Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behaviour should be the focus.

• Teenivinestor promises not to misrepresent sources.
• Teeninvestor promises to adhere to WP:DUE and represent viewpoints equally.
• Teeninvestor promises to adhere to WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and not draw conclusions from sources that they do not make themselves.
• Teeninvestor promises to assume good faith when constructive criticism is provided and not take criticism personally.
• Teeninvestor promises to discuss disputed information on the relevant talk page rather than edit war.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Teeninvestor's edits to articles can at times breach WP:POV. While he often cites his information, it is not always to relevant texts. Often general history books are referenced while economic histories dealing with the subject (the Great Divergence) are overlooked. On one occasion a school textbook was used. There is often an imbalance in the information, sometimes presented from one point of view with little to balance it out. Facts are sometimes cherry picked to support Teeninvestor's opinion, which is a breach of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While the current situation deals mainly with the article on the Great Divergence, the issues are long standing and are evident at Chinese armies (pre-1911), comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires before it was completely rewritten.

Evidence of disputed behaviour

Misrepresentation of sources

• Interprets "Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines" as meaning "prohibited mining" (3 July 2010) .
• Interprets a source to mean that "Wenzhiyu is used as a term for Qing practices only", which contradicts sources added later (10 July 2010).
• Produces a quote from a source out of context to support his view that Qing policies held back China (5 July 2010). Subsequently demonstrated to be one side of a dichotomy. Despite the demonstrable divide in sources, Teeninvestor continues to assert that that the sources support his point of view (15 July 2010).
• Interpreting this as saying England was the economic core of Europe (16 July 2010).

Misinformation in edit summaries

• Removing POV and "disputed" tag from article with the summary "Fixed an error in prose" (26 May 2010)
• Removed sourced material with the edit summary "Adding confucianism and mercantilism" (3 July 2010)
• Removed sourced information with the edit summary "grammar error" (4 July 2010)
• Removes POV tag without comment (12 July 2010)
• As above (12 July 2010)

Unfounded accusations of personal attacks

• Teeninvestor interprets an observation that he may be unfamiliar with Roman history by Flamarande as a personal attack (6 April 2009).
• Accuses Gun Powder Ma of personal attacks on the basis of this edit (17 December 2009).
• Accuses Gun Powder Ma of making personal attacks after Gun Powder Ma described the article as a "fantasy scenario" (17 December 2009)
• Accuses Pmanderson of personal attacks when he had done no such thing (24 December 2009) [cf. ; sorry for the big chunk of text, but searching for the comments by Pmanderson show that while he criticised the article he did not make personal attacks].
• Accuses Gun Powder Ma of calling him a "wargamer" (22 April 2010). While GPM has called Teeninvestor a wargamer before, it was not relevant to the discussion. The latest use of the phrase on that page before Teeninvestor used it was in January 2010.
• Accuses Kanguole of making personal attacks after Kanguole says Teeninvestor has misused sources.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:V
2. WP:CHERRY
3. WP:OR
4. WP:SYNTH
5. WP:DUE
6. WP:EW

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. ANI thread started about edit warring and misleading edit summaries (15 July 2010).
2. Teeninvestor asked to produce relevant sources and provide balanced information (13 July 2010).

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behaviour continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. Explanations that appropriate sources need to be used (5 July 2010, 15 July 2010) are not listened to.
2. Teeninvestor still believes that one sentence from one side of an argument is enough to balance out an entire paragraph of information on the other POV (13 July 2010) [cf. quoted text here which does not suggest such an imbalance in opinion.
3. Teeninvestor responds to ANI thread started on 15 July by accusing Gun Powder Ma of making personal attacks and not addressing the root problem of the POV tags, edit warring, and misleading edit summaries (15 July 2010).
4. Request to respond to others' concerns regarding sourcing ignored (15 July 2010).

