Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uncle G

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, not different disputes. 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: 22:24, 28 May 2005), its subject may request for the page to be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC).

(User:Uncle G | User talk:Uncle G | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Uncle G most wanted page on Wikipedia! Not have user page disruptive and everyone piss vinegar!

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.}

User:Uncle G page is deleted Uncle G has that page in signature I click It tell me to create I create Later everyone say I vandal! They delete again! This is most wanted page on Wikipedia!

Not everyone need userpage No big deal they have ten edit Uncle G have milles edit 1305 bad red link Special case exception! For him do it actively by deletion Other people passively Waste time of administrators! People accused of vandal for create most wanted page

Uncle G has long crybaby essay about why? Why link or redirect not good enough for Uncle G?

Not just me either Constant problem and bickering trying enforce stupid deleted page Five time his talk page!

Just a blank OK One link OK Redirect OK Deleted page not OK

What reverse vanity American think what he do so important it define him

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

bickering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_G#Editing_other_peoples.27_user_pages
bickering:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_G#User_page
bickering:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_G#your_user_page
Admin accuse user at vandalism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isaac_Rabinovitch/Archive_01#User:Uncle_G
how many more? UNKNOWN as edit history gone with page deletion

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers

Bickering about lack in user page distraction. Insistent deletion for personal reason UNUSEFUL to main project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F

"User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space

"pages in user space still do belong to the community"
"Other users may edit pages in your user space"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_have_on_my_user_page.3F

"avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct typos and other mistakes." (Many user create Uncle G page by mistake! Then get accused of vandal)
"It's a wiki. You are supposed to be able to edit the pages. If you want a non-editable profile, you can put that on a web page elsewhere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Uncle G think it psychology experiment so user unlearn that red link is vandal or newbie. Such has become distraction of community goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT

"State your point; don't prove it experimentally"
"Don't disrupt frequently viewed pages, such as the main page, featured articles, or popular topics." 1305 redlinks=popular topic!

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

HISTORY DELETED everytime an admin blanks the page.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

~~~~ (actually certified by 63.124.185.186)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

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.

User:Uncle G is entitled to not have a user page, if he wants.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--cesarb 23:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Thryduulf 00:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC) -- Find something else to do with your time, anon -- you'll lose this one, guaranteed.[reply]
--func (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC) -- This is clear and unambiguos trolling. The anon is not editing in good faith. Posting a picture of Britney Spears in his first attempt to start this RfC, and making personal attacks shows this to be pure trolling.[reply]
What's more, please stop creating empty pages just because they've been linked. --W(t) 01:08, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
--I completely respect his right NOT to have a user page. Unwiki to force someone to make a page they don't want to make. Antandrus (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--qitaana 01:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
--Dmcdevit 06:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC) -- The user namespace is just that.[reply]
I find Uncle G's reasoning very good - he insists to be judged solely on his merits (i.e. his history) and not on how he appears to present himself on his user page. R adiant _* 09:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
--David | Talk 10:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mothperson 15:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Never mind that he has a user page by default in his explanation of why he doesn't have one. It's just nutty to require one.[reply]
- Who among you is going to fix this Special:Wantedpages?
  - It already has been, see Most wanted articles. Are you suggesting we should create User:Angela (troll), Wikipedia is Communism 6, Category:Substubs, etc. just because they are on the Wantedpages? It's fundamentally flawed because of other namespaces and lack of human insight, which is why we the other page. --Dmcdevit 06:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - For historical reference: The same user who created a user page for me also created several other user pages at the same time, including User:Angela (troll), User:Neutrality (bastard administrator), and others in the same vein, apparently going down Special:Wantedpages in order, creating the pages that were "wanted". (They were good faith creations. User:Angela (troll) simply redirected to User:Angela, if memory serves.) They were rapidly deleted, and so Dmcdevit probably didn't see them before making the above comment. It appears that one major cause of this whole episode was a misunderstanding of Special:Wantedpages, taking it at its face value, later compounded by the fact that other editors, not knowing that this misunderstanding had occurred, took the creation of all of those pages to be a pattern of vandalism. Uncle G 14:59, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
It is all up to Uncle G to decide. That decision cost him an adminship, but if he thinks not having a userpage is worth not being an admin, it is his right. The term "most wanted page" is a technical term. It just means that the site for Uncle G's userpage has more redlinks to it than any other site, caused by Uncle G being an active debater on VfD and other policy discussions. It doesn't mean that a load of people actually want that page. Sjakkalle 06:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:09, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
As said, not having a user page lost Uncle G his adminship vote. A user who has the guts to put principles before power deserves respect. If Uncle G does not want a user page, it's up to him, no-one else.Dan100 18:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic's summary

I'll state again what I said on WP:AN/I. Not having a userpage doesn't disrupt. And here's why:

Redlinks only show a page doesn't exist. It would be more disruptive if he created nonsense to fill the page just to have one.
While userpages are included in most wanted pages, they are not articles and therefore actually shouldn't be listed. (First I was under the impression "Userpages aren't included in the most wanted pages.", but I was wrong)
Deleting his userpage takes about 3 seconds. Solving disputes (which most of the time shouldn't have started anyway) takes far more time. Besides, admins aren't obliged to delete anything if they don't want to either. The whole project is on a voluntary basis.
Userpages are for personal information. Within the existing guidelines it's for Uncle G to use as he pleases. If he chooses not to take advantage of that, we can't force him.

-- Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers doesn't apply as userpages aren't articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Another summary

Not having a userpage is kinda annoying but doesn't really matter that much.

— Dan | Talk 00:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.