Sample Page

Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to submitting a review of a page move’s close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer’s talk page. See step one below.

While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article’s talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs^[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs^[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

• [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
• [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:move review list
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
|reason=
}}  ~~~~

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer’s discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor’s analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of “no consensus” as equivalent to a “relist”; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.

Alternatively, the opener of a move review can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the discussion has not had any comments yet, or the review was initiated via block evasion.

Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

Biological sex (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Insufficient discussion to establish consensus for such high-profile changes. (Note that it was not a multi-move but a second move, of sex (disambiguation), was made as a result.) The RM was not relisted and was open for the minimum 7 days. And it wasn’t snowing. By the closer’s own count, the !vote count was 7–5 in favour. (Mind you, that’s 0 or perhaps 1 in favour of the nom’s actual proposed title.) Closer also admits that there is no clear strength of argument advantage for either side when it comes to whether or not there is a PTOPIC. If it had to be closed at 7 days, only a no consensus closure does justice to the actual state of the discussion, but for now it should just be relisted as a multi-move to allow for arguments to be developed. Srnec (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer here, I welcome this filing as I do in any situation where someone legitimately believes that I have misjudged a situation even after we discuss it on my talk page, and I said as much in my response to the question of why I closed the RM the way I did, but I would like to give some clarification here, especially as I feel like the parts of that response are cited here are open to misinterpretation when taken out of their context.

First off. I said that the RM had the nominator, 7 supporters and 5 opposers, and then explained how I gauged consensus on the main question at hand in the RM, which was whether or not there was a PTOPIC. For that I did not count two of the oppose !votes: one that was not directly related to whether or not there was a PTOPIC and one that didn’t give any rationale at all. That left an 8-3 supermajority of editors in favour of there being no PTOPIC, and I said that I did not see how I could consider that supermajority to not constitute a consensus to that effect considering that there was no clear discrepancy in strength of arguments.

To be clear, what I mean when I say there is ..no clear advantage in strength of arguments for either side.. is not that the overall balance of the two sides is even; rather, it means that there is no concern that establishing a consensus off of the supermajority could be to establish local consensus that contradicts the broader consensus in the form of policies and guidelines.

I hope I’ve been able to present my reasoning in an understandable manner, and if anyone has any questions I will of course answer them to the best of my abilities. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 01:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. It was not ready to be closed. Before the last !vote, it was a pretty square “no consensus”. Then the last !vote came in with a number of words and details. Was that last !vote so good that it wiped away the previous uncertainty? It takes more !votes to confirm the last swing. To close at just 1 hour 15 minutes after the last !vote was a gross error. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been a legitimate argument at AfD (it was rejected at DRV just a few months ago), why is it a legitimate argument at MR? Katzrockso (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to what you’re talking about? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 3 Katzrockso (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru‘s response was a good one, and although I wouldn’t say it single-handedly decided the RM it certainly did play a part in convincing me that the 7-3 numerical advantage that existed before Amakuru commented was solid and based on PaGs.

That said, I don’t think there is much of a problem with that. People had 7 days to give their arguments and it’s not like Amakuru’s response came completely out of left field. It didn’t bring with it some wholly new perspective on things that editors didn’t have a chance to discuss. If it did, I would have considered a relist. I frequently relist RMs with comments along the lines of “relisting to allow discussion about X’s reply” when a late comment has some novel argument or point, Amakuru’s comment wasn’t that; it was a solid and thought-out analysis of the discussion that had taken place, with the arguments of both sides and PaGs central to it being weighed against one another. There wasn’t much to it that editors did not already have the opportunity to make arguments about. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 23:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given strong earlier opposes, it is not fir the closer to judge the very late !vote as convincing, that is Supervoting.

I disagree with you that Amakuru’s response wasn’t singularly tide turning. Without his response, the discussion was a pretty square “no consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t really saying that the late !vote itself was what convincing to me. It was that it convinced me the earlier !votes were in line with PaGs.

I was also not trying to argue against your view that Amakuru’s response was what tipped the balance to a consensus. I was merely answering that I personally did not see it that way, in response to your question Was that last !vote so good that it wiped away the previous uncertainty? I think I have a responsibility to answer questions asked about my reasoning, but that ig would be inappropriate to argue whether or not that reasoning was correct as that is the purview of other editors. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 22:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I read Amakuru’s response as largely affirming and earlier !votes. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that’s not the point.

The discussion began with a short nomination.

The nominations received an early rush of support.

Then some opposes came in, with explanations, and there was discussion, but it looked like there was a turned tide to “oppose” and I am sure it could only be interpreted as “no consensus”.

Then Amakuru made a strong !vote, speaking to all of the previous.

What was missing was sufficient time for anyone to engage back to Amakuru. A couple of days is demanded for that. 75 minutes was not enough.

I suppose, the prior RM participants have opportunity here to say what is wrong with Amakuru’s !vote, or let it stand support per WP:Silence.

I advise the closer, do not rush in a close a contested discussion so quickly after a significant !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of counter-argument here to Amakuru’s !vote in the RM implies that the close was in hindsight correct. However, more time, a day or two, should have been allowed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn – relist. « uninvolved » What we see here is massive opposition to the proposed title, “Genetic sex”, and substantial opposition to any move at all. Because of the latter, this is not an OTHEROPTIONS situation in which the closer chooses a name from suggestions in the RM. A consensus to move away from the article’s title for 20 years, “Sex”, has not been achieved. Because of that lack of agreement, this move request should have been relisted to allow more time to build consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (uninvolved) The close was within the scope of RM closure and accurately reflects consensus. Maltazarian appropriately disregarded or down-weighted ‘oppose’ !votes. The proposal to move to the alternative title Biological sex and several of the explicit !votes in support of the alternative directly addressed key points of opposition to the initial proposal. The sole ‘support’ !vote gave the rationale no clear primary and went on to suggest Sax (biological) [sic] as a possible alternative. This is straightforwardly equivalent to the naturally disambiguated title that was chosen. The focus on the selection of an alternative title is a red herring, as is the timing of the final !vote. Alternative proposals are routinely presented and accepted at RM. The notion that alternative proposals automatically require relisting is contrary to actual practice and would unnecessarily prolong a great many discussions. The alternative was presented early and had ample support, and as previously noted, it directly addressed some of the ‘oppose’ rationales. The final !vote was consistent with and largely summarized or amplified the strongest arguments made up to that point. I do think Maltazarian should have left a more detailed close. We all like to parrot the notion that determining consensus is not a vote count but whenever the close appears superficially at odds with the bolded !vote tally, some explanation is warranted. I also do think this technically should have been a multi-move with ‘Sex (disambiguation) → Sex‘ explicitly listed and tagged. Overall, however, I think it is unlikely that this impacted the outcome. The issue was not raised in the course of the discussion and the dab page was moved to the base title via WP:RMTR as a necessary and obvious move following the close of this RM. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarification: I said the issue of this RM necessitating a move of the disambiguation page to the base title was not raised in the course of the discussion. What I meant is that no participant objected to the RM on these procedural grounds during the discussion. However, the nom did state that the next step would be to move Sex (disambiguation) to Sex in the nomination statement (diff). Thus the full intent and ultimate impact of the proposed move was clearly noted from the start. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody suggested that alternate suggestions automatically require relisting. The point is rather that nobody made a real case for “biological sex”. Do support !votes ever get downweighted? Here are the stated rationales for moving away from Sex to Biological sex given by the first five such !votes:

