Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 11 January 2017 (→User:Marlo Jonesa: nd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Extended confirmed

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
  • Before making a request here, you should be aware that accounts are automatically granted this group after 30 days and 500 edits.
  • This access is only required for editing highly contentious pages that have been protected by the Arbitration Committee or by community consensus under the 30/500 category. A list of these articles is found here.
  • Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied.

User:Marlo Jonesa

Closing, per rough consensus in the thread that the 500 trivial sandbox edits are (at last) not in the spirit of extended confirmed Marlo Jonesa (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 09:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MusikBot it's not me, not necessarily that his name like my name to be me!.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold @Euryalus: can you review this request compared to the decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208#.E2.80.8EMarlo_Jonesa? — xaosflux Talk 15:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Marlo Jonesa appears to have 475 live edits outside of their own User/User_talk space. — xaosflux Talk 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 528 live edits excluding user sandbox (of 1016 live edits) as of now. I'm inclined to support this but want to give a short period for Euryalus to comment. — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having a look now. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On balance i think they've now met the technical requirement for extended confirmed, and sufficient of the spirit of the requirement, and so don't oppose its restoration. I note BU Rob 13's concern below, but while Marlo Jonesa was subject to DS for articles in the topic area (as it is broadly construed and not just defined by extended confirmed protection), they seem otherwise generically entitled to make these edits if the pages werent protected at the time.
Of course none of this implies anything about the neutrality of the edit contents, and for the formality of it I've added the DS alert notice to their user talk, so there can be swift action if their subsequent editing causes problems in the area. And of course if there's disagreement, there's a very light caseload at AE at present so further review will hopefully proceed expeditiously if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Note: underlined words added as clarification. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Struck - support withdrawn, see below -- Euryalus (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus: See the actual wording of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, which is clear that the restriction is on the editors. It is enforced through page protections, but the edits are never allowed. ArbCom has repeatedly stated that administrators don't have discretion in enforcing that remedy; it is a ban from making those edits, straight out. You may wish to speak with other arbitrators if you wish to change that, but this is how it has been repeatedly communicated to administrators at official venues as recently as this past month. ~ Rob13Talk 00:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BU Rob13 is entirely correct. Per the wording of the motion, as a good proportion of recent edits are indeed in the relevant topic area, they are prohibited even where the articles are not protected. The edits themselves may be in good faith but they shouldn't count towards lifting of the restriction. Apologies to BU Rob13 - I was letting a general assumption of good faith get in the way of the letter of the law, and should have double-checked the wording. Apologies also to Marlo Jonesa for the to and fro, but as BU Rob13 points out you cannot edit within this topic area with less than 500 edits to your name. Consensus was that the sandbox edits could not be counted; equally, prohibited edits should not count. To avoid any more going around in circles, I suggest you simply edit in some entirely different area in order to amass the 500 edits sufficient to work in this field. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to this. Based on a cursory examination of the edits, I've found many that are in the I-P conflict topic area. While the pages aren't yet extendedconfirmed-protected, the remedy still applies to Marlo, and they should not have made those edits. They're well aware of the remedy at this point. Continued violation of the remedy is more grounds for a block than restoring this permission. I've protected a good dozen pages they've edited based on this review, so this is a solid portion of the edits. They've been asked to gain 500 substantial edits in areas of Wikipedia other than this one topic area before applying for extendedconfirmed, and they should do just that. ~ Rob13Talk 16:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marlo Jonesa removed information from Levant article with false edit summaries twice this week. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Triggerhippie4: One of them is just an opinion, but this one is obviously wrong. Will raise it on their talkpage. As noted above, if there is a view that this editor (or anyone else) is not editing neutrally in this topic area, it is a matter for assessment under the standard discretionary sanctions regime rather than whether their account is "extended confirmed." -- Euryalus (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per the discussion above. Marlo Jonesa, should you have edits to pages that are not covered under arbitration sanctions, please file an edit request on the associated talk page - these requests are normally resolved within in a few hours. After you have avoided the restricted topics and amass more edits, you may reapply here. — xaosflux Talk 01:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Extended_confirmed&oldid=759416764"