Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mafia godfather

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute
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.

Desired outcome
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.

Description
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."

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provided in chronological order to show pattern - the talk pages themselves are probably easier to follow in all honesty)
 * - first assertion of his particular POV in talk page
 * change to article per his POV
 * reversion based upon his POV
 * further talk page assertion of his POV
 * another reversion
 * further talk page assertion of his POV as the only version of the "truth"
 * article edit asserting the POV that Taiwan's political status became "unclear" due to the SFPT
 * attempts at talk page debate over issue, rather than article content
 * further assertion of his POV as fact at talk page
 * reassertion of his position in response to content RFC
 * First appearance of issue under Government in exile article talk page, with corresponding article edit here
 * Another assertion of his position as "fact"
 * Comment that the legal status of Taiwan isn't really in dispute, contrary to that article itself
 * further assertion of his POV that the SFPT was determinative
 * further assertion of his POV, amid statements that opposing POVs are those of "convicted criminals"
 * claim that his POV is self-evident along the lines of "American people are also humans"
 * POV edit to article, subsequent reverting to his preferred version
 * Assertion in talk of the POV suggesting that Dulles's views and the SFPT are determinative
 * One more revert to his preferred version
 * Further proclamations of his POV as the "truth" (I have previously directed him to the legal status of Taiwan article for references to opposing POVs); he admits that editors' consensus is against him but justifies himself by asserting that he, rather than others, has the verifiable sources
 * more reverts to his preferred version
 * further assertion that his POV is undeniably true
 * A further attempt to revert to his preferred version
 * "It is a fact that neither the ROC nor Taiwan is a country." This statement clearly demonstrates Mafia godfather's confusion between facts and opinions, and facts about opinions. The Chinese naming conventions specifically address this issue, and consensus is to avoid describing the ROC or Taiwan as or as not a country.
 * One more attempt to revert to his preferred version

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:TEND
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:ATTACK
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:OR

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * See Talk: Second Sino-Japanese War and Talk: Government in exile for the lengthy discussions that have not resolved the issues

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * See above

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Ngchen (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC) (creator of this RFC)
 * T-1000 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Readin (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Response
''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 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.[] 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:


 * First of all, "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based CANNOT be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic AS EVIDENCED BY reliable sources. That means even though NPOV means we should include conflicting perspectives on a topic, those perspectives NEED TO BE EVIDENCED BY RELIABLE SOURCES. The contribution I provided meet this criteria nicely, the theory of Taiwan is a part of ROC is not. That is why I repeatedly demand citation from reliable sources for this perspective. Just because a couple editors agree that it is does not make it so as wikipedia clearly states that these principles CANNOT, and I would like to stress again, CANNOT be superceded by editors' consensus.


 * NPOV also focuses on facts being used to support a perspective. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. WP:NPOV I have provided "facts" with credible sources to back these facts, and if there are any credible disputes to this fact, these disputes should be made with reliable sources as well, standards apply to any "perspective" as far as wikipedisa's concern should be applied to these "disputes". I have seen none of such credible disputes other than editors' rants.


 * NPOV touches on "undue weight", and my contributions are fully evidenced and meet the criteria of a well referenced FACT and even being referenced in official government documents, official site of a UN agency and textbooks of top education institutions. However, since some editors disagree and call it a "minority view" and should not be given undue weight. Let's take a look at the "Taiwan is a part of ROC" view and see if it is acceptable as a majority view?
 * "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" No such references have been provided, there is no way to reliably verify such a viewpoint as a "majority view", this perspective shouldn't even be in this article per wikipedia policy.
 * Second, verifiability. With all the references I have provided from Stanford University, UNHCR, official record of meeting for former Secretary Dulles, and research report to the congress... I see none of them fail the test of verifiability. As for the opposing view of "Taiwan is a part of ROC", I have not seen even one ounce of evidence or citation, so there was no way to see if it is verifiable.


 * Finally, no original research. "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." WP:OR My contribution has been affirmed by various verifiable sources as FACT and they are not unpublished, arguments, speculation and ideas. If anything, the theory of "Taiwan is a part of ROC" would be more of an OR since we have not yet seen any verifiable sources backing this perspective. It is therefore an unpublished argument speculated by some wiki editors who have noticeably limited knowledges on the target subject.
 * For the reasons I listed above, I will revert this back again, and I urge you all who disagree with me either comply to wikipedia editing policies and provide necessary citations to make your perspectives "evidenced" or request an administrator to oversee this issue. Thanks for your time.


 * By the way, Ngchen, if you want to quote me, at least quote it right. I did not say ""right to administer per the UN", I said "The Republic of China government acquired the right to administer Taiwan from accepting the surrender of Japan in 1945" and I have provided evidence for it from UNHCR. Perhaps you should make sure you read thoroughly first before making any changes on any contribitions of other editors on any wikipedia articles. I do not know why you bring up "DPP and KMT", they are both political parties within the administered territories of the Republic of China government and whatever they say represent their political bias and should NOT be considered as verifiable facts as "such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ". "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have never cited from any of their sites or publications, I hope you take some time and read through "verifiability" WP:V.[]

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:
 * 1) Mafia godfather (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to the section Evidence of disputed behavior

 * - first assertion of his particular POV in talk page
 * I asked questions demanding evidences to show that retrocession of Taiwan indeed did happen because it is historically incorrect and I did not see any reliable evidences provided to demonstrate this entry is a valid fact. I provided evidence from SFPT and relevant prevailing international laws to show that no transfer of territorial sovereignty was ever made from Japan to Taiwan. I simply did not realize stating the obvious from widely recognized legal principles would be a POV. If someone looks at 18 U.S.C. 1111. Murder [] and say that murder is illegal because the code states murder is "unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought", I wouldn't think someone would say that is a POV and not a fact. I simply provided the legal reference to point out the obvious fact that "retrocession" by definition never happened and cannot be validated by any reliable sources.


 * change to article per his POV
 * This change is factual and completely in line with historic reality. Please see San Francisco Peace Treaty text regarding territory in Article 2.


 * reversion based upon his POV
 * This is also a fact as one can see from text of General Order No. 1, Japanese Instrument of Surrender and SFPT.


 * further talk page assertion of his POV
 * I provided detailed information on the facts I have contributed after finding out that the editors were not as informed on the subject matter as I originally hoped for. the editors did not understand significance of peace treaty as a final legally binding settlement of war and they also were fuzzy about legal principles regarding treaties and declarations. Furthermore, I spotted DCTT's mistake in his understanding and quoting of General Order Number One where he said that Chiang was ordered to accept surrender from Japanese in Mnchuria. Misrepresentation as such seems to be common mistake committed by the editors who oppose me, which begs the question if they were informed enough to edit without compromising the quality of the information as presented in the articles.


 * another reversion
 * I reverted to what I originally contributed because no evidenced counters were provided by those who oppose my contribution.


 * further talk page assertion of his POV as the only version of the "truth"
 * If you search through everything that I have written, you would not find anywhere in my statement I declare my contribution as "truth" because I contributed them as "facts". there is a difference between a truth and a fact.


 * article edit asserting the POV that Taiwan's political status became "unclear" due to the SFPT
 * I posted that statement in good faith expecting the editors had this knowledge since another portion of my contribution referred to [UNHCR]] and the article from the UN agency clearly stated Taiwan's status is to become uncertain..."The status of Taiwan was to become uncertain after events in 1945" due to "no treaty made specific references to Taiwanese sovereignty".


 * attempts at talk page debate over issue, rather than article content
 * I do not see anything wrong to retort counter arguments made by other editors that I found to be illogical. Also, Ngchen attempts to revive the "retrpcession" controversy which has been settled with a compromise agreed by me and previous opposing editors.


 * further assertion of his POV as fact at talk page
 * My contribution was wrongfully defined and identified as an "argument" again and again, I was merely reiliterating that what i have controbuted was indeed a fact and coplies with wikipedia editing principles and cannot be superceded by consensus of editors. Furthermore, I have openly requested disputing facts which the opposing editors never did provide.


 * reassertion of his position in response to content RFC
 * My response was aimed to clarify a misrepresentation of my position by Ngchen. I made effort to give a clarification along with previously provided facts and evidence for the benefit of outside editors.