  • there is no primary topic here
  • there’s no primary topic
  • The subject of this article is not a clear primary topic
  • The disambiguation idea, while less than ideal, probably makes the most sense for such a polysemous word
  • no clear primary topic

This is just a series of bald assertions, no better than the first few opposes, certainly worse than Crossroads and Peter coxhead’s arguments against. Srnec (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth, above, said this is not an OTHEROPTIONS situation in which the closer chooses a name from suggestions in the RM. I don’t read that as having been @Maltazarian‘s basis for the close. Also, in your discussion on Maltazarian’s talk page, you said it is very strange in an era where it seems every RM gets relisted at least once that this one does not, despite the fact that the title chosen was not the one proposed. In fairness, you did not raise that in the nomination here but it was top of mind for me as I had just read all of this prior to making my post here. I find your characterization of the ‘support’ !votes ungenerous almost to the point of being misleading. Multiple editors stated that the scope is broader than genetics. I thought it went without saying that biological, which these editors explicitly supported, covered the article’s entire scope. I thought Peter coxhead and Crossroads both made good arguments, though they were at least partially refuted by other participants, and were not stronger than the average ‘support’ !vote. Our purpose here is not to rehash the RM itself but to evaluate the close. I’ve already waded too deep in those waters but I felt compelled to respond to your framing. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we’re talking past one another. Nobody wants the title to be ‘genetic sex’. I think we all know this. The question is whether it should be ‘sex’ or ‘biological sex’. Obviously, that’s for an RM (not MR) to decide. The question here is whether the actual RM we had did so (as the closer thought). You said that Maltazarian appropriately disregarded or down-weighted ‘oppose’ !votes. Down-weighted relative to what? Certainly they should not have been down-weighted relative to the support !votes. That was my point. As for the 8-3 supermajority, you get there by ignoring the first !vote from before anyone suggested an alternate but accepting the unsigned Move to Biological sex as per given reasons. But if “as per given reasons” is good enough, so is the unargued oppose that implicitly has the same rider. Srnec (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maltazarian’s 7–3 assessment (8–3 including the nom), or perhaps I would have called it 6–3–1 (7–3–1). Or maybe I would have deducted half “points” for some. I would have discounted CycoMa2’s !vote pretty much entirely since they gave zero rationale. I may have down-weighted blindlynx’s !vote since their objection was at least partially addressed by subsequent !votes for the alternative. I think as per given reasons is stronger than don’t really have too many things to say here except this. When four prior editors have provided rationales it is acceptable to just agree with them. I might prefer a little more but I tend to write too much and I certainly would not down-weight such a !vote. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how I would have weighed the arguments, what matters is that I understand Maltazarian’s reasoning and find it within the purview of a closer. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t comment on it originally as I felt it was a procedural detail that didn’t have much relevance, but I suppose I will note that I didn’t do the actual moving of the pages due to move protection being in place. Amakuru moved Sex to Biological sex and then put the DAB at the base name per WP:MALPLACED, which is standard practice covered at WP:RMCI#Only move involved pages. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 23:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not uncommon for a closer to need to recruit another editor with more permissions to complete the actual task of moving. A discussion about moving the dab page to the base title Sex is memorialized at Talk:Sex#Page move. That was how I first learned that it was moved via RMTR. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru cast the deciding !vote in this RM, so I’m not sure if s/he should have been the one doing the actual move(s). This looks like a WP:BADNAC to me. Srnec (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, perhaps not ideal if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I don’t see that anything improper actually took place here. The RMTR discussion is here: Special:Permalink/1358394371#c-Maltazarian-20260608074900-Administrator_needed. @Maltazarian assessed consensus and closed the RM but did not have the necessary permissions to carry out the move, so they made a request at WP:RMTR. @Amakuru simply carried out the task that had been requested. It would normally be unreasonable for an administrator to refuse to complete the RM. Amakuru is a top contributor to RMTR so the fact that they were there that day is not an indication of any funny business. Two other editors participated in the discussion, confirmed that the move of Sex (disambiguation) was appropriate (which should be uncontroversial), and requested that it proceed without delay. This was routine and necessary implementation of consensus and clean up in which several editors participated. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru simply implemented the consensus of the discussion. There is nothing improper there Katzrockso (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per BADNAC, A non-admin closure may not be appropriate if The result will require action by an administrator, or are expected to be done by an administrator such as Protecting or unprotecting a page. The fact that a page is move protected is prima facie evidence that an RM should not be closed by a non-admin. I would have led my nomination statement with this if I had realized this is how it happened. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Biological sex is semi-protected, not move-protected. Per WP:RMNAC:

Occasionally, a move involves a redirect with multiple revisions, and requires technical intervention. Editors are permitted to close the discussion and file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion. The results of discussions in favor of moves should generally be respected by the administrator (or page mover). If an administrator notices a clearly improper move closure, they should revert the closure and re-open the discussion.

