Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Final assessment by the panel: update |
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 361: | Line 361: | ||
Comments by the panel or others in this section welcome, but again perhaps we are at the point of needing a new talk subpage. My browser is again approaching its page length limits, and I expect some mobile users are locked out. Happy to set one up if requested. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC) |
Comments by the panel or others in this section welcome, but again perhaps we are at the point of needing a new talk subpage. My browser is again approaching its page length limits, and I expect some mobile users are locked out. Happy to set one up if requested. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
*(cross-posted) As a panelist, and after carefully considering the views of the other panelists, the closing is that there is '''no consensus'' either for or against the proposed move. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:57, 22 September 2016
What this page is
This is a continuation of Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, which was getting too long for some browsers to even read, let alone edit.
It was proposed at the bottom (at least, the bottom as I write this) of Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Renewed appeal to panel for a proper closure, but as that section is itself rather long you can try going to Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Close it out and scrolling up, if you want to check on me.
As User:BD2412 didn't take the suggestion but explicitly said they didn't object to it either, I've done it.
I suggest that any new sections be created on this page rather than on Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. Ideally use the New section link to do that.
I also suggest that, if it's possible without losing clarity, a new section here is a much better idea than continuing a thread at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. As stated, that page is more than long enough.
Finally, I strongly suggest that no others edit these first three sections. Leave #Final assessment by the panel and any subsections of it for their comments, discussion and summary only. Leave these two explanatory sections for me as creator of this page and nominator of the RM (I would have no objection to the panelists or BD2412 editing "my" sections, but hope they will find no need to do so). If you object to anything I've said here, create a new section to discuss that, below these top three (again, best to use the New section link). TIA Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
What this page is not
This page will not necessarily be even read by the closers. I hope it will be at least skimmed, but I see absolutely no obligation for them to do that. I think all the sections currently being added to the bottom of Talk:New York/July 2016 move request have exactly the same status, so no loss. In fact in their shoes I'd read this page in preference to those sections... but they may not. Up to them. It probably depends a bit on what section headings end up here, so write them thoughtfully.
Nor of course will they necessarily respond to anything written here. We can hope they will, but there's no guarantee of that, or any obligation to do it. Same logic.
They're even welcome to put a closing summary here. But not forced to. I hope they will. Up to them.
- And I note with thanks that one of them has already commented at #Final assessment by the panel below. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want to increase the probability of them reading your stuff, you might find my new user page at User:Andrewa/How not to rant helpful. Or not. It might at least give you a laugh or two. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Final assessment by the panel
I invite (not demand) the panelists' comments below, creating any subsections they feel useful.
(Or they could create their own page. Up to them.)
I request any others who wish to respond not to respond in this section or its subsections. Create your own section instead, below (the New section link does this). Refer back to the specific comments as necessary, and leave this section near the top for the panelists only to develop their assessment(s). TIA Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- As a panelist, and after carefully considering the views of the other panelists, the closing is that there is 'no consensus either for or against the proposed move. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Closure
@BD2412: I would recommend closing out this move request within another week or so if there is still no consensus to move as expressed by the panelists. As such, it wouldn't serve any constructive purpose to either side to keep it open longer than that. Castncoot (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is neither a deadline, nor a continuing harm, particularly given the "no consensus" outcome. bd2412 T 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Glad to see you acknowledge once more, as the independent moderator, the "no consensus" outcome. That makes you AND two of the three panelists to express that belief! Castncoot (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm certain he was saying that, if there is a no consensus outcome as you claim, then no harm is being done by waiting for the panelists to explain how the arguments reflect that. ~ Rob13Talk 20:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree it seems the more likely outcome at this stage and I also acknowledged that before even setting up this page and you made no comment, did you miss it? Easy to do!
- But it's too early to acknowledge it as if it were the inevitable outcome, surely? At the risk of falling into the same trap, at this stage it seems to be no consensus as to whether there is a consensus.
- We do have Hopefully final comments from one panelist, but that same panelist has since promised further comment, and several of us have asked for clarification on the issue of primary topic (hopefully from all panelists). Let us not rush or prejudge it. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- He promised further comment if he had anything further to add, if I understood correctly. There's no consensus to move; I get the feeling that the support side continues to be in great denial. Castncoot (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I stand corrected on that. Consensus is still being assessed as I understand it. In a discussion such as this, there's a temptation to denial on both sides. The oppose side seem to be overlooking the primary topic criteria, and the sheer pointlessness of what can at best be a temporary victory. Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTALBALL. Castncoot (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I stand corrected on that. Consensus is still being assessed as I understand it. In a discussion such as this, there's a temptation to denial on both sides. The oppose side seem to be overlooking the primary topic criteria, and the sheer pointlessness of what can at best be a temporary victory. Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- He promised further comment if he had anything further to add, if I understood correctly. There's no consensus to move; I get the feeling that the support side continues to be in great denial. Castncoot (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Glad to see you acknowledge once more, as the independent moderator, the "no consensus" outcome. That makes you AND two of the three panelists to express that belief! Castncoot (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Moratorium
AFAIK there's no official guideline for renominating this for move yet again, but several people have suggested that it should not happen immediately, there's at least one essay that suggests a three to six month pause, I've suggested twelve months in this case, and from memory User:Castncoot has hinted at until 2022. Of course that doesn't mean we need to revisit it then, or ever. But there seems to be (dare I say it) consensus that if the result is not to move, it will come up again eventually.
This is not to prejudge any of that, or to preclude MR, which one editor has suggested is inevitable either way. Just to centralise some thoughts on the idea of taking a break eventually.
Comments? And in particular, are there precedents, policies, guidelines, even good user essays, that I've missed? This would be a good place to link to them. Apologies for not linking to any of my examples above, I'll have a better look for them in time. Andrewa (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's remain focused: we need a panel close as the next step in the process. Any moratorium decision is up to their collective wisdom. — JFG talk 23:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you go digging around in Wikipedia talk: Naming conventions (geographic names), you'll find this, a moratorium imposed on proposals to change WP:USPLACE. However, the moratorium was imposed by consensus and because of that I doubt that it is really a very apt analogy. Even in that case the closer noted that "moratoriums are against the spirit of how we do things on Wikipedia." Also, the ongoing fights over USPLACE that happened before that moratorium make this dispute look like a cake-walk. Certainly a decade-long moratorium would be inappropriate. AgnosticAphid talk 18:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to see at least a six month moratorium, and a requirement that any new proposal produce some new information to consider. bd2412 T 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, just the sort of input I was after.
- I think six months would be a minimum, but I'd be happy with it. Still prefer twelve.
- But I see enormous problems with insisting on new information. It's a requirement in practice of course, otherwise the exercise is pointless. I've already said elsewhere that I intend to do some work on it, and will not be proposing another move unless and until that bears fruit. But who is to be the judge of whether this requirement is satisfied?
- Particularly in this case, where we have had no consensus on whether there is consensus, and one of our panel has been viciously and personally attacked. If ever I have seen a case for keeping it simple, this is it.
- I disclose that I think that keeping it simple favours the move case, and complicating things favours the no move case. Unintentionally perhaps, they have tied the process in knots, and as long as they do so, they win. Andrewa (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Again, just the input I was seeking, both the link and the comfort of knowing that someone else has also had a look for better ones. Andrewa (tal k) 20:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The moratorium length should be a factor of the time that this MR is currently open, in order to respect, rather than disrupt, Wikipedia, and in order to neutralize certain editors' desires to force their own agendas through at any cost. I support a factor of twelve. Castncoot (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to itself be an obvious attempt to promote your own agenda, so is it unfair to suggest it's an example of how to reveal yourself without really trying? The other participants in this debate (on both sides) have been displaying reasonable objectivity in our different opinions, in the hope of building a better Wikipedia. If anyone is displaying desires to force their own agendas through at any cost... my candidate would be... guess who? Andrewa (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good try on your part, but nothing revealing as such. And I simply said, "certain editors' desires", but looked who jumped to protest? The longer that this review stays open and drains itself and the editors involved as such, the longer that both the topic and the editors deserve a break from it. Simple as that. Castncoot (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that you were not specific. But I did not assume you meant me. Did I?
- Coming up with a formula such as you suggest is novel and unnecessary, and puts pressure on everyone to cut the discussion short. I'll say again, a key objective of all talk page discussions is to build consensus. Andrewa (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good try on your part, but nothing revealing as such. And I simply said, "certain editors' desires", but looked who jumped to protest? The longer that this review stays open and drains itself and the editors involved as such, the longer that both the topic and the editors deserve a break from it. Simple as that. Castncoot (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to itself be an obvious attempt to promote your own agenda, so is it unfair to suggest it's an example of how to reveal yourself without really trying? The other participants in this debate (on both sides) have been displaying reasonable objectivity in our different opinions, in the hope of building a better Wikipedia. If anyone is displaying desires to force their own agendas through at any cost... my candidate would be... guess who? Andrewa (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The moratorium length should be a factor of the time that this MR is currently open, in order to respect, rather than disrupt, Wikipedia, and in order to neutralize certain editors' desires to force their own agendas through at any cost. I support a factor of twelve. Castncoot (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to see at least a six month moratorium, and a requirement that any new proposal produce some new information to consider. bd2412 T 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Any against
Above (and elsewhere) several of us are suggesting a moratorium.
I think it would be helpful to ask, any against? Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the idea, I would lean against a moratorium on this subject. We usually impose such drastic restrictions on freedom of editing and debating for cases which are disruptive to the encyclopedia or where participants have shown particularly bad-faith or aggressive behaviour. Despite a bit of hyperbole, none of these conditions are met by this debate. Sure we need some time to cool off, and we are already getting that time by virtue of the panelists' silence. It is quite frustrating to be unable to reach consensus on an issue that should be a slam-dunk if only it were examined afresh untainted by 15 years of status quo. Even dissenters agree that the historical setup violates WP:AT policy and they argue that New York should be an exception, or that we should change the rules (an avenue you tried to explore with them and turned out a dead-end).
- Some editors in the post-debate (and one panelist) argued that the process was a bit too complex and that we would have better chances to resolve the issue by asking a simpler question or framing the debate differently. We came to this format because the previous move decision was considered a bit too shallow, so perhaps we have erred on the opposite extreme of nitpicking… At least the exercise we all went through provides a full layout of arguments pro and contra, so rather than asking for new arguments the next discussion should imho focus on a new and sober analysis of the arguments in light of policy and benefits vs harm of each option. I believe this should be done relatively quickly, i.e. not in 6 months or 6 years. And not at move review which risks focusing on the messenger (debate participants and panelists) vs on the message (the unresolved issue at hand). — JFG talk 04:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- There should probably be a moratorium of around a year, since this is a big time drain for those on both sides who care about this issue, given the amount of time taken with arguments and marshalling the evidence. No more than that though, and certainly no requirement for fresh evidence. I accept the result, but with no disrespect to the panel I don't think they've done this process justice. All three saw stronger evidence in favour than against, and the third panelist only chose no consensus because the numbers were close, even though that panelist was entirely persuaded by the evidence. The purpose of a panel is to make the bold decisions and escape the perpetual no consensus loop, as indeed they did at Hillary Clinton, and I'm confident that another panel on another day, one or two years from now, will do that even on today's evidence. Thus I don't want us to tie ourselves to not discussing this ever again. Anyway, that's just my view. I wish all my learned colleagues on all sides of the debate, and the panelists, well and let's crack on with building the best encyclopedia on earth. — Amakuru (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's possibly in the wrong section, as you favour the moratorium. Thre ideas was to make it as easy as possible for the panelists. Oh well, I tried.
- We do not yet have a final result, and while I agree with your analysis that all three saw stronger evidence in favour than against, this makes their initial findings all the more surprising, and they may still reconsider this in their final verdict - one way or another!
- But again one way or another, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it may well be possible to break this no consensus loop by a clarification of policy on no consensus decisions. I intend to patiently attempt this. I don't believe that the interpretation put on this policy by some if not all of those opposing the move is its intent. But it's also the interpretation of two of the panel, initially at least, and also of the closer of the recent MR (long ago now it seems). So it must be accepted that it's a popular reading of the policy as it stands. I'm disappointed that the circular reasoning this involves isn't obvious to everyone, but obviously it isn't.
- And as several on both sides have observed, the move once it takes place will be irreversible. So we only need to win once. Those opposing, on the other hand, need to win regularly. As a young and very naive Winston Churchill observed of the Boers, it's very sporting of them. Andrewa (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTALBALL. Castncoot (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mea culpa, but perhaps also pot and kettle. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTALBALL. Castncoot (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to remind that the issue of whether there is a primary topic was discussed but not settled as part of the move review, and several editors regarded it as highly relevant yet not thoroughly debated enough for it to influence the decision. Therefore, if there is agreement to enact a moratorium on further move requests, it should be not extended to debating the existence of a primary topic. In fact the result of that discussion may very well be the "new information" that someone was requesting as a requirement to try a new move. Diego (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- (writing this one week later, but in answer to Diego's comment, hence the placement at this point in the thread) FWIW, I just opened an RFC narrowly asking whether New York State is the primary topic for the term "New York". Hopefully this will help settle this particular aspect of the debate. — JFG talk 10:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- This was done in bad faith strictly to subvert this process, amidst this process, and directly in violation of the spirit and perhaps letter of what Newyorkbrad has recommended and/or instructed, simply to get around a likely moratorium on this. This RfC should be withdrawn immediately, as the time for this would have been while the move request discussion was ongoing. Please withdraw this. Castncoot (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- This was done because you repeatedly sidestep the important issue of primary topic, preferring instead to use the circular argument that there must be no consensus because you keep writing words to the effect of "Oppose: no consensus" (paraphrase, not direct quotation). This has the effect that your arguments cannot be countered because there is no argument to counter. I am trying really really hard to assume that this occurs accidentally and in good faith, but I cannot be the only editor whose patience is wearing thin. Certes (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. And the direct answer to this is simple. As I've already pointed out, this was already discussed extensively during the move request discussion process. You and others had all the time in the world to malleate the topic of primary topic in any which way you wanted, as you are directly tying this to the move request, while the oppose side argued that it was not the determinant factor anyway. You don't get a second bite at the apple when things aren't going your way. The move request discussion is now closed, and the panel will decide how much weight, if any, this (and any other move request-related topic either favoring or disfavoring a move, by the way) will have in coming up with a composite decision. And then all of these topics will need to be subjected to a common moratorium along with any subsequent move discussion itself. Would you simply wipe up an oil spill, or would you also plug up holes from the oil tanker? Castncoot (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- This was done because you repeatedly sidestep the important issue of primary topic, preferring instead to use the circular argument that there must be no consensus because you keep writing words to the effect of "Oppose: no consensus" (paraphrase, not direct quotation). This has the effect that your arguments cannot be countered because there is no argument to counter. I am trying really really hard to assume that this occurs accidentally and in good faith, but I cannot be the only editor whose patience is wearing thin. Certes (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- This was done in bad faith strictly to subvert this process, amidst this process, and directly in violation of the spirit and perhaps letter of what Newyorkbrad has recommended and/or instructed, simply to get around a likely moratorium on this. This RfC should be withdrawn immediately, as the time for this would have been while the move request discussion was ongoing. Please withdraw this. Castncoot (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a very good point IMO. It does depend a bit on the panel. I'm hoping (as I have said before) that they will make a decision on this too, and think that for transparency it is very important, but they're not obliged to.
- Nor should it extend to attempts to clarify the various (three I think) policy and guideline pages that express the no consensus, no move principle. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- What is the point of having a discussion trying to identify one as the Primary Topic, other than to lay the ground work for a future move discussion? If there isn't a non-move related reason to establish it, trying to get around a moratorium with such a discussion seems ill-advised. Monty845 01:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that it's simply a bad-faith back door ploy. Castncoot (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sticks and stones. To seek clarification of an unresolved issue isn't a back door but a reasonable thing.
- To seek clarification of policies and/or guidelines after a no consensus result is constructive. No consensus is never a good outcome. Andrewa (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody's stopping you from trying to reinvent the wheel away from this topic. Also, PTOPIC received plenty of air time during this move request, ad nauseum and in many comments in fact, and there was every chance to give it even more time ad nauseum within this MR; too late to revisit that issue in this MR, in 2016. As of right now, there's no consensus among the panelists (and/or even the independent moderator) as a group to move, I'm sure you agree with that simple fact. So unless a consensus to move somehow develops among this group within a certain period of time, we'll be held hostage by this open move request indefinitely. The conversation has also deteriorated to having nothing constructive to say, so at this point, keeping it open seems to be deleterious to the project. Why not just close it out after say, this coming Friday, August 26, 2016 at 23:59 UTC, if the situation stays as is? According to BD2412, if I understood correctly, any editor can legitimately close it out at this point, including myself, although it would be nice to have someone on the other side concurring. Castncoot (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let me just nip this in the bud right here. WP:INVOLVED. If you close this discussion, it's extraordinarily likely to be reverted and you're likely to wind up at a noticeboard. Right now, we haven't had a formal closure yet. While you've been doing a rather annoying "victory lap", I'm not quite sure why, as the closers have only offered their initial opinions and have yet to come to a cohesive closing statement which weighs all arguments and defends a conclusion, something required via WP:ADMINACCT when closing a discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 03:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Did I miss somewhere that they were indeed coming up with a cohesive closing statement? I thought NYB was crystal clear in his own statement. I don't think they've promised that or are obligated to do so as a group. Let me know if you find such a statement confirming that expectation. Otherwise we could wait forever, which would merge right into 2022, when this topic will rear its head again anyway, plus or minus a year. I just think that waiting till 2022 to close this out would be silly. Castncoot (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let me just nip this in the bud right here. WP:INVOLVED. If you close this discussion, it's extraordinarily likely to be reverted and you're likely to wind up at a noticeboard. Right now, we haven't had a formal closure yet. While you've been doing a rather annoying "victory lap", I'm not quite sure why, as the closers have only offered their initial opinions and have yet to come to a cohesive closing statement which weighs all arguments and defends a conclusion, something required via WP:ADMINACCT when closing a discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 03:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody's stopping you from trying to reinvent the wheel away from this topic. Also, PTOPIC received plenty of air time during this move request, ad nauseum and in many comments in fact, and there was every chance to give it even more time ad nauseum within this MR; too late to revisit that issue in this MR, in 2016. As of right now, there's no consensus among the panelists (and/or even the independent moderator) as a group to move, I'm sure you agree with that simple fact. So unless a consensus to move somehow develops among this group within a certain period of time, we'll be held hostage by this open move request indefinitely. The conversation has also deteriorated to having nothing constructive to say, so at this point, keeping it open seems to be deleterious to the project. Why not just close it out after say, this coming Friday, August 26, 2016 at 23:59 UTC, if the situation stays as is? According to BD2412, if I understood correctly, any editor can legitimately close it out at this point, including myself, although it would be nice to have someone on the other side concurring. Castncoot (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that it's simply a bad-faith back door ploy. Castncoot (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
They're not obligated to close the discussion, but at that point, we'd need to find a new panel (which would be tedious). If they're acting as closers, they are obligated, as per WP:ADMINACCT, to provide a closing statement explaining the joint decision. One of the few things we are in agreement on is that the current state of limbo whereby we have no outcome cannot last indefinitely. If there's no movement from the panel soon, we may want to consider finding a new panel. ~ Rob13Talk 04:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why? So you can throw out the window their lack of consensus among them to move? No thanks, I'll wait till 2022. Castncoot (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you're incorrect about their being obligated to provide a cohesive closing statement about the decision. I just checked WP:ADMINACCT, and nowhere does it specify this. It simply directs proper communication by admins, which the two admins on the panel did provide. Castncoot (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why? So you can throw out the window their lack of consensus among them to move? No thanks, I'll wait till 2022. Castncoot (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:ADMINACCT requires admins to be accountable (as the name would imply) to the community. Closing a discussion without any closing statement is not accountability. I'm unaware of any situation where this has even been argued in the past because it's very obvious common sense that an admin should explain their close when they close a discussion. Note also that WP:NAC spells out the previous community consensus that non-admins acting as closers also full under WP:ADMINACCT and are expected to be accountable to the community in the same way. So far, we haven't even received a statement telling us what the result is, so we'd be breaking new ground here if we're saying the close thus far is sufficient permanently. (Obviously, the closers have been busy, and I appreciate that. I'm not saying they've done anything wrong thus far, just that there's more to do when they have time to get to it.) You're also talking about throwing out lack of consensus, but again, there has been no closing statement and no statement of a result, so it wouldn't be throwing out anything. ~ Rob13Talk 05:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm willing to wait till 2022 for the official closure that you're alluding to. And now I am indeed quoting the independent moderator BD2412 from the section currently entitled "Closure" above on this page that "There is neither a deadline, nor a continuing harm, particularly given the "no consensus" outcome." As long as we keep our coversations civil here, there won't be any continuing harm. But there's nothing whatsoever that necessitates or even obligates all three closers to issue a joint statement. Any one of them can pick up the ball and speak both granularly and cohesively on behalf of all of them, which I believe NYB already did quite nicely (in his subsequent evaluation of the discussion) in the currently entitled section, "Hopefully final comments" on the Talk:New York/July 2016 move request page, albeit without hatting off the MR discussion, which he may have left for BD2412 to do. And BD2412 has every right to do just that, even as we speak. Castncoot (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do not believe that I do have the right to close this discussion. I closed the move review and set up the page for the move. It seems to me that doing more would be asserting ownership over the outcome of the entire process, when we have plenty of admins with no prior involvement (including the closing panel members). bd2412 T 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I started to write some stuff, but BD2412 said it way better than I was going to. I don't think he's WP:INVOLVED, persay, but it's best practice not to close a move review and then also the resulting move discussion (which he procedurally opened). You've continuously referred to him as a "moderator", Castncoot, but there's simply no such thing on Wikipedia. Moreover, the repeated claim that there is no need for a closing statement remains absurd given WP:ADMINACCT. Every major discussion on the project that I've ever seen has had a closing statement, as they are crucial for transparency in closing. Discussions as complex at this should have a long one, at that, which clearly weighs all arguments. I have to assume that you understand how weak your arguments were given that you seem to be arguing desperately against them being analyzed. I also continue to await your explanation of what policy or guideline supported your position. ~ Rob13Talk 22:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do not believe that I do have the right to close this discussion. I closed the move review and set up the page for the move. It seems to me that doing more would be asserting ownership over the outcome of the entire process, when we have plenty of admins with no prior involvement (including the closing panel members). bd2412 T 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm willing to wait till 2022 for the official closure that you're alluding to. And now I am indeed quoting the independent moderator BD2412 from the section currently entitled "Closure" above on this page that "There is neither a deadline, nor a continuing harm, particularly given the "no consensus" outcome." As long as we keep our coversations civil here, there won't be any continuing harm. But there's nothing whatsoever that necessitates or even obligates all three closers to issue a joint statement. Any one of them can pick up the ball and speak both granularly and cohesively on behalf of all of them, which I believe NYB already did quite nicely (in his subsequent evaluation of the discussion) in the currently entitled section, "Hopefully final comments" on the Talk:New York/July 2016 move request page, albeit without hatting off the MR discussion, which he may have left for BD2412 to do. And BD2412 has every right to do just that, even as we speak. Castncoot (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Reply to Castncoot, and some logic
I reluctantly start a new section, as the post below was specifically addressed to me but the subsequent discussion makes stringing problematic if I reply above. I think I should reply. Having done so I'm going to indulge in a little logic (my very favourite activity).
Nobody's stopping you from trying to reinvent the wheel away from this topic. Also, PTOPIC received plenty of air time during this move request, ad nauseum and in many comments in fact, and there was every chance to give it even more time ad nauseum within this MR; too late to revisit that issue in this MR, in 2016. As of right now, there's no consensus among the panelists (and/or even the independent moderator) as a group to move, I'm sure you agree with that simple fact. So unless a consensus to move somehow develops among this group within a certain period of time, we'll be held hostage by this open move request indefinitely. The conversation has also deteriorated to having nothing constructive to say, so at this point, keeping it open seems to be deleterious to the project. Why not just close it out after say, this coming Friday, August 26, 2016 at 23:59 UTC, if the situation stays as is? According to BD2412, if I understood correctly, any editor can legitimately close it out at this point, including myself, although it would be nice to have someone on the other side concurring. Castncoot]] (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC) (user links delinked by me to avoid duplicate pings)
That last sentence I took to mean that User:Castncoot was intending to close the discussion themselves. That ridiculous idea was immediately squashed by User:BD2412. Enough said.
The first sentence is a mishmash, but I don't see what if anything it contributes. Pure waffle.
Then we get to primary topic: Castncoot wants it dropped without further assessment, not surprisingly. No, it won't just go away. All policy-based arguments are against NYS being primary. All of them, as the no consensus clause is not applicable to this issue.
And more on no consensus. Agree. And the purpose of all talk page discussions is to seek consensus.
The conversation... is the leadup to the proposal for self-close. Enough said.
And now to the logic I promised in the heading. First, two conditionals I think we should bear in mind.
The first is
(1)* If we have decided not to move, then we have decided that NYS is the primary topic.
That was suggested above, and I don't actually think it's true (that's what the "*" means). But others do, so let's examine its consequences. The contrapositive of (1) is
(2)* If we decide that NYS is not the primary topic, then we have decided to move.
Now that, I think, would be resisted by all opponents of the move. They want other considerations, notably the no consensus clause, taken into account. But they can't have it both ways. If (1) is true, then so is (2). Or conversely, if (2) is false as I believe, then so is (1), and the question of primary topic remains open.
The second conditional is
(3) If there is no consensus to move, then there should be no move.
Now I agree with this. The problem is purely in the way in which consensus to move is assessed. In particular, we cannot assume that there is no consensus in order to decide whether or not there is consensus. That would be circular reasoning. In order to decide whether this clause is relevant, we need first to assess consensus (provisionally perhaps) without relying on this clause itself. Unfortunately, the current policy and guidelines do not make this clear.
Finally I think I should say something about the Condorcet paradox which one of the panel has suggested.
I've thought long and hard about this, and I don't think this is the problem here. This RM (like the vast majority of RMs) was set up in such a way that the two possible Condorcet paradoxes would both be resolved. The first question was two-way, not three-way, and the second only became relevant in the case of the first being decided in favour of a move.
Thank you for your time in reading all of that! I hope it helps. Andrewa (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A brilliant exposé, Andrewa, thanks for the late-night read. Indeed logically one cannot support (1) while opposing (2)… but logic has long been irrelevant in this debate, hasn't it? The whole case for not moving is either supported by "we never had consensus therefore there can be no consensus" or by "we must IAR for New York". A sad predicament indeed. — JFG talk 01:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:STATUSQUO (interpreted liberally as consistent with the spirit and intent of the very foundation of Wikipedia) and WP:CONSENSUS trump the very narrow policy known as WP:PTOPIC by penultimately infinite bounds; so your first two conditional premises are fallacious to begin with. The harsh and frustrated tone being demonstrated by the support side is extremely telling that it might already realize that the dissolution of this move request is inevitable. Newyorkbrad has already summarized the positions of the three panelists, saying that the panel has found no consensus for a consensus to move, that two of the three panelists ultimately found no consensus to move. The support side seems to be desperately trying to undermine his very clear and powerful statement, but the support side's attempts to undermine this decree though a back door, side door, or even a front door simply will not be tolerated. No need to waste any more of my energy on this section at this time. Castncoot (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Essays (which WP:STATUSQUO is) cannot trump policies. Pppery (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- LOL, who has repeatedly demonstrated a
harsh and frustrated tone
exactly? — JFG talk 01:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC) - This seems to be another pot and kettle on your part, especially considering your post at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Niceguyedc not so long ago. I have repeatedly said I will respect the panel decision, and recommended against raising an MR on their decision whatever it is.
- I am certainly hoping the panel will read and consider what is written here, but I have pointed out that they are not obliged to do so, also consistently I hope. The other purpose of this discussion is to develop ideas as to how the current guidelines and policies might be improved, and work towards consensus on this.
- The most unfortunate thing is that the current policy and guidelines do not seem to be encouraging you, or anyone else opposing this or other controversial moves, to work towards consensus. Instead you have played for a draw, quite openly I think, and I do not blame you for this as the policy/guidelines now stand. But this is very much against the spirit if not the letter of wp:consensus, and could even be seen as gaming the system. It's one aspect of the current policy/guideline setup that I think it would be good to change, regardless of the outcome of this RM. Andrewa (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, your logic is incorrect, Andrewa. If we have decided not to move, then we have decided that NYS is the primary topic says nothing unless its conditional (If we have decided not to move,) is true. What that statement does say instead is If NYS is not the primary topic, we have decided to move').Pppery (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)- I think you mean its antecedent rather than its conditional. No, it still says something... and it's logically equivalent to its contrapositive, as I stated and you seem to agree. So I can't see where you get the idea that either of these statements would have meaning and the other would not. What am I missing? Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Actually, my former mentor Vic Dudman would probably have my hide for calling them conditionals at all. But this was a particular hobbyhorse of his, and I think he'd agree the logic is OK. x=x Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC))
- @Andrewa: Yes, I did mean the antecedent and was extermely confused when I wrote my preceding post. Pppery (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Andrewa, for that eloquent summary of everything I've been tempted to shout whilst following this page. WP:STATUSQUO doesn't say never correct mistakes. And we really do need to resolve the primary topic issue, so we know which assertion we're evaluating: NYS is primary or WP:PTOPIC doesn't matter. Certes (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm downright amazed that someone is now saying policy can't trump WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is the agreement arising from policy-based arguments. Substituting that definition in, the statement becomes "Policy can't trump the agreement arising from policy-based arguments" (hey look, quotes for formatting again, not a direct quote). The statement doesn't stop at being wrong. Instead, it sprints straight forward to being unintelligible, since it states that policy can't trump something that stems from ... policy. This statement seems to be derived from a belief that whomever screams the loudest gets their way here, those pesky policies and guidelines be damned, but that is simply not the case. I won't address the quoted essay, WP:STATUSQUO, as others have already explained what an essay is and is not above. ~ Rob13Talk 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wish that even at this late hour our esteemed panel would take these points into account and close this out with their final signed decision being a move, because BU Rob and Andrewa's points are very valid and to the point. Nobody on the panel disputes that the move evidence was stronger, but because the discussion was locked up, some people felt strongly in favour of the current arrangement despite it not really being backed up by policy, we just stick with the long term status quo yet again. As BU Rob says, Wikipedia should never be a venue for those who shout the loudest to win the day, if only because not everyone has an equal amount of time at their disposal to do said shouting. And our policies and guidelines are there for a reason, because some decisions, including PTOPIC and naming conventions, should be made at a site level, not by discussion at each and every one of the 5 million pages on the Wiki. — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. I think my preferred outcome at this point would be relisting, actually. We can't expect the closing panel to take into account discussion that happens in real-time as they're closing, but at the same time, I doubt anyone would argue with the fact that the post-hatting-of-the-move-request discussion has been very illuminating. A lot of the opposing editors didn't discuss all that much during the move request itself, but they've come out of the woodwork discussing afterward, and that discussion (and the refutations or lack thereof that have been demonstrated) is all part of building and demonstrating consensus. I think relisting would allow the discussion to continue organically while also bringing into the fold all of this discussion that has occurred in the meantime. It seems very bureaucratic to say "Whoops, can't consider this helpful discussion because we hatted the discussion prior to it taking place." Sorry to draw you into this, BD2412, but do you have any comments on the possibility of relisting as the administrator who placed the archive tags? ~ Rob13Talk 08:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Relisting sounds like a good option, perhaps as an RFC to get fresh input? Also, RMs are now automatically advertised on the article pages themselves, which may bring lots of uninvolved opinions from actual readers. We write WP for readers, all of policy is designed to help them by improving quality, accuracy and readability. Perhaps we could IAR to avoid excess noise and perform a relisting where only uninvolved people could !vote on the exact same questions? — JFG talk 10:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think barring those who participated here for a relist makes too much sense; relisting usually keeps existing discussion and allows others to add to it. I do think it would be wise to make a new subpage and copy over the !votes and threaded discussion of the !votes, though, as all the closing mumbo jumbo on the first page made it too long. ~ Rob13Talk 12:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. Rob (and others) can't have it both ways. Either BD2412 has the power to close this MR out right now for no consensus (about anything) or we wait as long as it takes for the already appointed and spoken-for panel to close it out. "Relisting" as you are suggesting in the midst of this process goes against what NYB on the panel has recommended. Castncoot (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think barring those who participated here for a relist makes too much sense; relisting usually keeps existing discussion and allows others to add to it. I do think it would be wise to make a new subpage and copy over the !votes and threaded discussion of the !votes, though, as all the closing mumbo jumbo on the first page made it too long. ~ Rob13Talk 12:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Relisting sounds like a good option, perhaps as an RFC to get fresh input? Also, RMs are now automatically advertised on the article pages themselves, which may bring lots of uninvolved opinions from actual readers. We write WP for readers, all of policy is designed to help them by improving quality, accuracy and readability. Perhaps we could IAR to avoid excess noise and perform a relisting where only uninvolved people could !vote on the exact same questions? — JFG talk 10:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. I think my preferred outcome at this point would be relisting, actually. We can't expect the closing panel to take into account discussion that happens in real-time as they're closing, but at the same time, I doubt anyone would argue with the fact that the post-hatting-of-the-move-request discussion has been very illuminating. A lot of the opposing editors didn't discuss all that much during the move request itself, but they've come out of the woodwork discussing afterward, and that discussion (and the refutations or lack thereof that have been demonstrated) is all part of building and demonstrating consensus. I think relisting would allow the discussion to continue organically while also bringing into the fold all of this discussion that has occurred in the meantime. It seems very bureaucratic to say "Whoops, can't consider this helpful discussion because we hatted the discussion prior to it taking place." Sorry to draw you into this, BD2412, but do you have any comments on the possibility of relisting as the administrator who placed the archive tags? ~ Rob13Talk 08:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wish that even at this late hour our esteemed panel would take these points into account and close this out with their final signed decision being a move, because BU Rob and Andrewa's points are very valid and to the point. Nobody on the panel disputes that the move evidence was stronger, but because the discussion was locked up, some people felt strongly in favour of the current arrangement despite it not really being backed up by policy, we just stick with the long term status quo yet again. As BU Rob says, Wikipedia should never be a venue for those who shout the loudest to win the day, if only because not everyone has an equal amount of time at their disposal to do said shouting. And our policies and guidelines are there for a reason, because some decisions, including PTOPIC and naming conventions, should be made at a site level, not by discussion at each and every one of the 5 million pages on the Wiki. — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
As one of the closers, I remain of the view that the outcome of this discussion is "no consensus." I do not think it would be appropriate or useful to immediately relist a move discussion that closed with that result, although I acknowledge that at some point another discussion is inevitable. I also strongly repeat my suggestion on the other page that if and when there is another discussion, the structure of the commenting and !voting should take into account that there are three rather than two possibilities, in order to avoid Cordorcet/Arrow style uncertainties caused by the structure of the decision tree or the order in which questions are presented. A simple "move or no move" initial choice in a three-way situation is unstable because it combines as "move" supports the views of editors who support two different outcomes, although each such editor might actually support "no move" in preference to the other "move" outcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if there is no majority in support of a move, no matter the move target, then we don't need to get to the step of asking about the move target. bd2412 T 15:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding, and I respect your call on this. My reason for pursuing this further is to build consensus, and the better your reasoning is understood, the better we can do this.
- So far I'm afraid your reasoning on Condorcets makes no sense to me at all. I wish now I had challenged it earlier, but I didn't think it was relevant, which was a big mistake on my part.
- The way RMs are normally set up, as a two-way decision based on arguments not head counts, should avoid Condorcet impasses and the resulting unstable situations, and normally does very well. In theory, Condorcets cannot be resolved. In practice of course, nearly every system does resolve them, some better than others. Including ours, normally.
- But you seem to be suggesting that one exists here, and then proposing a system that would not resolve it. Surely that is negative progress?
- Is it even possible that that you have unwittingly ignored the way this RM was set up, and instead used your proposed method? I hesitate to suggest this, but everything you have said would then make perfect sense. Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: You can be reassured that my suggestion about how to structure a hypothetical future discussion did not affect my conclusion as to how to close the current one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
A note on page move moratoria. This search will help find examples. The general aim is usually to avoid continual move discussions being a time sink for efforts that could be better spent elsewhere. Repeated move discussions (even if very civil) can discourage editors from contributing in a particular topic area. They can ignore the move discussions, but that brings its own problems. Sometimes such situations reach the final stage of dispute resolution, where examples of move moratoria include this and this (there may be other examples). Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- As a supporter, I think the likelihood that this particular RM will result in anything other than no consensus is practically nil and that continued discussion in hopes of changing that is mostly wasted effort. I suggest it might perhaps be most efficacious if those supporting a move regroup and start working on putting together the most coherent and effective arguments for the inevitable next RM. Those opposing such a move are likewise welcome to corral their best arguments and evidence to keep the status quo. But personally, I'd prefer such arguments to be developed without the tit-for-tat back-and-forth sniping that characterized much of the RM. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- As the proposer of record, agree 100%.
- But part of this is understanding why the decision is going this way. If the panel are willing to respond to questions, as one has already done, that would be a good contribution to transparency, IMO. At the risk of flogging a dead horse, we still have no ruling on primary topic.
- The aim is building consensus. That's what this RM has most sadly lacked. It's not a new problem; I don't know why the essay at Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling was written, and disagree with some of what it says, but it seems likely it was inspired by a similar issue.
- That result is not unexpected. See Talk:New York#Foreshadowing. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, I had never seen this WP:SQS essay, whose intro deserves to be quoted in full here (emphasis mine):
Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior that is characterized by the use of tactics which obstruct, delay, prolong, or distract discussion from reaching consensus, usually when those opposing a proposal have few if any substantive arguments with which to support their position, and often when it appears that consensus supports, or is close to supporting, the change. While it's very difficult for one editor acting alone to succeed with stonewalling, if only 2 or 3 are involved, who don't even have to be coordinating their efforts, their ability to successfully build and maintain a stonewall retaining the status quo can be distressingly effective. With a few more editors it becomes even easier.
True consensus in a given situation is ideally measured and determined by the strength of the arguments presented, but often formal or informal polling is used as a substitute to determine consensus. So if enough people express objection to a change, that can be easily interpreted to be evidence of a lack of consensus in favor of the change. While that's probably usually an accurate assessment, if those opposed don't actually have substantive arguments supporting their objection, but those in favor of the objection do, there can actually be consensus in favor of the change when it appears that there isn't. Status quo stonewalling is about taking advantage of such a situation in order to prevent a change.- The essay goes on to describe very well some of the "smoke and mirror" tactics that we have seen on display all along the debate:
Arguing the status quo "does no harm"
Ignoring good faith questions
Accusing change proponents of disruptive, tendentious, or TLDR editing
Filibustering
Finding excuses to ignore discussion results
Claiming consensus supports the status quo when it doesn't
- I hate picking on people on procedural grounds but some editors' fear-mongering, accusations of bad faith or lack of common sense, and insistence that "there is no consensus because there is obviously no consensus" has really had undue influence on the discussion. Now what can we do to prevent such tactics in the inevitable next discussion(s) about our dear New York state? My attitude so far was to just let their words speak for themselves, so that the sheer volume of such repeated non sequiturs would make their stonewalling agenda blatantly apparent to any reader of the discussion. Perhaps that's too gentle an approach? — JFG talk 16:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- That result is not unexpected. See Talk:New York#Foreshadowing. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Being less gentle is counterproductive and antiwikian (I just made that term up) IMO. The antidote is simply to build consensus. Nobody says it will be easy or quick. That essay does make some good points, but didn't fix the problem obviously. I have faith that consensus will win out in the end... but only because people take the time and trouble to build it.
- While I didn't ever have a lot of hope this RM would succeed, I think we have made progress. We need to build on it. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Purely curious Andrewa, may I ask why you are admitting only now that you never thought your move request was realistically viable with any significant probability, in the face of repeated bluster by yourself expressing exactly the opposite sentiment throughout? The only reason I ask is that you seem to have blamed me repeatedly to the point of having a whole subsection entitled using my username (I'm flattered as well as amused), when you now admit that you never believed your MR would have a significant chance of succeeding in the first place. I'm asking good-naturedly, so don't panic. Castncoot (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the assumption of good faith is wearing thin. This post so blatantly and consistently misrepresents my contributions that I ask you to withdraw it.
- I am not admitting only now anything, so far as I can see. My position has been consistent and transparent. I say again see Talk:New York#Foreshadowing, to which I recently linked.
- I'd also point out that it is my move request only in a formal sense. It was raised as a result of an MR in which you participated. I am the proposer of record, but having this new RM was not my decision. I just volunteered, as an involved party, to take the next step which had already been decided. But that said, the move request was realistically viable with any significant probability (my emphasis), in my opinion and presumably in the opinions of those who !voted at the MR to relist rather than simply overturn. Otherwise I would not have volunteered to propose it. There is a big difference between that and no chance at all.
- So to claim I now admit that you never believed your MR would have a significant chance of succeeding in the first place is a gross misrepresentation, and again I ask you to withdraw it.
- But don't panic. I'm not. The sky is not falling, and it was never likely to, and nobody ever said it would. As I think you pointed out some time ago. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you let the genie out of the bottle with your statement quoted from shortly above, "While I didn't ever have a lot of hope this RM would succeed,..." No amount of convoluted backpedaling or side-pedaling on your part is going to put that genie back in the bottle. I do find comfort, however, in the fact that we have finally found some common ground - in that both of us agree fully with the genie... Castncoot (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- That genie is more than welcome to its freedom. As I said above, it was released long ago, and I see no reason to bottle it up, and never have. The page histories show this quite clearly. Convoluted backpedaling or side pedaling, you say? No, you are simply inventing a problem where none exists... and not for the first time, unfortunately.
- You reject my claim of misrepresentation, I assume. I invite others to examine it, I have no intention of pursuing it further at this time. Andrewa (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The idea that the request never had a chance of succeeding is strange in the extreme, and I don't think Andrewa would have invested the time and effort that they have done otherwise. For my part, I'm genuinely surprised. I thought that the policy arguments would win through, as indeed did Jenks24, another admin experienced in move requests.[1] But it is what it is. No point arguing over motives at this stage. — Amakuru (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you let the genie out of the bottle with your statement quoted from shortly above, "While I didn't ever have a lot of hope this RM would succeed,..." No amount of convoluted backpedaling or side-pedaling on your part is going to put that genie back in the bottle. I do find comfort, however, in the fact that we have finally found some common ground - in that both of us agree fully with the genie... Castncoot (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Purely curious Andrewa, may I ask why you are admitting only now that you never thought your move request was realistically viable with any significant probability, in the face of repeated bluster by yourself expressing exactly the opposite sentiment throughout? The only reason I ask is that you seem to have blamed me repeatedly to the point of having a whole subsection entitled using my username (I'm flattered as well as amused), when you now admit that you never believed your MR would have a significant chance of succeeding in the first place. I'm asking good-naturedly, so don't panic. Castncoot (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- While I didn't ever have a lot of hope this RM would succeed, I think we have made progress. We need to build on it. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad: Setting the move/not move to the side, is there consensus on whether New York is the primary topic? If you decide that assessing that is outside the scope of this discussion, that's fine, but it will likely spawn an immediate new discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 17:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad: Can you please clarify the entity(ies) who/which must/can close out this MR for no consensus to move/no consensus for consensus to move? Castncoot (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- ...or indeed for any other verdict which they may have reached. Certes (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:BD2412, sorry to ping you, but I think it's inappropriate for participants to be pinging the panel to hurry them up. But I think it would be good to clarify the point they raise.
- You said you based the form of this RM on Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. But those panels closed those two in two quite different ways. Can those examples (or you) offer any guidance to our panel, or do we just leave it up to them? Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad: Can you please clarify the entity(ies) who/which must/can close out this MR for no consensus to move/no consensus for consensus to move? Castncoot (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Building consensus
One thing we might think about for the future, whatever the outcome and closing comments of this RM end up being, is how to better build consensus. I think there is no doubt that it has not worked very well in this case. Andrewa (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good to see your admissions continue to roll out, Andrewa. What better place to have these catharses rather than among your fellow Wikipedians! You're essentially acknowledging now that there is no effective consensus to move, as other move supporters have already done on this page. This move request must be closed out for lack of consensus to move, as even move supporters concede. No other verdict would carry legitimacy. So the next question becomes the length of a post-closure moratorium. Anything less than 12 months would be frankly inappropriate. That would simply make a mockery of the process instead of respecting it, not to mention creating a severe time drain upon those who care about this subject, as Amakuru has also pointed out. Mandating that it be any greater than 6 years would also be unreasonable. In my opinion, the fairest way to determine the length of a moratorium for a move request (or a formal discussion on any topic which is actually a Trojan horse such as "primary topic" for laying the groundwork to try to gain some advantage going into any subsequent move request) would be to take the median, between 12 and 72 months, as determined by a !vote. Taking the median rather than the mean would eliminate the WP:UNDUE effect of outlier numbers, as is common knowledge. Castncoot (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Castncoot:, if you persist in treating this discussion as a battleground, I will request a topic ban on your further participation on the subject. bd2412 T 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I meant to come off as giving some good-natured ribbing (isn't that allowed in an animated debate?). I'm sorry if I came off as exuding a battleground mentality BD2412, that certainly wasn't intended. People have said things to me and other move opposers which could be interpreted as unkind, one should also note. I'll tone it down a bit, if that's what you're asking. Anyway, I've pretty much exhausted my thoughts on the matter for now and don't have much more to say at this time about this. Castncoot (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- He does raise one very good point, however. A moratorium on moves could be seen as also a moratorium on discussion of whether NYS is the primary topic. This is also raised in the new section below.
- That makes it all the more important that the panel should make a clear ruling on this issue too, or at least explicitly say that they have not decided it (and hopefully why not). If they do decide it, then obviously the moratorium might apply to that decision too. But if not, I can't see how it can. That issue would remain open.
- The suggestion that it apply to any topic which is actually a Trojan horse such as "primary topic" for laying the groundwork to try to gain some advantage going into any subsequent move request is a worry, IMO. I agree we should not indulge in Trojan horse tactics, or any others. We should be open and transparent. But there are some issues we should follow up, depending on the close. Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Castncoot:, if you persist in treating this discussion as a battleground, I will request a topic ban on your further participation on the subject. bd2412 T 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good to see your admissions continue to roll out, Andrewa. What better place to have these catharses rather than among your fellow Wikipedians! You're essentially acknowledging now that there is no effective consensus to move, as other move supporters have already done on this page. This move request must be closed out for lack of consensus to move, as even move supporters concede. No other verdict would carry legitimacy. So the next question becomes the length of a post-closure moratorium. Anything less than 12 months would be frankly inappropriate. That would simply make a mockery of the process instead of respecting it, not to mention creating a severe time drain upon those who care about this subject, as Amakuru has also pointed out. Mandating that it be any greater than 6 years would also be unreasonable. In my opinion, the fairest way to determine the length of a moratorium for a move request (or a formal discussion on any topic which is actually a Trojan horse such as "primary topic" for laying the groundwork to try to gain some advantage going into any subsequent move request) would be to take the median, between 12 and 72 months, as determined by a !vote. Taking the median rather than the mean would eliminate the WP:UNDUE effect of outlier numbers, as is common knowledge. Castncoot (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yet another closing comment
People seem to be waiting for more comments from the closing panel, individually or collectively. Individually, I don't have much to add to what I've already said on this page and the previous page.
With regard to the question of whether New York State is the "primary topic" for "New York," I think there is a fair degree of skepticism on the point, though I would not say we have a consensus that the state is not the primary topic, because that's not the specific question that was posed during the RfC. Moreover, even assuming New York State is not the primary topic, it's not clear whether the City would be the primary topic or whether there would be no primary topic, nor is there consensus whether the value of a move to the alleged primary topic would outweigh, in establishing consensus, those favoring status-quo considerations and those disliking an avoidable instance of a disambiguation page as the target of a major page. I know that some of those who supported a move disagree with those views, but I still don't think they are so wrongheaded on their face that they can be disregarded out of hand.
