Wikipedia:Move review

"WP:MR" redirects here. For move requests, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. For the use of "Mr."/"Mrs."/Ms" in articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Subsequent use.

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.

What this process is not

Shortcut

• WP:MRNOTWP:MRNOT

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.

Instructions

Initiating move reviews

Shortcut

• WP:IMRWP:IMR

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.

Steps to list a new review request

1.	Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.
2.	Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: 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= }} ~~~~ If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When |closer= < closer's username > and |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close > are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.
3.	If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.	Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{move review talk|date=17 July 2025}}. Do not tag the article.
5.	If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section. {{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 July}}
6.	The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

Commenting in a move review

Shortcut

• WP:MRCOMMENTWP:MRCOMMENT

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.

Closing reviews

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.

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}}.

Typical move review decision options

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.

MRV closer's decision	RM closer's decision	Move review closed as	Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse	Moved / Not moved	No action required	Closed
2. Overturn	Not moved	Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM	Open
		Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM	Closed
	Moved	Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate	Open
3. Relist	Moved / Not moved	Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title	Open

 

Notes

1. Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
2. Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussions

2025 July

Gamergate

Gamergate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified and one more.)

Uninvolved in ths RM, though I would have added substantially had I known about it like in past RMs. Two main issues running against WP:IMR came up in this RM I just found out about today that focused on moving Gamergate (harassment campaign) to Gamergate by saying it was the primary topic over Gamergate (ant):

1. The ant page was never notified of this RM focused on which of the two is the primary topic (hence me being uninvolved for this one but involved in the previous). This caused only WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in the close and surprise for those who don't watchlist the harassment page. The closer Red Sash insists that Only the pages being moved require notification. even when there are two topics repeatedly brought up in WP:PTOPIC disputes.
2. The closure itself takes essentially the same arguments made in a November RM that had consensus against the harassment topic being PTOPIC and saying there is now instead consensus.

Summary of key issues (added July 3)

I'm adding this in after it seems like folks are missing the numerous issues came up below to help streamline a bit:

1. No notification was given to the ant page, and the closer said this wasn't needed. This contradicts closing instructions at WP:RMCI that warns against creating such a local consensus despite claims no notification is needed. WP:RSPM is clear Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. Previous RMs indicated both pages should be notified due to past history of joint consensus.
2. The RM followed the same track and arguments as the previous RM (harassment topic was not primary) except the entomology page not being invited and opposes not posting quite as in-depth information because of that.
3. RM was re-listed on June 28 yet shortly closed by Red Slash on June 30. In this time, one additional oppose was posted, but somehow the RM still went from no consensus/re-list to apparent consensus for supports.
4. Closer indicated on their talk page that new information in opposition mentioned there would have influenced the outcome of their close. They still did not reopen even when the above issues with selection bias was brought up. That also means only assessments of the comments at the current RM are inaccurate (i.e., when we normally reopen discussions).
5. Closer claimed "No supporter posted any evidence during the move request. . ." besides one opposer. Of those who did find the RM, there were 11-12 opposes with quite a few providing evidence. Less discussion than the previous, yes, but that ties into the notification issue and bludgeoning of RMs issue. That the closer viewed this as so one-sided misrepresents the actual comments at the RM.
6. Arguments in favor just repeated what was said at the last RM. Even without the opposes and setting aside notification/local consensus issues, that should not have been enough to overturn the previous consensus. Normally in that situation a closer would say there isn't enough evidence to overturn previous consensus after seeing the previous RM.
7. Red Slash has been cautioned at MRV for a history of "bold" closes in which they should have !voted instead.[1][2] (see especially SmokeyJoe's comments)[3][4] on this often resulting in drawn-out MRVs as well as other comments on the Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast MRV.[5] (added July 6)

Background

For background, the ant page had been the primary topic until Aug 2021 (7 years after the harassment topic started) where instead a disambiguation page was made for the two topics and a couple other lesser used ones. This was after many, many, RMs from the harassment page wanting to have it be the primary topic and failing to the point that a moratorium was placed on RMs in 2015 in part because the harassment page was bludgeoning the ant page with constant RMs.

