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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. As a continuation of the July 2016 move request, this page has also been archived. Please see the closing statement at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. (non-admin closure)  Paine  ^u/c 15:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

---

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. ~ 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I should correct you on one point... procedurally I think I opened this RM. Andrewa (talk) 00:24, 22 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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 would oppose relisting this discussion. It was well-publicized, and opened for the usual length of time for an RM. Anyone who wanted to could have requested an extension of time during the course of the discussion itself, and no one did. bd2412 T 13:30, 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)

Exactly. That's one of the ways in which the normal system avoids Condorcet impasses (but I'm wary of the phrase majority support). Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 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)

OK, thank you for clarifying that. Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 23 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)

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)

@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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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)

I trust the experience of the panel. Ultimately, they will have to come out with one statement that explains the outcome of this discussion. I am sure they will do that, in due time. bd2412 T 22:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 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)

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

Thanks again for your long and thoughtful deliberations. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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 suggest that what we need from the panel is for one of them to hat the discussion with a statement that it is over, and has been closed as no consensus (if that is indeed the panel's understanding). bd2412 T 15:32, 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.

But I can't force them to do it. Obviously. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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)

Not taking the bait on that comment, sorry. Castncoot (talk) 04:35, 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). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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)

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)

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)
  • Thank you! User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Niceguyedc, can you please endorse (or otherwise I suppose) this at #Final assessment by the panel where it is cross-posted? Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • See, this is exactly the problem, Andrewa. Newyorkbrad has just spoken on behalf of the entire panel and officially closed the RM, and you just won't let it go. Disguised as a polite request to the other two panelists, you're trying to force the lid open again. Please let it go already. The RM is closed. The store is shut. Please withdraw your requests of the other two panelists, and let's please get on with discussion of the length of a move-request-and/or-related-topics-discussion moratorium. Castncoot (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Please note that Niceguyedc hasn't edited since August 4, so as nice as it might be, unanimous written confirmation from all the panelists is not likely to be available. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Excellent point. In view of the communication failure between us, I think I should email them, and possibly also Future Perfect at Sunrise. As I write both have email enabled. I think it would be improper in most circumstances, but having given this advice of my intention, I'd be happy to do it, or you or BD2412 could (but nobody else IMO). Andrewa (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Request noted. I have explicitly said I will accept the close even if only by one panelist. But this is a polite request, nothing disguised, and in hindsight and in view of Newyorkbrad's recent contributions I have been too patient up until now. I think all avenues for a better close should be politely and respectfully explored. (I do not however apologise for being polite.) Andrewa (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I have explicitly said I will accept the close even if only by one panelist. Then you can "politely" clarify your requests to the other two panelists to be purely informal and curiosity-driven, I'm sure. Castncoot (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
          • No. No more than you would agree to similar allegations, I'm sure. Andrewa (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• @Newyorkbrad: I can appreciate the difficult situation you're in given the absence of the other two panelists. Could you explain how you see, amongst the three of you, no consensus for a move, including an explanation of how you're weighting the different arguments? Given the amount of time dedicated to this thing, I don't feel like I have any choice other than to take a two-word "no consensus" close to move review if no additional explanation is forthcoming, particularly when one panelist found consensus to move and the other clearly indicated that they believe the weight of policy-based arguments strongly favors moving. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I also have to admit I'm just generally confused why this is being closed now. Currently, we're about to find a broad community consensus at Talk:New York that New York State is not the primary topic of "New York". This directly affects the strength of arguments for a primary topic designation in this move request. Given how long we've waited for a close here, I don't see any value in closing before an RfC that essentially determines the strength of arguments here closes. The new information from the RfC would just necessitate another move request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Apparently unlike you, Rob, the latter panelist recognized and clarified the difference between his personal opinion and the meaning of consensus, and ultimately he found no consensus. As far as the primary topic issue goes (a status which NYS has, IMO) it was argued up, down, and every which way, and unlike your intention, it was given only its due weight as a criterion toward adjudication. Castncoot (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The latter panelist not only said his personal opinion was X. He carefully analyzed the arguments and arrived at the conclusion that one side was better supported by policy. That is very different. It's what a closer is supposed to do in determining consensus. I still invite you to cite a single policy or guideline that supports your position. I've offered you the opportunity multiple times and received only personal attacks over my usage of quotation marks as a formatting device in return. Until you elect to support your arguments, I'll continue to assume they're unsupportable, as you would presumably be supporting them if you could. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
        • OK, so as you admitted, he carefully analyzed the arguments. And did he find consensus to move? Just answer the question with one word, please - yes or no? Castncoot (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • We've always had that consensus IMO, it has just been incredibly difficult to get that acknowledged, and we are still a good way off that but agree it seems achievable. It's a shame that the RfC was not raised before my RM, and I had actually foreshadowed that I would raise it myself see #Foreshadowing above, but the nature of the MR close forced us to have this new (or sort of relisted) RM immediately and so I volunteered to raise it. In hindsight I should have raised the RfC at the same time, it was just a matter of my own time not being limitless. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You could propose to reopen discussion to allow the RfC result to be considered, and also my far clearer explanation of why the no consensus argument is invalid, as both formally missed the cut for consideration by the panel. I don't think that is a good way forward at this stage, but I think something like that would need to happen to keep this particular RM alive. Perhaps appeal to wp:snow, note that's an essay but a fairly well respected one in my experience. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You might like to have a look at User:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York and its talk page for my developing ideas as to how to proceed now. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Well Andrewa, the RM is now finally closed (much to the relief of many, including yourself, I would think). 1) What would be your proposed length now of a moratorium on a formal move-request discussion? And 2) What would be your proposed length now of a moratorium on discussion of a topic which is in honest faith intended to be a direct precursor intended to influence such a subsequent formal RM (in either direction)? Castncoot (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
        • As you would know, I still hope for a closing statement from other members of the panel, but apart from that agree that the RM is closed.
        • Answer to the first question: One year, as previously advised, specifically on RMs on the NYS and NYC pages, on the New York DAB, and on the base name New York. The second question is phrased very badly IMO. I would favour a much more targeted moratorium on specific related discussions of six months, again as previousy advised. Andrewa (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder whether we can benefit by learning a wider lesson from this process. We know that Wikipedia's policies occasionally conflict, forcing us to carefully select which to apply at the expense of another. In this case, it has been decided that there is some good reason why this page should occupy a title for which it is not the primary topic. Has anyone managed to discern what this good reason is, and under what circumstances it overrides WP:PTOPIC? Certes (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Human discretion. Since the beginning of time, and till eternity. Castncoot (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree that we can and should learn a lot.
  • Disagree that anything like that has been decided. Very little has been decided, unfortunately. One or two of the panel do not support a move as proposed at this time. There seems to be a rough consensus (perhaps we could even say a strong rough consensus, if that is logically possible!) that NYS is not the primary topic, but no uninvolved party has yet called that. And that's all, as far as I can see. Other views welcome. Andrewa (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I took it that the "no consensus" outcome had been accepted...the lack of a consensus is pretty darn clear...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, closing panelist
So... instead of three panelists working together singlemindedly, we have ended this with a single panelist's decision. Fine. In that case per the closing instructions available to all page movers and admins:

