Support = 40; Oppose = 2; Neutral = 2; ... this request meets the 2 weeks running, at least 25 supports, at least 30 votes, at least 80% support margin. Request made at meta:  ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Those of you that have seen me in action here know that my watchword here is "mellow"... Commons is a special place. It's not like any other wiki, because it transcends language specific wikis and we get a lot of visitors from all over the world. It holds a special place in my heart, and I suspect that's true for many other Commonists as well. While I am not pleased that things have progressed to the point that we need to have oversighters, (Herby goes into more detail about why we need them in his nom of me, I won't repeat the arguments) I am extremely pleased to offer Herby's name in nomination to become one of Commons's first two oversighters, along with myself.
Herby became an administrator here on Commons in mid February, 2007, ( his request for Adminship ) and is now an admin and CU, and he has shown that he is highly trustworthy and capable in the many roles he's taken on here and elsewhere. As a reminder for those not tracking his career on a daily basis, here are links to some of his previous nominations for positions of trust:
To forestall an objection that I think might be raised about why Herby and I rather than others??? ... I think concentration of power is a valid concern. However I also think that there is a strong argument that to be truly effective, someone with oversight should also already hold adminship and CUship on the wiki where the oversight is sought, or else the response time to incidents is going to be slowed and the work entailed to respond increased. Oversight is a role that is particularly in need of fast execution, because the longer something that is deleterious remains unoversighted, the longer there is a chance that it might be leaked, archived, or otherwise revealed. That's not to say I would oppose other candidates, although every additional oversighter does introduce some slight risk.
Herby and I have worked closely together for some time, across several wikis, and it seems like we're always nominating each other for something or another. (I nominated him for CU here on commons (the successful second nomination), and he nominated me for CU on meta, he was my first support for 'crat here and I was a strong support for him for 'crat on meta, I nominated him for admin on en:wp, etc) and I hold him in the highest regard. He "gets it", "has a deft hand" and is "not likely to go on a rampage" :) I think I speak for many when I say that Herby has the discretion, compassion, sensitivity and good judgment necessary to execute this role effectively. I hope I can count on your support... Herby and I are in this together, we both need to pass, or we will both fail to secure the right for this wiki. I think it is becoming increasingly important that we have local oversighters here, so I hope we both can count on your support. I'm sure he is as willing to answer any questions about this as I am. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Acceptance- Thanks Lar - I hope I can help --Herbytalk thyme 09:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Per the eloquent and persuasive long winded nomination ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - Per the highly unpersuasive nomination which forced me to review thousands of Herby's edits and deletions go with my gut. —Giggy 12:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Support, if Herby and Lar say it is time Commons needs oversight, I trust they are correct, although it is unfortunate. They are both trustful and have a deep respect for both Commons and the responsibility that comes with their positions of power. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Support the Herby-Lar kabal :P Every major Wikimedia project should have a couple of people with oversight - it really becomes necessary sometimes. Patríciamsg 13:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Both Lar and Herbythyme have a lot of hats already. My problem with Lar is he is not using them all to the best of his ability. I support Herby because even though he has a lot of responsibility, he uses what he has well. Majorly (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Striking now, per rudeness and immaturity on Lar's RfO, and his own request. I find him genuinely insulting. Majorly (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that he asked you to withdraw your support here, how was his one comment there rude or immature? Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is rude and immature? —Giggy 07:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's immature to ask me to remove my vote because I opposed his buddy. Yes, I dared to oppose. So what? To be honest, I'm not sure why they even bothered asking the community, as they can get any access they like to add to their trophy case without actually doing much. Majorly (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Support, weakly. As with Lar I am slightly on the side of support as I trust Herby and don't think he'd abuse the tool. But I am largely unconvinced by the need for oversight here - the fact that only text can be oversighted limits it usefulness considerably in my opinion. An oversight that could also permanently remove image uploads would I think be a sensible development. So far almost every project other than en.wiki manages without local oversight and its seems to me there is likely to be more need on some of the larger non-English Wikipedias than there is here. WjBscribe 04:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Mildly puzzled Support per WJB. No chance of misuse, but I just don't see much chance for any use at all ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 07:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
with some stomach ache. First Problem I see is, that normally it's enough to SysOp-delete. Second is, that I normally don't like that few people have too much jobs here. On the other hand both nomenies are really two of the few (maybe 5, 6) very active Users here. Marcus Cyron 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
weak Support Trustworthiness is not the issue so I support, but my preference would have been to spread the administrative type tasks to more users in order to help Commons thrive and grow. We are regularly getting more admins from a large number of wikis so this should not be an issue. Being a multi-lingual project, I think we need to encourage more participation from users with broad language skills from a broader group of Projects than our current active CUers have. If the volume of oversight requests are high enough to require local oversight, then I think that Herbythyme may be too busy to do the job and other users with oversight access will be needed. In addition to the actual removal of requests the job also requires spending time referring users to the correct venue as many users contact oversight when they need regular deletion or OTRS assistance for general concerns about content. So, I support with the hope that additional users will be quickly recruited to have this access. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Even if Herby and Lar are a mutual congratulation society!--Londoneye 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I really cannot see the need for oversight on Commons, selective delete/restore is that is needed. I think this would still apply even if the image bug is fixed. Other wikis have higher editing rates, so material needing removal is more likely to survive multiple edits. As long as we trust our admins, I see no point to oversight here. The stewards can handle any WMF requests. Even if need can be demonstrated I would still oppose. With all respect to Lar and Herby, who both have my trust, I'd much prefer to see oversight given to people are from significantly different segments of the community. If the point of a second user is to oversee the first, then only one really need be a checkuser. A trusted admin without CU rights can provide oversight auditing just fine.--Nilfanion 11:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
As above, no oversights are needed, and I'd rather less insulting people held the role, if anyone. Majorly (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral. I know Herbythyme will do just fine as a commons oversighter and it's not about him as an editor. It's about the need, and I just don't see a need for oversight on commons. If an oversight is needed then one of the stewards can do it. Mønobi 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral As others have said, I'm not sure we need/want oversights here and I somewhat oppose having "levels of deletion" in general. However, if anyone should be appointed these rights it should be Lar and Herbythyme. They have my utmost respect, complete trust, and I believe they are two of Common's Wikimedia's most valuable contributors. Rocket000 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments and questions
This nomination should be kept open longer than usual due to the stricter oversight requirements. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with pfctdayelise. Should it be scheduled for two weeks? Patríciamsg 13:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If we extend this to 2 weeks we should extend future CU requests to 2 weeks as well I expect. That's not exactly what policy provides for but I think changing to suit our own needs is fine. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if we decide to change this one, that should affect CU nominations, per coherence. Maybe two weeks is a bit long? 10 days? I don't know, just throwing ideas around. Patríciamsg 14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting - my first CU (en wb) took just about three weeks - small community. My last (Meta) took four days. I think if the candidate is the "right" one (trusted maybe) then a week should be ok? --Herbytalk thyme 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I predict we will be at or beyond 25 supports well within a week, so I'm guessing the concern is that extra time be allowed for opposes to become aware of this and raise concerns that they might have. To that end, someone perhaps should announce this on commons-l if it hasn't yet been done. I'll check and do so shortly if not. ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oversight allows removal of information from all but developers sight for those who were not aware of that. Given any action is monitored by another oversighter I don't really see abuse as likely (assuming you trust those you vote for).
Firstly there is an issue with oversighting images. Currently it seems possible but not dealt with. Given the importance of images to Commons I suggest this is something we should put some pressure on developers to deal with. Some images simply should not be seen for reasons of legality and/or decency (I'm not talking porn - admins can look at those as much as they like :)).
Equally as one of the RC patroller admins I come across personal information placed on wiki by IPs. There is no way of knowing whether this is genuine or with approval of the individual concerned. Currently I merely revert the info along with the other junk as others do. However from time to time I have done selective restores. Without the new gadget script that is extremely tedious, with it it is easier but doesn't really remove the information. Oversight would allow removal of information.
I cannot honestly say there have been x incidents in the past y weeks however there have been some in the past few months. Having a fire extinguisher does not mean you intend to fight fires all the time. I hope this helps (and maybe apologies for not placing this sooner) - if folk wish to change their votes in the light of this that is fine with me. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme 09:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The "must have at least two" oversight restriction is to provide a degree of accountability, as there is always someone else to examine every action. However, 2 people is not that many (en.wp has 30). Therefore I think it could be sensible to do some form of on-wiki logging of oversight actions. Obviously the precise should remain secret, but it would allow a broader community observation of oversight. This may be significant if image oversight arrives. How do you feel about this?--Nilfanion 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Trying to step back a little this strikes me as a very reasonable idea. I see no reason to keep the use of the tool secret. Something along the lines of "deleted personal information placed on page by IP" with a date or similar? Personally I am happy to commit myself to doing this. Happy to hear any views & thanks --Herbytalk thyme 12:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of smart comments at present I'm afraid however the support is appreciated. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme 09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)