User talk:Justarandomamerican

edit
Archives
Archive 1

Reverts

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)

Piccadilly Appeal

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)

You've got mail

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)

Sent another one :) X (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Replied to it. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Saw your reply, agreed. X (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 X (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

replied X (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to revert to status quo pending I and Drummingman discussing the matter. Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll hold off doing anything until you discuss. Thanks, X (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Abuse filter test

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) – 64andtim ^(talk) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, 64andtim! Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Suppression log

Can you check the suppression log and verify the actions I just took were correct. TY! X (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Great thanks. Going through lots of past suppression logs now & looking for errors. :) X (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

You can block them all for block evasion. Based on current practice though, only a Steward can perform a steward action. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Will do for now. Made a proposal in the meantime on Test Wiki:Community portal. X (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Got it. :) X (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

YGM. Sorry to bother you again. :) X (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for all you do for Test Wiki and congratulations on 1,000 edits! You deserve it. X (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Example account hide

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)

I have renamed it to something chosen specifically to prevent test blocks. Would that be okay? Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Transparency vs disruption prevented is the most important thing to balance when hiding an account. Me personally, I don't think it's worth it. @Drummingman: Do you have a different take on this? Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Also, I would be curious to see how you define "serious vandalism". Racials slurs, in my opinion, meet that standard. X (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Honestly, we need new, community-defined suppression criteria to get rid of the constant confusion. I have proposed this on the community portal. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)