While it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change), it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. (Various proposals to set a specific timeframe that must be waited out before re-raising have been set forth, and none have been agreed upon; however, successful move re-requests almost always take place at least three months and usually at least six months after the previous one.) — Link

Any proposed moratorium is in conflict with those instructions and should not be considered as an option. This type of vague outcome is precisely what leads to move reviews and subsequent new move discussions.  Paine  ^u/c 13:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, let's give it a rest for a while. Can we at least say six months? bd2412 T 13:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

With respect to you and to all who have thus far participated in all this, I still see challenges that are worth mentioning and pursuing. Firstly, we asked three people to be panelists. Two have strangely disappeared from the scene, and we are left with a single panelist who, after "carefully considering the views of the other panelists" (which clearly means that the views of the "missing" panelists that were previously written down in this discussion were "carefully considered" rather than there being a forthright consolidation of those three views by all three panelists to result in a completely clear consensus among the three panelists) has come to a "no consensus" decision. Such a single-minded consolidation really hasn't happened, and I consider that result, in and of itself, to be ample motivation for a move review. Add to that the vague lack of a clear and concise explanation for such a controversial decision, talks of a six-year moratorium on further move discussions, the fact that absolutely no page move opposer has come up with a single guideline or policy that supports the imprecise "New York" title to stay at the state article, while majestically strong policy- and guideline-based arguments were made in support of the page move, the continuing RfC discussion in regard to whether or not the state is the primary topic as well as other considerations that make this "final" decision unacceptable (again with great respect for the person, if not the person's decision) and I really find myself digging so much deeper to find something new and different to justify another move request. This blatant double standard that results in the ignoring of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in favor of "I like it" and "We've been doing it this way (wrongly) for a long time, so why change it?" pseudo-arguments must not be allowed to continue!  Paine  ^u/c 14:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, it's no fault of Newyorkbrad that the other two panelists have "strangely disappeared" from the conversation. Not only does he absolutely have the right to speak on behalf of the group in context of their subsequent absence, but his decree as such carries official weight and cannot be simply ignored out of convenience for you. Anyway, in sum, two of three panelists found no consensus to move. There's really nothing to see here. The RM is closed. Wouldn't you want to take care of other things in your life rather than wasting your time at a forum that realistically has no chance for a move at this particular time? Castncoot (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Strange, Cassie! I look back at my words and I cannot find the word "fault" among them. NYBrad has done a good job under the circumstances, and I'm sure others join me in thanking NYBrad very much for performing a grueling task. However, it's as if an important decision awaited congress, but before a joint decision could be made, two-thirds of the floor disappear. You keep saying what a "titanic" situation this is, and of course you're perfectly fine with just a one-third vote rather than a three-thirds consensus decision, since it favors your wishes. I wonder how happy you would be if the decision had been to move the page? Ah, yes, you'd have a very different opinion of that, wouldn't you! Yes, I will not contest that the RM is finally closed after all this time. And yet there are still things that need to be addressed, and we have plenty of time to assemble a group of arguments that will make your titanic ship either shrink or sink. Cheers!  Paine  ^u/c 16:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrewa, I sense that you and I are starting a productive conversation here. I believe a year is too short for a moratorium on the actual RM discussion. A few people have commented that six years is too long. I still think that a matter of years is needed to move this gargantuan, titanic cruise ship in any direction without taking up (wasting) an inordinate amount of all of our time. I know that you and others are busy, as I am, regardless of all of our dedication to Wikipedia. How about three years on actual RM discussion? As far as move-related discussions, we can address those on a case-by-case basis. I'm trying to negotiate with you in good faith here. Castncoot (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It is worthy of note that, since this move request began on 10 July 2016, three months (the minimum wait time for a "successful" new page move request) will come up on 10 October.  Paine  ^u/c 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I would think that the wait time applies to the closing date of the RM, not the opening date, lol! If this ridiculously long RM hadn't closed, it really would have run the risk of plowing right into your October 10th date. In any case, three months would apply to much lower profile topics, not this titanic ship of not only massive significance but also with a long history and extreme polarization. You have to be realistic and practical here, not to mention avoiding disruption to Wikipedia by unduly being forced to allocate our time here. Castncoot (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that's worthy of an LOL hoot, Castncoot! Nobody, but nobody is holding a gun to your head to allocate any time here. Furthermore, the "titanic ship" is all in your mind. The bottom line is that just like many other titles that I and other editors have moved to dab pages over the years, the NY title is not precise enough to title any article. And lastly, please read the closing instructions one more time: "...successful move re-requests almost always take place at least three months and usually at least six months after the previous one." The word "one" at the end of this instruction applies to the words "move" and "request". There is nothing that even implies that the 3–6 months begin at the end of the previous move request discussion and closing. It's 3–6 months from the beginning date. Always has been, always will be.  Paine  ^u/c 15:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Castncoot, I'm afraid I have always suspected that your six years was an ambit claim, and I think the three years is similar.

There is no point the two of us negotiating, rather we both need to work towards consensus on a moratorium. No consensus, no moratorium (which surely is sauce for the goose).

