This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.
What the hell...
Hey Herby, mate, what is going on? Any insight on why you've "up and left" would be great. You can of course contact me privately. In the event that you are leaving the project for good, and there is nothing that can be done about that, let me say thank you from myself and the rest of the community for all the great work you've done on this project over the years, and all the best for the future. Cheers, russavia (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
See you Nigel, and you're welcome to all the fish ;-). Lycaon 11:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all your kind words, for your hard work fighting against spam bots and for your uploads. I never thought that I would ever admit this, but now lots of people I liked working with have quit… -- Rillke(q?) 21:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Herby, It is so sad for Commons that you leave it! Thank you for all you have done for the project. I wish you all the best. Your image here is used on that external page about freedom, maybe because a long time ago I added a special category on it :) Wishing you great wanderings and photography, avec mes très amicales pensées, --Myrabella (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
On using CU on Commons
Those who know me well enough, and there are a few left, will not be that surprised that I have returned to post this (& it is all I will do). I have always had the greatest of respect for the communities who trusted me with CU with CU rights here and elsewhere so this statement is mostly for them. However it probably should be read by those who are ignorant of the day to day work done on the front line by admins here and on other projects as well as anyone else with an interest in the subject.
Over the years I have had the tools on various projects I have run thousands of CU actions. Maybe 2% of these have been on "real users". There has always been a valid reason for the action. Either an actual request or posting by an experienced trusted person on any admin board or my talk page would have got my attention and if warranted CU would have been run. On Commons I often found I was deleting a file recently uploaded (and deleted) by a different user name. If this had been deleted as a copyright violation or similar I would usually run CU - I have found 100s of accounts where puppets had been created to evade blocks and upload copyrighted files or totally out of scope images.
The other 98% of the checks have been on accounts created to disrupt or abuse projects. These accounts were almost always created on abused IP addresses (few are stupid enough to use their own IPs). In the old days these were folk such as "Willy on wheels", Haggar, Grawp and the like. For the past year or so projects have had a vast number of accounts created by scripts or programs such as Xrumer for spam/disruption. Some of these are used on the day they are created, some are dormant for months. There is no point "warning" such accounts - they are not used by humans, equally simply deleting the spam is pointless as it will be reposted for the same reason. Running CU on these allows the project more globally to be aware of problem IPs and often ranges that are being abused across many projects (Commons and Meta being hub projects are often the source of such accounts). My contact with stewards has allowed these to be reviewed for global blocking to try and keep the flood down. To give some idea of the scale of the problem I just checked Meta's user creation log from yesterday. Of around 100 accounts created there in the previous 24 hours I estimate that somewhere between a third and a half of those accounts are bot created for abuse - Commons figures will be similar.
That others do not use CU like this is of no real interest to me - I was a frontline admin here and elsewhere dealing with the day to day junk that arrives. Few do it and even fewer do it for long periods - I did. I didn't get it right all the time - I am human and I made mistakes but I did try and serve the communities that trusted me to the best of my ability.
There are a few people here who I have enormous respect for - a number have posted above for which thanks. However, while it has always irritated me when people say "Commons is broken" sadly that feels like the way it is to me. Too many people take joy in aggressive arguments (usually quite pointlessly) when there is always enough work to be done. When I look at the fact that I am being indirectly attacked for attempting to keep this community clear of bot attacks by people who are quite ignorant it saddens me. I think it highly unlikely I will ever be back. However I remain grateful to those in the community who trusted me. --Herby talk thyme 18:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts to prevent damage trough CUs. --184.108.40.206 18:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm grateful also as it.quote admin: your central anti-spam efforts allowed many small wikis admins like me to slack (and sometimes, get some useful stuff done). --Nemo 20:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Personal trust has nothing, absolutely nothing!, to do with having problems with the kind of the use of the tools. To critizise this is not to crizizise you. If you feel so - I'm sorry, it's never that, what I wanted to say. On the other hand is That others do not use CU like this is [us ?] of no real interest to me for me a bad argument. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Mich haben die Commons nie besonders interessiert, und ich bin selten bis nie einer Meinung mit Marcus Cyron. Was ich hier aber lese, veranlasst mich, die Commons ab sofort zu meiden. Wozu brauchen wir Fotografen? Die Missbrauchsfilter in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia sind bereits ein Gesetzesverstoß; die offenbar ohne jegliches oder im US-amerikanischen Rechtsverständnis durchgeführten CU machen mich sprachlos. --Liesbeth Lasst (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I echo the above sentiments; you've always been one I've enjoyed working with over the years. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:41, 14 August 2013 (GMT)