I don’t know what the history of Biological sex looked like when it was a redirect. Perhaps @Maltazarian or @Amakuru can shed some light on why this request had to be carried out this way. I don’t spend a ton of time at RMTR but I have seen requests like this before and certainly see evidence of them in edit summaries. And the guidance explicitly calls for this process. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page “Biological sex” had some history of the redirect being changed a couple of times and an RFD discussion, but nothing substantive. See [1] for a screenshot of the edit history. Non-admins closing RMs and then an admin or page-mover handling the actual technical implementation of the move via WP:RM/TR is entirely normal in my experience. I don’t think there’s any violation of WP:BADNAC in that, and if there were then many RMs per week would fall foul of that rule. I also don’t consider it a violation of WP:INVOLVED for me to have done the moves in this instance. I did participate in the RM but I was not involved in any way in the closing of it. Maltazarian assessed it entirely independently and I merely happened to enact the closure that had already been effected, based on seeing it at WP:RM/TR. I may be wrong but I can’t imagine Arbcom or anyone else considering this to be a breach of WP:ADMINCOND or WP:INVOLVED. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator notices a clearly improper move closure, they should revert the closure and re-open the discussion. Kinda of meaningless with an involved editor, no? Srnec (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By what token is this a “clearly improper move closure”? I get that you don’t agree with it, and that’s why we’re here at MRV, that’s all well and good. But the discussion of process seems unnecessary here. I think most people would understand “clearly improper” to mean a close that is unambiguously against the rules: an involved party closing the RM itself for example, or an obvious sock closing an RM in violation of their block. Whatever you think of it, this was procedurally a fairly routine close by a non-admin page mover, of the sort that’s been entirely commonplace for at least a decade now. It should be assessed on its merits only, not on procedural wrangling of this nature. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the implied safeguard is meaningless if the admin performing the move is involved. Srnec (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the “implied safeguard” you are assuming @Amakuru declined to enforce? To revert the closure that you disagree with? There is a difference between an incorrect close and an clearly improper move closure. Katzrockso (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is how I understand clearly improper. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to the insinuation that @Amakuru did something wrong here by implementing the consensus result of the RM (Amakuru cast the deciding !vote in this RM, so I’m not sure if s/he should have been the one doing the actual move(s)). I also disagree with your statement here that the close was a WP:BADNAC, but that’s aside from the point. Katzrockso (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). First of all, to touch on the procedural questions raised – (1) was the RM closed while discussion was ongoing? I would say not particularly. I did cast my !vote quite soon before the closure, but I do not think my comment introduced any materially new argument, I merely summarised points that had already been raised and added my !vote in agreement with those who supported a move. (2) should it have been relisted? I don’t think that was necessary given that the main points had already been made, and there’s certainly nothing in WP:RMCI that requires relists if the closer is happy that consensus has been formed; and (3) should a non-admin have closed this and should I, as an involved party, have made the move? I’ve addressed this in my comment above and I think it’s all fine. Anyway, that aside, the purpose of a MRV such as this is to assess the reasonableness of the close. The closer has explained their reasoning in detail above and, whether one agrees with it or not, the closure is a reasonable one. A majority of participants argued that there is no primary topic for the term sex, and the closer deemed that their viewpoint was backed up by evidence and application of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. Since the closure is a reasonable one based on the discussion, I don’t think there is a basis for overturning the close. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Sceptre confirmed being unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion – that there is a relevant RfC: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive_212#RfC: Transgender persecution and a very recently endorsed Close Review: Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Archive380#RfC closure review request at Talk:Donald Trump. Sceptre also did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because arguments must be evaluated per WP:RMCIDC and although a large majority opposed the move, many cited the essay WP:SPADE, which is not an appropriate policy or guideline, reflected in the close statement that called this proposal WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is a policy, but not an appropriate one here (as explained by ModlordD in the discussion). The RfCs have found that the term “Persecution” is not used in the sources. An RM designed to move the page to a form that follows the sourcing is not implying that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship – it is the mainstream scholarship. The anti-trans (or transphobic) political weaponisation of the trans issue is both clear and well sourced. But it is not being described as “persecution”. A closer must determine consensus, but this closer appears to have assumed that this is a motte and bailey attack on the page subject itself, rather than a good faith attempt to resolve the inconsistency of this title with the well attended and endorsed RfC close.

It would, nevertheless, be hard for a closer not to close this RM as “not moved” on head count alone. And, indeed, there was a good case made by some participants that the new title may subtly shift the page focus. Thus I would not have challenged the close. However, the closer also found for a 12 month moratorium on all future move requests. This was not on the ballot, but 11 (one third) of respondents backed some kind of moratorium after an early !vote suggested this. Of the 11 respondents who wanted a moratorium, only 3 placed it at 12 months, and others opposed that. It is hard to see the decision for the longest possible moratorium, based on a minority of a minority of responses as anything but a supervote, particularly in light of the close comments that do not seem to have properly assessed the consensus. It prevents discussion of a move that resolves the unsourced framing issue, without affecting the article scope – c.f. Tamzin‘s comments at the RFC close review [3] – an attempt to create encyclopaedic framing is not disruptive, it is what is good for the encyclopaedia. Further, perversely, it also creates a motte-and-bailey attack on implementing the findings of the RfC on other Trump administration pages as discussed at NPOV noticeboard. This was inadvertent by Sceptre, but a consequence of being unaware of the RfC.

Asking that the moratorium be vacated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging RM, RfC, Close Review, and NPOVN participants: 1brianm7 1brianm7, Ad Orientem, Alexandraaaacs1989, Anythingyouwant, Aquillion, Artimaeus Creed, Astaire, Batorang, BD2412, Beland, Bill Williams, Blueboar, Blue-Sonnet, BlueJeansBlair, BootsED, Buffs, Butterscotch Beluga, Cdjp1, Chaotic Enby, Coffeeurbanite, Cyrobyte, Czarking0, Czello, DanielRigal, Darknipples, District9123, DocZach, DOUGDOUGFOOD, ErnestKrause, FactOrOpinion, Frankserafini87, Gamaliel, Garzfoth, Gaskew7, GlowingLava, GoodDay, Graeme Bartlett, GRuban, Halbared, Historyday01, Ismeiri, Jack Upland, Jessintime, Johnuniq, JzG/Typos, Katzrockso, Kind Tennis Fan, Kowal2701, Kyohyi, LokiTheLiar, lp0 on fire, LunaHasArrived, Magdalenaautumn, Maltazarian, Malvoliox, Mandruss, MjolnirPants, ModlordD, Nemov, Octopusplushie, Pauliesnug, QEDK, Quaerens-veritatem, Qwerty123M, R. G. Checkers, Regulov, Riposte97, RoxySaunders, Sceptre, Simonm223, Slakr, Slatersteven, Sławomir Biały Slomo666, Snokalok, Snokalok2, Snow Rise, Some1, SomeoneDreaming, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, Steroidaldeer, SuperPianoMan9167, SusanLesch, Tamzin, TarnishedPath, Thebiguglyalien, Urchincrawler, Usr Trj, Valereee, Voorts, Wh1pla5h99, Whonting, Zaathras, Zenomonoz, Zxcvbnm. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mass pings don’t work, as far as I’m aware. From what I recall, it’s a limit of 10 per comment or something similar Katzrockso (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose I’ll have to post on everyone’s talk pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

50 per comment, actually. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me, I see that limit now that I searched for the number. Katzrockso (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Involved – While I understand the reasoning in calling for a moratorium, having had move discussions in September 2025, March 2026, and then May 2026, if I were to support a moratorium, I would support as minimal a one as possible (3 months). Though, I do not think presently there has been enough of a repetition in RM to warrant a moratorium. If we start getting them every 1 or 2 months in a more sustained pattern, then a moratorium would have to be considered. — Cdjp1 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved) Endorse. The appellant spends half of their appeal complaining about how the result of the close only to say that they aren’t challenging it, including a tendentious repetition of their argument about the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump, despite being informed this does not apply to other pages and even more explicitly by the closer of that RfC that it does not apply to this article’s title [4] [5].

As for the argument against the moratorium, there are several issues with the argument to revoke it. The first is that there is no requirement for any discussion on Wikipedia that the close itself may not impose something that wasn’t asked in the question. Indeed, AfD discussions that start with the intent to delete may be closed not only as keep or delete, but as merge, redirect, userfy, or even move. A recent merger proposal (before those were folded into WP:AfD) achieved a consensus to rename the article, while I’ve seen Wikipedia:Requested moves end up as merges.

I count a total of 11 editors supporting a moratorium in the discussion. The appellant’s claim that “only 3” of these editors supported a length of 12 months is actively misleading, since it only counts those editors who explicitly and solely said “moratorium for 6 months” (I also endorse a 12 month moratorium temporary account ~2026-24524-49; I support a 12mo moratorium RoxySaunders; Oppose + 12 month moratorium TarnishedPath). This omits all of the editors who supported at least a 6 month moratorium or supported a 6 month or 12 month moratorium but expressed no preference between the two (e.g. I support a moratorium of 6 or 12 months if this proposal fails Maltazarian, I also endorse a moratorium Slomo66, Endorse Snokalok2 [Slomo66 and Snokalok2’s comment were in reply to Maltazarian’s !vote], I support a moratorium on future move requests for at least six months Qwerty123M [emphasis mine], I would support a six month, or even one year moratorium on name changes like this one Historyday01). Indeed, it appears that my vote and Urchincrawler were the only two to endorse specifically a six month moratorium (Endorse 6 month moratorium Urchincrawler; I would support a 6 month moratorium Katzrockso). As it stands, I have no opposition to a 12 month moratorium (indeed if I opposed a 12 month moratorium I would have specified as such).

As for the opposition to the moratorium, there was only the appellant’s comment But, to those asking for a moratorium, I’d oppose that, because if we can workshop a title that is more neutral but satisfies concerns about scope, a new RM would be very much in order and one short comment by SuperPianoMan1967 that a moratorium is unnecessary (Another comment: You don’t need a moratorium to close disruptive move requests).

When evaluating the actual discussion about the moratorium, it is hard to come away with anything but a consensus for a moratorium – 11 editors in favor and at most two in opposition. Even that said, the closer is not required to extract an active consensus to impose a moratorium. There are no strict guidelines around moratoriums, but the shortcut WP:MORATORIUM leads to a section of the essay Wikipedia:Attempting to overturn recent consensus which states Where a proposal is made repeatedly, and essentially the same proposal is made again, without new evidence or arguments, only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time. A moratorium may also be imposed by a discussion achieving the clear consensus of the community. Based on the strong sentiment of opposition in the discussion and the repeated RMs at the page, the closer was well within discretion to impose a moratorium. A year seems like a reasonable length given The duration of a moratorium should be balanced against the likelihood that consensus will change with time.

If the appellant believes there is a good alternative neutral name, then they are more than welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of the article and propose overturning the moratorium there (An existing moratorium may be lifted early if there is consensus to do so). Katzrockso (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MORATORIUM says: administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium It’s important to note that the closer Sceptre is not an administrator but a non-admin page mover.

The other guideline in WP:MORATORIUM says: A moratorium may also be imposed by a discussion achieving the clear consensus of the community. 11 out of ~40 people in the discussion who support a moratorium is not a “clear consensus”.

When evaluating the actual discussion about the moratorium, it is hard to come away with anything but a consensus for a moratorium – 11 editors in favor and at most two in opposition. “Clear consensus” means that a moratorium is actively supported by a consensus among all discussion participants; it doesn’t mean that of those discussing a moratorium, a majority support it.

If 3 of 40 people in a discussion suggest a moratorium and no one bothers to oppose them, then you could also call that a “consensus for a moratorium” in the “actual discussion about the moratorium”, but it’s not the “clear consensus of the community”. I would have expressed my opposition if I thought a moratorium was likely to pass. Astaire (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MORATORIUM was written in 2015, before the page mover right was unbundled from the administrator toolkit in 2016. The imposition of a moratorium matches the spirit of the essay, though not the letter. WP:BADNAC also does not list the imposition of a moratorium as an administrative action that should only be closed by an admin. Indeed, a discussion at Talk:FCSB [6] had a non-admin closer impose a moratorium despite only one comment suggesting a moratorium, and this was later endorsed at MR [7].

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote – “I didn’t get the change to present my argument” has never been a convincing rationale to overturn anything. You didn’t even provide a !vote in the RM, so I’m not sure why you would have opined on a moratorium. Katzrockso (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC) (updated at 16:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)) [reply]

WP:MORATORIUM was written in 2015, before the page mover right was unbundled from the administrator toolkit in 2016. How is this relevant? Closing a RM discussion and moving the page are two different things. Non-admins could close discussions in 2015 as well – including requested moves – so the fact that WP:MORATORIUM specifically mentions administrators is significant. The fact that there is now a non-admin “page mover” role affects neither the spirit nor the letter of the essay. And page movers have existed since 2016 – that’s 10 years for them to be added to the essay, if desired.

WP:BADNAC also does not list the imposition of a moratorium as an administrative action that should only be closed by an admin. WP:BADNAC includes discussions that are “contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic)” where the “close is likely to be controversial”. This page falls under at least two contentious topics, and imposing a moratorium supported by only a clear minority of participants is indeed “controversial”.

Indeed, a discussion at Talk:FCSB [4] had a non-admin closer impose a moratorium despite only one comment suggesting a moratorium, and this was later endorsed at MR [5]. Your summary of what happened is imprecise. The outcome of the discussion (i.e., page not moved) was clearly endorsed at MR, but the question of whether non-admins can impose a moratorium was not resolved; the moratorium only stood because an admin later endorsed it. Per the MR close, the question of whether non-admins can impose a moratorium “needs a RFC” (which apparently never happened). Astaire (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attempting to overturn recent consensus. I will reply to the rest of your comment here when I have time. Katzrockso (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think BD2412’s comment below clarifies that the essay was never intended to preclude non-administrators from imposing moratoria and so your argument “WP:MORATORIUM specifically mentions administrators is significant” falls flat.