I think I have a little very limited extra authority here as the proposer of record of the latest RM, but that ceases with the closure (whenever that is deemed to happen... it may take some time, as the other two panelists do IMO have every right to comment further at the very least). Otherwise I am acting purely as a contributor, and that is all I seek to do. You on the other hand have no extra authority here, or perhaps a little less.

I proposed a one year moratorium on RMs on three article namespace pages (NYS, NYC and the DAB) and one article name (the New York base name). I think that is a reasonable period, although it could be argued that it is excessive and unprecedented. It is reasonable only because there is some work to do on issues raised by this RM before another RM on these pages should be raised.

I further proposed that a wider six month moratorium should be considered on related issues. This is a major factor in my wanting such a long moratorium on the RMs. It should be equally specific, otherwise we risk wasting the whole period discussing what is or is not still open for discussion.

I welcome your openness to working with me, but I think it needs to be along the lines that we are both just contributors and both working towards consensus. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Andrewa, but I don't believe you have any more authority than anyone on this forum, even a limited amount as you suggested above. And by the way, you stated above, "As you would know, I still hope for a closing statement from other members of the panel, but apart from that agree that the RM is closed." Hope or no hope, the RM is closed, and I think you've recognized that above. There's no "ambit claim" issue involved, it's that I really don't desire (but will be entirely and formidably ready when called on) to go through this whole exercise again anytime soon, as I believe it'll be an enormous waste of all of our precious hours. Although you possess no extra authority, I don't see the problem in negotiating with you and/or Paine initially, to bring about something to present to everyone for consensus. On the other hand, I'm ready to negotiate with the forum as a whole from the get-go, as seen with the "RfC on moratorium" directly below. Castncoot (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Castncoot:: I am disappointed to read that you are "entirely and formidably ready" "to go through this whole exercise again" even though you "believe it'll be an enormous waste of all of our precious hours". I trust that none of us would wish to disrupt Wikipedia by repeatedly preventing consensus. Certes (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I still wonder how pseudo-arguments such as "I like it" and "We've been doing it wrong for so long, why change it now?" would be considered "formidable" by anyone, especially by those who make those arguments. What are truly "formidable" are Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which will eventually prevail.  Paine  ^u/c 10:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It does raise an interesting possibility however... if the RfC on whether NYS is the primary topic is closed with a rough consensus that it is not, then that might be grounds for a new, immediate RM. To me that is a good reason to seek a consensus on a moratorium... but it's not going well at #RfC on moratorium. Andrewa (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to reassure any who might imagine that User:Castncoot's post above is correct, as the proposer I do for example have the right to withdraw the RM, which no other user has. As I said, it's a small thing and lapses at RM closure. Castncoot (much to their annoyance I imagine) has no such power. Andrewa (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

As you've stated above, Andrewa, and I repeat, "As you would know, I still hope for a closing statement from other members of the panel, but apart from that agree that the RM is closed." Hope or no hope, the RM is closed, and I think you've recognized that above. You can't have your foot on both sides of a given door at the same time, holding such a door ajar with one foot. That would be disruptive. You need to be on one side of the door or the other. Fortunately, however, you seem to have recognized that the RM is closed. Therefore, you can't withdraw a closed RM. Castncoot (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of this just paraphrases and supports what I said before, with which you previously disagreed, so I suppose that's progress. Disagree with all of the rest I think, but it's a bit too flowery to be sure. Andrewa (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Cass is right about this RM being closed. We must all agree with that since not to agree would be to show disrespect for NYBrad. I personally hope that NYBrad will take a long look at what has happened and rethink their close decision. We all agreed to assemble a three-member panel, then they all make prelims and then pretty much vanish from the scene. One of them comes back and works admirably to effect a close; however, we all must ask ourselves if that is truly sufficient. Would it have been sufficient to move opposers if NYBrad had instead closed as Moved??? or would they be scrambling to effect a reversal (move review) due to the mysterious disappearance of most of the agreed-upon closing panel?. I truly do like the "Titanic ship" analogy Cassie keeps mentioning. Do you suppose that editor knows what really happened to that big boat?  Paine  ^u/c 15:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument, Paine, is that all three panelists did offer their ultimate conclusions (whether you feel that these were "preliminary" is moot, as all were expressed to be their definitive opinion in no uncertain terms), and two out of three ultimately found no consensus to move regardless of their own personal opinions. Now just because two of them didn't give in any further to the constant haranguing by the move side, well... Castncoot (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So in that analysis, can you somehow pull out of thin air that the panel consensually found a consensus to move? Do donkeys fly? Castncoot (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a flaw but another four-letter "F" word: fact! The three panelists gave their opinions and rationales that were thought of as "preliminary" by all (that section came right after one where you said such nice things about one of the panelists). Those individual "comments" counted only as a first step toward consensus among the three panelists. I recall that you were rather concerned at the time about the one preliminary comment that indicated the need for a page move. Yes, you were very "concerned", hmm? In any event, the next fact is that all three of them vanished for a time without much further comment until NYBrad resurfaced and tried to drive the trike with two flat tires. As for what the panel consensually found, that is impossible to say based upon the closer's own admission that it was only "after carefully considering the views of the other panelists" that NYBrad's final closing decision was made. What the 3-member panel consensually finds is based upon what all three panelists "carefully consider", not on what just one of them considers, and thus far, we don't know exactly what all three of the panelists carefully considered, unless of course one of us is clairvoyant.  Paine  ^u/c 19:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for strengthening my argument further. I didn't want to be the one to point out what I thought of the second panelist's qualifications apriori and then his assessment. But even despite that, two of three panelists found no consensus to move. If or when you ever find that they found consensus to move, I'll buy you a flying donkey. Castncoot (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Cass! Growing in strength from a 2-year-old fawn to a 2¼-year-old fawn must be gratifying with a sinking ship on the horizon. And you have merely made my point: none of us can find consensus for any decision among the three panelists, including NYBrad's "no consensus" decision. So the panel should really be reassembled and the process should continue. Get that soaring ass ready, Cassie!  Paine  ^u/c 20:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have only three replies to that. First, you've agreed to a moratorium on further RM-discussion below: "3–6 months just as in any other "no consensus" page-rename close". Second, you've agreed shortly above that the RM has been closed: "Cass is right about this RM being closed. We must all agree with that since not to agree would be to show disrespect for NYBrad". Third, you can't turn back the clock now and pretend that the three panelists didn't make statements (either favorable or unfavorable to either side) - at most, you can try to invalidate one or more of their statements, but you haven't done that and likely will have little success if you try. Castncoot (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

