User talk:Assem Khidhr/Archives/2021/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ITN recognition for 2021 Microsoft Exchange Server data breach

On 14 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Microsoft Exchange Server data breach, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 19:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Live & Kicking

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Live & Kicking page which I'm not happy about, the programme was not a series, it was a weekly programme, if it was like a comedy sitcom then I would accept it but it's not a series, It was a live weekly magazine programme just like Top of the Pops. So I would like to revert your edit but I need your permission in order to do that cause I'm not happy about the page and I want to make some changes. 82.3.149.129 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.149.129 (talk)

The IP's edit on Live & Kicking was reverted due to blanking and vandalism. Plus, the IP did NOT have any sources to back themselves up to prove that it was a weekly series. Live & Kicking mostly ran in the Autumn/Winter schedules as the Spring/Summer schedules were taken up by the third series of Parallel 9 (1994), the first and sixth series of Fully Booked (1995 & 2000) and Saturday Aardvark from 1996 to 1999. This website covers nearly all of the BBC Saturday morning shows in the schedules from Multi-Coloured Swap Shop to TMi. - (https://www.saturdaymornings.co.uk/?mode=timeline) Hope this clears things up. Neverrainy (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Anarchyte:, could you please describe the process I should follow at the end of the trial period to let the grantors assess my use of the right? I'm guessing I should then file another request at WP:RFP/PCR? Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Correct. A request at WP:PERM/PCR will be reviewed by me or another admin after the trial expires. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Please explain your revert here,[1] which flies in the face of the template from 2014 atop the page that says "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed", and as you failed to supply a ref per wp:burden. Also pinging User:Anarchyte as this may be of interest. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B857:D117:30C1:B019 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes I agree that this was a bad revert. I unfortunately didn't see this when I was looking at their contributions (must've loaded the page before the edit). Removing unsourced information is quite okay, especially when it's been sitting there since at least 2015. There's definitely a bias against IP editors unfortunately (even though your changes had valid summaries), and I do hope this trial period of PCR will help alleviate some of that in Assem Khidhr. I'm also going to ping FULBERT here because they were the first to revert you. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Anarchyte, On a meta note, it isn't as much of a matter of bias against IP editors, to me, as it's a matter of inclusionism, which I openly profess on my talk page. Hardly disputed material that doesn't blatantly lack plausibility and that is appropriately tagged with a cleanup template — does more benefit than harm by staying where they are, in my opinion. In this case, when my position was shared by another experienced editor, I thought the revert was justified. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@2603:7000:2143:8500:B857:D117:30C1:B019, @Anarchyte: The cleanup template at the top, dating back to 2014, refers to general lack of citations, not specifically related to the parts you sought to delete, whose inline cleanup template you've just added 6 days ago. Also, geolocation shows that your MACIPv6 address along with the other three who implemented your view, one of which I've warned of edit warring, on the page come from roughly the same location ([2], [3], [4]). This might mean you're engaged in an edit war. In case you found yourself reverted by two different users, you should make use of the talk page to introduce your perspective and build consensus. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The template is clear. I already quoted it.

The long-standing status of the template is clear.

The text was unsourced. I challenged and removed it. wp:burden is clear. Your personal embracing of inclusionism does not trump that.

Your view that "plausibility" trumps all that is not supported by wp guidelines.

Your personal view that it does more benefit than harm to revert a properly editing editor under these circumstances troubles me.

And of course a general template doesn't specify the uncited material - that is why it is a general template. But it is clear it applies to uncited material, same as if it tagged it. That should be understandable - it is not less effective against such material. Just because it is a general tag.

Yes, I also initially added a local tag - but then in reviewing my edits realized there was already a general tag, a quite old one at that, and therefore challenged and deleted the material. With an edit summary that explained "actually, d due to 2014 tag."

Yes, I also had a discussion with the other editor, in which I made my view clear, and waited a few days after.

And your view that two editors could ignore the clear wp guidelines and bully an editor in contravention of guidelines because they have non-guideline supported views that are at direct odds with the template's clear language and with wp:burden is very disturbing - this can only lead to driving away editors, and indicates a lack of respect for following wp guidelines.

It's misleading I believe for you to revert - as well, using tools - with the edit summary "Reverting unconstructive edits."

If you disagree - still - on these counts, then I think that calls into question whether you should be using tools. You are going to lessen the desire of editors, especially new editors, editing properly, from contributing if you use tools to support these non-guideline supported views. 2603:7000:2143:8500:2463:E460:6C60:88D9 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear editor, I have to to tell you that I'm not an expert in the matter, nor is it within my interests. My revert wasn't a mere consequence of my subscription to inclusionism or bias against IPs either. It was based on the following:
  1. While the WP:BURDEN does lie on who adds or restores the material, it's encouraged to WP:PRESERVE content.
  2. WP:BADSOCK reads Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Your use of multiple IPs both in the article and even, to a lesser extent, in this talk page doesn't conform to this.
  3. FULBERT, being more experienced than I am, had already reverted you when I arrived at the page. I don't personally know them, nor have I had any contact with them prior to seeing their revert. It's simply that we happened to agree.
  4. Your edit seemed less salvageable to me because of your edit summaries: being a one sentence paragraph is by no means a ground for removal + it's pretty edgy, or at least suboptimally civil to describe "challenged material" as cruft.
All of these aspects culminated into the impression based on which I decided to proceed with the revert. Of course, that was in my own discretion, which is totally fallible. In that case, please remember there isn't a WP:DEADLINE, so soon enough other editors would notice your talk sections on the page. On my part, I'll try to salvage the material by browsing the sources. I acknowledge to the fact that Wikipedia benefits a lot from anonymous contributions and I appreciate your interest and efforts. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not socking. Aside from that being another violation of yours - of AGF - I simply have a normal service that has an IP address that changes. Not at my instruction. Many services work that way.
I remain troubled by you being given the right to use tools, given not simply your revert which is a one-time issue - but your failure to embrace wp guidelines, as reflected in your comments above, which reflects an attitude that will have a negative impact on the project, if you are given tools to advance it. 2603:7000:2143:8500:2463:E460:6C60:88D9 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
JFTR, I'm not accusing you of sockpuppetry or ABF in general. I would've directly reported that if I'd been. However, as per the "guidelines" I referred you to, one should appropriately address on their userpage, or even their edit summary, that they're using a dynamic IP to avoid giving the impression of socking, which I had when I arrived at the page. I hope you do your own bit of AGF, understand the motives for my revert, and attempt to address them to further allow the project to utilize your contributions. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Best of luck. I will revert your revert, per the above admin input. I stand by my other comments. 2603:7000:2143:8500:2463:E460:6C60:88D9 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Assem Khidhr. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Assem_Khidhr/Archives/2021/March&oldid=1030605973"