User talk:Mike Cline/Archive 6

Utica

• New article on Utica, Montana you may want to look at. PumpkinSky talk 21:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your closure of the Perth request was not appropriate

An arbitration case is currently reviewing this matter. The move review you have closed was not a standard review, and has the character of a request to review administrator actions - the discussion took place at move review due to the unusual closure at ANI. Also, this discussion was opened on the question of "was there or was there not a consensus" in the existing discussion - not whether the admin merely intended to comply with the spirit of the closing instructions. Your close is visibly unsupported by a Community consensus. By arbitrarily imposing your personal view as to the focus on, and whether RMCI was intended to be complied with by JHunterJ (as opposed to what the Community view was with respect to whether there was a consensus in the discussion), you have engaged in the same conduct currently subject to review at the arbitration. In the circumstances where your action is causing disruption, I strongly urge you revert your closure to avoid the necessity to name you as a party to the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way in which Mike Cline's closure has anything to do with the conduct being reviewed at arbcom. I'm not sure I'm fully on-board with MC's philosophy about move review, but these accusations are way off. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I made this comment on Ncmvocalist's talk page: I am not sure how you find my closure of the move review disruptive (to what?). It was made in isolation of the Arbcom which I understand has little to do with the original close, but more about behaviors after that. I closed a Move Review (so far I am the only admin ever to do so) in a way I believed was consistent with the new Move Review process. As to my rationale, I believe that WP:RMCI does indeed weigh concensus versus policy interpretation very clearly, and that closing an RM in the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI does indeed demonstrate consideration of consensus. I believe the participants in the move review by and large supported that position. I have no problem with you bringing me into this contentious situation if that's what you desire. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC) --Mike Cline (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Had I a desire to bring you into this arbitration, I (or someone else) would list the motion immediately rather than give you this opportunity. As you have not understood correctly, the arbitration is reviewing all administrator involvement in this matter. The move review criteria has no standing whatsoever; the Community have not even come to a consensus to adopt as a trial (like it did with pending changes). By providing weight to the criteria listed in an unapproved process (as opposed to closing the discussion in accordance with the current way in which reviews of administrator actions are closed), you have disrupted the actual and intended purpose of this particular discussion; you have also appeared to act as an arbiter and policy maker when you have not been given that authority. This may not have been your intention, but it is certainly seems to be the overall effect. It is very clear that a significant majority of involved and uninvolved users endorsed Deacon's closure, and found that consensus did not develop at the time JHunterJ declared it. An arbitrator also noted that the Community endorsed Deacon's close. When your closure did not assess consensus in terms of policy which has been accepted by the Community (and Committee), there are only two possible paths this will lead to. It is especially important for administrators to take care and show sound judgment in these situations. I once again urge you to revert the closure, or to alternatively advise if you do not intend on doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not intend to revert my close. If the statement you made above The move review criteria has no standing whatsoever is true, then my close has no standing whatsoever as well and editors may choose to do whatever they please with the Perth article. I closed a move review in good faith to help forward a new process under development that many editors have asked for. If in your view that process underdevelopment has no standing in the community, then neither do my actions with that process and they should be ignored.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That response mitigates the bulk of my concern, but just to clarify:

(1) Will you or will you not be enforcing your closure of the move review by moving the pages?

(2) If all of the comments at the move review were actually made at an admin noticeboard, and you were assessing consensus by reference to existing policy (rather than the focus on whether the closer intended to follow WP:RMCI as outlined in the proposed move review process), would your close of the discussion be any different? If so, how? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re #1, no I am not going to enforce my decision by continuing the wheel warring that has gone on with this article. That would be disruptive. Re#2, dangerous question to answer so I won't because there's just too much contentious context to deal with. But to clarify, WP:RMCI is existing WP process (since 2005) as part of the RM process. The Move Review process merely invokes that existing guideline. I think there is an implicit assumption that we expect RM closers to follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI whether or not there is a Move Review process inplace. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on this response, and your response at 16:12, 22 June 2012, I do not expect you will need to be a party to this arbitration case. To some extent at least, I still feel that in spite of your good intentions and explanation, the close/observations/rationale should have said some of the points covered in this exchange for it to be appropriate, given the unique and current context. That said, you have covered the points effectively here, and mitigated the concerns I held in relation to the effect the close would have overall. I apologise if this seemed too abrupt, but hope some part of this experience was beneficial/fulfilling. I thank you for your prompt responses in any event. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Mike, I don't understand why you closed the review without moving the article. Wikipedia:Move_review#Closing_reviews seems to indicate that the page should be moved if required according to the closure. I can understand your reluctance to move the article given what is going on and the recent mood of arbcom in general, but if you don't want to move it I don't think you should close it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The approval of the process is irrelevant. If the discussion had taken place at Talk:Perth, Western Australia in the form of another RM, an RfC, or at some other venue, it would be fine. It doesn't matter where it happens, as long as it is appropriately publicized, which I think this one was. If Mike Cline moves the article to Perth, that is not wheel warring at all since there was plenty of discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Rather than just say it was closed according to WP:RMCI can you explain how you came to that conclusion. Gnangarra 01:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered at Move Review talk [1] --Mike Cline (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gibbon River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Teton County

Golden Gate Canyon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Park County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure of RM at Disney California Adventure Park

Hi Mike, I saw you closed the move request at Disney California Adventure Park without moving it. While it's true that there was really no support for the move as originally proposed, looking back on the comments, it looks like everyone supported a move to Disney California Adventure. Would you review the discussion to see if that move is merited, or should I request that move anew? Best, BDD (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I came here to make the same comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly may have missed something and will revisit this evening once I get back to my hotel from work. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --BDD (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this ... by the by, when you revised your closure remarks, you said you moved it to "California Adventure" instead of to "Disney California Adventure", as you did and as was the consensus in the discussion. Minor detail, I know. I'm tempted to fix it myself but was afraid I'd be stepping on toes. --McDoobAU93 21:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. BTW, I have tiny, insensitive toes that never get stepped on. I am really pretty easy going about these things. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's still messed up. Local consensus developed there seems to have assumed that "California Adventure" (what was originally proposed) is not commonly used in reliable source. That does not appear to be an accurate assumption, and so I would dismiss all arguments based on it, and support the original proposal. I started a section on this issue there. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Grand Teton National Park

Hi Mike...thank you for your assistance on the article...it is now featured!--MONGO 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mike Cline. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising (2011–present)

12 October (protection ends) is not equal to 60-days (RM close comment). I'm involved (having closed the last RM) so don't feel it appropriate to comment on which one it should be but thought you'd like to know as, given the heat around this, I wouldn't be surprised if someone used that difference to attack you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is making headline news today: "Red Cross: Syrian conflict now a civil war". I think the 60 day thing could become an issue. The name actually is quite significant as it implies a political position in which side you support. For example although traditionally historians called it the Taiping Rebellion, current thought it was a Civil War and many historians are now calling it that. It is significant because at the time, western powers wanted it to be perceived as a "rebellion" because they supported the government and not the "rebels", but that is now seen as propaganda at the time, and the reality is it was a civil war. In the case of Syria, the current government would love the world to think there are rebels and it is an uprising, and not, as the Red Cross says, a true Civil War. Anyway if nothing else "uprising" implies rebellion and is POV, whereas "conflict" is a neutral descriptor. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your last decision to close the article as not moved, but I do not think a 60-day protect move is appropriate, even before the Red Cross thing. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Montgomery?

Mike, drop me a line next time you're in Montgomery: we'll go have drinks and call it "work". I know just the place. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Yerba mate

A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Yerba mate#Requested move: ? Ilex paraguariensis. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mate (beverage)

A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Mate (beverage)#Requested Move: ? Maté. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

*grin*

You mean "Another Admin comment - for those clamoring for a premature close, the above Administrator and the editor are correct..."?? LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bollinger Bands® article rename and move request

Mr. Cline,

I see that Dicklyon has again initiated a rename and move request for the Bollinger Bands article. This time he has preemptively edited the article before the discussion commenced. I thought that we had settled this once and for all at the cost of many person-hours of time and effort. I won't go into the reasons not to move it here, they've already been enumerated, but I am prepared to enumerate them on the discussion page again if I must. The proper usage is perfectly clear, yet he insists on trying to create his own usage. I object to this campaign by attrition; these efforts to devalue my intellectual property are tremendously damaging emotionally and physically.

I am writing you as you are the Wikipedia administrator who decided in favor of the proper usage of Bollinger Bands on Wikipedia last time and in hope that I will not have to endure yet another iteration of this process.

Best,

John Bollinger, CFA, CMT (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Emails

Hi Mike, are you getting my emails? I got an email filter notice from your email provider and I haven't seen you respond to any of my emails since that time. Can you check if your filter is blocking my emails? Pine^✉ 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I just got another message from your server saying that my message is being held. Can you address this please? Thank you, Pine^✉ 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally screwed up

Mike, I need your help. A while back, an editor requested we move The Next Food Network Star to Food Network Star, as the show had changed the title. Consensus at the time was not to move, and you closed the discussion. Well, a new editor came in with a source for the name change, which was never in dispute, and moved the main article above, plus the season 4, 5 and 6 articles, all over consensus (and over redirect). I decided to fix it when I was to sleepy to do anything of the sort and totally, massively and utterly screwed it up. Instead of moving it all back, I moved it all to The Food Network Star or The Food Network Star (season #). That's four articles and their talk pages I messed up and I can't seem to fix it. Since you closed the original discussion, I thought it best to come to you. Can you take them back to The Next Food Nework Star, etc. or tell me what to do to fix it? I really apologize for all the hassle! --Drmargi (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Necromancy

Saw your close on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(2nd_nomination) I believe a similar issue is occuring at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents Would appreciate your attention/opinion? (Please ignore if you consider this canvassing). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jane Harrison

Any chance you could do that as a relist for more opinions, instead of a "not moved"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Considering the only other person to opine there has reverted to that title 3 times so far, I was hoping to get other opinions on the subject before closing. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Close please

Mike, I'd like to request a close on Talk:Pho, it is in the RM backlog and I no longer support my own proposal. Unlike the other Category:Vietnamese cuisine RMs it wasn't undiscussed moved/redirect locked, and more importantly unlike the others it has actually passed into English per "chicken pho (phở gà)" etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another RM close please

The discussion at Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis#How about "''Global financial crisis of 2008''"? started as an RfC but then became an RM on Aug 1. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)