Summary links of some past relevant RMs

Talk:Gamergate_(ant)/Archive_3#Requested_move_20_August_2021 Talk:Gamergate/Archive_60#Requested_move_12_August_2021 Talk:Gamergate_(ant)/Archive_1#Requested_move_28_December_2015 Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_46#Requested_move_20_September_2015 (moratorium put in place on requested moves) Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_45#Requested_move_30_August_2015 Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_28#Requested_move_14_February_2015 Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_13#Requested_moves (2014)

Even before 2021, is was pretty clear both pages needed be notified in a PTOPIC RM as they had been heavily discussed as the main topics. There had been past problems with the harassment page deciding on their talk what would be on the ant page, but otherwise things quieted down after the 2021 consensus to bypass the dispute by disambiguating Gamergate with the two topics getting parenthetical titles. In November of last year though there was another requested move Talk:Gamergate/Archive_62#Requested_move_5_November_2024 for the harassment campaign to be the primary topic, but this was initially only discussed by the harassment page editors as no notification was given at the ant page. This was recognized as problematic and the RM was left open for about 10 days extra after formal notification was given. Consensus those handful of months ago was There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic, and it was in part because editors from both topics were included.

1. 2025 notification issues

So for this June 2025 RM, the same thing happened as in November except no one caught the missing notification, so the conversation excluded those not watching the harassment page. I for one was surprised as I would've contributed as I had in past RM's if notified. This is adding to a sort of recurring "stealth move" situation in this article suite where if you don't notify other likely topics that might be primary, it functionally biases votes whether intentional or not. I alerted Red Slash to this suggesting to reopen for 7 days after giving the topic notification of primary topic discussion (mirroring the last RM), but that was denied. On their user talk[6][7], they made some concerning comments justifying not needing to notify the topic:

• It's not a requirement to notify other pages prior to filing a move request; after all, Gamergate (ant) is completely unaffected by this move. This has not been the case in all of the other RMs where the harassment page has requested primary topic status over the ant page.
• This was not a discussion on which of the two topics was primary, but on if one topic was primary or if there should be a disambiguation page. It had nothing to do with the ant's article at all. This statement was contracted by :their very close that did claim to weigh which of the two topics (harassment topic) was primary and could be moved to Gamergate.
• I asked if the ant page had requested a primary topic RM first, could they have also excluded the harassment page (I don't think so). I also asked if the ant page requested an RM now since the page was apparently not relevant if they'd expect no complaints. No response on either. The former really creates a nefarious loophole where a topic can reach the point of being "equal" to a previous PTOPIC where the two are instead disambiguated after joint discussion. Then follow up with a "stealth RM" where you don't notify that topic because only it and the disambig are technically moved. That really seems to fly in the face of WP:NOTBURO policy to me.
• Red Slash then gave an example of Phoenix where not all 200 items there should be notified as justification for denying. They had been alerted that this was only for two topics and ones that had been repeatedly jointly discussed on previous RMs, so that statement really seems to take things out of context.
• Gamergate wasn't going to be about the ant either way. This really comes across as a personal notion about the ant that contradicts past RMs with personal opinion as a closer. The whole center of past discussions was that the ant was such as significant part of the Gamergate title that the controversy topic couldn't just take over carte blanche.

I've never seen a case like this where someone suggested a high-level topic should not be notified when weighing PTOPICs, and really seems to go against norms where if a closer sees a major group was excluded, it's usually super common to say let's get them in the discussion for a bit rather than keeping it closed.

2. Closure itself

This is secondary to the above since I just want to see pages notified properly before closure, but basically the same arguments were made in favor of the harassment PTOPIC in this close as in this recent November close that outright stated There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic. This isn't going to rehash all the specific arguments in the RM, but most of the ones I see in this RM were addressed in the previous Nov. RM, so it should be extremely difficult to move to no consensus much less a full 180. In the Nov. RM, it wasn't until after the ant topic was alerted that context to some misleading numbers was given such as scholarly publication numbers.

