Latest comment: 5 October 20231 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Justa, I want to express my gratitude for addressing the un-discussed merges. I was somewhat puzzled by these actions, as there hadn't been any prior communication regarding them. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 13:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 15 October 20231 comment1 person in discussion
I rolled back my discussion started about an email due to procedural grounds. Specifically: Piccadilly is not allowed to appeal until November 17th. The appeal may be considered in a Non-Steward initiated discussion that overrides that restriction, but not otherwise. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 28 January8 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Justarandomamerican. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{YGM}} template.X (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 26 January2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you are trying to test filter 118 (Adding emails to pages); however, users with sysop rights are exempted. Feel free to edit it to test if it works and modifications if desired, and/or restore the previous state of the filter when done. Thank you! – 64andtim(talk)17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they were correct. If you see an old hidden user that isn't an attack name or otherwise not suitable for public view, unsuppress it. A person unblocking someone who is blocked by Stewards as an official action would be blocked very quickly nowadays. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my newest thread on the community portal, I'm going to be looking into the Piccadilly socks. I see you have already done a confirmation of the blocks I've done so far. Do I have your permission to do "steward actions" on these blocks? X (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the protection for Seiyena's pages I saw one was editable by bureaucrats and the other was editable by stewards. Just verifying that this was intentional. X (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. The talk page is a prime candidate for vandalism and has no reason to be edited, and the user page may need to be edited in the case that Piccadilly reforms. If vandalism begins, the user page will be protected at the same level. Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 7 February20 comments4 people in discussion
What is your opinion on hiding the example account (suppress block) so innocent users don't accidentally block & unblock it. We could also rename it to something random, hide it, and then create a new example account with a random password. X (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To avoid any confusion at all, I'd rename to something like "Vanished user [random numbers here]" and hide the account. I've seen some of the things people have done in the past with it and hiding it will not allow anyone who remembers the password to login. X (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think community members would understand the desire to not have the account public. I can point to countless (now suppressed) diffs of harassment, threats, and slurs coming from the account. I can assure you that this is a net positive. X (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think revision deletion is an adequate alternative in cases where there is no identifiable target, human or organization, and it isn't without administrative value (which specific examples of disruption by long-term disruptive editors would not meet). Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the addition of the long term abuse pages, I don't think keeping that diff public serves any additional administrative value. X (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's figure out the difference between our definitions. Me personally, it is vandalism where regular administrative tools would be insufficient to protect the community, such as repetitive slurs, attack names, etc. What is yours? Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say anything that is extremely offensive to certain groups of people, including slurs, threats of harm, and other personal attacks that serve no administrative value to help prevent future attacks. This is why I only suppressed those with the one racial slur and not others like "Hi r____d". X (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, the priority needs to be balancing transparency against protection of the community. Completely suppressing a single racial slur (especially without a target) doesn't really protect any administrator.. My opinion is that serious vandalism should be suppressed only when it is necessary to protect the community. Thanks for the reply, and to be clear, certain things like sexually explicit/obscene material should be suppressed despite not having a clear target, due to their nature.Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we also have info about revision deleting content prior to oversight? Obviously when doing this type of stuff, you should be discreet when doing that. – 64andtim(talk)03:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I am concerned, no further actions are necessary. Having the username suppressed is unnecessary and too heavy, also because the password has been suppressed by me before. And with the new account, the password is secret, right? And it doesn't appear on onwiki either. Because that brought the problems we had seen. Drummingman (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with that. The password has been suppressed, and anyone logging in and editing will be met with a block message. Anyone removing the block to use the former example account would be blocked/warned quickly. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I am absolutely willing to help them re-integrate into the community if that is what the stewards think is best. Not saying the action was incorrect in any way. X (talk + contribs) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am certainly aware. However, the consensus is that she may be unblocked regardless, as per Dmehus, my, and Drummingman's thoughts on the matter. She is apologetic for block evasion, and it didn't cause that much disruption in terms of what she normally does. Thank you for the message. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 18 February3 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed that when you gave me admin rights here, you set them to expire in a week. What should I do when that time is up? I was just wondering whether I'd need to pass another quiz to get them again. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 02:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trouted for granting CheckUser permissions to an alternate account Can happen, fortunately it was not used by him, I see. On behalf of the steward-team: the matching trout. Drummingman (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Saint (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
