This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kingboyk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
I've blocked for "disruptive editing" but will now look into it further to work out what is going on and how to proceed. --kingboyk (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I wouldn't have removed semi-protection from this; doing so basically is asking for trouble when that allows IPs and new accounts to disrupt it. Please at least keep a watch on it and be ready to restore the indefinite semi-protection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If allowing anons and newbies to edit is asking for trouble, we should protect every page - we don't, because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The single was released in 2010 and the article was protected in the same year - that's nearly a decade ago. It's way past time the article was unprotected. I have no doubt that if the article attracts excessive levels of vandalism the community will notice and we can roll that back and protect it again. I understand where you're coming from, as an editor/author, but as an admin there was absolutely no way I could refuse an unprotect request on a page protected in 2010 by an admin who hasn't edited their own talk page in 2 years. --kingboyk (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Allowing them to edit in general isn't asking for trouble. In case it wasn't clear before, what I meant was that it's a bad idea to remove indefinite semi-protection for pages that are known to have had issues from such users in the past. They don't get protected for nothing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. A strong case was made for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ian Foote. Editors were particularly concerned about notability (or a lack thereof), and the fact that the article had been submitted and rejected multiple times. Statistics aren't going to help - or do you mean references? --kingboyk (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I want to recreate this page with a table of matches like this :
Have you got any references from books or mainstream media, other than an obituary? If not, I think you might have to take it to WP:DRV - you're in luck, as that process is being discussed further down this page ;) --kingboyk (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Primefac Yes, as they're both drafts on the same topic by the same editor (plus an IP) so imho they're not completely different at all. I'm happy to stand corrected of course. --kingboyk (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Btw, the edit that began (2), for which the named editor requested a refund, was made by the IP address. I've drawn my own conclusions from that. --kingboyk (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's just say that because of the merger I'm having some serious difficulties figuring out the sequence of actions. Are you saying that the terrible one-sentence version is the one that was requested? My edit to the page (which I got a notice was reverted) seems to be pointing towards the second version, which as near as I can recall would have meant it was pointing to the "better" version seen here. I can't think of a reason I'd redirect the other way. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Jpgordon As I understand it, yes, you get a notification, by design. I am inclined to accept the user's request, but I wanted to check with you first to see if you have any objections. Sorry, I probably should have made that clear on the user's talk page so you didn't have to go the trouble of pinging me. --kingboyk (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
You said today that my page on Zoikithism is a hoax, which it isn't. There is limited knowledge about the topic but it is real. I would like to have the page reviewed and allowed to be put into wikipedia. Zoikithist (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? The lack of information online is due to the fact that it is very new and has mostly been secretive because of the controversial nature of its teachings.Zoikithist (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. Can you please explain your thinking behind declining SoWhy's G4 of Jennifer Mercieca? This article was discussed, at length, less than two months ago and the recreated article does not cover new ground. Thanks for your time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Barkeep49. I'm happy to explain that but there's not a lot to explain: G4 says:
This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies
- emphasis mine. The new article was not the same. Not only is the wording different but it has more citations, and it makes a stronger claim to notability, stating that she has written for or been interviewed by various named well-known media organisations. Tl;dr it's not the same article. Having looked at it again I stand by the decision so if you're not happy please raise a new AFD. (You might also like to join in with the discussion on the article's talk page). Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Kingboyk, the community had a protracted discussion at AfD less than two months ago about this. Circumstances can certainly change. This is why we have DRV - because policy doesn't support the idea that one motivated, well intentioned editor can overturn community consensus. Community consensus, I'll add, that was reached in a well discussed AfD which can hardly be called a refund situation. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that recreation can be appropriate after AfD. I literally just made this argument yesterday. But there is a difference between 4 years and 2 months. As an administrator you have no obligation to delete the page if you think it shouldn't be deleted. But if you choose to act, you do have an obligation to act in accordance with policies and guidelines. I would suggest the appropriate way forward in this situation is to move the article to draft or user space and open up a DRV conversation so that the community can weigh in on the idea that there are substantial new claims to notability worth recreation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't a refund nor did I consider the length of time passed to be material. I declined the speedy deletion because I believed the request did not meet the G4 criteria.