Red Sash went on to say on user talk If someone would've posted that during the discussion, that could've certainly been influential. But when only one side posts any sort of evidentiary support for their position, it's really hard to rule against them. That's concerning as they had already been alerted to the bias created by avoiding notification to "one side", and yet refused to re-open the discussion to address that clear issue. I know I'd reopen a discussion in a heartbeat if I saw that going on in the background, so I am concerned from a procedural standpoint that there's a double standard being created here for one page while favoring the other even as a case of WP:BELLYBUTTON. Revelation of additional or missing information is one of the main reasons for requesting a move review at WP:IMR and the hope was to avoid that by discussing this with Red Sash by discussing that.

The lowest hanging fruit here though seems to be just to reopen the discussion with full notification like in the past, rather than going over the close itself right now though. It's been a messy topic with underlying history, but hopefully we can get the notification issue fixed (again) for this new RM. KoA (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer - I think there's some confusion here.

  This was not a discussion on which of the two topics was primary, but on if one topic was primary or if there should be a disambiguation page. It had nothing to do with the ant's article at all. This statement was contracted by :their very close that did claim to weigh which of the two topics (harassment topic) was primary and could be moved to Gamergate.

  Notice the difference: I very deliberately said it had nothing to do with the ant's article. Obviously WP:PT requires you to look at the other topics to determine primacy. But that does not mean the ant article needed to be tagged. Anyway, these issues and the others raised on the talk page are irrelevant: I gauged a consensus from the people talking on the talk page. I challenge anyone to look at the request, look at which side produced sources to prove the primacy of their topic, and then come away with a different perspective on how the move should be closed. Red Slash 07:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem I'm seeing reading this as someone who was not involved in this RM (I was in previous ones) is that Red Slash is functionally working very hard to say that despite all the history of the two articles and the joint consensus, the previous higher level consensus can be overridden by refusing to notify affected topics. The decision very much was relevant to the ant topic. When you have a joint consensus from previous discussions that the pages should be disambiguated and that the harassment topic is not the the primary topic, you can't later go off into a little corner and declare a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS while excluding one topic when it affects how the article searches are structured. If you want to overturn that previous consensus, you need to notify those same topics if you want to change the navigation structure.

  Seeing this response in addition to user talk attempts, I've seen a lack of engagement I wouldn't expect from a closer related to WP:IMR. Of those two criteria: 1.did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI and 2.unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion, we're looking at problems with both. For 1. WP:RMCI is clear that we try to avoid these types of LOCALCONSENSUS issues as closers when relevant topics are excluded. For 2. Even Red Slash indicated on their talk page If someone would've posted that during the discussion, that could've certainly been influential. If I were closing a discussion and acknowledging that last bit, I'd sure feel like I'd be putting my finger on the scale by insisting I'm only going to consider those who posted and ignore those who were clearly excluded. When those are already core reasons for why we reopen discussions, I'd sure be quick to fix that after finding out even before needing to go to move review. KoA (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Nobody "refused" to notify anyone! It has never been required of RM proposers to notify every single article that shares a name with the target. Never. That's not a part of any WP policy or guideline, and we've never enforced it, ever.

  2. Absolutely nobody was excluded! If an editor is interested in whether Gamergate remains a disambiguation page or not, they should put Gamergate in their watchlist. (If they're only interested in the ant, how does it matter what title the article on the harassment campaign has? The ant article stayed exactly where it was!)

  3. Frankly, it's wild to suggest I was unaware that there was a previous consensus that it should be a dab page. I surely don't need to be reminding you that WP:Consensus can change, do I? Red Slash 00:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep insisting no one is required, and that's not really engaging with the procedural issues here. Rarely do we spell out the needs or requirements for each varying situation (see WP:NOTBURO policy). Instead we use general guidance such as WP:RSPM directly stating that Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. This is one of those more complex cases that did need additional notification that our guidance refers to, especially given the past history where it was determined both pages should be notified. The whole spirit of that guidance is don't assume the bot is notifying everyone that should be (and not blaming those who get excluded if it's not followed).

  And yes, consensus can change, but that's not what happened here. Remember that WP:CONLEVEL is policy, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. You functionally used local consensus to override previous stronger consensus in terms of community scope independent of the content of the RM itself. That was a structural issue in both how the RM was set up and in the close evaluation. Below, Srnec gets more into the rest of the issues with the close beyond the initial structure of participants, but the two compound.

