User talk:King fisher322

Disruption
Since you nominated Antipope Innocent III in the same style that you nominated articles on fictional characters for deletion, in an apparent parody of other nominations of fictional characters that have been made recently, I conclude that the sole purpose of this account is to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I have therefore revoked its editing privileges. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrator Privileges
Your conclusions are in error, especially as Antipope Innocent III does not have any credible third party sources referenced. As far as parody is concerned, I really have no idea what you're talking about. The deletion nominations were selected randomly from sites listed on the December 2007 "lacking references or external links" page. Merely citing that it is referenced somewhere in Encyclopedia Brittanica is not enough. As an administrator, you should be aware of this.

King fisher322


 * I have notified the blocking admin of this request. Barring some extenuating circumstances, I'm inclined to unblock.  --B (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for Uncle G's input as well. He is an admin in good standing, but as yet I don't see anything here indicating an indefinate block.  If he has no additional evidence (such as this being a new account of a blocked user) then I would endorse an unblock here.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that we hold off on this one pending a checkuser. --B (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Unless a checkuser indicates this is a block-evading sock, I see nothing here warranting a block, much less an indefinite one. Sandstein (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We are in the middle of an ongoing discussion amongst a number of editors who want articles on various fictional subjects deleted, and who have nominated large swathes of them for deletion with rationales such as "no sources to indicate notability". This account coming along and nominating Phoebe Sparrow and Adam Kane for deletion in much the same manner indicates a participation in that debate. The nomination of Antipope Innocent III in exactly the same way indicates disruption of Wikipedia to make a point in that debate, and a bad faith effort to remove articles from the encyclopaedia at random. The patently spurious argument that we, as administrators, should "know better" than to have articles on subjects that are in the Encyclop&aelig;dia Brittanica (Ahem!), is only ringing further warning bells for me, to be honest, as is the claim that these deletion nominations are somehow "help[ing] with cleaning up Wikipedia". Per Deletion policy, we don't need that sort of "help". (What we want, of course, is for people to add sources to unsourced articles. The notices say this.) This still appears to me to be point proving and vandalism by random deletion nomination, with the argument for unblocking only serving to further reinforce that impression. You are welcome to unblock if you think otherwise. We'll see how it goes. It may be that this is a genuine attempt to improve Wikipedia that just has all of the trappings of a vandal purely by a very unfortunate accident, and this person will read our content and deletion policies and learn to actually help to improve the encyclopaedia. I personally welcome any editor who is actually constructive in fixing unsourced articles. Those people we do need. But I expect the unblocking administrator to watch to see whether the account resumes being destructive by randomly nominating stub articles, on obviously valid subjects that we want to have, for deletion again. Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your consideration on this matter. While I can understand the concerns with wanting to prevent vandalism, an indefinite block seemed a rather harsh measure to take without further investigation.  Per Jayron32's advice, I will avoid PROD, DB, or AFD templates, as it was most certainly not my intention to disrupt.  Thanks again.  King fisher322 (talk) (UTC)
 * If you want to approach this constructively, when you find an article that has no sources, go and use Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archive, and any research resources that you may have access to (via libraries that you hahve access to and suchlike), to actually find sources; add them to the article; and mercilessly improve the article so that it matches what the sources actually say about a subject, giving it a good solid push along the article development road (q.v.). Deletion nominations are where one goes only if one has already done all of the legwork, and has come up emptyhanded on all counts.  See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage and Deletion policy.  That is how to make Wikipedia better.  Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning?
I've noticed in your recent contributions that you seem to think that sock puppets are involved in the revert-war on Kina Grannis. I'd like to let you know that I am acting independently of whoever you were revert-warring with before, but I would also like to impress upon you my earlier statements. Namely, your source information is severely outdated and there is no way of knowing if the information is still current. Beyond that, there's the matter of privacy. This to me seems the most pertinent reason why the revert-war is occuring, not to give you a headache or to cause annoyance, but to afford a certain amount of privacy. Additionally, your warning seems to be jumping the gun a bit, as this is the first time I've reverted. I won't revert anymore as that seems pointless, but if further reversion occurs, I will refer the situation to the Edit-Warring board for mediation. Thanks. 128.125.19.61 (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't have time to waste on this anymore. I'll get back to it when I do. But you're right, the warning was a bit preemptive. At any rate, we'll let the mediators handle it. King fisher322 (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh*