Talk:New York (state)/July 2016 move request closure

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)

• I'm traveling this weekend with limited online time but will post here tomorrow if I have anything further to add. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:00, 14 August 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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)

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)

Agree 100% on the next step. I just thought that any links to precedents etc that we could provide might save them some time and trouble. A clear consensus on the issue from participants would save even more... but perhaps that is it too much to hope for. Andrewa (talk) 01:21, 18 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)

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)

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)

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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)

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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)

No, I did not say that any editor can close it out. I said that any editor can create a new subpage for discussion, since the original page has become unwieldy. bd2412 T 04:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. (Now I understand why I thought you were "replying" "above" my comment on that page and rearranged your comment. You were actually replying after me but to someone else's comment. Too funny!) Castncoot (talk) 04:44, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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)

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)