To editor Newyorkbrad: All correct, Castncoot. So here is how I see the way forward: either 1) Newyorkbrad will reconsider their close and show a willingness to re-open this request based upon the fact that, while the close was gallant, it was premature since there were no final closing statements from all panel members, or 2) We all decide shortly to consider this RM closed and get on with our lives, or 3) We continue to hem and haw here on this page while our hearts just aren't in it.
In case #1 above, a new panel will be assembled to close this RM properly. For case #2, getting on with our lives means a most certain MR in our future. This will happen in a few days if there is no reopening of this RM by Newyorkbrad. #3 will end one way or another very soon – it's not that I don't enjoy jawwin' with you, Cassie, it's just that it's time for one of our ships to sink.  Paine  ^u/c 14:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Do what you need to do. I'll be ready to face the BATTLEGROUND that you are creating by trying to "sink my ship", which I think is a terrible idea on your part. The better part of valor would instead be for you to try to improve your arguments and return after a well-deserved break for all of us. Castncoot (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It would only be natural for you to suggest a respite since it would be to your advantage. It was you who first mentioned what a "titanic ship" you thought this whole thing is, so don't try to pass yet another misconception to readers about who is "creating" it. As to what further steps are being taken to improve our arguments to even better support this page move, you'll just have to wait and find out.  Paine  ^u/c 10:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much need for those proposing the move to improve their arguments. All three panelists acknowledged that the argument for moving was stronger than for keeping, but they chose no consensus simply on the basis of weight of numbers opposing. There's not much you can do about that, other than come back in a few months with a fresh request and a fresh panel and hope that the new panel are able to apply WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTAVOTE as they are written, rather than worrying about offending someone, or (to quote Fut.Perf) deferring to the fact that so many apparently good-faith and experienced Wikipedians have found these arguments convincing. I remain convinced that another panel would have been bold enough to move this, and I also believe that would be the end of the matter. Moving the state back to the base name would never again be done. Of course, if the "oppose" side are to come up with any fresh arguments or policy/guideline reasons for keeping the status quo, then the situation might be different, and I would be all ears.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course, there might be a fourth way forward – a way that would appear to be honorable for all parties involved. It involves realizing that, while NYBrad has labeled this discussion as closed, the other two panel members have not stamped this with their confirmation/consensus, which means that this discussion is not yet "officially" closed. It may therefore be incumbent upon us to request closure by an uninvolved administrator. Thoughts?  Paine  ^u/c 10:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

PS. To this end I have provided a focus that is free from discussion on this issue, whether important or superfluous, that is/was outside of the !vote/rationale discussions. PS by  Paine  ^u/c

Well, according to my analysis of the situation, this move request is currently stuck as a sort of mistrial. The jury gave some separate opinions, but have not united to give one final decision, and are currently a hung jury. The logical way out of this would be to appoint a brand new panel of uninvolved admins, and get them to look over the whole sorry mess again with fresh eyes. If we did do that, I'd like us to set out much more clearly in advance what we expect of the panel. A single unified decision, like that at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request, signed off by all panelists, is the proper way to close. However, obviously it is not really my place to suggest or move this forward, as I'm clearly an WP:INVOLVED admin in this process, but my objective view is that is what we should do, rather than declaring this no consensus by default and waiting six months to do it all over again.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru and Paine Ellsworth: Indeed we are in a hung jury situation, and despite all the prodding to panelists over two months, only one of them commented further, and even he acknowledged that the other two did not interact beyond their preliminary statements. We have no choice but accept that there is little chance of compelling this jury to deliver a common verdict. In the meantime, the issue has moved forward on two fronts:

1. The disambiguation effort of internal links to New York is well under way, with even the loudest move opponent agreeing that's a Good Thing;
2. We have formal consensus by the just-closed fact-finding RFC that New York State is not the primary topic for the term "New York".

For these reasons I would deem it counter-productive to convene a new panel or call up a fresh closer in order to re-examine the July move request stricto sensu. However I also would find it an utter waste of energy to drop the ball now with a moratorium, no matter its length. Quite the opposite, I think that the above two developments can give legitimate momentum to a new move request to be tabled in the coming days, provided it is carefully worded and indeed calling for a unanimous panel close from the get-go. — JFG ^talk 21:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. I hadn't noticed the RfC closure. That is indeed a positive step forward. I wonder if it would be acceptable to ping all those who participated in the RfC, if and when the move request starts, so they can state a further opinion on whether the lack or primary topic should imply a move of the state article. If a lot of people who voted that the state is not primary then go on to say there should not be a move, then that would carry a suggestion that our policy on PTOPIC is wrong, because as things stand the RfC result combined with WP:PTOPIC implies that the article should move.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging all RFC participants could be viewed as unfair canvassing. Move requests are well-advertised now, with a banner on the article page (that wasn't the case in June), so it should attract plenty of input, including from casual uninvolved readers. This wide publicity makes it all the more important to build a clear case with careful wording. The hardest part will be to summarize the discussion status without rehashing all nuances of the lengthy debate… Thinking about it; I might come up with a draft formulation over the weekend. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, fair enough. I don't think that's canvassing because they're all people who've explicitly shown an interest in this subject by participating in the RfC; but in fairness it's probably mainly the same people who participated in both debates anyway. Ideally, I think we want to get as many eyes on this as possible though, as long as that's done in a fair manner...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That closed primary-topic RfC should be enough to fulfill BD2412's reminder that any successful new move request ought to have something new to add to the mix. I was actually surprised, pleasantly, at its outcome. The RfC expressly shows that the article on the state of New York is not the primary topic for the imprecise title "New York". However, that just makes it imperative that the title "New York" must be moved to something else. And that is where the wording of a new requested move would be of utmost importance. There can be no "maybe this, maybe that" suggestion – the proposal should be as precise as possible, focused upon the discussion outcomes of this move request as to the best place to which to move the title "New York". The opposition will do their level best to cloud the issue, so this must be made very difficult to do. Based upon the consensus formed in the following two discussions:

• RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?
• Talk:New York/July 2016 move request focus

...the highest and best new proposal would be:

• New York → New York (state)
• New York (disambiguation) → New York

With a carefully worded proposal that stays on point in the same manner as the primary-topic RfC above, and with no ambiguity as to where the New York and New York (disambiguation) titles are to land, a successful move request may be on the horizon and is the light at the end of a long, long tunnel.  Paine  ^u/c 12:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We already know that "New York (state)" is the preferred new title, because we decided that at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Discussion 3: If there is consensus to change the current name of this page, what should be the state's new title?. And we already know that NYS is not the primary topic, from the RfC. Both those issues are settled. Any opposition to the proposed move will have to explain why the status quo should remain given the established lack of primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Another salient point might be that New York → New York (state) is not technically a page title rename. The title of the state article will still be New York with the only difference that of using "state" as a precise qualifier of the page title. On another issue, there is a very troubling argument against moving the raw title, New York, to the dab page. Opposers to the page move seem concerned (perhaps rightly so?) that when a reader searches for "New York" and lands on the dab page, it will cause more confusion than if that title were to remain at the state article. As a member of the dab project, I've never quite fully understood this argument, and I hear it over and over again when someone tries to move an imprecise title to a dab page. I would think that it would dispel far more confusion than it might create, but I could be wrong. At any rate, it's an issue that might be worth addressing in the proposal.  Paine  ^u/c 15:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Arby break

@Amakuru and Paine Ellsworth: I said above that I might come up with a new RM proposal over the weekend, so I'd just like to tell you now why I didn't. This story has raised much deeper questions than what can be addressed by a move request. Upon further consideration of the present state of the debate, I think that the next step should be to raise a RFC asking whether the article titled New York should be the existing dab page or a new page such as Draft:New York acting as a WP:DABCONCEPT. As I just mentioned in Talk:New York#Next RfC, this idea may get support now that the lack of primary topic has been established. Or it may be shot down. But it's worth asking. Not here though, please comment at Talk:New York if you wish. This page about the non-closing closure should be laid to rest in peace. — JFG ^talk 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Another RfC could very well be the best way to go after the success of the PTOPIC discussion; however, that doesn't really resolve the major challenge with this requested move, does it? Just allowing this incorrectly closed RM to be laid to rest in peace pretty much says that we accept the futility of this entire process. It's like saying that when the process doesn't work correctly, the only recourse is to try to circumvent it. It's probably not a bad idea, though, to sort of take little bites that will hopefully lead to a satisfying outcome, but there is something considerably outrageous the way this RM has turned out. We can't go to MR because this RM has not been properly closed, and as we all know, an RM must be closed before it can be taken to Move Review. We can't really begin a new RM since this one hasn't properly closed yet. Sure, we can RfC the issues in an effort to put something together for a future RM; however, that could easily backfire. A lot of time and effort has gone into this particular RM, and to leave it where it stands in such a crippled, unclosed status seems unheard of. It might very well be the first time in the history of Wikipedia that this has happened, and while the depth of the questions raised does affect the outcome, it should not strangle the process any more than it would for any other page on Wikipedia. The bottom line is that this requested move has not been settled, and no matter how many RfCs are opened and closed, until this RM is pulled out of its stalled state, move opposers will be able to use it to cloud issues and to pervert future requests.  Paine  ^u/c 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: You may be right, and I agree this is an unprecedented non-outcome in well-advertised and complex RFCs. But is there anything one can do without whipping up even more controversy? Ignore the result? Whip the panelists into action? Convene a new panel? Open a move review? Escalate to ArbCom? Those are all losing propositions imho. Crafting new RFCs and refining arguments is a much more constructive approach. — JFG ^talk 09:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Losing propositions would only be those in which this project and its readers and users would lose. The losers would probably be an escalation to ArbCom, which should only be used as a last resort, move review, since as mentioned MRs are only for those RMs that have been officially and properly closed, convening a new panel. Although I did suggest the latter, and while it stands a fair chance of actually closing this RM, there's also a chance that it would close as either "not moved" or "no consensus". Wikipedia would lose. You made me smile, JFG, with your "Whip the panelists into action?" choice. How often and how many of us have perhaps given this impossibility a bit of a wish? IMHO, if we just ignore this result (or non-result), then it would hurt Wikipedia the most, because while ignore-ance might be bliss, it basically defecates all over the RM process and procedure – almost poetically it sez "it just doesn't work in a case like 'New York'".  Paine  ^u/c 10:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so certain that this can't be brought to move review? The closing instructions state that a failure to "follow the spirit and intent" of the rules for a formal closing is enough reason to initiate the MR. Failing to follow the closing steps may be a valid reason in and of itself to overturn the result, notwithstanding the concerns about the convenience of doing that. Diego (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that move review just becomes yet another rehash of the arguments, and yet another chance for the already entrenched voters to recast their votes. You can guarantee that those opposed to the move will "endorse" the no consensus result, while those in favour will vote to "overturn" it, and we'll have another even split at the move review. Now how bold would the closing admin really be, in the face of that? Would they cut through and say that there should have been a closed as moved result? And especially given that BD2412, the admin who closed the last move review, has tacitly given their approval to a "no consensus" result. The whole thing is far from ideal, given the weight of policy/guideline evidence in favour of the move, but there still doesn't seem to be an obvious way forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty much sums it up, Amakuru and Diego, "far from ideal". It seems that none of my suggestions would improve the situation much if at all. And while that can be disheartening, I think the important thing is not to give up, not to shut down, to keep putting our heads together to blend a solution that is far beyond this less-than-ideal outcome. It can be done and it must be done. An imprecise title has no business being the title of an article in this encyclopedia. There is a way, and all we have to do is find it.  Paine  ^u/c 02:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggested length of moratorium

1) How many months for a moratorium on RMs for three article namespace pages (NYS, NYC and the DAB) and one article name (the New York base name)? 2) How many months for a broader moratorium on peripheral issues directly related to these pages and the New York base name?

!vote: (Please reserve this area for time lengths only, for legibility and clarity. If you feel the need to comment, try to stick your comments somewhere further below. Thanks.)