User:SoWhy could you help me out here - what am I supposed to do in this case? I've not been involved in WP:DRV for a long time, but have had a quick scan of WP:DRVPURPOSE. Does it apply to declined speedy deletions? Isn't it for the complaining party to take it to WP:DRV not the admin? --kingboyk (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
No it applies to FetalFlaw's initial recreation under criteria 3. As a new user I don't fault them for not knowing about DRV as the right way to proceed. Honestly if I had seen the history I would have done this as my first action, including bringing it to DRV. However, given the trout slapping I received I decided such an action from me was no longer appropriate. I will suggest, however, that in the same way that I should have checked the history that the length of time since the article was at AfD was something you should have considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
In response to your message on my talk page, yes I saw that they had found it where you linked. That is why in my first response to SoWhy I noted A new user who decides to undertake requested articles has some obligations too. I will say again I should have looked at the edit history. But it's not like I just impetuously placed the CSD tag - I went through efforts to make sure the tag is warranted. Beyond that I stand by my comments to you above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to add to the "trout slapping" (I would never do that to an editor I don't know well) - just letting you know that the OP appears to be an innocent party here, and how they came to write the article. --kingboyk (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The trout was for not checking the history and Barkeep admitted as much. No harm no foul. As for the question, DRV can be used to review the initial AFD if recreation is possible but doubtful but not to review an admin's decision to not delete an article per G4 because the next step per policy is WP:AFD. Imho, G4's "substantially identical" is more about the topic being identical and less about the literal text being the same because if you use the same sources that were already judged to be insufficient to establish notability to write a different text, the end result is the same. However, I admit that this is not necessarily the only reading of the policy. In the end, I think the best course of action here is for the user(s) interested in seeing the article re-deleted to bring it to AFD again. Regards SoWhy17:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: So any single good faith user is enough to override community consensus? The time and thought, substantial for some from reading the discussion, don't matter? I just have a hard time buying that, which is why I suggested above that I continue to think neutrally bringing this to DRV is the right way forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Barkeep49 I've explained my action, and I have no doubt you accept I took the action in good faith. I've also sought clarification from another admin on what to do next and he concurs with me - WP:AFD. I believe that by addressing your concerns and pointing out a possible next step I have fulfilled my duty as a volunteer. I also believe this should not be such a BIGDEAL. I would be grateful, therefore, if discussion here could be brought to a close. Thank you. --kingboyk (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As G4 is currently worded, this is an acceptable interpretation of policy. Remember, speedy deletion is for clear cut cases, so most often admins can only check whether it's the same article anew and not whether changes made would be sufficient to sway community consensus to keep this article after a prior deletion. So AFD is indeed where the article belongs if an admin, like kingboyk, has decided not to speedy delete it, even if you disagree with their reasoning. Regards SoWhy18:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Ian Foote (2)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want to put this table from this website to Wikipedia :
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
King, the editor whose page you moved to the draftspace is likely associated with the subject of that page (We Rave You) because they have been adding links of that website to articles. I reported the user to the anti-vandalism/anti-promotion intervention area but it went unhandled after a bot archived it without any action. The user should likely be blocked for undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest. MushroomDiamond (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
User:MushroomDiamond Hmm, possibly. I didn't see their name in the article, and I also saw they have numerous edits on music related articles, so I assumed good faith. Looking at 2 diffs at random, they do indeed both add links to that site. I'm afraid I have to pop out - either report it to one or the noticeboards or wait for me to get back to look into further. Thanks for the heads up! --kingboyk (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I've left a couple of warnings at their talk page, including a request to disclose if WP:PAID applies to them or not - if they edit further without replying they can be blocked. I've also reverted the most egregious edits. You can of course take your own actions as you see fit, such as rolling back other edits, reporting to WP:COIN etc. I haven't blocked at this stage as this editor clearly knows their subject and could become a productive editor; they may have misunderstood our policies and/or it may be that they're just a fan of the site they link to. I have no idea about the acceptability of that site as a reference but it seems dubious if it's not itself notable enough to have a mainspace article already. WP:COIN where people who handle this kind of thing every day hang out may take a different view! HTH. --kingboyk (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
188.135.6.106
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. Can you please re-examine the Vinnie Tortorich deletion. I know you said that it is advertisement but can you please take another look? Because of Vinnie, I was able to lose over 100 lbs and credit him with saving my life. Right now, the only wiki out there on him is on the rational wiki and I really feel like it paints a false image of him. If anything, can you give me an opportunity to fix the page so it is not advertisement?
If you're here to help build an encyclopedia I strongly suggest you find something else to write about. It's going to be difficult for you to be neutral about a person you credit with saving your life.
