In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC).
It is alleged that Mafia godfather is editing tendentitiously with regard to articles concerning the sovereignty of Taiwan. More specifically, it is alleged that one particular interpretation of the historical facts is being POV-pushed as the "truth," for this very controversial issue, and thereby is violating the neutrality principle. Due to said dispute, said editor has also allegedly engaged in violations of other policies and guidelines.
It is desired that Mafia godfather would cease to edit against consensus, and that he would understand and put into practice editing that is more neutral.
Mafia godfather apparently believes that the de jure sovereignty of Taiwan is a settled fact, rather than an issue of great controversy as documented in the Wikipedia articles political status of Taiwan and legal status of Taiwan. He apparently bases his belief on a particular interpretation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT); said interpretation is but one of several mainstream views, all the rest of which he discounts. His editing involving this issue has been over two articles: Government in exile and Second Sino-Japanese War. Rather than making an attempt to describe the controversy in a neutral manner, he is insisting on making the his interpretation the only or dominant one, in the guise of "stating facts."
(provided in chronological order to show pattern - the talk pages themselves are probably easier to follow in all honesty)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
The RfC filed by Ngchen and endorsed by T-1000 claimed that I "apparently believes that the de jure sovereignty of Taiwan is a settled fact, rather than an issue of great controversy as documented in the Wikipedia articles political status of Taiwan and legal status of Taiwan." This is clearly a misrepresentation for I have made NO such claim and I have always held that Taiwan's status is undetermined with relevant evidences published by reliable sources. The issue in dispute is the editors disagreed with the fact that ROC government does not own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan for the territorial sovereignty was never transferred to Taiwan and its disposition is undecided. That is far from the claim described by the parties who initiated this RfC. The "particular interpretation" these editors found disturbing is referenced in a US government record that recorded a statement [33] about Taiwan's disposition made by John Foster Dulles, former US Secretary of State and co-author of San Francisco Peace Treaty. The parties in dispute complained that this interpretation is but one of the views while ignoring the fact that the interpretation was made by the very person who had the capacity and the merit to make such interpretation determine the intention of the said treaty . Furthermore, this statement made by Dulles demonstrated a fact and not a perspective. I also provided other notable facts that can support my contribution's validty as you can see from my response to Readin.[ [34]] I have cited wikipedia's definition of facts as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" and I have asked anyone who disputes this fact to provide evidences from reliable sources that can provide disputes to this fact that was signed. I received no response other than an opinion poll that is published from a media and referenced by the ROC government, which is not acceptable for it is a political entity subject to risk of being "biased, extreme, and promotional". I have urged repatedly to have the disputing editors to provide evidence from reliable sources to prove ROC does in fact own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan or they did acquire Taiwan from Japan and other than countless of accusation against me in violation of wikipedia editing principles, I have seen no evidences provided by them that can justify their perspectives or even against the well evidenced facts I have provided. I have spent a post to address to their contention on my violation of wiki policies:
I urge the parties in dispute and those who are interested in reviewing this dispute to carefully and thoroughly review wikipedia policies and make proper evaluation on this matter. You will find that I have been victimized not only by their mobocracy through canvassing and also misrepresentation of what I have posted either taking this out of context or simply misquoting my statements.
Users who endorse this summary:
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
The Statement of Purpose accurately reflects my views on the current situation with this user's actions on Wikipedia.
Users who endorse this summary:
This seems so bloody complicated that I think an non-user RFC on the disputed statements in question would probably be more productive than this user RFC, regardless of who is in the right here (although my hunch is for the noms). The large volume of edits to sift through to make an informed opinion on this RFC, plus the political controversy given the topic, makes outside participation less than likely.
Users who endorse this summary:
Mafia godfather should try to reach a consensus before adding everywhere that the ROC is a government-in-exile. This is a fringe POV that is not backed by proper secondary sources. The one provided in Republic of China in particular is not acceptable as it's essentially a quote by Chiang Kai-shek (who is a primary source).
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC).
It is alleged that Mafia godfather is editing tendentitiously with regard to articles concerning the sovereignty of Taiwan. More specifically, it is alleged that one particular interpretation of the historical facts is being POV-pushed as the "truth," for this very controversial issue, and thereby is violating the neutrality principle. Due to said dispute, said editor has also allegedly engaged in violations of other policies and guidelines.
It is desired that Mafia godfather would cease to edit against consensus, and that he would understand and put into practice editing that is more neutral.
Mafia godfather apparently believes that the de jure sovereignty of Taiwan is a settled fact, rather than an issue of great controversy as documented in the Wikipedia articles political status of Taiwan and legal status of Taiwan. He apparently bases his belief on a particular interpretation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT); said interpretation is but one of several mainstream views, all the rest of which he discounts. His editing involving this issue has been over two articles: Government in exile and Second Sino-Japanese War. Rather than making an attempt to describe the controversy in a neutral manner, he is insisting on making the his interpretation the only or dominant one, in the guise of "stating facts."
(provided in chronological order to show pattern - the talk pages themselves are probably easier to follow in all honesty)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
The RfC filed by Ngchen and endorsed by T-1000 claimed that I "apparently believes that the de jure sovereignty of Taiwan is a settled fact, rather than an issue of great controversy as documented in the Wikipedia articles political status of Taiwan and legal status of Taiwan." This is clearly a misrepresentation for I have made NO such claim and I have always held that Taiwan's status is undetermined with relevant evidences published by reliable sources. The issue in dispute is the editors disagreed with the fact that ROC government does not own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan for the territorial sovereignty was never transferred to Taiwan and its disposition is undecided. That is far from the claim described by the parties who initiated this RfC. The "particular interpretation" these editors found disturbing is referenced in a US government record that recorded a statement [33] about Taiwan's disposition made by John Foster Dulles, former US Secretary of State and co-author of San Francisco Peace Treaty. The parties in dispute complained that this interpretation is but one of the views while ignoring the fact that the interpretation was made by the very person who had the capacity and the merit to make such interpretation determine the intention of the said treaty . Furthermore, this statement made by Dulles demonstrated a fact and not a perspective. I also provided other notable facts that can support my contribution's validty as you can see from my response to Readin.[ [34]] I have cited wikipedia's definition of facts as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" and I have asked anyone who disputes this fact to provide evidences from reliable sources that can provide disputes to this fact that was signed. I received no response other than an opinion poll that is published from a media and referenced by the ROC government, which is not acceptable for it is a political entity subject to risk of being "biased, extreme, and promotional". I have urged repatedly to have the disputing editors to provide evidence from reliable sources to prove ROC does in fact own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan or they did acquire Taiwan from Japan and other than countless of accusation against me in violation of wikipedia editing principles, I have seen no evidences provided by them that can justify their perspectives or even against the well evidenced facts I have provided. I have spent a post to address to their contention on my violation of wiki policies:
I urge the parties in dispute and those who are interested in reviewing this dispute to carefully and thoroughly review wikipedia policies and make proper evaluation on this matter. You will find that I have been victimized not only by their mobocracy through canvassing and also misrepresentation of what I have posted either taking this out of context or simply misquoting my statements.
Users who endorse this summary:
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
The Statement of Purpose accurately reflects my views on the current situation with this user's actions on Wikipedia.
Users who endorse this summary:
This seems so bloody complicated that I think an non-user RFC on the disputed statements in question would probably be more productive than this user RFC, regardless of who is in the right here (although my hunch is for the noms). The large volume of edits to sift through to make an informed opinion on this RFC, plus the political controversy given the topic, makes outside participation less than likely.
Users who endorse this summary:
Mafia godfather should try to reach a consensus before adding everywhere that the ROC is a government-in-exile. This is a fringe POV that is not backed by proper secondary sources. The one provided in Republic of China in particular is not acceptable as it's essentially a quote by Chiang Kai-shek (who is a primary source).
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.