• 1) 24-36 months 2) 18-36 months. Castncoot (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• 2) 3–6 months just as in any other "no consensus" page-rename close, as is explicitly stated in the closing intructions. There has never been community consensus to either extend nor to lower this instruction. And unless there is willingness to open an RfC to address this subject on a general level, these instructions should be followed. This goes especially for a case like this, where an imprecise page title sits at the top of a Wikipedia article when, according to policies and guidelines, it should be the title of a disambiguation page (unless very good reason can be shown why policies and guidelines should be ignored, which has not been shown).  Paine  ^u/c 10:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• 1) Six months plus the period of any more general moratorium 2) Zero to six months see discussion Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• 1) 3-6 months per WP:RMCI. 2) 0 months unless someone quotes a policy which recommends a moratorium on peripheral issues. That should give us time to complete step 2), by agreeing basic details such as whether the state is the primary topic of New York. Then we can revisit step 1) to determine, in the light of those details, the best title for the state article (and the connected issue of which page should live at New York). Certes (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• I recommend a 3-6 month moratorium on discussions related to granting moratoriums, as this has been brought up multiple times at Talk:New York to no consensus. It's frankly hilarious that the very person arguing that we cannot even reconsider an issue with no consensus in light of substantial new information generated at the primary topic RfC is simultaneously bringing up the same issue at different pages within days of the last time it was roundly rejected. Let's call it what it is - facetious. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• 1) 3-6 months per WP:RMCI. 2) 0 months. older ≠ wiser 13:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on suggested length of moratorium

I support a more general moratorium (six months), but it needs to be just as specific in its scope as the RM moratorium proposal, otherwise we are better off without it (i.e. zero months). Exactly what these peripheral issues are needs to be decided before any such moratorium is agreed.

BTW do not be misled by the term !vote above. A !vote contains a rationale for the closer to assess (and otherwise it is discarded). As we've been asked not to provide rationales, there will be no valid !votes to assess. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

PS please don't copy User:Castncoot's appalling stringing below. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, so we're seeing a median general consensus above forming for a moratorium of around 6-12 months for the RM-discussion itself. I seem to be an outlier thus far, as is Rob, but we have to deal with it. As far as a peripheral issue, I guess the only one I can think of currently is primary topic. So how about 6 months for a moratorium on discussion of primary topic of the term "New York", and 12 months for RMs for three article namespace pages (NYS, NYC and the DAB) and one article name (the New York base name), effective now? Castncoot (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This proposal would mean immediately abandoning (for six months at least) the current RfC at Talk:New York#RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?, would it not? The alternative seems to be closing it (perhaps even as consensus that NYS is not the primary topic), which in the normal course of events would happen in the next few days. [3]

I could be wrong but I think I can see why you would like to avoid that. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how a series of values, the majority of which are "3-6 months", can have a median of 6-12 months. Certes (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It is quite simply untrue, isn't it? But it is also untrue that there is no consensus that NYS is not the primary topic. It is even untrue that there is no consensus to move (provided of course that we follow Wikipedia's normal closing procedures, and the normal laws of logic, in assessing consensus - but should that need saying?).

It is however true that if you say something untrue often enough, eventually some normally reasonable people will believe it. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• There is zero chance that a moratorium will go in effect that results in the immediate closure of the RfC on the primary topic status. I'm going to be very blunt here, because we all know everything I'm about to say, but I think we've all been a bit too committed to politely dancing around it for a bit too long. Castncoot, you absolutely are "playing for a draw" here, which is a delightfully insightful bit of writing from Andrewa. You've spent two months arguing not that your side has consensus, but that we don't have a firm enough consensus to move based on a bunch of WP:IAR arguments. Invalidating that RfC on the basis of some supposed moratorium would be a horrible, horrible step intended only to prevent the community from reaching consensus because "no consensus" (or a procedural close) results in the outcome you want. I know that. You know that. I know that you know that. Further, you know that I know that you know that, so I'm going to stop pretending that isn't what you're looking to do here under the increasingly strained attempt to assume good faith. I'm perfectly willing to take the same strategy. If you want to introduce a moratorium, you'll need to create a genuine RfC to do so, given the fact that there have been multiple discussions on this idea already which produced no consensus for a moratorium (and even more opposition than support, in one case). It will need to be well-publicized, including on Talk:New York and at the village pump. It will need to include notifications of invested participants, including all participants of the recent move request and all participants of the ongoing RfC this would affect. If you create an actual RfC and fail to make those notifications, I will, as WP:CANVAS clearly encourages the notification of past participants in related discussions (when done in a neutral manner). And at the end of thirty days, there may or may not be a moratorium. But there certainly won't be a moratorium on the ongoing primary topic RfC, because it will have been closed in the meantime. Please do let me know if you make such an RfC somewhere, as I'd be very interested in seeing it. (To be very clear, this is not an RfC, as you have not applied an WP:RFC banner. Not to mention you've placed it on a less-than-visible subpage that few follow. At best any consensus built here under such circumstances would be a local consensus which counts for nothing, as there's been more widely publicized discussions at Talk:New York which produced clear no consensus outcomes.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be an RfC. This is just a preliminary discussion. Section retitled. Castncoot (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the clarity, with the understanding that a preliminary discussion does not equal a result that can be used to close an ongoing RfC that is near closure. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

But that has no bearing on a moratorium on an another RM-discussion itself. The RM is closed. Now we just need either BD2412 or Newyorkbrad to sign off on a 6- or 12- month moratorium for three article namespace pages (NYS, NYC, and the dab page) and one article name (the "New York" base name). Castncoot (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A little while ago you stated (several times) that I have no extra authority as the move has closed. You accused me (falsely I think) of some rather strange gymnastics. It seems to me that, in wanting BD2412 or Newyorkbrad to exercise some extra authority after the move has (in your opinion) closed, you are trying to have your foot on both sides of a given door at the same time, holding such a door open with one foot [4] while holding a bucket over your head with both hands and inserting both feet into your mouth. (Quick, is there a cartoonist in the house?) Disagree with you that this is disruptive, but it is IMO somewhat illogical. Which is like being a just a little bit pregnant. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, closers have absolutely no authority to make up a moratorium out of thin air. Closers are not gods of a discussion. They merely assess the community's discussion and its outcome. Indeed, a closer is perhaps even less allowed to impose a unilateral moratorium than some random editor given that placing a moratorium on reassessing their own close would obviously violate WP:INVOLVED. We'd need a new discussion showing community consensus for a moratorium. So far, such discussions have, if anything, demonstrated a weak consensus against such a moratorium. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Another imaginary consensus by Rob. There was no such consensus against a moratorium. "Weak" and "consensus" juxtaposed oxymoronically evidence that at best you're weaseling here. However, what I do in fact see is that four out five commenters on this page so far have agreed to a moratorium on the RM. Castncoot (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Make that at most three out of five. For the avoidance of doubt, my comment above does not agree to a moratorium. It simply answers the loaded question of how long a possible moratorium should be. Certes (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

