Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 22 July 2010

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 02:47, 6 January 2025 (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) ; 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)

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)

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. 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)

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

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

• Edit-warring at List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

• False accusations at Chinese armies (pre-1911) in a content dispute, repeated on this page

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Response

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.

The above editors have been unable to point out a single instance in which the sources used currently do not represent the issue besides minor wording errors and the fact that both views have been represented in the article. 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(although some of these views are very confusing, at least to me; for example, Kanguole's example of interventions "helping people to participate in the market).

Indeeed, claims of misrepresentation can only be described as bogus; recently they attacked me for "misrepresenting" Kenneth Pomeranz's source on the subject for stating that coal deposits was a cause of the great divergence, when that was Pomeranz's whole thesis 1! They also attacked me for "misrepresenting" England as part of the developed core of Western Europe 2; these are not the work of cooperative editors. They have continued their attacks without addressing the plethora of sources that flat-out contradict them. I invite any uninvolved editor with knowledge of the sources on the topic to take a look at the article and see with their own eyes whether the claims of bias of these editors above are true or not. For my part, I hope that rather than criticize each other, it would be best for us to work on the article Great Divergence and get it promoted to GA or FA; it has made much progress in the last few days, and would make more still if unnecessary bickering and hostile altitudes are removed.

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). User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of POV-pushing in Asia-related articles that has gotten him blocked repeatedly, namely edit warring on Nanjing University and List of Chinese inventions. 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. I have invited this user to cooperate with me repeatedly, (for example, see here), 1 but he ignores all these attempts and is not interested at all in cooperation, and merely wants to impose his views. This user calls me an edit warrior; on the contrary, he is the biggest edit warrior on this page, and has been blocked repeatedly for his incessant POV-pushing.

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)

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 endorsements is intended to highlight aspects of core policies.

Overview: The gravamen of complaints and Teeninvestor's combative rejection are consistent. They are mirrored. They are like two sides of the same coin.

§1. The 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 of disagreement with other editors, instead of providing balanced views, Teeninvestor embarks on a ... . 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. The endorsed points 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: "... 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

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 underlying description of Teeninvestor's strategy and tactics has been overwhelmed.

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

With this more explicit endorsement, I argue that the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. I also endorse the explicit "desired outcome" which is listed above; and this begs the question — why not?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tenmei (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.