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Kanguole 13:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. As completely uninvolved editor, GregJackP Boomer! 22:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Ditto. Athenean (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Appears to be an accurate portrayal. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Uninvolved editor, agree with above that this is an accurate portrayal. Badger Drink (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Ditto. Jeff G.  ツ 01:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

View by certifier Kanguole

Teeninvestor is an enthusiastic editor of Chinese history articles, but he is prone to using citations as post hoc support for preconceived beliefs, instead of impartially reporting what reliable sources say. In the case I'm familiar with, his belief is that the Manchu Qing Dynasty prevented China's modernization and thus caused it to fall behind the West, specifically by intervening in the economy in contrast with an alleged laissez faire policy of the Han Chinese Ming Dynasty. This idea is widespread in Chinese blogs, but is far from mainstream scholarship, as was explained at length by User:Madalibi. (Everyone knows the 19th century was disastrous for the Qing, but the relevant period here is the 18th, when they were actually doing rather well.)

This view is presented, for example, in Teeninvestor's original versions of Qing Dynasty#Qing Economic policy, Great Divergence, and (returning to the article after it was rewritten by other editors) Great Divergence#Government policies. (It appears the deleted Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate is similar, but I have not seen it.) The pattern is to select and exaggerate the negative, omit the positive, and draw the desired conclusion. Descriptions of the Qing are made more negative, often with misleading edit summaries or none. Here he deletes text cited to a very reliable source because it conflicts with his preconceptions, but leaves the reference. (In fact the other editor's sourcing was too accurate: the text was actually an unmarked direct quote from the source, which spends a couple of pages on the point.)

Verifying citations is tedious at the best of times, but is exhausting here. For example, in this version, the Cambridge History of China chapter by Myers and Wang (the best source on the mid-Qing economy we've found) is cited in support of statements that Qing policies "crippled Chinese industrial development" and "crippled Chinese industry". When it is pointed out that they say nothing of the sort, Teeninvestor replaces one of the citations with a reference to a general history book available only in China, which has been previously shown to be unreliable, and adds a second citation in which the chapter title does not match the page numbers. When that is finally clarified, it turns out he was picking part of a sentence and ignoring the context (Nev1's 3rd example above). So that is replaced with another general history published in China. Then he produces a Chinese quotation that we later learn came from a school textbook, which he also adds as an additional citation for the same statement. When the textbook is criticized, it is replaced with googled references in Chinese.

Reliable sources for Teeninvestor's position seem to be unavailable in English, and requests for the most reliable Chinese sources on the topic get a disappointing response (second comment).

It seems to me that the method of seeking references to buttress one's opinions, instead of basing one's writing on the best relevant sources, is inherently flawed, and a recipe for POV and UNDUE. (Teeninvestor has received similar feedback at the FA nominations for Economic history of China (pre-1911).)

I hope Teeninvestor will restrict himself to writing in a balanced way from the best available sources, especially in a topic as broad and complex as economic history. It is encouraging that in the last couple of days he has been adding material to Great Divergence based on his reading of Pomeranz's book of the same name, which is clearly an important work on the topic. I also hope he can make it easier for other editors to work with him, for example by providing more informative edit summaries and by being more responsive to the concerns of others.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kanguole 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3. ¶4-5 Tenmei (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Athenean (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Uninvolved editor who finds this summary accurate. Badger Drink (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Ditto. Jeff G.  ツ 01:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Postscript

Just to clarify: the second section of Teeninvestor's response below refers to the Handling of sources section on the talk page. Kanguole 10:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

View by certifier Gun Powder Ma

Despite Teeinvestor's assurances below, there is a continuing problem with his fixation on Europe and the West, and his eagerness to subsume the economic development or military prowess of these world regions in – totally unrelated – articles on China: Just a few hours after User:FeydHuxtable's endorsement below, Teeinvestor has added the following claim at Chinese economic reform:

For centuries, China had been one of the world's largest and most advanced economies, and its per capita incomes probably equalled and exceeded that of Western Europe as recent as the 18th century.