With regards to the deletion, it's not really me you need to speak to. The article was deleted by User:Jimfbleak; I declined your WP:REFUND request on a purely procedural basis - articles deleted as promotional are simply not refundable. If Jim is not willing to undelete, and I suspect he won't be, you could ask at deletion review. Again, I wouldn't hold out much hope - the deletion looks reasonable and correct to me (and yes, I have gone and taken another look because of your request).
I hope that helps, but I'm afraid I won't be able to help any further other than to leave a welcome template on the talk page of the IP address you are currently using which will explain more about things work round here. I'll do that now. --kingboyk (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have gotten several revert notifications over the past couple weeks or so relating to drafts that I had tagged as a G13. Would you mind manually removing my speedy deletion templates going forward? I honestly don't care about whether it was refunded or not. No need to respond. Thanks a million! -- Dolotta (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I was wondering if I could get a refund on these two pages (User:Aoba47/Articles and User:Aoba47/Lists). I was thinking about either not including the FACs and FLCs I have nominated on my user page or doing so in a different way, but I ultimately decided to just keep it the same upon further reflection. It is definitely a moment of thinking before putting the delete template up. Apologies for messaging you directly, but since it was very recent, I was not sure if you were still active or not. I can put a request through WP:Refund is that is better, but I thought I might as well ask. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I was editing Draft:Shmoop earlier today and published those changes, but had not yet submitted for review prior to it being deleted again. Could you please restore, or send the content so that I can edit in my Sandbox? Apologies for my confusion and the inconvenience. Thank you, Mgander12 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Mgander12 It looks like the speedy deletion tag wasn't removed. I check the edit history too by habit but must have overlooked the recent edit this time. Sorry about that - I'll refund it again now. --kingboyk (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hey user:KinboyK im sorry to bother you but there was an article i was writing and i hadn't finished editing and it got flagged for automatic deletion. I was just about to write in the "Talk page" when the page was just automatically deleted. I would like kindly request that this deletion be undone. The reason behind the page creation was as follows.
--
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...(the person being mentioned in this wiki is a well known entrepreneur in the east coast and is well known in the youtube community. His social medias have a large sum of following which has given him notoriety. This article was created so he is not confused with someone else as there are a lot of Naveed Mian pages around the internet. His instagram is as follows https://www.instagram.com/naveed_mian and there you should find a sum of information regarding who he has worked with. If searched on google you should find articles and a membership based company called Adapt Media Solutions that he is a co-founder of. The company is set to be worth millions in 2020 with over a thousand members, please allow this page to exist as it will assist young artists to find him and do research on him, and as well it will encourage others to keep adding information to this page)
kingboyk You can reply here, I accidentally created a the username for the article thinking that was how to create the article and thought that was the reason it was deleted because the username and article resemblance. I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boycot83 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. First of all, please sign your talk messages with four tildes --~~~~ (and try to write the complete message before submitting).
Secondly, can you confirm whether you are or are not Naveed Mian, and if you are not, does WP:COI or WP:PAID apply to you?
There's quite a lot to look into and think about here (the deleted content, the 2 accounts, etc) and I can't guarantee I will look into it immediately after you have answered the above, but I will look into it. --kingboyk (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey kingboyk, i can confirm with ID proof i am not Naveed Mian and there is no conflict of interest and i was not paid to do this, i know the individual as he is a figure who has appeared in numerous youtube videos and he is from my hometown of Maryland. If needed be i can direct any moderator or admin to the individuals family contacts through his instagram or facebook for further clarification. As well i apologize for these numerous edits, i am fairly new at thisBoycot83 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Boycot83
User:Boycot83 Apologies for the delay in getting back to you - I've not been well.
I checked with another admin, who agreed with the deletion; bear in mind also that it was deleted after another user tagged it. The tone is not encyclopedic, the claim to notability is weak, and to me it comes across as a peacock piece.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I was drafting an article in my sandbox and you deleted it. I was in the middle of the editing process, and now I will need to start from scratch! Could you kindly restore my page? I'm not sure why it was removed in the first place as it was in my sandbox? Thanks. WikiInfoMaster (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)AJM
Hello. The article was deleted because somebody tagged it for speedy deletion, and I agreed with the request. The reason for deletion is specified in the deletion message, along with a link to the policy: WP:CSD#A7.
Looks like it's been dealt with now. I thought my rationale was quite clear and reasonable (not least, I don't undo other admins without good reason or discussing it first; but then, I wouldn't put a speedy deletion tag back either if an admin declined it and I didn't like the decision. Seems like both of those are old-fashioned viewpoints now.). Next time in the same situation I would probably just move on to the next request and let somebody else deal with it. --kingboyk (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
