User talk:NickCT - Knowledge (XXG)

22: 1517: 3631: 3583: 3403: 3355: 3307: 3259: 3211: 3163: 3115: 3067: 3019: 2971: 2923: 2875: 2820: 2579: 2531: 2483: 2347: 2299: 2251: 2203: 2155: 2107: 2059: 2011: 1963: 1374: 1326: 1278: 1230: 1182: 1134: 1086: 1038: 990: 942: 894: 825: 121: 527: 2397: 1552:. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Knowledge (XXG)’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Knowledge (XXG) administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. 2699: 2624: 1426:

confirmed it. I urge you to practice restraint. Instead of liberally reading BBC articles that amount to "We don't have a clear window into Chinese internal politics" and twisting into "The former MFA is a MISSING PERSON!!!", wait. Do not make grand conclusions and try to pass them off as fact. That is for your Twitter, not an encyclopedia.

1647:

if you feel the response you are getting to BLP concerns is not adequate. That is a key purpose of having the noticeboard. I strongly suggest you re-read BLP and quickly learn the seriousness of BLP policy. If you continue to have such an utterly unacceptable disdain for BLP after that, then you need

1470:

Firing someone from the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs (or any important role) is not a split decision that gets made in one day. This happens in the West too. When someone is going to get fired, they're relieved of their duties for a couple weeks and then officially let go. For example, in

417:

we find that it copied up to and including the "13:01, 25 September 2050 (UTC)", even though it is clearly a bogus timestamp and the preceding signature used a fake username. Quite apart from the fact that bogus timestamps can cause problems for Legobot further down the line, a major problem is that

251:

It doesn't matter what the value is. It's required. I'm not sure why you're making such a basic issue so difficult. You are a long-time editor and I'm sure know when signatures are and are not required. I provided WP:SIG, which I'd have to assume you're very familiar with already. Are you claiming

1425:

that labels him as a "missing person." If Western news outlets have not seen you in some time because you got fired, that doesn't make you a missing person. You are obviously trying to push a certain agenda here ("Oh, look China disappeared someone again"), and reading your profile pretty much

1675:

Have you considered that the folks on the other side of this argument are using BLP as an excuse to harm people? Let me ask you this; if you got snatched by a foreign govnernment, would you want your Knowledge (XXG) article to note that? Or would you want it to use somekind of euphimism?

292:

of them, just like it's done in all the other RfCs. Your uncivil and uncooperative behavior over such a basic issue is disappointing. It's a shame that it took an administrator to correct what you refused to do. Yes, you're a long time editor; so you should know better and do better.

1648:

to seriously voluntarily refraining from editing considering all situations where BLP applies or at least direct article editing. If you fail to do that and instead continue to ignore BLP concerns or treat them as unimportant, don't be surprised if you receive a BLP topic ban.

604:

Tread carefully with the snark. My note at ANI was intended as a friendly word of caution. But being blunt, some of your past commentary has had an abrasive edge to it that is not conducive to cordial debate. I would strongly prefer not to have to address this subject again.

1890:

Of course, niavity in this case is probably being blended with some CCP apologism and some BLP ultraorthodoxists, who can't accept that the fundamental rationale for BLP was to try to protect people. As we ought to try to protect people who have been "disappeared".

1883:)) "foricibly disappeared" is an "interpretation". I don't accept that that's an "interpretation", in the same sense that I don't accept that calling a person who has been decapitated, "dead", is an interpretation. It's an obvious consequence. Not an interpretation. 1937:

The problem is that one of the editors involved forum shopped at the BLP noticeboard. As much as I like those guys, they are the sort that won't accept a person who was decapitated is also dead, unless you produce a source that explicitly uses the word "dead".

1592: 1475:

Now, as to why he hasn't been seen, that's just not really the content that Chinese news media does. They don't get former cabinet members to disgruntled analyses of the administration in which they served like they do in the West.