It is notable that Teeinvestor does not cite a source for this far-reaching claim. (postscript: he has given the source meanwhile; dispute now centers on the question why multiple scholarly sources to the contrary effect are, what I feel, systematically excluded or downplayed in their significance) In fact, and this is crucial, he introduced the claim into the article, even though he is perfectly aware that recent scholarship has come to the opposite conclusion: cf. this table, where Western European GDP per capita exceeds China's in all benchmark times save 1000 AD. And you know what? Teeinvestor introduced the claim against his better knowledge, because his query on talk page and another one here just 48 h ago shows that he was absolutely aware of Maddison's estimate at the time of his edit! Still, he chose to went along with his preconceived view and willfully ignored Maddison's estimate in his expansion of the article on Chinese economic reform.

I could add a handful of older examples, if need arises, but the pattern remains the same: He is cherry-picking sources according to his China POV, and in case of disagreement with other editors, instead of providing balanced views, he embarks on a policy of systematically removing POV tags. It is clear to me that many editors have become frustrated with such an uncooperative, biased edit pattern, and unfortunately, the latest example shows that there is no sign that Teeinvestor is willing to change his ways here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Athenean (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
3. ¶3 Tenmei (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Also endorse the bit below. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Haploidavey (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC) agreement relates to Teeninvestor's persistent tagging and removal of cited material at Roman metallurgy (see below for diffs). See also talk-page discussion at same article and Outside view below (pending).
6. Jeff G.  ツ 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: Further incidents after this RFC/U has begun:

• Edit-warring:
  • Chinese economic reforms, including repeated removals of POV tags:
    • 1,
    • 2,
    • 3,
    • 4
    • 5 (removal of tag)
    • 6
    • 7 (removal of tag)

• • List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita:
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9

• • List of regions by past GDP (PPP):
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4

• • Roman metallurgy:
    • 1
    • 2

Regarding Great Divergence

Throughout this dispute, I have been the one providing numerous sources to express both views on the disputed issue (the effect of Qing policies on the Great Divergence), as well as a variety of other views. However, the users above have completely ignored the plethora of sources I have used to back up assertions I have made in the article, as well as incessantly attacking me as having violated wikipedia's policies on synthesis and POV, which I have done nothing of the sort. The negative effect of Qing policies on the Great Divergence is a minority but relatively substantial view on the topic, something even acknowledged by the leading scholar on the debate, Kenneth Pomeranz. Accordingly, I have given it a small amount of space in the relevant sections, backed up by several citations from scholarly, academic sources. Although some of my edits have been rather heavy-handed and quick, I have always acknowledged the relevant scholarship on this issue. I vehemently deny misrepresenting any sources whatsoever; I admit to have made some wording errors, but this was subsequently cleaned up. The Qing theory is backed by multiple academic sources, including a paper from a leading social science journal in China. Recent discussion on Talk:Great Divergence has been more constructive and a compromise seems to have been reached on this issue.

Although many of the sources relating to the Qing policies are in Chinese, this is understandably so; few Westerners would write about a minority view in Chinese academia (would you expect Chinese academics to have much to say on revisionist scholarship on the U.S. Civil war?). My impression was that Kanguole was knowledgable in Chinese and thus he would be able to check the sources accordingly and verify them. And it is not as if opposing views were not represented; even in the sections of the article discussing the culpability fo the Qing, much space is given to opposing views which believed Qing's state interventions had a positive effect.

Regarding "misrepresentation" of sources

The accusations of misrepresntation of sources can only stand up if Myers and Wang was the only source I was using, which is patently not the case. In fact, multiple sources were used to back up my assertions, but the above editors have checked only one source that was used marginally and which did not say whatthey wanted; hardly a case of "source misrepresentation". These accusations are themselves misrepresenations. As any diffs can show, I used multiple, high-quality sources to back up all my assertions, including the Qing theory. I acknowledge that the heavy industries does not fit this case, but i believe in that case Pomeranz did support the given assertion; the question is how much he supports it.

Indeed the above editors' own interpetation of Myers and Wang is heavily skewed. They ignore their numerous and repeated statements that Qing intervened into the economy frequently and often installed monopolies (understanding the "advantages" of monopoly power) and instead focus on a few very vague statements about reducing the tax burden (from when? The war era or the Late Ming) and the abolition of labor conscription (despite the fact that overwhelming academic consensus and evidence shows that this was done decades earlier under Zhang Juzheng). Any reasonable interpetation would state that the Qing was interventionist (especially when we contrast this with Cambridge history's volume on Ming). If we go through the policies of Mao, and notice that he allowed for a year peasants to farm a tiny private garden, does that justify editors jumping and shouting: "Ah Hah! There's no scholarly consensus on whether Mao was a champion of free enterprise or not! You're misrepresenting your sources!"

