Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Flowerofchivalry

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Flowerofchivalry | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

We wish to bring to attention our numerous attempts at civil discussion with Flowerofchivalry on a number of pages relating to the Nanking Massacre, namely Nanking Massacre, Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (book), Nanjing Safety Zone, all of which ended in failure.

(I have edited the links that ponted to Rape of Nanking to point to Nanking Massacre, because that is the title of the article. The Rape of Nanking links are redirects. This seems symptomatic of the revert wars on the above-mentioned articles, that the terminology of the event is, in and of itself, a hot-button-type-issue in this discussion. The so-called 'protect group' (see below) could in my opinion, be just as easily charged with equivalent offenses to those brought against User:Flowerofchivalry. I would suggest that this article needs some fresh editors to work on the POV issues, as neither 'side' seems to be headed towards a stable article, by which I mean an article that will acceptably state all the facts and include all the major viewpoints surrounding the incidents in Nanjing following the Battle of Nanjing)

Pedant 2005 June 29 02:55 (UTC)

Description

Flowerofchivalry has been engaged in a long running edit war that recently has escalated to the point we feel it necessary to request comments. We have compiled a list of questionable conduct by Flowerofchivalry since 31 May 2005, in no particular order:

1. POV pushing
2. Revert-warring
3. Violation of 3RR
4. Lack of etiquette
5. Lack of wikiquette
6. Personal attacks
7. Abuse of (nonexistent) power
8. Not responding to constructive discussion
9. Ignoring comments and warnings
10. Utilizing anonymous IP addresses to further revert-war
11. Inability to procure evidence and support

