User talk:Soni/Archive 15

Editor experience invitation
Hi Soni :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @Clovermoss, sure I am happy to share. What do you need me to do? Soni (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Click the hidden piped link at "here" in my above message and use the blue blox at the top of the page to write your answers :) Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah you probably didn't mean to link to the User talk page, cool. Soni (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right, I messed up. :( Thanks for letting me know, I'll go double-check this isn't a mistake I was consistently making this morning. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

BADNAC
You have made a bad close per WP:BADNAC #2, please revert your close and allow a proper admin closer to take place. Talk:Frederik IX  // Timothy :: talk  12:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * TimothyBlue, I do not consider this close as violating BADNAC #2. Per policy and arguments, it was very clearly in support of move, not no consensus. Every oppose argument was fairly rebutted, and there was no clear reasoning given why the RFC should be ignored here. This seems to be primarily about the larger scope consensus discussion (on NCROY itself), so I encourage taking it to a Village Pump or similar; or discuss this specific close at WP:Move review if necessary. Soni (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you aware there is an Arbcom discussion about this subject? If this has made it all the way to Arbcom, tt clearly meets BADNAC #2. Again asking you to revert your close and move. You are welcome to become involved in the Arbcom discussion. I'm making a simple request, allow a proper close or at least wait until the outcome of the Arbcom discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  14:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did reference the Arbcom discussion in my first sentence of the close, so I should hope so. The Arbcom case is primarily behavioural, as is generally their standard. Unless Arbcom explicitly decides to involve themselves in consensus creation, the overall discussion would still stay under an admin noticeboard or a village pump, one of which has a discussion started already.
 * As for this specific RM, I have reread the entire discussion once already. The broader question causing strife does not inherently make all subdiscussions contentious. The evaluation on the RM was"Frederik IX" vs "Frederik IX of Denmark" and "How much does the existence of non king Frederick IXs change this", which can be safely evaluated regardless. I have a splitting headache so I'll sleep on it before reading further discussions. Do you have any concerns with the close other than my admin-ness? Soni (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All I'm asking is for you to revert your close/move and allow a proper close.
 * From the amount of discussion surrounding this issue, closes in the area clearly meets BADNAC, regardless of the outcome. Closing this when you know there is an active Arbcom and move reviews already underway for this issue is a problem. How could you not see this as a BADNAC? These are obviously controversial, I have no idea why you would choose to further this problem.
 * A regular request for close can be made, it will avoid another drawn out move review being requested, and it will not be drawn into whatever is next after Arbcom reaches its decision. Insisting on retaining this close will only add to the problem, reverting it and then participating in the discussion will help with the solution.
 * I think this is a pretty simple request, it is obvious from Arbcom more is coming for these discussions, let this work out without another BADNAC to add to the bunch.  // Timothy :: talk  15:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have made a statement at the Arbcom case. I find this request to be quite odd, given your claims of Arbcom adjudicating on this (They do not deal with local or global consensus, ordinarily) nor your lack of explanations for why this close itself is incorrect. I have noted that I do not object to another admin redoing my close, but in the interest of WP:NOTBURO, I will not be reverting it myself.
 * If you have any further opinions on this, I recommend another venue. It does not seem like a "simple request", and I prefer to not be further pressured on this. Soni (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)