  The reality is last time the arguments in favor of the harassment campaign being primary were outright refuted. There wasn't "no consensus", but actual consensus against that idea. This time, basically the same arguments were repeated in favor, but that degree of refutation did not happen (along with a lot of other background topics) when the rest of interested parties were not notified. That should be a red flag to any closer. KoA (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I could see how you could punt and no consensus this, but the evidence is really strong that the controversy and not the ant is the primary topic. I also don't agree that Gamergate wasn't going to be about the ant either way. is an opinion of the closer, but rather noting that the move did not impact the page about the ant in any practical way, even though I can see how it reads as such. If this isn't endorsed, I think the next best solution isn't a straight overturn, but rather a vacate/admin close. The lack of notification on the ant page isn't a problem in this instance. SportingFlyer T·C 21:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist (involved). I would have eventually taken this to MR myself but KoA beat me to it. KoA's reasons are different and I do not completely agree with them, but I understand why KoA is annoyed. Primacy is stripped from the ant caste by stages in such a way that people only interested the ant are left out of the final discussion. Nobody who watchlisted the dab page may even have noticed the RM because the notice is posted by a bot and many users leave bots off their watchlist habitually. My argument with Red Slash was entirely different, however. He admitted that if someone would've posted the evidence I presented to him during the discussion, that could've certainly been influential. The RM was relisted on the 28th. Responses to my !vote came later and it was closed on the 30th. Srnec (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No supporter posted any evidence during the move request, other than you showing that maybe CamelCase could be used. That is an interesting idea but natural disambiguation is unnecessary for a primary topic. And the move was open for sixteen days! Red Slash 00:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No supporter posted any evidence during the move request. . . and that is the self-fulfilling and circular reasoning problem here when those who primarily would comment on that were not notified. KoA (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The severity of Red Slash’s quoted comment didn't fully hit me until now. They're now saying only Srnec posted evidence in opposition. Of those that did find their way to the RM, there were 12 opposes (including Blindlynx,[8][9] but they can correct me if I’m wrong). Picking just a couple randomly that mentioned more than just per X, Ethmostigmus[10][11], Woodroar[12], and others went into the disambiguation reasonings for just one example (a major reason for the past consensus). That's not to rehash the arguments themselves, but outline there were things we regularly weigh in RMs brought up by opposers contrary to Red Sash's comment. I think those editors would be concerned to see that comment from a closer.

