Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

---

• Teemu Ruskeepää (talk • contribs • logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.2 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.3 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.4 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.5 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside view of SB_Johnny 4 Outside view 5 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:Teemu Ruskeepää Has been continually attempting to restructure the talk page of Fidel Castro, and is now adding a lengthy poll to the foot of each talk discussion, despite many comments that he does not have consensus. Furthermore, responses to the many other users who object to this have become increasingly uncivil and accusatory. Users would like to be able to use the talk page chronologically, request that Teemu accept consensus and the results of the poll, that he refrain from any further restructuring, and that he refrain from any futher attempts to promote his restructuring plans on the page.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Talk:Fidel Castro
2. Sample of one of the many polls Teemu has placed on the page [1]
3. Addition of discussion tree headings [2]
4. Example of unilaterally moving material wholesale on the talk page [3]
5. Example of telling users that they can't place comments chronologically "wrong place, Bruce Hallman"
6. Responses to other users (see below)

• to CJK "You are a religious fundamentalist, who uses affective traps to argue for the only way of living you know"
• "everything is exactly how KarenAnn and BruceHallman likes it, and everything is taken up in an endless cycle of unconstructive prejudice and arrogance. Why don't you grow up, people!"
• "I know I have seen this endogamy arrogance of the anglicans in the finnish rugby league"
• to BruceHallman "Your law, not mine. This means that the law should be changed to include my fix on the discussion tree. The law was originally made to control the chaotic discussion tree model. If we organize it so that comments are under the correspondent headings, the discussion doesn't get hard to follow, due to the navicatory nature. Then your stupid laws would be unnecessairy"
• "Don't be so self-centered"
• "you have no arguments, just feelings"
• to Zleitzen "You can't suggest that I'm acting against other people's will. The thing has not been discussed yet. A sneeky strike of misleading politics
• to Zleitzen "You're actually a neurotic, passive-aggressive resistant of other people opinions"
• "You can also see how they call people opinions "laughable point of views" and agree by themselves to move things to archive, because KarenAnn "is tired and confused"
• "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."
• To Mensch "you are just imitating KarenAnn, who said that the tree doesn't work chronologically. You are an internet troll, who writes his arguments to sabotage my efforts to improve Wikipedia"
• To Dweller "You don't know what you are talking about, and you are just picking sides."
• To Dweller "Also, you don't shut me up by saying "just". Heh heh, anglicans ;)"

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Guidelines for using Talk pages
2. Assume good faith
3. Civility

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]
7. [10]
8. [11]
9. Poll conducted on Teemu's talk page experiment. Result: 7 oppose - 1 support.[12]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Zleitzen (See comments on this talk page) 09:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
2. I too tried to resolve the dispute ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]), to little avail and hereby endorse the request for comment. mensch • t 10:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
3. I've twice asked Teemu to accept the concensus. [18], [19]. I endorse this RfC.MichaelW 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. Mattisse 11:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
2. TJive 11:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
3. BruceHallman 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
4. CJK 19:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Dweller 11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Jersey Devil 03:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
7. 172 | Talk 08:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{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:

[edit] Outside view of SB_Johnny

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.

User:Teemu Ruskeepää's actions on the talk page are perplexing to say the least. He seems to have trouble with WP:OWN on the talk:Fidel Castro page, and with WP:CIVIL both there and on user talks, including his own. This aggressive attitude dates back to the earliest versions of his own talk page. Some of his earlier edits appear to be vandalism as well [20] (see talk page). If nothing else, he has exhausted the community's patience, and should be blocked if he continues in this vein. 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SB Johnny 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Agreed. He has a minor history of deleting information which he does not find favorable, but this disruption alone justifies some sort of sanction. --TJive 11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
3. I agree with the summary, although the evidence [21] for suspected vandalism isn't that convincing. In that light it's better to refer to the mass deletions without in the Castro article ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc. I'm not sure if controversial blankings without discussion like these are considered vandalism, but they're certainly against Wikipedia policy. mensch • t 11:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Jersey Devil 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Mattisse 11:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
6. 172 | Talk 08:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

{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:

[edit] 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.