User talk:Bill Thrace

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Bill Thrace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —SpaceFlight89 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Husain Haqqani. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kautilya3. I'm neither interested in nor do I have time for an edit war. The page in question is a constant source of problems, demonstrated by the fact that Mansoor Ijaz, an individual with whom the subject was involved in a public feud, has been allowed to influence the content of the page. These problems are exacerbated by the very real issue of the credibility of Pakistani sources under the current military leadership, which I explained on the Talk page before I made any edits. This should be a neutral, factual page with information about a living subject, not a place to carry out petty feuds or political attacks. - Bill Thrace (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right about the sources. But the problem are not solved by edit-warring, which leads to nowhere. You can't impose your will on other editors any more than they can impose their will on you. When an edit is reverted, the best practice is to follow WP:BRD. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I was just going through the Talk page and I've got to be honest: It's extremely concerning. Mansoor Ijaz has no business being anywhere near there. The conflict of interest is enough to call into question the reliability of the entire page. There's another page about the so-called "Memogate" situation, so I am not sure why it's being selectively repeated on this page, but the fact that Mansoor Ijaz is actively trying to influence what's on Husain Haqqani's Wikipedia page casts it in a very questionable light. Likewise, "SherrifIsInTown" seems to be very well experienced, but he also appears to have a political agenda. His User Talk Page includes a photo of Husain Haqqani under "law enforcement"? That's problematic, as are some of his assertions about what he "knows." I don't know what the solution is, but going through the history of this page it looks like a case study in unreliable Wikipedia pages. Bill Thrace (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have an idea that might solve the problem. I'll post it on the Husain Haqqani talk page.Bill Thrace (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoor Ijaz's concerns had to be taken into account because he was being mentioned on the page. However, we have retained all the well-sourced content despite his objections. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Husain Haqqani. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. You reverted my edits. Bill Thrace (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, he can revert edits provided he has given a policy-based justification. WP:BRD recommends that you should open a talk page discussion in that situation rather than reinstate your edit. I know that you feel strongly about this topic. But that should not be a reason enough for edit-warring. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did open a talk page discussion. Nobody seems to read it. The only thing I feel strongly about is that pages be neutral and that BLPs be written conservatively and without advancing a political agenda. Some editors have clearly expressed a strongly held opinion about the subject and it shows. Pedantic use of policy-based justifications in an effort to color the tone of a BLP goes against the spirit of the Wikipedia project, but I guess that doesn't matter. Honestly , I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time. Bill Thrace (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, you did violate a 3RR after you were served this notice but I did not object since your edit was constructive (you added a source) but everyone here at Wikipedia is not that flexible and open-minded. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]