  If it was just a matter of needing more depth (the same could be said for supports) then closers would normally relist or directly comment with such a note. Srnec brings up a really good point that the closer is now aware of information that would have altered the discussion. Normally when that happens (we've all had it happen in some variation), a closer usually acknowledges their close was problematic and acts on that rather than doubling down. KoA (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a logistics comment, but yes, most of my issue is focused on the first bullet of WP:IMR. I mentioned your discussion you quoted a bit too in the opening, and your issue is very much focused on bullet 2 of IMR. I didn't catch the second relisting by CoconutOctopus was only two days prior to close. That really looks like a rush when when the previous relister determined there wasn't consensus yet, but just two days later Red Slash closed it as consensus even with the context you mention. KoA (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved, discovered this while notifying the closer of an unrelated matter) I'm not convinced by the procedural lack of notification issues, but I simply don't see a consensus to move in that discussion. By the numbers there are 12 in support and 11 in opposition. And it's two sets of people largely talking past each other with incomparable arguments from completely different methods of analysis which can't be wedged in one direction. There's no definition of "long-term" in "long-term significance"; there's no underlying guideline saying whether 10 years is enough to count or whether the threshold should be closer to 43 years. So I think it's hard to say which one will have more long-term significance, but the evidence is clear right now about which one does completely misses the mark. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think relisting would be futile since there already isn't a consensus (and it's undisputed that the purpose of a relist would be to attract people more likely to have opposed the move), but I'd accept a relist as a second choice if that helps make closing this easier. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it would be - I wouldn't mind participating for a stronger consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not 100% sure about there being a consensus (I was actually surprised by the close given it seemed inevitable that it would just end with “no consensus, no move”) but I think there is no fair way to restart the process as it would inherently be biased towards people who favor overturning it. Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. If this is relisted, at a minimum, there should be widespread notification to all WikiProjects that include every article listed at Gamergate (disambiguation) using the neutral {{RM notice}} template. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not really familiar with either of these topics apart from the fact I have heard of Gamergate and have not heard of the Gamergate ant term. Reading that discussion, I would have moved the page, because I thought the arguments for moving were stronger - it's the clear primary topic in terms of page views by 20-to-1 and has been for a large length of time now, and the opposition either claim nothing has changed or that the controversy will clearly not be as long term as the ant, which I don't really see - Myceteae's stats do a good job of disproving that. But I wouldn't mind commenting, because after I made my initial endorse here I looked further into this - the gamergate ant page was converted from a redirect to a stub coincidentally three days before the controversy started in August 2014, and was not expanded until the week the controversy started generating a lot of page views. So this weirdly isn't an instance where one topic has displaced another, but an instance where a topic with fewer page views has benefited from sharing a name with something that has 20 times the amount of interest. I do not think it was coincidental that the improvement occurred the same week that the article about the controversy was at AfD. That's not an argument you can make at a move review, though - that's for an actual move discussion, so I would not mind contributing. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why we don't count votes in discussions--we look at the strength of the arguments. An oppose without evidentiary backing is akin to WP:JDLI; on the contrary, the supports that included links to reliable sources to back the claim of primary topic weighed the discussion heavily in their favor. Red Slash 23:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does bear saying that's why Pppery went into more than just numbers rather than just saying it was 11 (or 12 actually) opposed to 12 in support. It was a pretty even segment of both opposes and supports that were providing minimal references or WP:PAG reasoning. As for the supports that included links to reliable sources. . ., those opposed that you excluded when you refused to re-open the would have been doing just that too. That is very much putting your finger on the scale as a closer, and you were cautioned repeatedly about this behavior at past MRVs when you do "bold" closes or functionally WP:SUPERVOTE. KoA (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Relist or Weak Endorse - The close was correct, but there is no harm done by relisting with notice to the entomologists, just to allow them to make their case that there is no primary topic. Why are so many pixels being used when any resolution will permit gamers, historians of feminism, and entomologists to find their topic? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I'll answer the question to try to shed more light, but setting aside problems mentioned with the close above, why wouldn't we keep it at the wider-scale consensus version that both pages already agreed on rather than this new more WP:LOCALCONSENSUS version besides the fact that policy cautions against this kind of override?

  This isn't the place to rehash arguments of the move discussions themselves, but to answer both your question and mine, one of the main reasons for the disambiguation besides primary topic discussions was navigation. There has been significant agreement that at least the harassment campaign should have a parenthetical title to reduce ambiguity on what that topic is about across the board. It helps with the ant too. If you want more background on that, I gave a very in-depth comment on that and other things at the bottom of the last RM a handful of months ago. This move suddenly changed and disregarded that. It also did a 180 from the previous more widely advertised RM saying consensus was the the harassment topic was not primary to now saying it is with comments in support basically saying the same thing each time. Some of this is legitimate and longstanding navigation issues the closer indicated in the conversation with Srnec above that they ignored as evidence in addition to other issues being discussed in that thread. KoA (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a holiday coming up here, so this will probably be my last comment getting everything out for awhile. Robert, your question of "why" did prompt me to think about mentioning a more meta-issue that colors what opposes said in the current RM. I mentioned it in my OP and the previous RM, but there's been a 10+ year history of editors at the harassment article wanting that to be the primary topic over the ant. Some really did not like they couldn't just move to the name Gamergate even after the last consensus. Some were reasonable in disagreement, but others would not drop that stick and were to the point of really bludgeoning the process to the point there had to be moratorium on RM's from the harassment page. That is not a sanction you see often.

