Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää

Actually, it looks like what appeared to be vandalism was an attempt to add a signature. SB Johnny 12:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Aims of this Rfc
The aim of this rfc is not to single out Teemu for undue criticism or to target his behaviour, but to allow questions and issues relating to his discussion page activity to be consolidated onto one page - away from the page in question. This can allow discussion of the topic to continue on that page unimpeded, and allow discussion of the unrelated activity to continue here.

I've said all along that Teemu's ideas have some future value. However, they are being tested unilaterally on the wrong page, in the wrong fashion. I recommend that Teemu continues refining his plans away from that page for the time being, and works with the Village Pump and other wikipedia community forums to establish if his plans are workable in the future.--Zleitzen 12:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case the RfC should have been targeted at the article, as opposed to being put forward as a user-conduct RfC. It does seem to be mostly about one user vs. everyone else on that article, though there has been no mention of other articles.
 * The experimental approach to reordering talk pages should definitely be discussed on the policy section of the village pump before being tried on what seems to be a rather dispute-laden article in any case. SB Johnny 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Already tried an rfc on the article Johnny . With no response.--Zleitzen 12:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Zleitzen. User conduct RfC in this case is long overdue.  --TJive 11:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the subject matter
Is the tree better than the traditional list of topics?

I have discussed this with Zleitzen, mensch et al on the following to pages, had some answers, answered them back, but not recieved any counter-arguments. If they agree about the tree, shouldn't the tree be realized? Teemu Ruskeepää 07:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Teemu_Ruskeepää

User_talk:Teemu_Ruskeepää

Talk:Fidel_Castro

Talk:Fidel_Castro

As for the requests for comment page, it is an attempt to disrupt the debate, because it is about wheather I have right to do the tree, and not about do the makers of the requesto for comment page agree that my tree is better than the traditional list of topics. There is no need for this page, because there already is a debate going on about tree. It's just a tool of Zleitzen et al, trying to avoid answering my arguments that I have express at the pages above, and even try to make other users believe that they shouldn't try to prove my tree wrong. Zleitzen, mensch et al try to maintain the list of topics against my views. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

category tree votes
(Poll taken from talk page)
 * For what it is worth, Teemu, again, has asked for votes oppose vs. support for the movement of 'talk' into catagory trees. I find it cumbersome to vote for each of these requests, as I oppose them all.


 * Oppose - I vote against all catagory tree moves. BruceHallman 16:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. Ian ¹³  /t  17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose all--Zleitzen 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose all mensch • t 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. --TJive 10:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose all -- Mattisse 10:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose all -- Dweller 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose all -- Crockspot 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose all Korossyl 14:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons given
Oppose - sorry Teemu, I'm sure you mean well, but your constant reorganization of posts just makes it harder to find them. Wiki has a convention that the latest post gets posted at the bottom of the page, and if everyone followed this convention there would be far fewer problems.

Trying to reorganize stuff by topic is not going to work because there are a theoretically limitless number of topics and there are also new contributors who will be arriving all the time who don't follow your scheme. So, I think you should stop doing this. It's a waste of your time and everybody else's. Gatoclass 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think, that if everyone put posts in the same heading, as their subject exists in the article, the posts would be easier to find, because my tree tells users where the subjects are, and they are not in the order they are written. New posts can still be put at the bottom of the heading. I'm not constantly reorganizing the tree, but making it according to the same plan, as mentioned at "making a comprehensive category tree". There are as many topics as there are headings in the article, and this makes it easier to look for the same subject to discuss, which you should have in mind. New contributors don't arrive to do as you do, adding new comments unaware of the old discussion, but they learn to use discussin page like this. They can also be taught to use it according to my categories. Everyone should participate in putting the topics in their own headings. Just like everyone participates in reverting vandalism. Teemu Ruskeepää

Oppose. — Teemu, thank you for trying help, but please do not rearrange the talk page into a discussion tree. BruceHallman 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to do that, and I know that you see it's better Teemu Ruskeepää 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. - Ditto. Teemu’s ideas had value when the Cuba page was blocked and users could examine proposed sections on a fairly fresh talk page. On this page it has created considerable disharmony. Users are unable to locate their comments, and the talk page had grown to an unmanageable length. --Zleitzen 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My tree stops the growth of topics and organizes the same topics together. This way the discussion will never become chaotic. Users can learn to put their arguments in the correspondent branch, where they will be easier to find than amongst the endless archives and unorganized topics together. Disharmony is the stage in which you all should switch over, not accuse me of making things harder. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. — As per above. This way of structuring doesn't work on an ever-changing, dynamic thing like a Wiki. Furthermore, a lot of users get confused because the chronological ordering is only on a subject level and it's very hard to see what has changed in the tree. That's not something one can get easily used to. mensch • t 17:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The tree is stationary, which makes it easier to navigate, than through all the unorganized topics and archives together. You can get used to using a tree, which is in the same order as the article, changing synchronous with the article. Wiki's ever-change means no-moderation and chaos. My tree is dynamic, not Wiki. My tree lets people to learn all that has been decided and share knowledge about the discussion, so that they can comment informed of the history of discussion. Wikipedia discussion shows only the present headings, which grow too complicated to use. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But it simply doesn't work, at least not for this page, that hasn't got anything to do about people who do not want to learn the structure, but about editors who get lost in the structure. It's not about a certain unwillingness to use it, it's simply unusable in this situation. The chaos I see isn't caused the lack of moderation (which simply isn't true, because the editors moderate themselves through Wikipedia policies and common sense) and ever-changing nature of a wiki, but because of imposing a rigid structure on something without reaching consensus over this with fellow authors first. It's true that talk pages generally show the most present discussions, but I believe that they're the most important discussions. Also, certain discussions recur, in the case of Castro the archives are littered with POV disputes and requests to rewrite certain aspects of the article. mensch • t 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They have to learn Wiki anyway. The usual List of Topics is just the way things are done here, that's all. Ok, let's discuss this first. Unfortunately archiving means hiding the arguments and communication, which ofter leads to repetition and even vandalism. By extending the time and accessibility of people's arguments we reduce the need to internet troll. POV discussions occur only if there isn't the structure to show where things belong. The structure tells people what they are supposed to discuss, where it is supposed to be discussed and also organizes the entire page to make it possible to find every last comment. The structure is naturally mainly about the article. =) Teemu Ruskeepää 06:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If a structure prevents people from discussing the things they think is important, than the structure is clearly flawed. But I think it's best to leave the subject of the discussion tree and get on with the things that matter (viz. improving the Castro article), because there is totally no support whatsoever for this idea on this talk page. :) mensch • t 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By saying that you can't use the tree, you don't prove that it's bad. Then the tree doesn't prevent you from doing anything, but yourself, by having a negative attitude. This is the truth. The tree is clearly better than making a unorganized "list of topics". You aren't acting rational, mensch, by trying to convince others to stop the debate about my tree, because the tree improves the discussion. Read my previous arguments to mensch. You either have no right to put words into people's mouths about how they think about the tree. People haven't agreed by discussion, that I'm wrong and they should not believe you about how everybody relate to the tree, but to form their own opinions, which I can challenge individually. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. --TJive 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Because it must be a good idea, because the others do it as well? Teemu Ruskeepää 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On which talk pages is this tree also used and initiated by other editors? It may be a good idea in some cases. On the Cuba page for example, but only when it was locked as somebody explained elsewhere on this page. mensch • t 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here and Talk:Cuba, which proves that it isn't impossible to use it as you people suggest. When the article is locked, the edits must be discussed. When the article is unlocked, the edits are more easily done without discussion. But if you give people an opportunity to discuss things in a orderly fashion, they are more likely to discuss edits first, rather than EDIT WAR. Don't let the tendency of EDIT WARRING confuse you to think that it is useless trying to improve the pluralist nature of the Wikipedian article. Teemu Ruskeepää 06:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So two cases? One of which generated a lot of opposition, the other one worked, but only because the article was locked during the procedure. I really don't see why this structure would force people away from getting into edit wars. Discussing edits does, but we don't need a complex structure to accomplish that. mensch • t 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no opposition, just opinions, which do not mean they are together blindly right. The article being locked doesn't have anything to do with the discussion tree, because discussion tree can be modified any time. Mensch, do not talk over TJive. You are trying to destroy the debate about the tree by flooding this page, as you are writing many types of comments, which you clearly have designed to insult and sabotage me. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose CJK 23:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose Makes it impossible to follow the conversation as a newcomer. --Dweller 13:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly what makes? Reading the instructions of where discussions are makes finding them harder? You don't know what you are talking about, and you are just picking sides. Teemu Ruskeepää

Strong oppose This is just a wretched idea. Even if it were superior, we can't just toss out all the old conventions all at once, and expect to switch over to another (seemingly arbitrary) one overnight. A discussion as animated and quickly-moving as is contained on this page is NOT the place to try to introduce a new system. It's not just impossible to follow the conversation as a newcomer; it's impossible to follow the conversation at all. Korossyl 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose - When I get an orange banner saying I have a message, I don't know under which category to look. Perhaps someone is replying to a comment I made days ago. I'm not thinking of that category now, so I don't think to look under that category. Maybe I have made a more recent comment that falls under a different category, and I am thinking of that category instead and the message is not there. Also, messages get moved to categories that don't represent the message to me. For example, I usually am not thinking about what paragraph a message is in. The result is either I have to read the whole Talk page or I never find the message. Perhaps that is my failing and inability to learn, but that is the way it is for me. KarenAnn 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Teemu's changes