The panel has not consulted since we posted our respective views. Since it seems to be expected of us, I'd be glad to have a follow-up conversation with the panelists if either of them think it would be helpful (so, @Niceguyedc and Future Perfect at Sunrise:), but candidly I don't expect such a discussion to yield some brilliant flash of further insight that has eluded all of us in the weeks this has been already been pending.
As a concluding thought, while I understand that policy adherence and consistency in applying naming conventions is valued by many (me among them), I cannot avoid the conclusion that some editors on all sides of this debate are giving it far too much importance. In my ten years of editing I have come to understand what are crucial and non-crucial issues in the development of the encyclopedia. This one strikes me as one that does not justify further expenditure of the project's most critical resource, which is the time and effort of our editors, at this time. I therefore recommend that a meaningful amount of time be allowed to pass before there is any renewed discussion of potentially moving this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:Newyorkbrad. User:Niceguyedc and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I request you do hold this follow-up conversation.
- In particular, I request that you make a clearer statement on whether or not NYS is the primary topic, or whether you have not decided this issue either way. Newyorkbrad seems to be having a bet both ways, frankly!
- Finally, I request that, at a time of your choosing (but immediately after this follow-up would seem good to me), each of you individually post a brief closing statement at #Final assessment by the panel above. I suggest it be of the form Closed as no consensus, Closed as consensus to move or Closed as consensus not to move, but that's also your call of course. Hopefully they will all be the same verdict, but I think you should each put your signature to it.
- If you wish to add anything more, on the moratorium for example, that's fine, just so long as the verdict is clear. TIA
- Reading through some of this, I don't think the members of the panel realised what they were getting into. Some people are being quite persistent and overwhelming the discussion. It is quite possible that the members of the closing panel have nothing more to say, are not able to deliver a clear verdict, and people just need to find something else to do. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this is necessary, and if it's what we get then it's what we get. I think that my request that we hear from all three is reasonable, as is my suggestion that they restate in the close exactly what question they are answering (presumably, whether or not to move, but I think this should be restated for clarity... as is normal in any RM).
- And apart from that I'd suggest as brief and to the point as possible... see my suggestions... and that they use the uncluttered section above long reserved for their use, again see my request above.
- I'd like a detailed dissection of the arguments to clearly see how they were weighed, but I would be satisfied with a clear statement of whether or not consensus on the issue of primary topic was assessed here. If it wasn't, that would be rather novel as primary topic is the argument that generally determines the result of move discussions, and I think a spin-off discussion surrounding the primary topic issue would be necessary. I would be very dissatisfied with a "There is no consensus." close with no further explanation of why there's no consensus. ~ Rob13Talk 21:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Me too, with apologies for giving the closers an extraordinary amount of material to digest. Certes (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Being that "primary topic" is admittedly being intended by move supporters to be used toward influencing a potential subsequent move discussion, any discussion of primary topic as relating to "New York" would need to fall under the same post-closure moratorium as a subsequent move request discussion. Again, primary topic was discussed extensively throughout the current move request discussion, and it has been and continues to be entirely within the closers' jurisdiction as to how much, if any, weight to give it. No battleground mentality being exerted, I just have no other way to point this out. Castncoot (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Status quo stonewalling again, dear Castncoot? — JFG talk 02:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then I'm afraid I don't think a moratorium is possible... which is a great pity.
- Such a wide-ranging moratorium would be unprecedented, and is uncalled for, even for a short time. For the six years which you have proposed, it would be ludicrous, and easily overturned.
- But if the panel do provide a clear assessment of consensus on whether NYS is the primary topic, I agree that the specific issue should be included in a moratorium if one is imposed. It would still be possible to work on the policies or guidelines that led to the decision... for both sides. This is not a trojan horse, but a transparent way to build consensus. Andrewa (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can have it one of two ways, Castncoot. Either the primary topic is being decided here (in which case it's hard to support a "no consensus" finding, as I don't think anyone can argue for anything other than consensus that New York State is not the primary topic) or the primary topic is not being decided here (in which case we've had no discussion on it, so a moratorium cannot apply). It's logically inconsistent to claim that primary topic has not been discussed properly here but we cannot discuss it elsewhere to avoid rediscussing in rapid succession (which is what a moratorium does). ~ Rob13Talk 05:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- As User:Monty845 said above,*What is the point of having a discussion trying to identify one as the Primary Topic, other than to lay the ground work for a future move discussion? If there isn't a non-move related reason to establish it, trying to get around a moratorium with such a discussion seems ill-advised." And as I said above, "Again, primary topic was discussed extensively throughout the current move request discussion, and it has been and continues to be entirely within the closers' jurisdiction as to how much, if any, weight to give it." Now, the length of a post-closure moratorium for any move discussion or topic clearly intended by either side to segue into a move discussion (either supporting or disfavoring a move) can be decided by the median length of time as decided by a !vote. Castncoot (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with most of this. I do not think anyone is denying that the question of whether or not MYS is the primary topic has been discussed at great length. The problem is simply that it has not been decided either way.
- Some reasons for this are obvious. Avoiding a decision on this seems to be a key tactic of some opposed to the move. I can't see how they have avoided being (officially) warned for gaming the system on this, but so far they have. I have linked above to that guideline, but nobody else has taken it up, and I feel too involved to do so.
- Why two of the panel have gone along with this, so far at least, is a puzzle to me and it seems to several others, and I am hopeful they may reconsider.
- Yes, any primary topic discussion is only relevant to article title discussions. I expect further discussion on this specific PT question would support an eventual move request, as might more general discussion on the PTOPIC guidelines and policies. How broad a moratorium are we proposing? What are you scared of?
- Any resulting move request should respect any moratorium. Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- As User:Monty845 said above,*What is the point of having a discussion trying to identify one as the Primary Topic, other than to lay the ground work for a future move discussion? If there isn't a non-move related reason to establish it, trying to get around a moratorium with such a discussion seems ill-advised." And as I said above, "Again, primary topic was discussed extensively throughout the current move request discussion, and it has been and continues to be entirely within the closers' jurisdiction as to how much, if any, weight to give it." Now, the length of a post-closure moratorium for any move discussion or topic clearly intended by either side to segue into a move discussion (either supporting or disfavoring a move) can be decided by the median length of time as decided by a !vote. Castncoot (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can have it one of two ways, Castncoot. Either the primary topic is being decided here (in which case it's hard to support a "no consensus" finding, as I don't think anyone can argue for anything other than consensus that New York State is not the primary topic) or the primary topic is not being decided here (in which case we've had no discussion on it, so a moratorium cannot apply). It's logically inconsistent to claim that primary topic has not been discussed properly here but we cannot discuss it elsewhere to avoid rediscussing in rapid succession (which is what a moratorium does). ~ Rob13Talk 05:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Being that "primary topic" is admittedly being intended by move supporters to be used toward influencing a potential subsequent move discussion, any discussion of primary topic as relating to "New York" would need to fall under the same post-closure moratorium as a subsequent move request discussion. Again, primary topic was discussed extensively throughout the current move request discussion, and it has been and continues to be entirely within the closers' jurisdiction as to how much, if any, weight to give it. No battleground mentality being exerted, I just have no other way to point this out. Castncoot (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- It would also be instructive if we get an informed opinion that an article should take a title despite not being its primary topic whenever (insert circumstance) applies, because (insert other policy) overrides WP:PTOPIC. Certes (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
As I said earlier, there appears to be skepticism that the state is the primary topic, but I'm hesitant to declare a consensus that it isn't, because many people though the move request should be resolved based on other factors and didn't discuss the issue at all. As I've said several times, arguments like "there is no sufficient reason to move this article after 15 years, especially since anyone looking for the City article can find it readily enough from the State article" and "I don't want a disambiguation page as the target of a key article" are positions I consider respectable enough that I can't just ignore them in deciding whether consensus was reached, even though they don't rely on primary-topic for their rationale.
If I were the sole closer I would say it's time to close this discussion, but I am going to allow some additional time for the other two panelists to weigh in. I note that Niceguyedc has not edited since August 4, and may be on a summer vacation, but Future Perfect at Sunrise seems active.