 * First appearance of issue under Government in exile article talk page, with corresponding article edit here
 * I stated facts that can be verified from reliable sources. I added ROC as a government in exile in fact by the definitio of government in exile. I did not provide reference initially because I have known this to be a fact and not many other entries have ciatations. I took the responsibility for the burden of proof and provided proper references later from Stanford University- Stanford Program On International And Cross Cultural Education and a US congress research report.


 * Another assertion of his position as "fact"
 * The controversy originated from the position some editors took that ROC indeed is the owner of Taiwanees territorial sovereignty and I provided counter evidence from John Foster Dulles to show that my contribution was indeed base on a fact.


 * Comment that the legal status of Taiwan isn't really in dispute, contrary to that article itself
 * Much of the points in that particular articles are dubious and not evidenced. the editors simply used it against me because the fact I presented is similar to one of the arguments made by a certain political ideology in that article. However, they failed to realize that many of the argumeents inside the article are based on FACTS and just because these facts are used by those political groups or entities as an evidence for their argument does not make my fact a POV and not a fact. I have never in any of my posts identify myself as a supporter or associate of any of the sides listed in that article, but I found the editors often label me as a "deep green", "Taiwanese independence supporter" or "TI extremist" so to continue their personal attacks on me. This is evident from the comments they leave in the editing history. I do not find that to be a civil way of discussing these matters.


 * further assertion of his POV that the SFPT was determinative
 * I was accused of conducting personal attack on another editor for the fact I asked a harmless question to make sure the editor discredited the evidence I provided with clear knowledge of the nature of my evidence. The statement made by the editor clearly showed that he was unfit to discredit my evidence for he has no idea what it meant and the capacity of the person mentioned by me.


 * further assertion of his POV, amid statements that opposing POVs are those of "convicted criminals"
 * A harmless analogy to show that testimonies of criminals who committed crimes always need to be put under scrutiny. How many convicted criminals pleaded guilty initially? Which is why wikipedia encourages credible evidence from 3rd party sources should be used.


 * claim that his POV is self-evident along the lines of "American people are also humans"
 * to demonstrate an example of self explanatory fact.


 * POV edit to article, subsequent reverting to his preferred version
 * I was providing more details and clarity to an ambiguous statement. There are no realiable sources to prove Readin's position. Readin and I later agreed to a compromise so the issue is settled. see []


 * Assertion in talk of the POV suggesting that Dulles's views and the SFPT are determinative
 * Which is a fact.


 * One more revert to his preferred version
 * With a reference to a reliable 3rd party source.


 * Further proclamations of his POV as the "truth" (I have previously directed him to the legal status of Taiwan article for references to opposing POVs); he admits that editors' consensus is against him but justifies himself by asserting that he, rather than others, has the verifiable sources
 * See response in above section.


 * more reverts to his preferred version
 * Due to the malicious reverting wars initiated by T-1000 without providing reasons or reference to justify his changes.


 * further assertion that his POV is undeniably true
 * T-1000 was using a biased source so I corrected him and he was trying to argue something is adequate to disprove a fact because the ideologies supported by political parties of ROC, which is clearly unsound. Readin misrepresented my position so I clarified.


 * A further attempt to revert to his preferred version
 * As I said earlier, Readin and I later agreed to a compromise so the issue is settled. see []


 * "It is a fact that neither the ROC nor Taiwan is a country." This statement clearly demonstrates Mafia godfather's confusion between facts and opinions, and facts about opinions. The Chinese naming conventions specifically address this issue, and consensus is to avoid describing the ROC or Taiwan as or as not a country.
 * I did not mention ROC is not a country on any of the articles I have edited or contributed, I have only contributed the fact that ROC has no territorial sovereignty ownership of Taiwan. Whether or not I agree ROC is a country has no bearing on my contribution for I did not make any contribution that touches on that issue.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mafia godfather (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
''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.''

Outside view by The alliance
{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:
 * 1) The alliance (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Laurent (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Daa89563 (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Cybercobra
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:
 * 1) --Cyber cobra  (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Cirt (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Laurent
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:
 * 1) Laurent (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
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.