  It's very clear the entomology folks who managed to find the RM are getting tired of that and other needling when you read the comments at the RM, and that's why you get comments like nothing has changed since a few months ago at the last RM or "see my previous comments". Can we really say the close dismissing them is correct with that context? I know you're being relatively even-handed here, but I am really getting worried about what seems to be a changing culture where it seems ok to keep pushing RMs restating the same arguments until those opposed relent, get tired, or are excluded through lack of notification. That definitely did color this RM, so I do want to be clear this isn't all on Red Slash with that elephant hanging out in the corner. It's something us entomology folks keep getting tossed into time and again (the ant topic is not a WP:CTOP unlike the harassment topic), so I do feel for whoever carefully assesses RMs on this intersection. That answers why so many pixels though because of all these issues happening on RMs reaching this point. And that's enough from me for awhile. KoA (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  why wouldn't we keep it at the wider-scale consensus version that both pages already agreed on rather than this new more WP:LOCALCONSENSUS version besides the fact that policy cautions against this kind of override? Because this is the opposite of local consensus, since “Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale” and this was a discussion open to the entire community? Because articles are not self-governing entities that can make and enforce treaties? Dronebogus (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous RM consensus that the harassment topic is not primary was joint consensus across that page, the ant page, and the disambiguation. This RM could have only resulted in a more local consensus (at best) across the harassment page and the disambiguation. KoA (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no requirement I know of that every involved page has to endorse an action that affects it, especially since this doesn’t even directly affect the ant page. Dronebogus (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course they aren't, you're correct. That's why the move request was placed publicly at WP:RM. It wasn't a local consensus to override WP policy. Red Slash 23:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). 1) There was no need to notify the ant page, which is unaffected by the move. 2) Consensus can change. I don't find the arguments made by those opposing the move to be strong enough to overcome all the evidence indicating there is a clear primary topic here. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved), particularly per Jessintime's comments that "There was no need to notify the ant page" and primarily, perhaps, that Consensus can change. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved) this whole meta-dispute has been allowed to go on for far too long. I’m glad somebody finally just put their foot down and said no amount of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling will make the ant the “co-primary” topic. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (involved) Per the issues noted by Pppery and others. 11 to 12 with very different metrics and the entire Wikiproject that oversees one of the pages not notified. The slow burn campaign to refactor the controversy in to the primary topic has been a focus of editors for the past 3 move requests, with this request coming less then a year after the last and having very much the same commentary as last time regarding the denigration towards the biology editors.--Kevmin § 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse « involved » Notification was not required—Gamergate (ant) was not impacted by the move—and consensus can change. Reasonable editors can disagree on when it's best to notify unaffected pages. I tend to favor additional notifications, although in this case it might have raised canvassing/POV concerns as notifying the ant page could appear designed solely to attract ant partisans editors who are not otherwise interested in Gamergate. (The neutrality of the comment at Special:Diff/1298164119 is open to interpretation.) This RM was open for two weeks and had high participation, with 23 !votes plus additional comments, including editors who had participated in prior related RMs and contributors to Gamergate (ant) as well as fresh eyes. Notably, the latest RM had more participants than Talk:Gamergate/Archive 62#Requested move 5 November 2024 (15 !votes), despite the nom's contention that the older RM reflects wider consensus. The assertion that the RM was stealth and reflects only a biased local consensus is entirely contradicted by the facts. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Last comment before heading out the door for a few days, but this does highlight a complicating issue the ant editors are dealing with WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior like you can see with the ant partisan or comments about me finally neutrally notifying the ant page after the fact. I'm really concerned by the kind of spin going on to try to make it look like notifying the ant page would instead bias the discussion. That would be like having the interaction of two editors being discussed at ANI and saying it's improper to notify one of them because they might contribute information about themselves. That's in addition to Dronebogus' poisoning the well comment on stonewalling above, so Kevmin's comment about denigration really rings true here.