Regarding User:Gun Powder Ma

Contra Gun Powder Ma, I added the information to the article and sourced it to a well-known, academic source dealing with the topic, who provided alternative estimates of Asian per capita income from Maddison. There are estimates other than Maddison's, and some of them are not exactly the most accurate (for example, Maddison claims Finland is wealthier than China in 1700). It's interesting to see how he claims I am edit warring on Chinese economic reform and Chinese armies (pre-1911), when he was the one who placed a plethora of tags and irrelevant info in, without contributing one iota or showing any interest in the discussion. He has repeatedly lied here, as shown above when he claimed I claimed that he called me a wargamer recently, while I was referring to a past dispute. His accusation: 1 and the actual response: 2. Currently he is disputing the importance of the work of Joseph Needham, perhaps the most prolific China scholar, and doing so indirectly through disputing the claims of Robert G. Temple, a mere summarizer of Needham. GPM's statement that a "consensus" was reached to discredit Temple is also spurious. Several other users (see above diffs) have indicated Temple should be used 1 and 2. This editor has had a history of edit warring in order to push an Eurocentric POV, especially on China-related subjects, as can be seen here from his block record

I have invited this user to cooperate with me repeatedly, (for example, see here), 1 and User talk:Gun Powder Ma#Olive Branch Petition, but he has continued edit warring and POV-pushing instead of cooperation. Recently he has disruptively forum shopped repeatedly 1, 2, 3 and 4, and his disruptive behaviours are becoming more and more intolerable. Recently his attempts at forum shopping and misrepresentation were rebuked by an admin here 1 and 2. Like Athenean below, said user often distorts diffs such as this one which are merely corrections of other editors' mistakes as "edit warring". He also listed removal of the disputed material and tag on Chinese economic reform which he requested as edit warring. Considering this user's history of edit warring and POV pushing, I ask other editors to examine the situation and diffs with their own judgement and not be mislead.

This user is now trying to declare that I violated Toddst1's restrictions even though the community declared them unworkable, and even Toddst1 allowed them to be modified, which Patar knight later did.1 2 3 4 5

Regarding recent blocks

Regarding my recent blocks, here's the back story. Despite earlier attempts to resolve the problem, 2, I became concerned about said editor's personal attacks, and filed a WQA report 1. After more issues emerged, I expanded the report with a lot more info and filed it on WP:ANI. 2, after which I was immediately blocked and topic banned by User:Toddst1.for "Wikihounding" by filing an ANI report, even though this was the same user who told me to raise the issues on ANI. Now in this case, I have several objections to the block:

• I did not violate any policy at the time of the block. I was not edit warring, socking, vandalizing, spamming, engaging in personal attacks, anything. I was also not violating WP:FORUM as the issues I raised at ANI were of a bigger scope than WQA and I believe of major concern. Yet I was blocked without so much as a warning for "hounding" another editor; this is an eminent double standard as said editor had once filed several ANI reports simulatenously against me without any comment from user:Toddst1, except an encouragement to go to ANI 12 and yet when I filed one ANI report (the second on my 2 years in wiki here), I was blocked immediately.
• What makes this incident worse is that part of the reason I went to ANI was that User:Toddst1 advised me to raise the issues there 4 in an earlier inquiry from me about what to do. But when I did, I was instantly blocked by the same editor who advised me to do so. I'm trying to follow AGF here, but it seems to me that I was set up and then blocked/banned by this very admin so to add to his/her record of "defending wikipedia". This seems to have been an extreme bad faith action from my point of view.