But you answered it, and nobody forced you to give your answer as such, which is very different from Rob's misguided answer. By the way, admins are called admins for a reason and this is exactly the kind of thing they have been granted purview to do, including imposing reasonable moratoria upon RM discussions immediately after closure if they feel that the immediate resurrection of an RM right after closing would be disruptive to Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fascinated that you feel that admins have been granted purview of some sort, which I take to mean we have some extra authority. In view of this, suggest you check exactly who of those involved in this discussion are admins, and acknowledge that authority, whatever you think it is. In the case of the panel of course this was discussed at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. That's if you want your posts to be taken seriously... or is that a lost cause?

But seriously folks, I'm afraid you're mistaken. We just have a few extra tools that most users don't have (for good reason), and we're authorised to use them in exchange for being under extra scrutiny to read policy and guidelines and act accordingly, which is reasonable as misuse could be troublesome (which is the good reason). As Jimbo famously noted, adminship is no big deal. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if Castncoot is unaware. I am an admin, so the preaching about what admins can do falls quite flat. We are most definitely not allowed to apply our will unilaterally. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Am I also counted as having agreed to a moratorium on the RM? Ridiculous. I support a moratorium, and you and I (we two) have I think agreed on the scope of the RM moratorium which we would like to see. But there's a long way to go to build the agreement (dare I say consensus) required to put it in place, and frankly I don't think you have the slightest clue how to build consensus. It takes practice, and you have some habits which are something of a liability, to the point that it looks like they may even scuttle the whole idea. Which is a pity.

Here's hint #1: People don't like to be misquoted. It can be fun, but it's counterproductive when consensus is the goal. For more hints see User:Andrewa/How not to rant and User:Andrewa/Playing for draw.

If you would like to build consensus on a wider moratorium, perhaps you could answer one simple question... would either of those two user essays be covered by what you have in mind? Yes or no. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

By golly, you are an admin. Who would have known? You are indeed very eloquent. Is it that I had never looked at your talk page, or that there had been no prior indication till a recent notice, as most admins have it obviously indicated with a large sign on their talk page...I don't know. In any case, pleasure working er... with you. "Support" a moratorium, "agree to a moratorium", where do you do draw the line along such a continuum? I assume you're referring to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:HLJC to be covered under a moratorium? Absolutely. I never agree to anything less than a fair debate, and they in addition to WP:PTOPIC should be covered under a moratorium. We need a moratorium so that everyone can come back to this refreshed and give their best arguments. By the way, I'm likely going to be out of commission for some time after this. Castncoot (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

How to put this gently, User:Castncoot... you are obviously intelligent, and people seem to believe the things you say, but again what you have said here is very misleading, you seem so confident that you understand and yet you don't understand at all...

Have a look at the user talk pages of a couple of other admins, such as User talk:BD2412 and User talk:BU Rob13. Note that there's no admin banner on either of those two pages (or on my own as you have already noted).

Now have a look at the main user page of those two, and also at mine. You will see a userbox right at the top, clearly identifying us as admins. This is common practice. Then have a look at Category:Wikipedia administrators, and note the instructions there... it's not a complete list, there isn't even any guarantee that anyone who adds themselves to the category really is an admin, but it tells you how to get the real list and it has its uses (otherwise I would not link to it).

You only had to look. Perhaps if you were to set up your own user page, rather than just redirecting it to your user talk page, it would help your understanding. Andrewa (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on suggested scope of moratorium

The only definite proposal so far seems to be mine, that there should be no formal RM raised on three main namespace pages (NYS, NYC and the DAB) and one base name (New York) for a period still under discussion. This has been supported by User:Castncoot I think.

This IMO does not need any formal recognition. I hereby undertake to abide by it for a period of six months from now, and invite others to do the same.

If anyone does raise such an RM, then I suggest we politely ask them to withdraw it. I expect they will, and if not we just need to deal with it then.

Note that this is deliberately very narrow and specific. I have not even undertaken not to be involved in any RM that is raised... just the opposite, I will ask for its withdrawal if I'm not beaten to doing that, and if it's not withdrawn deal with that as seems best at the time.

And I certainly intend to lay groundwork for a possible next RM. If this is seen as trojan horses I am sorry, but I have no intention of deceit... unlike some Greeks in that story. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm back online. Who'd have known that I've been dealing with a bunch of admins? Haha! I find that amazingly amusing. Yes, I'll agree to a six-month all around moratorium on the formal RM on the three main namespace pages (NYS, NYC and the dab) and one base name (New York), as well on the three peripheral topics brought up (PTOPIC, STATUSQUO, and HLJC). It's not the six years that I genuinely sought, but this is certainly better than starting up again immediately, no doubt. Castncoot (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I will voluntarily abide by a thinly-scoped six-month moratorium (to include "New York" related pages only - obviously, we can't restrict any discussion of policy/guidelines) if we start the six months from the date the MR was closed off from further discussion (26 July 2016). Otherwise, I'd be making more of a case for it to be three months. I'm hoping this is a sufficient compromise. Pinging a few people to allow them to comment if they care to. Castncoot, Andrewa. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm happy to shorten my personal commitment if it brings you aboard... I don't see it makes any practical difference. Restriction of policy/guideline discussions has definitely been suggested, and passionately, but perhaps not taken seriously by most. Agree it's not possible, but a few seem to think it is, and the consequence is that any moratorium becomes that much harder to achieve. Andrewa (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I still find your phrasing a bit puzzling, and rather doubt that others will subscribe to that version, but it's a personal commitment that nobody is going to try to enforce, so as long as you know what you mean that's fine. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree to what amounts to just three months on a moratorium. A moratorium specifically means time off. Meaning from day-before-yesterday (24 September 2016), when the RM was closed. We've been having an ongoing discussion all along, and I'd like to take some time off from this. And I'm not going to come down from a matter of years to three months. It's got to be six months, or you don't have consensus here. Castncoot (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that it's pretty much guaranteed we will be having the discussion again when the moratorium expires, with a new panel and a new conversation, it doesn't matter too much how long the moratorium is. I am happy with three months, six months, maybe even a year, but not longer than that, then we'll do all this again and hopefully the move argument will prevail then.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Y'know, this isn't even worth arguing over. I'll do a voluntary moratorium of six months from today in the sense that I won't bring this issue up directly during that time. I disagree with an official moratorium, mostly because I fundamentally don't think those should be a thing on Wikipedia. An official moratorium is just the community forbidding itself from discussing an issue, but if the community were ever to change their mind on that, WP:CCC would say they can just undo the official moratorium, so it doesn't have any real binding power. But either way, if the main people arguing both sides here agree to six months, it's de facto going to wait six months. I can spend that time working on periphery issues, I suppose (and other things that this has dragged me away from). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