The repeated invocation of “minority of participants” continues to mislead. WP:Consensus is not a vote. The number of editors expressing support or opposition to something is not a primary consideration in evaluating consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last response here, but I want to provide a full quote of BD2412‘s comment, since you are omitting the full context: I did not intend that only admins could ever impose one, but there should be a much clearer consensus in favor of a moratorium for a non-admin to impose a moratorium.

This isn’t a “clarification”; it’s what WP:MORATORIUM has always said, as I already mentioned in my comment above. Either 1) an admin closes the discussion and imposes a moratorium or 2) a non-admin closes the discussion and imposes a moratorium when there is a “clear consensus” for it. Neither of these conditions were met here. Astaire (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I also find it ironic that the appellant cites Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, an essay, to insist that the close discount the !votes of editors who cited WP:SPADE on the grounds that it is an essay. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions was proposed for elevation to a guideline in 2023 [8], but the discussion never reached a consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline, WP:IMR instructs that, when posting here, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons, the first being [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. That the closer may not have done so is evidenced by their confirmation on their talk page that they were genuinely unaware of the recent RfC.[9] This despite the fact it was mentioned by at least two editors, and linked by Astaire. It’s a long discussion, but the spirit of RMCI is clear on how consensus is determined:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

That cannot have been fully done if the closer is unaware of relevant information raised in the discussion (indeed, also the refutation of FALSEBALANCE given in the same discussion, but repeated by the closer initially as the only reason for not moving). WP:SPADE is indeed an essay, and it is not a relevant one. The rename was proposed because we know, by previous consensus, that “persecution” is not in the sources, and is not encyclopaedic langauge. Tamzin‘s comments in the close review pertain. They say, inter alia I’d really like to see a communal push toward less emotive word choice in political articles—one coming from a place of caring about good article-writing, and not just the objections of the losing side in various ideological disputes. And that is quite right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse a close of this discussion and support the continued moratorium as it was stated by Sceptre in the close and stand by everything I said in my comment in that discussion. I feel the points raised by Sirfurboy (herein called the OP) are misleading, per what Katzrockso stated, and is, without a doubt, an incorrect misinterpretation of comments such as mine, which cited WP:SPADE, WP:NPOV, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. And when I said “There is already consensus on other related pages to use the word “persecution,”” I was referring to an articles like Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany,Persecution of Uyghurs in China, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, Persecution of Hindus, and Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman decline, not an RFC which “closed with a consensus not to use “persecution”,” an RfC for which I did not participate in. I will say that RfC is a separate page from this one, and does not necessarily use the same sources, nor were the same editors involved in that discussion. Otherwise, I have to strongly disagree with Cdjp1 and Astaire. In addition, it is foolish to bring up this discussion again after it hasn’t even been thirty days since the last discussion ended (in fact the RM was closed on May 21st, after many extensions). Can we just give this a rest for a while? Trying to go back on this again is very tiresome and a waste of everyone’s time. Does the OP want to stretch people’s patience with this? I don’t understand why this discussion is even necessary at all. Considering the large amount of editors who commented in that discussion, I feel those who favor overturning the moratorium are far too hasty. Instead of this discussion, why not focus on improving the article instead?Historyday01 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved) Overturn moratorium per my comment above. The two conditions of WP:MORATORIUM are not met: this was a non-admin closure and the moratorium did not have the “clear consensus of the community”; it was supported by less than one-third of participants. Astaire (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How many opposed? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Endorse close While I did not speak to the moratorium at the move discussion I am frustrated at a sense that efforts to move this article will continue until a subset of editors get the consensus they want. A break from this constant push would be good both for article stability and the nerves of all participants. Simonm223 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It will help the closer if those in favour of the moratorium use a bolded “endorse”. You and Historday01 are apparently agreeing while using opposing !votes. Those in favour of overturning the moratorium should use “overturn” or “not endorsed moratorium”. Also, per instructions at the head of this page, please remember to disclose whether or not you were involved in the relevant page move discussion.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally agree. This is why a moratorium is important. Having such article instability is not good for a very important article. I would argue that Sirfurboy implied that importance, if you read between the lines from their comment in the previous discussion, even if I disagree with their perspective here and there. Historyday01 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have clarified my !vote. Simonm223 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  With regard to my involvement I have said I participated in the discussion but to my recollection took no position on the moratorium. I think that is abundantly clear. Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That helps. I did the same for my above comment as well. Historyday01 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn moratorium for further discussion. As the original writer of WP:MORATORIUM, I did not intend that only admins could ever impose one, but there should be a much clearer consensus in favor of a moratorium for a non-admin to impose a moratorium. I think the community can negotiate a reasonable moratorium period to give a breather in this case. Perhaps one month, or three months, or six, would be a more reasonable breather. BD2412 T 20:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  User:BD2412, “there should be a much clearer consensus in favor of a moratorium”? Have you read the discussion through with highlighting of the word moratorium? I think that there is a clear consensus among those who mentioned a moratorium. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – I commented in the discussion on behavioral issues, I don’t have a strong opinion about the best title, and I closed the previous RFC that caused this RM. This looks like a reasonable discernment of consensus, and the moratorium is supported in the discussion and a good idea. There is no point re-opening this question within the next year, as the answer will be the same, and we have now discussed it beyond thoroughly. In the meantime there’s a lot of work to be done documenting developments on this topic, and more sources will appear that may inform similar discussions in the future. — Beland (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn – or at least set at six months duration. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The closer already expressed willingness to change it to 6 months in their talk page. Would that be a satisfactory resolution to all parties here? Katzrockso (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not be satisfied. Unless the moratorium is long term, we’re going to see the same repeated attempts in the same way that we see regular attempts to soften the pages of anti-trans orgs and figures. Snokalok2 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; there have been, by my count, four attempts to move the article in about a year, none of which have come anywhere close to succeeding. Other discussions elsewhere aren’t automatically relevant and don’t change that broad context. What exactly is the purpose of challenging the moratorium when you acknowledge consensus for a move doesn’t exist? Clearly whatever you believe ought to have changed things to cause a different outcome than the last three attempts did not change. I don’t believe that moratorium are truly binding; WP:CCC applies. If something genuinely changes then you can always just start a discussion while asking people to overturn the moratorium at the same time. But you have to actually point to such a change, and “there was another RFC on another page that closed differently” clearly isn’t it, at least not when the RFCs were so close together timewise. Also, you say Further, perversely, it also creates a motte-and-bailey attack on implementing the findings of the RfC on other Trump administration pages as discussed at NPOV noticeboard; but per WP:CONLOCAL, no such implementation is possible. That RFC affects that one page, and nothing else. And surely if you refuse to accept CONLOCAL in that context, then your argument cuts both ways? The fact that the two RFCs are at odds obviously doesn’t mean you can axiomatically declare one to be correct and the other wrong; by your logic, if we ignored WP:CONLOCAL, couldn’t you just as easily argue that the RFC at Donald Trump should be overturned? You call it a motte-and-bailey attack, but I don’t see how it is; it seems it just directly undermines your argument that the RFC on Donald Trump applies outside that page, and illustrates the fact that decisions about how to word it must be made on a page-by-page basis, because editors have indicated that they favor different standards in different places depending on context. You can’t ask for an RFC to be overturned on the basis that it undermines the argument you want to make. (According to a quick search, I wasn’t involved in the specific discussion this is about; but I’ve been involved in other related discussions elsewhere.) —Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean “moratorium” not “memorandum,” correct? It’s funny because I used to analyze government memorandums in my previous job, which is a whole other story. Historyday01 (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, fixed. And added a note that I didn’t weigh in on this specific RFC… though it says how WP:DEADHORSE this is that I had to check. —Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and allow for closure by an admin This was a definite WP:BADNAC, though I doubt it will change the outcome. Nevertheless, allowing for closure by an editor with proven experience in sensitive discussions will prevent accusations of a SUPERVOTE that will inevitably follow a non-admin close. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn moratorium on principle: even if it were permitted by policy as written (which I contest), there are better approaches. If it’s a small number of editors filing appeal after appeal without a new argument, that’s a conduct issue, not a content issue. If it’s more than a few people challenging it, then there isn’t actually consensus and they’re right to challenge it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (This is not about the article in question or anyone in particular) A group of editors who continually raise the same non-policy based issues (even if this is more than a “small number of editors”) wouldn’t be evidence that “there isn’t actually consensus” or that that “they’re right to challenge it”. It would indicate that a large number of editors tendentiously challenge existing consensus and are engaging in disruptive editing (a la WP:IDHT). Katzrockso (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Most of the people in this move discussion were involved in the Donald Trump page discussion as well, and the fact as others have said that it just opens the page up to repeated attempts in which those against the move have to win every time but those in favor only have to win once. Snokalok2 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change is a core principle of Wikipedia, so one cannot instate a lockdown simply because they don’t like a possible result and fear the “other side” might “win” next time. Lockdowns are typically imposed when the argument remains the same time after time, resulting in a waste of people’s time long after an obvious consensus has been reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but repeatedly starting similar move discussions multiple times in a 12 month period isn’t seeking a legitimate change of consensus, it’s an attrition tactic Snokalok2 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 00:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) per Katzrockso. Additionally, a moratorium was very much justified by the repeated relitigation of the proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The moratorium should be vacated per above. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I’m happy to take the moratorium down to six months, but I still believe there is consensus for a meaningful moratorium. Given how long some RMs tend to languish in the backlog, I feel anything less than six months just means we’ll be back to the same old arguments before too long. Sceptre (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If we’re going to talk about dialling back the moratorium, would it just be better to start a new discussion? I’d be happy to do so given that I think I was the first editor to propose it. TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Partial endorse: (involved, supported a moratorium of “6 or 12 months”) I think that a 12 month moratorium instead of a 6 month one was a bit confusing, and there wasn’t really much of an explanation as to what led to it. After reading the comments talking about moratoriums I do find it a little bit hard to buy that there was consensus for a 12 month one, considering at least as many people explicitly stated they were in favour of a 6 month moratorium as stated they were in favour of a 12 month moratorium, and that many people didn’t support a moratorium at all. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 02:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m seeing a lot of “Endorse” rationales for saying imposing a moratorium was justified but very few justifying why it should be 12 months instead of 6 months, which I think is the question that is actually in need of being answered. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 15:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus among the participants who discussed the moratorium was more in favor of a 12-month moratorium. See my comment above – there were 3 editors who opined in favor of a 12-month moratorium, 5 in favor of a moratorium of 6 or 12 months (or 6+ months), and 2 specifically in favor of a 6-month moratorium (one of whom was me who doesn’t oppose a 12-month moratorium). Only one editor explicitly opposed a moratorium. That’s a rough consensus for a 12-month moratorium. At the very least it’s within closer’s discretion to close based on that spread of opinion as a 12-month moratorium.