Gun Powder Ma's outrageous POV pushing

More serious is this user's repeated POV pushing after I agreed to avoid interacting with him, per Patar Knight. The decline in article quality because of this user's repeated, outrageous POV Pushing is truly astounding. I will list only a few examples:

• Economic history of China (pre-1911):Removal of all references from Needham, Pomeranz and other scholars, putting "so-called" in front of the four great inventions of China, removing references to Chinese inventions such as steam turbine, cast iron, etc
• Military history of China (pre-1911) removal of standard info on Chinese gunpowder weapons development, inserting that China suffered "many defeats", removed quotes from official dynastic histories This edit was so outrageous that even other editors who were in a dispute with me objected to it. 1.
• Economic history of China (pre-1911) again this one is truly outrageous; removed the invention of movable type as "insignificant".
• Great Divergence mass removal of info related to Pomeranz and other historians
• Repeated provocations on Chinese economic reform, an article he hasn't edited in a month and which is completely unrelated to the current content dispute on ancient Chinese history. This seems to be a pure attempt at provoking conflict. Also note he misrepresented this edit as a revert though it was actually adding a reference 3.

Regarding User:Athenean

User:Athenean seems to be an editor who has good faith, but is rather misguided. For the economic history of China, the sources originally stated conclusively that per capita income in China in 1800 was higher than Europe; there was no doubt; doubt was introduced either through mine own error or another editor's. When I tried to correct this, Athenean reverted me as POV-pushing, which angered me quite a bit and may have caused incivility. However, the sources are clear on this; my edits reflect only what the sources say; I invite any uninvolved editor to check them and indict me if that is not the case. As for the dispute on Chinese economic reform, it is curious that Athenean would refer to it as edit warring, as in the end I acquesied to their view and removed the per capita info which they did not like, as they were correct. He then later reverted me on a mistaken view that I had inserted that China was the wealthiest economy up to the 19th century, missing that I had inserted "one of" in front. He has since not commented on the article, apparently recognizing his mistake. Why Athenean would hold that against me, I can't tell.

Many of Athenean's accusations are quite baseless. For example, he counts me reverting him when he mistakenly thought I was introducing a POV statement as "edit warring" see here and also counted these two 1 and 2 diffs as "edit warring" when they were actually just me adding information to the article and then reverting another editor's mistaken removal of Bairoch under the impression I didn't cite his source. He also counts this addition 1 which was an addition of material after a long discussion with User:Nev1 reaching a consensus as a "revert" and "edit warring". These and many other diffs were abused by him to suggest that I was edit warring; as can be seen above; this is hardly the case.

Regarding User:Tenmei

User:Tenmei has a history of disruptive editing, which eventually cumulated into a dispute with me and numerous other editors here in which he was topic banned, blocked for a week and restricted from editing without a mentor. His previous history of editing include numerous personal attacks, disruptive edit warring, forum shopping, abuse of the dispute system and a crippling inability (feigned or real) to communicate at all. It appears this user, in participating in this RFC, is trying to "settle an old score" with me, so to speak. I urge editors to take his response with a grain of salt.

WP:OWN issues

I admit I can be a little quick on the revert button, but I believe that my reverts, especially regarding Economic history of China (pre-1911) was justified by the information in the article and WP:Guidelines regarding the lead. I have taken these edits and discussed them in a constructive manner on the talk page. I have retained some of the info added by other users and put them in alternative sections of the article where they belong (I think you would agree with me that a long exposition of historical per capita incomes do not belong in the lead).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Some of the criticism against Teeninvestor seems valid, he's acknowledged hes made a few minor wording errors, and yes he seems to have a POV on some issues. But he's not unresponsive to collegiate feedback. Teen seems to do a substantial amount of quality editing, and brings multiple quality sources to the table to support his position. While opposition editors seem to be often attacking with hostile rhetoric. Instead of empty criticism, it would be much more constructive if those holding opposing views do their own share of the research, and show a good example by backing up their positions with quality sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   (update) My endorsement was for an earlier version that didnt include the sections on Gun Powder Ma and Athenean. I dont agree with comments, here or on other views, suggesting other editors have been lying. Its inevitable that volunteers making thousands of edits will make mistakes and be inconsistent but this is not the same thing deliberatly trying to deceive. On the other hand, great to see olive branches being offered and that were taking the reliability of our work so seriously. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

3. That Teeninvestor realizes that his POVs are often (substantial) minority viewpoints within the scholarship is a significant improvement. Gun Powder Ma (or, if he cannot stop viewing this dispute in eschatological terms, some other well-informed editor) should work with Teeninvestor to include them proportionally to their weight, instead of removing them entirely. Quigley (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Tenmei

Summary. This thread arises from a dispute in a single article context; but the complaints also mirror the accumulating consequences of edits across a range of articles.