To me the main attraction of this voluntary thing is that it's very hard to argue about it! Who can possibly object to it? Famous last words perhaps. Anyway, it looks worth a try. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Replying to User:Castncoot It's got to be six months, or you don't have consensus here.: And that's the beauty of what I'm proposing here and now at #Voluntary abstention below. We don't need consensus, just commitment. Let's see if it works! Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See #Voluntary abstention below. User:Castncoot, User:Amakuru, User:BU Rob13, you might consider signing up there. TIA Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

email

From the above: Excellent point. In view of the communication failure between us, I think I should email them, and possibly also Future Perfect at Sunrise. As I write both have email enabled. I think it would be improper in most circumstances, but having given this advice of my intention, I'd be happy to do it, or you or BD2412 could (but nobody else IMO). [5]

Nobody has reacted to this at all, which surprised me a little. I will go ahead and report back here if there is any off-wiki response. I note that there has been no response to similar attempts by User:Newyorkbrad, but I'd still like to try. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If the panel have completely disappeared and won't sign off on a result for the RM, then we probably need to appoint a new panel including any current panelists willing to participate, and one or two other uninvolved parties. This whole process was supposed to bring closure, but the continued discussion months later shows that it has done anything but. I, and I'm sure others, vowed to respect the panel's result, but it's absolutely clear that they haven't delivered one here.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that another panel should be assembled, although I would be happy with just one uninvolved and experienced admin to come in, objectively assess the !votes and rationales only and make a decision to close this move request in a usual and correct manner.  Paine  ^u/c 10:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I would not consider that a productive direction to go. I think "the continued discussion months later" shows that people are simply unwilling to accept that there is an absence of clear consensus on this matter. I also sense that at least some of the discussants who initially supported moving the city to the base page name are now more flexible about disambiguating the title. I would remind editors that there is no WP:DEADLINE, and that the better part of valor here might be backing off for a few months, further honing evidence and arguments in favor of a page move, and seeking to present a more persuasive case in the future. I would also note that we have a project underway to fix incorrect incoming links. Once this project is near its end, I will prepare a report of my findings during this process in terms of the proportion and patterns of links intended for a target other than the state, which will be a useful data point in making future determinations. bd2412 T 14:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It is so difficult to describe how much I would like to give in and go along with your suggestion, BD2412. Many here, to include myself, have a depth of gratitude for all you've done in this situation that is essentially bottomless. And I, like so many others, feel so wasted, exhausted with this issue. However, I cannot help but think about what would be happening this moment if NYBrad's decision had been to close as Moved. Can we really accept that Cassie and crew would just stand idly by and not raise a finger in regard to the insufficiency of two panel members vanishing while the third admirably takes up the banner? The supporters of this page move have policies and guidelines on their side, they have the ironclad fact that the imprecise title "New York" can mean anything from the state to the city to sports teams to pizza. "Strike while the iron is hot" does have a nice ring, and it's precisely what the opposition would do if move supporters had been satisfied. As it sits now, it's the opposers who write as if they're satisfied, while supporters write as if this whole thing is... unsatisfying.  Paine  ^u/c 14:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Castncoot (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Flesh is the only type of ball needed to easily predict what you'd do, Cass!  Paine  ^u/c 15:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious, Paine! Castncoot (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This mildly disruptive edit by User:Castncoot made this section a subsection of #RfC on moratorium instead of #Request for closure 22 September 2016 where it was created. It does not belong in this new section, and the simplest way of fixing this seems to be to change the heading level so I have done this. User:Amakuru and User:Paine Ellsworth, you are the others affected, is that OK? Andrewa (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No problemo.  Paine  ^u/c 11:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, but I'm sure I'm fine with it. No problemo.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

emails sent

I have just emailed User:Niceguyedc and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise as foreshadowed above.

The message title I used was New York RM, and the text is at user:andrewa/New York RM email.

I will keep you informed of any off-wiki response. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary abstention

The idea of inviting personal pledges to abstain from some activities seems to have some traction above, and has taken over #Discussion on suggested scope of moratorium to the point I think it deserves a properly scoped and titled section. Feel free to add subsections, particularly if you have a specific pledge that you'd like others to consider adopting. TIA Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Pledges

Please indicate below your own commitment. I suggest you Strike out thus any commitment that you withdraw or modify, and give any reasons or otherwise discuss your own or other pledges in the discussion section(s) below rather than here. TIA Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

RMs on three pages and one base name

This seems to me likely to be the only one that gets significant support, but I could be wrong. The three pages are NYS, NYC and the DAB, the base name is "New York". Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Abstain from raising RMs on the three pages and one base name for a period of six months from 23:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC), that being the date and time I first made this pledge. [6] Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Abstain likewise through March 25, 2017, provided others abide. Castncoot (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Abstain as Castncoot has described. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Other pledges

Or add a subsection here on your own specific pledge. TIA Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of pledges

Any discussion of what others have pledged, or why you have varied your own, can go below, so as not to clutter the pledge sections. TIA Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.