I can’t foresee anything substantially changing in the next year that would warrant opening this can of worms again, and to the extent that something exceptional does occur and warrants reexamanining the title, per WP:CCC, editors can always agree to suspend the moratorium. Katzrockso (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I started this move request. But shortly after that I withdrew it and replaced it with a new move request to a more popular target that had much more support (using the word “actions” in the proposed title instead of “policies”). You can click on that link I just gave to see what the situation was when I did all that, including the then-withdrawn move request, and the new move request to the better target (at bottom of page I just linked). I withdrew the first move request because there was only one support, that supporter indicated he was also fine with the name that became my second move request, and others also said they would prefer “actions” instead of “policies”. All of those steps by me were then undone, the move request predictably failed, the second move request was terminated, and now there is a moratorium on restarting the second move request. This was all a tremendous waste of time, much to the delight of anyone who opposed both move requests. The editor who reopened my withdrawn move request and closed my subsequent move request said, “Reopening the discussion as the RM closing procedures….disallow unilateral withdrawals of requested move proposals after they have received support from other editors”. The cited WP:RMEC is merely an essay, and another page was also cited; the latter page links to a “guideline” here which says: “the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep….” The vast majority of subsequent editors had done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me, I did that. WP:RMEC is part of an informative essay (WP:RMCI), yes, but that specific part is explicitly referred to by the requested move procedures over at WP:RM#Closing a requested move. The reference made to WP:WITHDRAWN is just about the fact the person who opened the discussion should strike their nomination statement when withdrawing the requested move. That said, even if you were going off WP:WITHDRAWN it isn’t allowed. Admittedly, “the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep….” rather impressively manages to quote WP:WITHDRAWN in such a way as to make it seem like it says almost the exact opposite of it says, with the full policy of course being: While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it. Emphasis at the end being the policy’s, not mine. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 05:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the conjunction “or.” Also, in my last comment above, I explained the reasons other than my personal wishes. And I put a note atop the withdrawn move request: “Withdrawing move request because editors have suggested an alternative name that seems more likely to succeed in a move request.” And thanks for quoting the whole sentence, I probably would have done better to do likewise instead of merely linking it and quoting some of it. It supports me either way, there is apparently a difference between withdrawing a proposal and closing a discussion (which is kind of weird), and anyway I did not close the discussion merely because I wished it so. I was trying to present a new move request with a new discussion in response to opinions expressed by multiple users, so we would not waste more time, as we have certainly been doing in spades. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse moratorium (uninvolved). The decision to impose or not impose a moratorium has always been at the discretion of the closer, based on the circumstances at the time (and subject to review of course, which is precisely why we’re here discussing it). There has never been a requirement that there be some sort of “consensus” in the RM about it, and indeed in many discussions it would be tricky to gain such a consensus anyway, since often those who favour the move will oppose the moratorium in the hope of getting another bite of the cherry. The moratorium exists where an independent closer judges that there is no value to repeatedly rediscussing it. Looking at this discussion, there have been no less than three RMs on it in the space of six months, which drains the time and effort of editors to keep having to relitigate, and is exactly the sort of scenario that moratoria are designed to address. I think 12 months is the correct amount of time as well, since it allows everyone to WP:Drop the stick for a while and move on from this issue, while also keeping open the possibility that a year on, consensus might change. Personally I would have likely imposed such a moratorium too, and I think this is a good close all around. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: I do not see any problem with the way that discussion was closed, nor do I see the need for new RMs to constantly be started and similar arguments relitigated, in fact WP:NOTBUREAU suggests that this is just wasting valuable time, especially when articles about transgender topics are bound to get many, varied opinions. Why exactly is WP:SPADE an inappropriate guideline to cite? I don’t think many discussions follow the spirit of RMCIDC as most people see votes as equally as powerful as arguments so if you need to challenge one closure on that basis then you should find all the closures that have not exactly obeyed RMCIDC. I think you need to just drop the WP:STICK and leave this argument along, there is no problem with the current title and that is part of the reason some of us have recommended a moratorium be placed on future move requests. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: The current title matches the scale of the persecutions outlined in reliable secondary sources. The poster should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The well attended and endorse RfC found the opposite.

But looking at the context of how the word is used, the sources presented do not support that claim. This word is used in opinion pieces or attributed to third parties, but rarely or never used in objective news voice.

See [10]. I did not take part in the RfC, nor the close review, nor any prior move discussion on this subject. Please don’t personalise the issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“The well attended and endorse RfC” is WP:LOCALCON from another page. It’s WP:OTHERCONTENT, not binding on any other pages. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a finding at the highest WP:CONLEVEL that sources do not use “persecution” – in direct contradiction of the unsupported assertion made in the !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my !vote I made reference to a prior RM at Special:PermanentLink/1310776357#Requested move 3 September 2025. In that RM are sources referenced which clearly use the term persecute/persecution. So no, my !vote was not unsupported. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same sources discussed in the RfC, are they not? The close statement applies. In the RM under discussion, only one source was brought that mentioned persecution, and that one was definitely discussed at the RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2025 close statement is also relevant; Sufficient sourcing has been shown to support “persecution” in the title. Maybe we should have tried to use your argument (as Aquillion pointed out above) that this September RfC means that the Trump RfC was flawed. Katzrockso (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So if the more recent RfC looked at the same sources, it is clear where the consensus now is, and at a higher CONLEVEL than an older RM with just 8 attendees. But because there is a discrepancy, and because this RM did not re-assess or find new sourcing, and the RfC addresses all the sourcing and finds it does not support this wording, this rather makes the point: more discussion is required (and also belies the point that consensus won’t change, as it is clear it may well with more eyes). That is why we don’t need moratoria, and why discussing the matter is not disruptive. To be clear, I don’t want to relitigate the same RM. We can certainly have a moratorium on that exact move, and no harm will be done. Neither do I want to start a new RM right away – I believe a suitable workshop period is needed before a new RM is started, and a month would be a reasonable length of time for that. But, again, the moratorium enacted is a misuse of WP:MORATORIUM, and was set at the extreme end of timescales, having the effect of preventing the Wikipedia consensus process from proceeding. It is the wrong close and it should be vacated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sceptre does the moratorium apply to all potential RMs for this article, or it is just for those proposed titles that have already been litigated (e.g. Anti-transgender policies under the second Trump administration or Policies affecting transgender people under the second Trump administration).

How do you determine they are different WP:CONLEVEL? Both the RfC and the September 2025 RM are “Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time”. Katzrockso (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument above about different CONLEVELs is misleading. The section of the policy talks about the difference between community consensus and local consensus. It does not grant that an LOCALCON determined by an RFC on WP:OTHERCONTENT will ever be controlling over RMs occurring on other pages.

To quote the policy:

“Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope”.

The RFC fits exactly into the category of Consensus among a limited group of editors. TarnishedPath^talk 00:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A month? What so then we can have had 4 move discussions in less than 12 months? What about when that one fails, as it likely would? Are we ok with 5 in less than 12 months. At what point do editors WP:DROPTHESTICK? TarnishedPath^talk 00:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved in both discussions) I do not currently have the time to review the close itself, but I do want to add some context to @Sirfurboy‘s posting (thanks for tagging me by the way):

After Beland closed the RfC on the Donald Trump page, there was a close review of that close. In that review, I asked Beland to comment on the apparent issue between the two separate discussions, in part because I had asked for that RfC to be procedurally closed in favour of a more centralised discussion affecting both pages. While I was not particularly happy with that, (because I foresaw this issue/inconsistency between pages still being brought forward as a way to challenge a local consensus on either page) @Beland informed me that his close in no way should be interpreted to prejudice the move discussion at the “Persecution of Transgender people under…” page (the discussion which we are now reviewing).

During the RM, I started work on a source analysis section to the discussion, but I got distracted and never finished making the table (part of it is still on my sandbox, but an entire list I had described in prose form is lacking from it).

In the RM, I endorsed the idea of a moratorium, because I saw this was becoming a perennial discussion. I stand behind that in principle, but I do think the issue should be more closely examined in order to achieve a project-wide consensus. A moratorium will limit the number of discussions by force. A larger consensus may settle the issue in a way that would lead to a more natural deterrent, and thus be preferable to a simple moratorium. In my opinion, a moratorium should only be a local measure, and a more project-wide discussion should not be subject to such a moratorium, and its outcome (in the form of a consensus) should obviously override it/the local consensus. Slomo666 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as participant, per Aquillion (though I dislike the closure using the term motte-and-bailey tactics, as in my experience that term itself is a sign of toxic Internet argument culture). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – This topic is largely a time sink, though there are probably good reasons to open it up for discussion. That discussion will likely need to wait until there’s a time when editors who are not prisoners of the current moment can participate without being drowned out. Nemov (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the 12 month moratorium. A six month moratorium is the standard. Several participants called for 6 or 12 months of moratorium, and the non-productive discussion is evidence for the need for the moratorium. The closer’s call reflected consensus in the discussion. Impose a 12 months moratorium, dated from the close of this MRV. Moratoriums are needed to counter time wasting discussions, and they come with the benefit of encouraging multi-participant drafted better nominations after the end of the moratorium. The use of a subpage for drafting the anticipated future repeat RM is a good idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 12-month moratorium. « uninvolved » This is a “not moved” decision, which always comes with a usually unstated recommendation to wait at least a year before starting a new RM just to have the best chance of success. To explicitly state the need for a 12-month moratorium emphasizes that editors are getting upset at ongoing and unsettling attempts to rename an article. And more than enough editors expressed this need to authorize a formal injunction. Everyone should support this! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m going to push back on there always being an unstated recommendation of a 12 month moratorium. Firstly, if it is unstated, then, surely it is not there at all. If it is written, where is it written? Secondly, whilst it makes sense that a long moratorium exist for a specific move, it is not good for the encyclopaedia that one failed move prevents any new move discussion. Indeed, it would suggest a gaming of the move process would be possible. Suggest a bad move to prevent any other move for 12 months. Which is what is happening here. See the move nominators comments about their early attempt to withdraw the move in favour of a better one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is written, where is it written?

  It’s written above in my argument and in many other recommendations over many years. While the issue of waiting periods following various types of discussions, to include RMs, has been RfC’d and informally discussed several times over the years, no hard and fast figures have managed to get a foothold. So there is no P&G. There is only the common sense that the longer the waiting period, the better the chance of success.

  it would suggest a gaming of the move process would be possible.

  Gaming the system is always possible under any circumstances. It is gaming the system to torque the jaws of editors with RM after RM until their hands fly up in the air in disgust and frustration – the old “I’ll keep on trying until I get my way” game.

  In truth, since we are all volunteer editors, any moratorium is actually a volunteer event. It will rely on the common sense of all who are involved. And thank you for the “push back” – these things need to be said every once in awhile. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The moratorium wasn’t suggested because of one failed move. There were three discussions where the result was Not moved in a relatively short period of time. TarnishedPath^talk 22:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support vacating the moratorium While I understand the concern that these discussions can consume significant editor time, I do not believe that consideration outweighs the importance of discussion. Evaluating controversial additions is one of our core responsibilities. While these conversations can be time-consuming, they are a healthy part of the editorial process and ultimately strengthen the encyclopedia. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Fiddling of titles in already disputed cases is rarely import discussion. “Evaluating controversial additions is one of our core responsibilities” is NOT true. Wikipedia should follow the sources, not the evaluations of editors. Time between repeated discussion on the same narrow question improves the quality of later discussions. The alternative is that editors get exhausted and go elsewhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Consensus was not adequately determined. As far as I can tell, no one actually said they liked the current name, several just opposed the move target, but not necessarily the alternatives. For whatever reason, the user seemed to weight final !votes extra in their closing rationale (if I’m reading it right). They did prompt me to revert the close if I disagreed with it, but I think I’m not supposed to do that, though I am not sure. Finally, I do believe that there was at least one RM option that no one disagreed with. While I really don’t know what the proper choice was for this RM, I don’t think that not moved was the correct one. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 21:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if several didn’t like the proposed title, they opposed. Oppose is oppose, and it does not mean their arguments do not count towards consensus. Summary: Several opposed because they thought the title did not fit the subject well. Their arguments count towards consensus regardless of context. Robloxguest3 (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I’m gonna give a count of the votes w/o weighting. Yes, Wikipedia is not a vote, but most editors provided decent reasons for why.

1. Support Administrative (nom)
2. Oppose current name, oppose administrative, Support political, weak oppose territorial or plain entities (Me)
3. Support political
4. Support political
5. Oppose Confederal, Support administrative divisions or plain entities
6. Strong oppose Administrative
7. Oppose administrative

So, if we organize it by votes:

Political: Three people supported political, four did not mention it (incl nom) but two of those opposed the move in its current state (to administrative entities)

Confederal: 5 people supported some kind of move away from Confederal (incl nom), two opposed the move in its current form

Administrative divisions: Three oppose, one strongly (incl those who opposed the use of the term administrative broadly), One support, Three did not mention (incl nom, though the nom supported administrative entities)

Administrative entities: One support, four opposed, one strongly (incl those opposed to the term administrative broadly, three didn’t mention (although one supported administrative division)

Plain entities: One support, One oppose, five did not mention at all.

Territorial: One weak oppose, six no mention

So, as you can see, one of the least popular options is Confederal (aka the one you chose). I’m not trying to be rude here, but I think in this case there are several justifiable options, but that is not one of them. My guess for best option is either political (although I may be biased as it’s my personal favorite) or no consensus.

Note for readability, every term is placed in terms of _____ entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In other words, when I say political, I mean political entities of….

The exception is administrative division, which replaces entity with division.

If this doesn’t make sense or I got a vote wrong, please feel free to let me know. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 02:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, actually, I don’t think political or no consensus would be best, I think the best would be a relist. Consensus is still not clear. Also, you do have a point that perhaps the votes against the move in its current form could be counted as votes against political as well, although I’ll leave that up to the reviewers. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 02:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I would say no consensus would be appropriate. Now, this discussion is a mess, there are a billion ideas, and, at time of closure, it did not appear anyone was participating recently. If there was participation on the day of closure, I probably wouldn’t have closed it. Still, not moved or no consensus, the article wouldn’t’ve moved. -RG3 Robloxguest3 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was no participation because that’s generally what happens with AfDs. If you wanted more discussion, you need to relist. Once it ages past seven days since list (or relist) rarely does anyone vote. Rather, the question becomes of closure.

And there is a distinct difference between “not moved” and “no consensus”. To quote WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions, “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. (Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one. An exception is when the no-consensus move discussion suggests a clear, new course of action.)“. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By AfD, I meant RM. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we’ve went over this topic several times now, and that the status quo doesn’t really have a lot of consensus support either, I think we should do another relist here instead of cutting off discussion again. —Joy (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endores <involved> without prejudice to a new RM. Three RMs in a row is unusual but I’m not sure relisting will help produce a consensus given the clear consensus against the proposed title. Srnec (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  So in other words… basically a no consensus close? My whole issue here was with the distinction between no consensus and not moved. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not moved, as in there is a consensus against the proposal in the RM. There is a lack of consensus about other things but the actual RM question is resolved. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relist or Overturn to no consensus. I’m not sure if I’m involved, I closed the RM on the same article for quasi-procedural reasons, I didn’t comment on this one though. This discussion is quite the mess to determine a consensus for, I don’t think a consensus against moving the article developed, though. Feeglgeef (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. « uninvolved » There is a fairly clear consensus opposed to the renaming of this article, so this closure is reasonable and in line with the spirit and intent of the closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Pages at move review
• Category:Closed move reviews
• Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Subpages of this page