If the discussion is closed as "no consensus," I would prefer to see discussion of any move-related issue deferred for a reasonable period of time, regardless of any individual editor's view of what was or wasn't resolved, or of the quality of the discussion or of the closing. Our editors' time and effort is finite, and continued discussion of a minor naming dispute is taking up a disproportionate amount of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have restrained from this, but I'm going to attempt a paraphrase. You seem to be saying that there is no consensus as to whether or not NYS is the primary topic of New York, is that correct? I find your phrasing very hard to unravel, I admit this, and if I am wrong please correct me.
- On the moratorium, in that any discussion of many guidelines and policies could affect a future move request, that seems far too sweeping to me. Obviously we can't ban all discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and related pages, and I would be a bit miffed at being virtually topic banned from it, as I think would other participants in this discussion.
- A moratorium needs to be well-defined and reasonable in scope. Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- You asked me above, "How broad a moratorium are we proposing? What are you scared of?" My answer: I'm afraid of having my precious time wasted on rehashing the same old thing over and over again shortly after an exhaustive debate on this. I'm sure that many others (on both sides of the aisle) feel the same way, and it's unfair to keep draining people's valuable time and effort either from real-life commitments or other Wikipedia editing endeavors. Kindly accept the result and move on till a reasonable post-closure refractory period on any subsequent "New York" move request-related discussion expires. Castncoot (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am more than happy to do this. Can we have a similar commitment from yourself?
- But a six-year moratorium on all discussions that might have a bearing on a future RM (which would include any change to WP:AT, WP:consensus or WP:dismabiguation among others) is just plain ridiculous. Can you scale it down at least a bit? In the interests of not wasting time? Andrewa (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I would prefer a six-year refractory period, to be relatively consistent with the long history of this issue, but could support a three-year moratorium, if you wanted to keep any renewed move or move-related discussion as described above within this decade. Castncoot (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- And applies also to all related discussions? No follow-up of issues raised by this RM in that time? Still ridiculous. A complete waste of time IMO. Any others wish to comment?
- And the other problem with the wide scope is, who is to judge what is a trojan horse? Remembering the panic-stricken tenor of the discussion so far, can we expect good faith to be questioned in every post to related talk pages for the next six/three years?
- Such a broad-brush moratorium stands to waste a lot more time than it could possibly save. It is unprecedented and uncalled for.
- And probably unnecessary. Nobody is likely to raise another RM in the next year in any case. I personally support a moratorium for at least six months, preferably a year, but that is enough, and should be purely on revisiting the issues decided by the panel. I think this is important but I would like a break! Andrewa (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I would prefer a six-year refractory period, to be relatively consistent with the long history of this issue, but could support a three-year moratorium, if you wanted to keep any renewed move or move-related discussion as described above within this decade. Castncoot (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- You asked me above, "How broad a moratorium are we proposing? What are you scared of?" My answer: I'm afraid of having my precious time wasted on rehashing the same old thing over and over again shortly after an exhaustive debate on this. I'm sure that many others (on both sides of the aisle) feel the same way, and it's unfair to keep draining people's valuable time and effort either from real-life commitments or other Wikipedia editing endeavors. Kindly accept the result and move on till a reasonable post-closure refractory period on any subsequent "New York" move request-related discussion expires. Castncoot (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Not the end
This is just a heading to allow us to easily scroll down to the end of the above section. I hope it annoys nobody. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Curious – I recently closed yet another move request by renaming a page to a "(disambiguation)" page, and I had to dab hundreds of links, and all because the moved page was imprecise and not the primary topic. It was a similar situation, since nobody has been able to demonstrate that the article about the state of New York is the primary topic or that the title, "New York" is precise enough to title an article. There was lots of debate about that, and that's probably the strongest reason that this article title was renamed to "New York (state)" back in June. The admin who performed that move cited this page title's failure of Wikipedia's precision criteria (a policy). It isn't good to have to make decisions based on a double standard. And unless this title is moved away from the imprecise "New York", a double standard is "precisely" what will exist. This is not something that is open to interpretation, is it? Every time we move a page away from an imprecise title, it is because it violates Wikipedia policy. There must be very good reasons to allow policy violations to continue. Since June, it appears that some people think they have such reasons, very good reasons, to allow this policy violation to continue, to allow this double standard to continue. Those who support this page move are like little children who are forced to live with and kowtow to a grownup's double standard. Okay – rant finished. Paine u/c 08:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree 100%, Paine, and a very good rant indeed, but we have seen far, far better, (;->, so have a look at User:Andrewa/How not to rant if you haven't already - it gives suggestions both ways, despite the title. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Before after and during
I'm guessing that we will eventually see this closed as No consensus to move, and with a recommended moratorium on further RMs. The details of this proposed moratorium (which I strongly support) are being discussed in other sections and probably elsewhere.
As well as RMs on the New York article itself there are other discussions potentially affected by the moratorium.
- Discussion as to whether or not NYS is the primary topic of New York.
- Discussion on whether arguments based on the No consensus clause should be counted in assessing that consensus in the first place, or whether these should be discarded as circular and therefore illogical.
- Discussion on whether to move draft:New York to New York (overview) or a similar title.
I am strongly of the view that at least the first two of these three should be discussed and a conclusion reached before another move of NYS away from the base name is proposed. This discussion has gone in circles, and the lack of clarity on those two issues has in my view been the whole reason for this.
There is some resistance to discussing each of these at the present time. Fair enough. Just so long as they are discussed before any other RM is raised that specifically affects the New York base name, that's fine with me. But I may well wish to raise a new RM in the future, and would not want someone else to jump the gun and raise it before both primary topic and the no consensus clause are clarified.
I would personally prefer that the moratorium did not extend at all to the third point (the overview draft), and that we discussed it unhindered. Or better still move it right now, but to my surprise there is resistance to this, and so it should go to RM in its own right. Perhaps we should move it immediately to draft:New York (overview) just to make it quite clear that there is no intent to move it to the base name at this stage, in hindsight that would have been a better name for the draft all along.
I would also prefer that the first point (primary topic) was decided before the moratorium takes effect.
The second (the no consensus clause) could be decided before the moratorium too, and if not I'd like it specifically excluded so that discussion on it may continue. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Request for closure 22 September 2016
From Talk:New York: No one had followed up with me on this in weeks, nor did I hear from the other panelists in response to my pings to them, so I took it that the "no consensus" outcome had been accepted. I don't think any more "paperwork" should be required on this point, as the lack of a consensus is pretty darn clear at this stage. As for a moratorium on further move requests, there certainly should be some wait before this issue comes up again, but six years would be unprecedented and extreme. [2]
User:Newyorkbrad, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Niceguyedc, User:BD2412, I'm afraid I must disagree that no more "paperwork" is required. There is very little required, but there is some.
I think we simply need a statement at #Final assessment by the panel that this RM is closed, and the verdict.
I'm afraid I think that is a minimum requirement. I have made several other specific requests of the panel above, and would of course like a response, either here or above. Better still, in that this page is now itself excessively long, I'm more than happy to set up a new talk subpage for it, if any of the panel would like that.
I apologise to all that my communication with Newyorkbrad has been ineffective, and that this has evidently prolonged the closure. I have now pinged all the panelists, which I had previously resisted doing in view of comments (particularly but not only fom User:BD2412) asking for patience. It takes two to communicate, and I must accept responsibility for my part in this, and wonder whether my communication with the other panelists has been similarly at fault.
What I would now like is for all three panelists to make a one-sentence statement at #Final assessment by the panel. I have previously suggested a format for this. Failing that, a similar statement by any one of them, pinging the other two. (Or I suppose statements from two, pinging the third, but I think we really should have a statement from each.)
Failing that, I would like permission of Newyorkbrad to copy his comment (quoted above) to that section, together with a covering comment from myself. I'd like to wait a few days before doing this, as it defeats the purpose of the section and to some extent of this whole subpage, but if it's all we can get, we just need to run with it.
I appreciate that the panelists may think that they have already done more than was reasonably expected, and again thank them all for their efforts.
Comments by the panel or others in this section welcome, but again perhaps we are at the point of needing a new talk subpage. My browser is again approaching its page length limits, and I expect some mobile users are locked out. Happy to set one up if requested. Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- (cross-posted) As a panelist, and after carefully considering the views of the other panelists, the closing is that there is 'no consensus either for or against the proposed move. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)