At this point, my small hopes that this thread might be constructive are overwhelmed.

QED — Teeninvestor's new diffs manifest and illustrate the problems which Nev1, Gun Powder Ma and Kanguole brought to this dispute resolution venue.

I also endorse the "desired outcomes" which are listed above; and this begs the question — why not?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tenmei 19:13, 22 July 2010 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Nev1 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Despite my aversion to "<small><small><small><small><small>"   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Athenean

As an outside observer, there are several things I find disturbing here.

• Teeninvestor is extremely prone to edit warring. Over the course of this RfC alone, he has revert-warred multiple times over multiple articles against multiple editors. Specifically:
  • Economic history of China (pre-1911): GPM edits , Teen reverts , GPM edits , Teen reverts , GPM edits , Teen reverts . That's 3 reverts in 6 hours.
  • Chinese Economic Reform: GPM edits , Teen reverts , GPM edits , Teen reverts , GPM reverts , Teen reverts , GPM edits & reverts , Teen reverts , Athenean reverts , Teen reverts , Athenean edits , Teen partially reverts , GPM adds POV tags , Teen reverts to an older version removing the POV tags, Athenean reverts , Teen reverts again . I'm counting 8 reverts in a little over 48 hours.
  • Military history of China (pre-1911): . At least 4 reverts in a little over 24 hours. And this is just the recent stuff. The article history reveals bouts of major edit-warring in January and April of this year .
  • Great Divergence: Nev1 reverts , Teen reverts (without an edit summary), Nev1 reverts , Teen reverts , Nev1 reverts , Teen reverts .
  • List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita: (without an edit summary). These diffs only cover the period of the RfC/U. A scan of the edit histories of these pages reveals past bouts of edits warring equally or even more severe.
• Teeninvestor seems to suffer from a severe case of WP:OWN on the above articles. As soon as someone makes an edit Teeninvestor does not approve of, he reverts instantly, often with a hostile or no edit-summary, as shown in many instances above and evidenced in the edit histories of the above pages . Here is a particularly revealing example: Though there is an 8-1 consensus on the talkpage of Military history of China (pre-1911) for removing a contentious sentence , when I implement this consensus , Teeninvestor reverts it on the ground that it is "instrusive" . A clear symptom of WP:OWN.
• Teeninvestor uses bombastic, peacock language in an effort to make China look great, and is obsessed with comparing it favorably to Europe, even when it is not necessary (is it really necessary to mention that in the 1st paragraph of the lead?) (provocatively moves controversial statement to the lead while it is being discussed.
• Teeninvestor has found a source that backs his pre-conceived notions (Pomeranz) and deliberately ignore all evidence that there exist other sources that disagree with it. He is then willing to edit war extensively over it, in other words classic tendentious editing.
• The deliberate use of misleading edit-summaries is particularly troublesome, because it makes a mockery of good faith and shows a desire to avoid scrutiny. Wikipedia is based on the assumption that editors behave with integrity. If someone acts in a consistently deceitful manner such that their actions needed to be constantly monitored by the community, this is particularly disruptive as it forces other editors to spend their time tracking the dishonest user rather than build content or do other things.
• Consistently construing any criticism as a personal attack is detrimental to the process of discussion. It becomes impossible to have a discussion with such a user. Since discussion is such an important dispute resolution tool, this is very problematic.
• Teeninvestor is also incivil, rude, and arrogant. This is just from a brief interaction with him today: .
• Teeninvestor exhibits clear signs of intellectual dishonesty. First he makes this edit , claiming it is backed by a source, but then later on it is changed to this . "Equaled" is gone. This is POV-pushing by the well known "small steps" tactic. He claims both his edits are sourced, but they are clearly different, so which is it? I'm guessing that in the next few days the word "among" will be the next to disappear (maybe not as a result of this post). Another excellent example is the above-mentioned dispute on Military history of China (pre-1911): After reverting a clear consensus on the grounds that my edit enforcing the consensus was "intrusive" , Teeninvestor at first self-reverts , but then reverts again , then proceeds to edit-war further , on the most spurious grounds (that someone used twinkle to revert him), and threatening to add a whole paragraph of the same stuff.
• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption of talkpage discussions , particularly here . Note the repetition of the same inane CERN metaphor and the "Needham is too big, that's why we must use Temple" meme over and and over .