349:. In the future, I hope you will follow the requirement to sign any RfCs that you initiate. I was trying to be nice by asking you (multiple times) to please sign it, rather than making it a noticeboard issue for an admin to handle. 374:

Out of curiousity, does anyone feel like I actually phrased this RfC non-neutrally, or are we arguing about angels on the head of a pin? If you feel like I was being non-neutral in posing the question, I'm happy to consider that.

803:

Edit warring is a no no. It's not complicated. There are a few exceptions (vandalism, copyright violations and serious BLP stuff) but that's it. It doesn't matter if you like them or not. Themz the rules until they aren't.

651:

I'm not going to raise them. I'm going to fix them. As I sought to end edit warring w/ this RfC. Let's finish up the RfC. We can eliminate the language I sought to eliminate a month ago and we can end the wikidrama.

2442: 1672:- Disdain for BLP? I have every dain for BLP. BLP is the only thing that protects us from trolls harming the reputation of innocent subjects w/ shoddy research and rumor mongering. BLP is about protecting people. 2787: 317:

You don't think it's a little goofy that you were trying to make a point about how important it was to sign, when it was in fact, already signed? If it was really that important, wouldn't you have recognized?

636:

If you have specific concerns about other editors, you are free to raise those in the appropriate forum. The subject here are your biting comments directed at/about another editor. And they are to stop.

1886:

I respectfully suggest that anyone who thinks that a person who "mysteriously vanish" in China after displeasing the CCP has vanished voluntarily is probably extraordinarily niave to how things work in

2426:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 223:

is required. The only reason the bot listed it is because you used fictitious signatures as examples in the part that outlines how responses are to be formatted. Are you going to sign the statement?

128: 1477: 1433: 3122: 2411: 1913:

consensus, particularly on a BLP, goes from a content issue to a conduct issue, and that's why I issued this warning. If you'd like to appeal the warning, you may follow the procedures at

310:

RedRose seemed to think it's important for neutrality. Since I've asked you whether you felt the RfC was neutral and you didn't respond, I can only assume you disagree. So again, what do

2354: 1583:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics

1468:

What is more likely is that Xi has been seeking to replace him for a few weeks, so he took Qin out of the public eye while he was looking for a replacement (who is now Wang Yi again).

739:

The RfC is basically down to choice between the current language and two possible alternatives. No one, not even its initial proponent, supports the current language. Beyond making a

1093: 371:- For the record, I try to make a really clear distinction between the neutrally phrased RfC and my non-neutral position on the RfC by separating them into different sections. 531: 1870: 3489:

There ain't nothing wrong with being interested in conspiracy theories. I'm interested in them myself. Is there a reason you guys aren't comfortable with your interests?

1880: 418:

having the line beginning "Support Option A" included in the RfC listings has given the impression that a real opinion was part of the RfC statement, which goes against

711:- Fine. I do think there's some level of perversity in us all looking at something, all agreeing it's wrong, then saying "let it be". If it's wrong, why not fix it? 1141: 3026: 493:- Mea culpa. I messed up the bot. I hope we can all appreciate the "fake" usernames/timestamps were not an attempt to decieve anyone. I've tried to correct it. 173: 1526: 1490:

Thanks for the thoughts. If you're equating not getting invited to meetings to being disappeared, I'm not sure we're going to find much common ground.

584:

I've posted a link to the RfC at BLPN. If the general trajectory of the discussion doesn't change over the next few days, I will consider closing it. -

3503:

so then you doubled-down and continued to misuse an article Talk page for a wholly irrelevant purpose. do you think you're clever and nobody notices?

2730:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 2655:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 2827: 3074: 1454:

That said, I'm pretty sure "China disappeared someone again" is a fairly accurate description of what's happened. What's the alternative viewpoint?

237:

Required by? I'll consider signing it. I'm not sure exactly what the value would be. Is your concern that RfC isn't neutrally worded or something?