Due to the highly interweaved discussions and happenings across many pages, and due to the number of editors involved, we will group the editors into 2 groups, the "protect group" (consisting of mainly Markalexander100, Mandel and Hmib) and the "edit group" (Flowerofchivalry and his sockpuppets). This is by no means an accurate representation of the 2 groups' agendas and aims, but rather, saves the trouble of naming individual editors over and over.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. POV pushing
   1. Unwilling to accept opposing POV, believes in his own definition of NPOV.
   2. Has drastically changed articles to insert his POV in numerous articles without prior discussion, the best example now is Nanjing Safety Zone.
   3. Made progressively more drastic changes without editor consensus on Iris Chang, history.
   4. What he does not seem to understand, is that facts are facts are facts. Facts are not POV, because they are facts.
2. Revert-warring
   1. Flowerofchivalry has been engaged in a huge, protracted war in Iris Chang (that has seen at least some 20 reverts, causing at least 3 users to break 3RR...). In it both Flowerofchivalry and anonymous-IP addresses, whom we have every reason to believe are sockpuppets of Flowerofchivalry, participated. The page has now been protected by Mailer diablo. All the while, "discussion" has been taking place on the talkpage, resulting in the protect group largely abandoning the discussion, due to Flowerofchivalry's unwillingness to accept other POVs.
   2. A lesser revert war is in progress at Nanjing Safety Zone; Flowerofchivalry added large chunks of dubious quality and credibility without prior discussion.
3. Violation of 3RR
   1. Flowerofchivalry was warned of the 3RR after his first violation of it, but has since further violated it by using anonymous-IP sockpuppets (who have no edits on Wikipedia except reversions to Flowerofchivalry's version, and who appeared immediately after Flower had reached his three revert limit. ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Flowerofchivalry_alias_User:68.27.42.126_and_User:70.6.253.74.2C_User:70.6.177.52_and_User:68.27.173.157 3RR violation complaint].
   2. Flowerofchivalry still denies his involvement as puppeteer.
4. Lack of etiquette
   1. Etiquette in general. He insults the intelligence of the editors on the protect group by assigning us our "homework", If you believe the book is accurate and most part are the truth, please explain them here. It's your homework. [1], This is your homework. Don't worry, I'm not gonna argue with this (at least as of now) so take your time and learn.[2].
   2. He also acts arrogantly, flaunting his engineer credentials as if it was an immunity pass. Scattered across numerous talkpages.
   3. Made snide comments about Iris Chang: She should have seen a better psychiatrist.
   4. Update: Upon asking him to point on on what points he accused me of lying, and informing him that he could raise a RfC against me if he wanted, here is his response: All. Oh wait, it is a fact that my English sucks. So what? You can fix my English if you can. Why not?? RfC against you? I think I don't need it because you did by yourself. I told you you shouldn't do it but you don't listen.
5. Lack of wikiquette
   1. In addition to 3RR and other policy infringements, he also ignores discussions at will, as we will later document.
   2. None of these problems have been helped by the en-3 tag on his user page being rather optimistic. While we welcome contributors with imperfect English, he seems to be unable or unwilling to understand discussions on the article talk pages, and repeatedly reverts to versions which are so poorly written as to be nonsensical.
6. Resorting to personal attacks
   1. sorry for mess up your talkpage with this low level dispute made by Hmib. --Flowerofchivalry 09:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   2. He is now tring to RfC, but it is clear for me that Hmib will disgrace himself in public. --Flowerofchivalry 10:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   3. Since I cannot fill her talkpage with garbage, I will not argue with Hmib here. --Flowerofchivalry 10:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) - all 3 on Slimvirgin's talkpage, the personal insult is obvious, also, accused Hmib of being a vandal.
   4. On this page, Flowerofchivalry turned a perfect suggestion into this: This anonymous edit was made by 211.30.211.93, keep doing vandalisms in other pages. The user's NPOV means his/her pov or communist view. He just hate Japan. --Flowerofchivalry 03:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   5. Update: Thank you for providing me a funny commedy story. I'm sure this does not work because the person must be accused is you. Don't you remember? Mark told you to stick to the facts. If you sticked to the fact, you can't accuse me. Don't waste your time while complaining you have the final exam. --Flowerofchivalry 12:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) This was his reply to my good-will message to inform him that I put up a RfC. It's apparent from this response that he does not respect anyone.
7. Abuse of (nonexistent) power
   1. as this anonymous-IP talkpage can testify. We are not condoning vandalism, however, Flowerofchivalry attempted to exercise power not granted to him (warning in an official capacity).
   2. You, Hmib, wrote I, Flowerofchivalry, am a neo-nazi holocaust viewer at Talk:Japanese war crimes. I take this as a personal attack against me, because I have never made such statement. I will be forced to take further action, but since you have made certain contributions at other pages, so I will overlook this case this time if and only if you 1)withdraw your statement stated above, 2)promise do not assault anyone at Wikipedia, and 3)officially apology me about your wrongdoing stated above at User:Hmib by 14:00 June 25th, 2005 (PDT). --Flowerofchivalry 21:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) - He has no official authority to order me to apologize, and I will make no official apology. However I do not, had not and will not assault anyone at wikipedia - unless I - or other wikipedia contributors - am assaulted first. As in this case. Flowerofchivalry has admitted to being a holocaust denier On Talk:Iris Chang "However, I personally believe it did not happen.". Notice that I used holocaust in lowercase, which refers to any such genocide reminiscent of the Jewish Shoah, as is the Rape of Nanking and the Second Sino-Japanese War.
8. Not responding to constructive discussion
   1. On Talk:Iris Chang, Talk:Nanking Massacre, and Talk: The Rape of Nanking (book), very lengthy discourses those, but it is a noted trend that Flowerofchivalry generally ignores questions/comments/suggestions from other editors and only reply with totally off-topic regurgitation that were already resolved weeks or months ago.
9. Ignoring comments and warnings
   1. Flowerofchivalry ignored the warning issued by Thryduulf, for 3RR violation by violating 3RR even more using anonymous IPs.
10. Utilizing anonymous IP addresses to further revert-war, sockpuppets include:
    1. 70.6.253.74 (the entry on reporting 3RR violation missed the last digit, only 1 edit, on Iris Chang)
    2. 68.27.42.126 (2 edits, both on Iris Chang)
    3. 70.6.177.52 (1 edit, on Iris Chang)
    4. 68.27.173.157 (1 edit, on Iris Chang)
    5. 70.6.235.102 (1 edit, on Iris Chang), all from Sprint, in short intervals, with similar IP
11. Inability to procure evidence and support
    1. To this date Flowerofchivalry has yet to produce a single, verifiable, recognized source for his POV in all concurrent discussion talkpages, despite numerous attempts by Mandel and Hmib to ask him for evidence. Yet, he insists on reverting to his version while the discussion is stalemated.
    2. The sources he does provide are either works of widely-denounced pseudohistory (Tanaka Shōmei) or Japanese articles that nobody (except him) understands.
    3. Flowerofchivalry has seen fit at this time to ignore all requests for credible sources.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:3RR
2. Wikipedia:Civility
3. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
4. Wikipedia:Verifiability
5. Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Circumventing_policy

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk:Iris_Chang
2. Iris Chang (protected as a result of revert war)
3. Talk:Nanking Massacre
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR
5. User_talk:SlimVirgin#Vandal_User
6. User_talk:Flowerofchivalry#RFC

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Hmib 11:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Mark¹ 01:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Nandesuka 16:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--211.30.211.93 29 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)

Fuwah 29 June 2005 11:38 (UTC)

CharlesZ 2 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Xanadu 23:30, 25 July 2005 (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.

{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.}

User:Flowerofchivalry has accepted my offer of assistance in resolving the edit war/protection issue on Iris Chang. I am currently in dialogue with Flowerofchivalry seeking to clarify the user's side of this issue. I am willing to act as advocate for Flowerofchivalry during any conflict resolution process regarding the articles mentioned in this RfC.

As of now, it seems that Flowerofchivalry is attempting to achieve a Neutral Point of View in the article, and believes that the article 'over-emphasizes' Iris Chang's 'accomplishments', and omits mention of opposing viewpoints.

I have not discussed etiquette issues yet with Flowerofchivalry yet.

A brief perusal of the discussion page seems to indicate a general breakdown of etiquette, and it seems to me that both 'sides' to this argument seem to feel as if they have a personal stake in the outcome, and have acted outside of wikipedia guidelines. I feel that this conflict is still resolvable by consensus process at this time. Pedant 02:36, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Pedant 02:36, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
2. John Smith's 13:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Flowerofchivalry 28 June 2005 07:05 (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.

I have been involved many times with FlowerofChivalry. Whilst I do not have problems of etiquette with him, I believe a lot of his edits are very POV, and very insiduously so. For example, he alleges in the Iris Chang talk page that Iris Chang is a "political activist" who "was paid by the Gov" and "anti-Japan". His edits also reflect his very POV beliefs [3] and he has failed to provide English links in the article itself to support his claims. Most of his links are purportedly from right-wing publications which cannot be regarded anything but extremist. Allegations such as "paid for her research in China regarding the book" cannot be considered NPOV. These edits sparked off an edit war and led to the article being locked.

FlowerofChivalry also does not believe in the Nanking Massacre [4], and claims to hold a neutral point of view concerning it, but his edits in Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (book) and Nanking Massacre are all highly controversial, and may I submit, an endorsement of his own beliefs rather than NPOV. Had a few of us not complained, he would have run riot on these pages.

It is clear that FlowerofChivalry is very interested in the Nanking Massacre and Iris Chang, and that he is of Japanese descent. It is also clear that he is intend at painting the late Ms Chang in as bad a light as possible to undermine her claims about the Massacre.

He has recently also appeared in Nanking Safety Zone with some very interesting edits [5], alleging, amongst other things, that John Rabe was a weapons-dealer (!) sponsored by the Chinese government (which he did not say, Communist or Nationalist), missionary Father Magee a "Japanese hatered Christian Father", and that "the citizens in the Safety Zone started realizing that the Japanese Army was friendly (sic)".

This has led to a very interesting condundrum: if FlowerofChivalry continues his POV edits, and the articles continue being locked, than the credibulity of the article and Wikipedia is seriously undermined. However, it appears that Wikipedia does not have policies safeguarding against very POV users who are extremely energetic at pushing personal agendas. Mandel July 7, 2005 14:37 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Mandel, thank you for your providing comment. Here are the few links you have requested me to provide. Please note that I do not discuss the issues here but providing the links.

Chang stated herself as an activist here. She said "There were other activists or filmmakers..." Also, what she was doing is clearly anti-Japan. Yes, some scholors stated that Chang was paid by the Chinese Government. The Director of Pacific Research Institute stated that Chang and other activists have been supported by the Chinese government (SAPIO Feb.27, 2002).

Yes, Nanking activist, not political activist. You stick the wrong term in. She advocated for no political ideas. As for what the director of Pacific Research Institute say, it is not important. What is important is his evidence. I can say that I believe John Lennon is still alive, but I need evidence to back my story up before anyone would believe me. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Nanking activist == Political activist because Nanking Massacre == Political Issue

--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

I am not an extremist. I would appreciate you if you could refrain from those kinds of labeling.

The sites you point to are clearly extremist. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:07 (UTC)

OK, it may be extremist for you, but you should know what the real extremist is. Some people claim that vanish all Chinese from Japan because Chinese always commit crimes. This assertion may be an extreme. None of them claim anything like this.--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

This is Rabe was a weapon dealer

in Japanese I translate precisely as I can. "Magee was anti-Japan and he sympathized with Chinese believers. He was extremely biased, and his opinions was not easily accepted by people in the United Stated by that time."

Again, you are quoting a secondary source and an opinion, not a primary source (direct evidence or quote from John Magee himself is needed). I can say that John Magee is anti-Russian, anti-Semitic or anti-American even, but again, what proofs do I have in saying that?

Magee is clearly anti-Japan because he was looking for Japanese evil activities, and he actually could not see any homicide scene(one "homicide" case was the Japanese soldier shot the Chinese person who tried to ran away from stop order). He did not see any single homicide case in small area (same as Central Park) in 2 months, and a hundreds of thousands people were killed. However, he created the story of Nanking Massacre from "someone said something", like a chinese person said that he saw the scene that soldier killed a citizen. Everything John Magee stated is second or third source and therefore his testify does not qualify as the primary source. And don't forget, Siemens used to manufucture weapons (but they mainly manufuctured the related equipment). According to my quick research, Siemens is the biggest electric group and the Nationalist govt bought weapons from Germany. John Rabe was the head of Siemens in China. He must have involved selling weapons. Oh, don't forget, Rabe sold other than weapons to them such as generator. The Nationalist govt was the most important customer for Rabe.

--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

It seems that Mandel has the fixed idea on that the evil Japanese killed 300,000 innocent people, and all other ideas are not acceptable.

I based my belief on the diaries of John Rabe and primary sources which I have read. I'm not certain about the number, but indiscriminate killings obviously did occur. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:07 (UTC)

I agree that. As I said, Nanking Massacre exists and a hundreds of disarmed soldiers were killed, and this is illegal. You and my assertion already the same for this point.--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Besides, Japan is in the forefront of the studies of Nanking Massacre. In China, there is no freedom of speech (or if I say more precisely, people have freedom of speech if and only if the Chinese government agree that), so the study the Chinese government does not favor in China is impossible. In fact, Chang made the most research in China.

If some of the primary witnesses and victims of the Massacre are in Nanking and China, what makes you think that Chinese research is unimportant? The way you dismiss studies of other countries reek of Japanese chauvinism. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Again, there is no freedom of speech in China. In such area, "I saw something" or "I heard something" or "I was raped" does not mean anything. From the beginning, why they did not testify at International Military Tribunal for the Far East when the Chinese government worked very heard to find witnesses and victims.--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

The same as Wekipedians, there are volunteers who translate documents from Japanese to English, but many credible documents are yet avilable only in Japanese. I have been doing my best to find the sources in English, but if I cannot find the sources in English, I will translate precisely as possible. People can acquire the Japanese people who support the incident so they can verify my translate is not twisted.

I wish I could edit the article with your cooperation to check my writing, but you believe everything I write is "insidious." To be honest, I need you because I need other POVs. I really hope you and I can help each other and make the articles more unbiased.

Cheers, --Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

I wish those my comments help the discussion. --

Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand in a place designed as a RfC, not active forum. I'll answer in the Nanking Massacre talk page. Mandel July 9, 2005 10:31 (UTC)

Neutral Japanese Translator?

FoC seems to use a great deal (if not exclusively) Japanese source material, is there any person(s) here who is willing to help translate the documents for the other parties involved? Xanadu 21:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)