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Athenean (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Kanguole 07:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
3. GregJackP Boomer! 07:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
5. §6 (personal attack) Tenmei (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
6. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
8. Jeff G.  ツ 01:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by User:GregJackP

I wasn't going to comment further until I noticed this edit where Teeninvestor altered the statement of Gun Powder Ma in this RfC. Clearly inappropriate and indictative that he does not understand the process. This on the RfC talk page also has what I interpretated as a condescending and inappropriate tone. I don't believe that he sees his actions as wrong and don't think he will alter his style of editing unless topic banned (and perhaps not even then). The above is an example of why I shouldn't edit until I've had my morning coffee. Thanks to those that pointed out my error, and I withdraw this comment, with an apology to Teeninvestor.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by N5iln

Even a cursory review of page histories and diffs as shown above appears to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that User:Teeninvestor intends to continue to push an irrefutably WP:NPOV and WP:OR edit cycle, with the apparent intent of outlasting the attention spans of the other involved editors. That said, I cannot make unbiased judgments about intent...I can only make observations regarding actions. The actions in question, in this editor's opinion, demonstrate a blatant disregard for WP:DUE, WP:V and WP:RS which, especially as demonstrated, combine to place Teeninvestor in an untenable position. Add to those the material that can be found in the Talk pages involved, wherein Teeninvestor displays an additional disregard for WP:WAR and WP:OWN, and I must concur with the certifying editors vis-à-vis both the description of the dispute and the most desirable outcome.

I do realize how negative what I am writing here may sound to others, but I believe the evidence in the diffs speaks sufficiently clearly to obviate any sugar-coating.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Tenmei (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Athenean (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Kanguole 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Jeff G.  ツ 01:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Toddst1

I'm only going to comment that I have recently observed Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) and Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) engaging in some kind of grudge against each other. I have blocked Teeninvestor for continuing to hound GPM (discussed on ANI). I recommend some kind of sanction to keep these two apart. Toddst1 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since my previous post, Teeninvestor has agreed to a voluntary interaction ban with GPM. See Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Final_warnings. This RFC is outside the scope of that interaction ban to allow him/her to participate in due process. However any disruption on this page from either Teeninvestor or GPM should be dealt with swiftly and strongly. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked him/her again for continuing to hound GPM. I believe this is indicative of the broader interaction problems TI has and despite making promises, has proven himself unable to keep them. Toddst1 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Bali ultimate

Completely uninvolved, but after a review of the situation I believe the classic wikipedia fall-back of "it takes two to edit war," "be more civil," etc.. leading to "some kind of sanction to keep these two apart" would be the wrong outcome.

I write here not so much to vouch for gpm on the content side, but rather to say there's a big, big problem with teeninvestor on the content side. While I'm no expert on early Chinese history, you don't have to be one to realize that a source like Robert K. G. Temple is not reliable for anything but his own opinions (he basically believes that the premise of Stargate (film) is true). A review of teeninvestors edits shows an over-reliance on fringe sources, strained synthetic efforts to prove that failings of leadership of various Chinese dynasties are the reason why China "fell behind" Europe (as if history was a race, with winners even), and generally a highly nationalistic approach that is antithetical to good content. Now, it's possible that there are problems with gpm's edits as well -- but nothing that pops out so glaringly and quickly as on the other side of this. I've no doubt that the quality of content would improve markedly were teeninvestor to be removed from these articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. 1st sentence only --Tenmei (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC) (obviously I would defend my take on contents, but I understand and like your approach)
3. Kanguole 23:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Jeff G.  ツ 01:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Haploidavey

