User talk:Andrewa/New York post RM 2016

''See also User talk:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York. The difference is, that page looks forward, this one looks back. There is a lot of potential overlap but it makes sense to me. Andrewa (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)''

''See also User talk:Andrewa/NYRM. Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)''

Welcome
''G'day and welcome. Although this is a user talk page, and corresponds to a user page, of course all pages belong to the project, not to any one user.''

''That said, it's in my user space rather than the project namespace (at this stage at least) because it is designed to primarily express and clarify my thoughts (at this stage at least). Please do not update the user page without discussing here. You are more than welcome to comment here on the user talk page. That's what it's for.''

''Sign your posts here like on any other talk page, but edits to the user page are better unsigned, so that if and when this is moved to the project namespace it will be ready for that. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)''

Background
Here is the relevant period of the talk page history.

The initial RM was raised on 9 June. 

It was closed first as no consensus but the closer then revised this to move New York (the state) to New York (state) (suggestions to use WP:PARENDIS instead of WP:NATURALDIS were not opposed), and move New York (disambiguation) to New York. 

It was listed for Move Review on 21 June. 

And then things got even more complicated! Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary topic
Whether NYS is primary may have been determined by the panel by the time they close. Either way there is cleaning up to do. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Now decided by RfC. Consensus that NYS is not the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The no consensus clause
There was much discussion of this and it seems key to the oppose case. Is it a circular argument, as I believe, and therefore illogical and should be discarded in assessing consensus? If so, how can we better argue for this? Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a vote
There is some evidence of head-counting rather than assessing the arguments, both in the oppose arguments and the initial comments by the panel. Was this a significant factor? IF so, how do we address it? Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaming the system
See wp:gaming the system, a behavioural guideline. Did it occur? If so, how can we better control it? Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Condorcet paradox
This was raised by one of the panel, but they have since said it did not influence their decision... as it should not have as the RM was set up. However they have also proposed that any new RM should be structured in such a way that a Condorcet paradox would not be resolved. This is a worry, surely?

Any new RM should be Condorcet compliant, as this one was and as regular RMs are. Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the oppose !votes
The arguments are at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request and the !votes at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request.

There is already a (sometimes lighthearted and perhaps one-sided) analysis at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

And now a summary (well, a list with the sigs and discussion removed... a lot of work but good results) at User:Andrewa/New York post RM 2016. The same treatment of the oppose arguments is at User:Andrewa/New York post RM 2016 and makes even better reading. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the closing comments by the panel
There is a fine line to walk between analysing the closing comments and criticising them, and then a slippery slope from criticising the comments to criticising the panel. We must accept that the panel have put in a great deal of effort and have done the job they believed they had undertaken, and move on. Andrewa (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The comments below are based mainly on

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York/July_2016_move_request&oldid=735628269#Discussion_by_panelists

as none of the panel seem to have subsequently qualified these initial assessments. Andrewa (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

1st panelist
The first panelist to enter an assessment (21:29, 29 July 2016) found NO CONSENSUS either for or against a move.

They noted ''The supporters of a move have presented several sound arguments for a move based on policy and evidence, their most important point being the straightforward one that a reader searching for "New York" seems to be more likely to be seeking the city than the state. The opposers have also presented valid arguments, including the length of time the articles have been at the existing titles without problems, and the relative ease of getting from one article to the other.'' (my formatting)

They also noted ''The numerical result is 23 supporting a pagemove and 22 opposed, virtually a tie. At the end of the day, to declare a consensus from a discussion with that result, one would need to conclude that one side has presented not merely better arguments, but far better arguments, or that the other side's arguments are not grounded in policy or logic at all. That conclusion I cannot reach.''

It's well reasoned. To avoid a similar decision in future, we need to ensure that the move case is based on far better arguments (emphasis as by panelist).

The recent consensus that NYS is not the primary topic should help, but it is notable that this particular argument was not even mentioned in this assessment (see the original), despite it being the main argument put by myself as proposer of record of the move, and featuring heavily in the discussion. It is hard to see how we can make a case for it being more important than that already made.

The other argument of particular interest here is the length of time the articles have been at the existing titles without problems. This quite frankly appears to be in direct contradiction to the policy at wp:consensus can change. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, falls rather flat when one considers the number of links to be repaired and the amount of editorial time involved to repair them.  "Without problems"?  Not hardly.  Those bad links built up over all that length of time, and they will do so again unless policy and guideline prevail.  The bare "New York" title must be moved away from the state article.   Paine   u/ c  14:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * While I agree completely, this is not the place to draw an overall conclusion about whether or not to move the article. This section is just for discussion of the first panelist's comments.


 * You make an excellent point on that, however. How they could possibly come to the conclusion that there had been no problems... it is simply incomprehensible. Both other panelists found that there had been problems, and as I write there has been an enormous effort to correct mislinkings, with more than 18,000 (yes eighteen thousand) wrong links corrected so far (yes that's wrong and corrected) and several thousand still to be checked.


 * And as we have both repeatedly pointed out and nobody has yet corrected us, new wrong links continue to be created (several hundred, yes that's hundred, since the correction program began) and will continue to be created until the problem is fixed. Andrewa (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

2nd panelist
The second assessment by a panelist (23:19, 29 July 2016) found consensus for a move of the state article away from New York.

They noted ''The proponents of the move have the backing of multiple policy arguments, most notably that the state is not the primary topic of "New York" by any Wikipedia definition. The opponents of the move argue that the status quo is fine (that there is no harm in the current arrangement of article titles), or that the state is the primary topic because it is larger or a higher-level jurisdiction (an argument that has no basis in policy or guidelines that I can find, and was shown by many participants not to hold up in the many other similar situations in Wikipedia).''

They further noted As to the mentioned "harm", I note that there is harm...

It must I suppose be assumed that they now accept a 2:1 majority verdict against the move, at the risk of arguing from their silence on the matter. Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

3rd panelist
The third and final assessment (20:34, 8 August 2016) found no consensus to move.

This was by far the longest and most involved of the three assessments. It was critical of both sides for lack of objectifiable, quantifiable observations, and suggested ways in which data should be collected.

Primary topic is discussed at length, but it's not clear to me what the decision was, if any. There seems to be a bet both ways.

It was noted that the no consensus close was a missed chance to rectify a glaring and damaging error (my emphasis, please check me in the original, I find it puzzling too, particularly in view of the policy at WP:IAR). Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)