832: 2773: 2066: 1909:, and as far as I can tell not a single other person has agreed with your interpretation, across two talkpages and two noticeboard threads. 1862: 2805: 2465: 1471:

the weeks leading up to the firing of Rex Tillerson and John Bolton, there were articles about them not being invited to meetings anymore.

1639:

that is completely inappropriate for an editor of your experience. You really should know by now that BLP issues are serious. and it is

2727: 2652: 1481: 1437: 566:- I'm not sure if you want to come down from the ivory tower that is ANI, but this debate could be quickly resolved by simply closing 270:

I am long time editor. I've done dozen of RfCs. Signed few of them. This is first time anyone has complained. Seems like a you thing.

1970: 949: 725:

Because someone reverted what you saw as the fix. No reason to go back and forth with the edit while there is an ongoing discussion.

3266: 2604: 460: 422:. My edit placed a real signature and a correct timestamp (copied from further down the page) before those non-neutral items, with 1854:- Thanks for the input and apologies on a delayed response. Obviously this converastion is a little stale now, but for the record; 1828:

from BLPs related to the Chinese Communist Party or from BLPs in general, or other appropriate sanctions, without further warning.

2882: 307:

When did I refuse to do it? I said I was considering it. You're either intentionally mischaracterizing or having trouble reading.

176:

for examples in other RfC's. Also, another editor corrected your spelling of "controversial" in the statement, which you spelled

2801: 2461: 1717: 1712: 766: 730: 694: 2435: 1914: 1721: 757:

Because someone objected, and edit warring isn't the way to handle it. As it's already being discussed it can be left at the

202:- Thanks for the suggestion and the spelling note. I guess I've gotta fess to the typo, as it's a little hard to controdict. 2723: 2648: 2210: 2162: 75: 1762: 1757: 1704: 70: 50: 622:

I appreciate your helping with the RfC, b/c many others wouldn't have bothered, but you are pandering to bad behavior.

2834: 2586: 2447: 1766: 90: 80: 65: 55: 45: 1858: 3473: 1866: 762: 726: 706: 690: 85: 60: 40: 2589:. about “Is the Taiwan People's Party appropriately characterized as populist?(RfC)” Thank you for helping out! 1876:

My "interpretation" as you've called it, seems to be that Fu and Qin's disappearance is a "forced disappearance".

1749: 846: 776: 758: 686: 100: 2755: 2680: 1879:

I don't accept that calling folks who, after displeasing the CCP, "mysteriously vanish" (RS wording, not mine (

1045: 2423: 2711: 2636: 3531:

You keep harassing editors and making fun of them as conspiracy theorists instead of discussing the edits.

2592: 1917:. Absent a successful appeal of that warning, however, what I said above about potential sanctions stands. 1813: 1789: 1429: 570:. A certain editor seems to be having trouble letting go of language that this RfC has shown is not right. 390: 343: 2490: 1599: 853: 1906: 1825: 1817: 1800:, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator and informed by comments of other experienced editors at 1797: 1588: 252:

some sort of exemption from this requirement? It's your RfC and so you should obviously sign it, just as

3218: 2930: 2600: 1237: 809: 642: 610: 589: 454: 288:

agrees. If you've done dozens of them but have only signed a few of them, that's wrong. You should sign

3465: 3536: 3480: 1857:

What's "sourced" is that the Chinese foreign minister fell out of favor with the CCP and was erased (

997: 567: 2405: 3590: 3508: 3454: 2978: 2751: 2703: 2676: 2628: 1653: 1614: 477: 3651:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3603:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3549: 3423:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3375:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3327:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3279:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3231:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3183:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3135:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3087:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3039:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2991:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2943:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2895:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2847:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2551:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2503:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2419: 2367:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2319:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2271:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2223:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2175:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2127:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2079:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2031:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1983:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1394:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1346:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1298:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1250:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1202:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1154:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1106:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1058:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1010:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

962:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

914:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

866:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

253: 141:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3410: 3314: 2258: 901: 106: 1644: 1533: 740: 619:

I don't start the fires Ad. And I certainly don't go whining about other's disruptive behaviors.

1529:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 2114: 1934:

I mean, the edit I was initially defending wasn't my own. So obviously someone agrees with me.

1333: 1285: 839: 342:

for you since you failed to do so. You can also see that their edit summary says you violated

2431: 1910: 1805: 1801: 1793: 685:

It's being discussed in the RFC right now, so please stop edit warring and let it sit at the

3664: 3616: 3436: 3388: 3340: 3292: 3244: 3196: 3148: 3100: 3052: 3004: 2956: 2908: 2860: 2596: 2564: 2516: 2454: 2380: 2332: 2284: 2236: 2188: 2140: 2092: 2044: 1996: 1708: 1629: 1407: 1381: 1359: 1311: 1263: 1215: 1167: 1119: 1071: 1023: 975: 927: 879: 805: 638: 606: 585: 561: 539: 450: 354: 298: 261: 228: 185: 169: 154: 102: 21: 3652: 3648: 3604: 3600: 3424: 3420: 3376: 3372: 3328: 3324: 3280: 3276: 3232: 3228: 3184: 3180: 3136: 3132: 3088: 3084: 3040: 3036: 2992: 2988: 2944: 2940: 2896: 2892: 2848: 2844: 2795: 2552: 2548: 2504: 2500: 2434:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2427: 2368: 2364: 2320: 2316: 2272: 2268: 2224: 2220: 2176: 2172: 2128: 2124: 2080: 2076: 2032: 2028: 1984: 1980: 1821: 1636: 1395: 1391: 1347: 1343: 1299: 1295: 1251: 1247: 1203: 1199: 1155: 1151: 1107: 1103: 1059: 1055: 1011: 1007: 963: 959: 915: 911: 867: 863: 220: 142: 138: 3532: 3476: 3362: 2018: 463:) has not helped matters by dropping their own sig into the middle of the statement, with 1905:

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, Knowledge (XXG) works based on

3660: 3612: 3504: 3450: 3432: 3384: 3336: 3288: 3240: 3192: 3144: 3096: 3048: 3000: 2952: 2904: 2856: 2783: 2743: 2668: 2560: 2512: 2376: 2328: 2280: 2232: 2184: 2136: 2088: 2040: 1992: 1667: 1649: 1610: 1403: 1355: 1307: 1259: 1211: 1163: 1115: 1067: 1019: 971: 923: 875: 488: 470: 366: 150: 1516: 3638: 2538: 1753: 1189: 205:

I think the RfC is OK as the bot seemed to list it correctly despite my not signing.

3469: 1595:. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the 399: 2396: 1783: 1738: 338:

Update: The issue is now moot. I just noticed that an administrator appropriately

2782:

appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please

1537:. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and 600:

Geez..... I try to tell someone they're good at something and this is what I get.

556:

Geez..... I try to tell someone they're good at something and this is what I get.

3553: 3518: 3490: 3170: 1939: 1920: 1892: 1849: 1834: 1700: 1677: 1548:

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as

1491: 1455: 780: 744: 712: 679: 653: 623: 571: 535: 494: 376: 350: 319: 294: 271: 257: 238: 224: 206: 197: 181: 2742:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

2715: 2691: 2667:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

2640: 2616: 3110:

Feedback request: Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines request for comment

2054:

Feedback request: Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines request for comment

1958:

Feedback request: Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines request for comment

1273:

Feedback request: Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines request for comment

1129:

Feedback request: Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines request for comment

116:

Feedback request: Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines request for comment

553:

seemed to disappear before I got a chance to see it, so I'm responding here.

3545:

You're pursuing me to my talkpage, so don't accuse me of harrassing anyone.

1576:

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

2306: 1745: 1422: 2438:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3647: