Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor

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: 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Teeninvestor has problems using edit summaries correctly: often they are misleading. There is also a problem with accurately representing what sources say. While Teeninvestor's edits are well meaning, and he obviously feels he is improving the encyclopaedia, sometimes his edits are biased in the sense that they unbalance an article, putting emphasis on one point of view by virtue of providing more information on it. When confronted with criticism, Teeninvestor has frequently responded by accusing others of personal attacks and avoids responding to the actual criticism.

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. [1]; 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)

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[2], and draw the desired conclusion. Descriptions of the Qing are made more negative, often with misleading edit summaries or none[3][4][5]. 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[6][7][8] (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)

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)

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

Proposal of topic ban

The recent reverts showed that Teeninvestor follows still the same edit-war pattern when he disagrees with other users. It is clear that he does only accept his version and is prepared to edit war it to the end on multiple articles. I don't see any improvement in Teeninvestor's behaviour since the RFC/U started, rather it turned to the worst. In this light, I propose a topic ban for Teeninvestor for military and economic history. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• False accusations:
  • False accusations at Chinese armies (pre-1911) in a content dispute, repeated on this very page<
  • On 22 July 2010, Teeinvestor accuses me falsely of continuing to call him a "wargamer" (1), a remark I made in the past in conjunction with his virtual clash of Roman and Han Chinese armies during the December 2009 AfD of his Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. In a following WQA raised by Teeinvestor on 14 May 2010, I have agreed to refrain from calling him further "wargamer", a promise I have fully kept since. In this light, I find his false accusation a sign of bad faith and maliciousness on his part.
  • I consider these personal issues resolved after the User talk:Gun Powder Ma#Olive branch Petition, and I hope that the continuing differences with regard to contents and adherence to WP guidelines can be approached in a more constructive manner in the future. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite the seemingly successful olive branch agreement, Teeninvestor went on to blame me unjustly for "hypocrisy" and "lying". In the light of these allegations, I am forced to reconsider his previous petition as mainly tactically motivated, and dishonest, and thus null and void. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Fringe:
  • It's been now pointed out that one of the main sources on which Teeinvestor systematically relies upon to make key claims of Chinese excellence and relative European backwardness, in articles of his such as Chinese armies (pre-1911) and Economic history of China (pre-1911), is a certain Robert K. G. Temple, notable for his theories on extraterrestrial contacts. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Response

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.

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)

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 Tenmei

My endorsement of specific paragraphs points to core policies. With these additional paragraphs , I argue that the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

Overview: The general thrust of concerns (rather than each individual complaint) and Teeninvestor's combative rejection of it all are like two sides of the same coin.

§1. My initial participation in this RfC thread was cautiously minimal. In this evolving RfC context, I underscore my purpose by restatement. I endorsed the following:

• →View by certifier Kanguole: endorse ¶4-5

• Yes — Kanguole ¶4: "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"
• Yes — Kanguole ¶5: "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 ...."

• →View by certifier Gun Powder Ma: endorse ¶3.

• Yes — Gun Powder Ma ¶3: "... the pattern remains the same ... in case[s] of disagreement with other editors, instead of providing balanced views, Teeninvestor embarks on a ... [program of serial tactics]. 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."

§2. These selected aspects of concern and complaint are predictably obscured by Teeninvestor in this venue and elsewhere, including a thread at User talk:Roger Davies#Tenmei's violation of ArbCom conditions

A. Teeninvestor complains: "By ArbCom's ruling, I believe User:Tenmei is instructed not to interact with me, but he has done so ..." -- diff

B. Roger Davies responds: "... [Tenmei] is explicitly permitted to comment about you in "legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others", which is what he is doing here. As he is editing within the scope of his restrictions, no action is necessary." -- diff

{:{collapse top|Analysis & propositions are premature at this stage}}

Deemed unhelpful

Analysis: In the context Teeninvestor alone is responsible for creating, the interplay of strategy and tactics are not unique. They are familiar; and this causes me to clarify my endorsement by proposing restatements derived from the above: PROPOSITION #1: Teeninvestor and others have learned from experience that the community's attention is easily diffused, distracted, conflated, confused. PROPOSITION #2: Teeninvestor and others have not learned that the community does not endorse the substance, strategy and style inherent in each sentence Teeninvestor has posted in this venue (including the talk page) and in other edits since this RfC was started. PROPOSITION #3: Teeninvestor construes interactions with the community in the past as confirming today that Nev1, Gun Powder Ma, Kanguole and Tenmei are each disruptive. In the alternative, PROPOSITION #4: Teeninvestor and others have been ill-served by the community which fostered cumulative misunderstandings; and this thread becomes a first step in repairing the damage caused by a series of mistakes, misapprehensions, miscalculations.

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 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Nev1 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[:[File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|thumb|right|130px|Parsing argument content]]

Sharpened comment

In the context established by the graphic pyramid at the right, my view has evolved from the general to the specific:

I don't see how

Teeninvestor shows no responsive engagement with the "central point" or core issues

is shown. Why not?

• The initiators of this RfC invested time and thought in developing an explicit listing of the "desired outcomes" and "evidence of disputed behaviour."
• Specific areas of concern were identified, including "misrepresentation of sources" and "misinformation in edit summaries" and "unfounded accusations of personal attacks."

For deliberately redundant emphasis, it may be helpful to restate one sentence from above:

QED — Teeninvestor's accumulating diffs are evidence of the problems which were brought to this RfC.

In this context, a timely new question becomes -- "If not now, when?"

In this RfC, Teeninvestor is quite simply "gaming the system" — that is, he is playing a game. His diffs reveals a core belief that this RfC and Wikipedia generally are nothing other than a contest with winners and losers.

In other words, Teeninvestor's participation illustrates a misperception that Wikipedia is essentially a zero-sum game.

The evidence of Teeninvestor's diffs support no other conclusion. With one potentially hopeful exception here, Teeninvestor's serial diffs prove repeatedly that the time and reasoning invested in this RfC were squandered. More troubling, the moderate words of those participating in this RfC cause Teeninvestor to respond with toxic disrespect, as demonstrated here.

Wikipedia is not a contest nor a zero-sum game; and

• Teeninvestor's strategy and tactics cannot be framed as good for Wikipedia; and
• Ignoring the cumulative effect of Teeninvestor diffs does harm to the academic integrity of Wikipedia.

Teeninvestor's responses are skewed in hopes of achieving a "win" in the long-game. --Tenmei (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Restatement

This RfC was not initiated by me. As a premise, I accept that the ambit of this discussion thread is established in the first paragraph. The final sentence of the first paragraph at the top of this page invites more careful consideration:

"When confronted with criticism,

Teeninvestor has frequently

responded by accusing others ... and

avoids responding to the actual criticism."

The graphic parsing of this key sentence emphasizes its parts. The sentence accurately predicts Teeninvestor's contributions in this RfC venue. The analysis anticipates a characteristic strategy which is on display at "regarding Gun Powder Ma"-above. Teeninvestor's default tactics are again made explicit in "regarding Athenean"-above and in "regarding Tenmei"-above. The broad outlines of an unfolding pattern are made unavoidably plain; but how to mitigate the harm remains unclear -- compare Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals.

As an outside view, my words have twice underscored my belief that the explicit list of "desired outcomes" is a constructive gesture which Teeninvestor ignores. With one notable exception here, Teeninvestor's diffs function at cross-purposes to the desired outcomes. The question becomes:

• "How to replicate the good work of Nev1?"

or

• "How to build consensus from what Teeninvestor does not reject?"

Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. --Tenmei (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by User: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 [9], Teen reverts [10], GPM edits [11], Teen reverts [12], GPM edits [13], Teen reverts [14]. That's 3 reverts in 6 hours.
  • Chinese Economic Reform: GPM edits [15], Teen reverts [16], GPM edits [17], Teen reverts [18], GPM reverts [19], Teen reverts [20], GPM edits & reverts [21], Teen reverts [22], Athenean reverts [23], Teen reverts [24], Athenean edits [25], Teen partially reverts [26], GPM adds POV tags [27], Teen reverts to an older version [28] removing the POV tags, Athenean reverts [29], Teen reverts again [30]. I'm counting 8 reverts in a little over 48 hours.
  • Military history of China (pre-1911): [31] [32] [33] [34]. 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 [35].
  • Great Divergence: Nev1 reverts [36], Teen reverts [37] (without an edit summary), Nev1 reverts [38], Teen reverts [39], Nev1 reverts [40], Teen reverts [41].
  • List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita: [42] [43] [44] [45] (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 [46] [47] [48]. 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 [49], when I implement this consensus [50], Teeninvestor reverts it on the ground that it is "instrusive" [51]. 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 [52] [53] (is it really necessary to mention that in the 1st paragraph of the lead?) [54] [55] (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: [56] [57] [58].
• Teeninvestor exhibits clear signs of intellectual dishonesty. First he makes this edit [59], claiming it is backed by a source, but then later on it is changed to this [60]. "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" [61], Teeninvestor at first self-reverts [62], but then reverts again [63], then proceeds to edit-war further [64], 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 [65], particularly here [66]. 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 [67] [68].

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)

Update

Regarding the addition of the disputed quote by Robert Temple at Military history of China (pre-1911), though there was a clear consensus in the article talkpage for keeping it out [69], and after Teeninvestor agreed to a more neutral compromise wording [70], today Teeninvestor re-added the disputed material, carrying out his earlier threat of adding the entire paragraph from Temple [71]. Not only that, he used a deceitful edit summary (there is nothing "more neutral" about the quote). This shows extreme dishonesty, bad faith, and contempt for the community and consensus. Apparently his ploy is to just wait things out for a few days till they quiet down and then re-add disputed material when he thinks no one is watching. Athenean (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by User:GregJackP

I wasn't going to comment further until I noticed this edit [72] where Teeninvestor altered the statement of Gun Powder Ma in this RfC. Clearly inappropriate and indictative that he does not understand the process. This [73] 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 User: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)

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.