I'm here because Gun Powder Ma posted to the Greece and Rome project some days ago, inviting comment on edits to the article Roman metallurgy. Two editors responded: myself and Cynwolfe. I noted the two diffs shown at the end of Gun Powder Ma's update for changes to the article (see above), and asked Teeninvestor to provide sources to support his removal of cited material – in particular the insistent removal of what I knew to be a well-cited, conservative, lower-end estimate of iron output in the Roman empire. Teen seemed to "know" that the figure must be wrong because Han Chinese iron production was much higher than Rome's; but he was unable or unwilling to provide alternative figures. He referred to Needham, via Temple and the supporting opinion of another poster; but no figure, not even a rough estimate. Contrary to his talk-page and edit-summary claims, there was neither historical nor talk-page consensus for the removal. Shortly after, he was blocked for hounding Gun Powder Ma: so in all honesty I can't say whether he might have supplied what was requested, using some source hitherto unknown to Roman studies. Anyway, the material in question was restored. It could have been tagged (rather pointlessly in my opinion) as dubious but it should not have been removed.

I can't know Teen's motivation in this. He seems to find the superiority of Han China over Rome self-evident and commonsensical in all respects; therefore his assertions require no source. I'm sure he sincerely believes what he says. I'm less sure why he would wish to visit this belief on Roman metallurgy, unless to chastise it or one of its editors. Either way, not good. I know little of Han China, and would not presume to edit an article on anything to do with it until I'd critically read, evaluated and absorbed a reasonably broad and relevant sample of primary, secondary and tertiary scholarship. Needham's expertise is specific, enthusiastic; some might say preferential. Temple's scholarship, um, speaks for itself. Neither of them has, as far as I know, studied the Roman economy in any depth. Nor, I guess, has Teen. He appears to use sources that confirm what he already and passionately knows to be True. He seems compelled to propagate this Truth. He seems not to acknowledge the unnecessary and frustrating disruption this can cause among the editing community; particularly Gun Powder Ma.

The behaviour of all editors involved in RfC's can be subjected to scrutiny and comment; so a comment or two on Gun Powder Ma; yep, he might or might not have a rather short fuse. So might I in similar circumstances. I don't know in detail how he's tried to resolve the problems between himself and Teeninvestor; but I'm pretty sure they're not of his making. From my dealings with him and my readings of "his" articles I'd say he's a scrupulous, productive and reasonable editor.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Haploidavey (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Well said.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
3. BigK HeX (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (I won't deny that I am sometimes more the emotional type, but I like to believe of myself that I can bow to the ground to a better argument when it is convincingly presented to me. But in this case, Teeninvestor came with absolutely nothing in his hands, but tried to push through his views nonetheless by brute force. Kanguole has also analysed and summarized the whole debate well: "Teeninvestor has been edit warring to remove a well-referenced figure for Roman iron production, not because he has a different figure, but because he finds it out of line with what he knows about China". And this took a lot of time, patience and energy away not only from me, but also from other users, and it was not the first time, either.) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Nev1 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Especially "He appears to use sources that confirm what he already and passionately knows to be True. He seems compelled to propagate this Truth." Kanguole 23:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
7. I took a look at this after Gun Powder Ma's post to the Greece and Rome project and decided against weighing in because of the high drama quotient at Talk:Roman metallurgy. Gun Power Ma has definitely contributed to the combative atmosphere there, but Teeninvestor's behavior is worse, precisely because he has provided no sources to support his position. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Gun Powder may have a short fuse or not, but WP needs to deal with the problem of editors pushing a POV by deleting sourced material. This case fits an alarming pattern: when you support your information with a great number of sources, it's attacked as "OR"; when you summarize a general view within a discipline based on multiple complementary and overlapping sources, it's attacked as "synth." The editor(s) doing the attacking won't add or rewrite content based on their own sources, and their only goal seems to be suppressing information. This is very bad for the encyclopedia.
9. Jeff G.  ツ 01:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)