but at least I discovered I wasn't the only one he threatened, so he can't be very serious right? :). Anyway, much appreciated ... but I'll probably hold off on enabling email again until that kind of spamming can be stopped. Happy editing. Tiamut 16:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

A question[edit]

I think I'll end hiring you as my personal english grammar teacher! In the meanwhile I just want to be sure about this. Probably Jafe is right however that quote still looks confusing to me. I'll abstain from taking action since the meaning of that local policy is unclear for me. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Horrible sentence!
I'll try and unpick it
  1. Global bots are allowed
  2. Automatic approval of certain types of bot mentioned in standard bot policy (but which ones????)
  3. Otherwise standard policy does not apply
Ho hum - this really isn't a meaningful policy to me without specific mention/elaboration on what the "certain type of bot" actually are - is there any more information anywhere? If not then - the way it is worded - global bots are allowed and standard policy does not apply would be the correct interpretation of the sentence for me. Back later today if there is any more (otherwise I agree with you) --Herby talk thyme 09:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

To the talk page watchers :)[edit]

Greetings to all

Joyeux Noel, Feliz Navidad, Frohe Weihnachten, Buon Natale, God jul, fijne Kerstdagen, Nollaig Shona, feliz Natal, Счастливого Рождества

(I'm sure there are plenty more ways to say it but you should get the general idea!)

All good wishes for this season if you celebrate it and for 2012 --Herby talk thyme 10:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply


Hello Herby. As 'crat can you please assign me the "translation administrator" user right. I'm working in translations for the Stewards/elections 2012 as electcom member. Best regards & 2012. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done - regards --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 10:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply


Hi Herbythyme, I was just wondering if I could inspire my userpage on yours, I like it very much. :) Lotje 12:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's a wiki - you can do what you like :) --Herby talk thyme 15:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, one can do what whan likes, to a certain point... but I do like to ask. Thnx a lot(je) Lotje 15:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply


Here - if you've time & you want to of course. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 03:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done happily and good to see it :) Best --Herby talk thyme 08:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks :) —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply


Hi, I replied on User talk:EdwardsBot. It is a legitimate run, even though there may be a few "false positives" in the list of recipients (there were so many people who helped that it was much more efficient to do it via global message delivery than by hand). Jon Harald Søby (WMF) 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Apologies - unblocked. --Herby talk thyme 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Which idiots[edit]

Which idiots were you referencing here? Jehochman 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is it really important? Let it rest. Read the disappointment, not forensically examine the words. At this point in time, a good sleep, a walk of the dog, and time away from the keyboard would do everyone well. (I am looking for volunteers to mow my grass if anyone is interested) billinghurst sDrewth 15:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Jehochman, a lot of unnecessary friction occurred recently, and no one is either completely blameless or completely at fault. Please let this go; for goodness sakes, compared to w:WP:ANI the conversation here has been downright genial (and that is a sad thing to say). I think we all understand that Meta is not coming to take over EnWIki and the EnWIki is not coming to take over Meta. -- Avi 16:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

I'd politely ask you to disengage. There is enough cross-project resentment already, and I don't think adding more is particularly helpful. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough - I was not planning to say more - the irony is that FPaS is someone who I respect quite a bit from work on Commons but there you go. I'll stay away from all of this I think unless there are threats to those who work here and I respect which I am sure you will understand (if that happens I'll risk folk removing my rights I think). --Herby talk thyme 17:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll post here so as not to inflame I guess[edit]

The events of the past 48 hours have left me totally disillusioned with many who have been active here. I'm reflecting on my position and rights and should - for now - be considered as having left this project. It used to be a great place to be and I thank many of the kind people who have helped me over the years - it is not the same project now. --Herby talk thyme 19:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

When we read such things it means that as a community we've all failed, so I'm asking: what's my fault? How can I help fixing this?
We're surely in a sad situation, but it doesn't seem so tragic to me: just a passing crisis. It's already improving, I think, although we could have managed it better, and we'll recover from it. Nemo 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I second this comment. SJ talk | translate   15:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't. Herby is entirely correct, this is not the same place as before. Guido den Broeder 19:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply