A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
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: 10:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC).
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.
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.
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.
{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.
(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.)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(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.)
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behaviour continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:
Postscript: Further incidents after this RFC/U has begun:
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)[reply]
Topic ban proposed on 14 August and currently discussed here on ANI. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated breach of Voluntary restriction agreement. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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!"
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 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:
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
patience stretched too thin -- 转胜为败
|
|---|
|
My endorsement of specific paragraphs points to core policies. 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.
|
patience stretched too thin -- 转胜为败
|
|---|
|
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:
In the alternative,
|
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:
patience stretched too thin -- 转胜为败
|
|---|
QED — Teeninvestor's accumulating diffs are evidence of the problems which were brought to this RfC.
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 responses are skewed in hopes of achieving a "win" in the long-game. --Tenmei |
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:
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:
Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. --Tenmei 16:11, 5 August 2010 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:
patience stretched too thin -- 转胜为败
|
|---|
Remedy — desired outcome[edit]A. We need to acknowledge that there are a number of troubling factors which are not captured by this thread.
C. The RfC began with a list of "desired outcomes" which still remain unaddressed.
|
In order evade a restriction here which explicitly preserved Teeninvestor's participation in this RfC, Teeninvestor crafted this sentence here:
This is a significant factor in decision-making about potential remedies. --Tenmei (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside observer, there are several things I find disturbing here.
Users who endorse this summary:
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)[reply]
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:
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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.
RfC/U closed after 30 days. Teeninvestor was blocked for 3 weeks (See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Teeninvestor#Outside view by Toddst1). As this has removed the subject-party from the dispute, there is no longer a dispute at this particular time. Should problems recur, parties should either escalate to an admin noticeboard, or if necessary, to the next step in dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]