  For the core purposes of this page though, I see two things coming up in this comment:

  1. Declarations that consensus can change. No one disagrees with that, but declaring that doesn't mean consensus actually changed. Most people so far really looking at what was said at the current RM and especially weighing it against the previous RM aren't saying consensus changed. There were for instance a lot of things you repeated at the RM that I would have brought up as previously dismissed had I been aware of it, and thoroughly too. When nothing had really changed in the subject in the last several months (not who shows up to RMs), you've already got a big hurdle when previous consensus was that one topic was not primary. One can't just repeat the similar things as past RMs and hope it sticks the next time an RM comes up. Usually closers catch that when comparing to previous consensus. If I saw a case like that as a closer where there wasn't a substantive change in arguments, I'd have to relist or close such as discussion as no consensus because there wouldn't be enough for me to overturn previous consensus.
  2. Participation. Focusing on numbers is a bit of red herring here when a subset of editors were explicitly excluded unlike last time. Remember that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is policy and we can't override that on this page. We don't assess that based on numbers, but how wide of a categorical scale was included. The broader community (ant+harassment+disambig) agreed the harassment topic is not primary in the previous RM. In this one it was a narrower subset (harassment+disambig) notified. Generally you're going to see that if you notify only one topic, you'll get more people supporting that topic as primary or opposing the other. That's how the policy problem enters into move discussions. According to many here wanting to endorse, I apparently could have nominated the ant subject as primary before this RM and theoretically gotten local consensus that it can return to primary while completely avoiding notifying the harassment topic. That would exclude those who would be most knowledgeable on how the harassment topic stacks up against the ant topic. If I intentionally did that, it's WP:VOTESTACKING, but functionally the same dilemma occurs for the closer regardless of intention knowing that a major group was excluded. The closing instructions caution about those situations in needing to notify other pages. Regardless of outcome, I would be willing to bet we'd have ticked off people from the harassment article complaining they weren't informed of the RM in that scenario too regardless of outcome, so the criticism of being even-handed is perplexing.

  KoA (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have struck partisan in the interest of collegiality. Its impact did not align with my intent. I have rewritten this a few times in an attempt to be succinct but complete and respond to items you indicated were not properly addressed by respondents.

  • I maintain that there was no requirement to notify Gamergate (ant). WP:RMCI and WP:RSPM concern changing the title of another article or making a move that directly impacts another page that was not properly notified. Gamergate (ant) was not moved.
  • WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is when a handful of editors at a WikiProject or a single or group of pages decide to adopt a practice that violates the community-wide consensus established in overarching policies and guidelines that govern the entire project. Editors at one page determining that policy supports a move that does not impact another page is not mere "local consensus".
  • The quantity and quality of participation and the duration of the discussion don't support your assertions that the RM was stealth nor that the prior consensus was more wide-scale. The ant position was well-represented. That some editors declined to update their arguments and another missed the two-week window for participation is not an indication of impropriety.
  • To the extent arguments were repeated, this again is not evidence that such arguments were improper, especially when there was ample opportunity to respond—and a few opponents did. Key disputes in prior RMs concerned whether it was too soon to assess primary topic, whether the popularity or coverage would die down over time, the diversity of sources, and whether recent coverage included mere mentions or significant analysis. It is entirely appropriate to revisit these questions with updated sources demonstrating ongoing SIGCOV. Furthermore, opponents of the move were more likely to copy/paste their argument from a prior RM or reference the prior RM without providing any update. If these are to be excluded, that favors the supporters.

  --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In your bullets, I'm seeing assertions that do not match up with the discussion itself, especially something like The ant position was well-represented. It definitely was not in the depth like in the last RMs, and most of that representation came after notification of the ant page historically. You can't say it was well represented on this question and then turn around and say it wasn't when it comes to assessing consensus. I already mentioned there was a lot I would have added had I known about it, and even the closer acknowledged even a bit of the information that was shared after the close would have affected the decision. The point is even without the bias issue of exclusion (that did play a role here), the content discussion itself was ripe for a reopening or at least declaring no consensus.

  It is entirely appropriate to revisit these questions with updated sources demonstrating ongoing SIGCOV. That is a true statement, but isn't what happened. Most of what you and others brought up had already been addressed in past RMs, and there wasn't anything new brought in to show there was an actual change in real-world usage since the last RM. Even scholarly article mention remains unchanged since the last RM when we determined the harassment topic is not primary. What you brought up mostly could have been addressed with rehashed details from the previous RM and some small additional notes if notification had happened or it wasn't closed shortly after being relisted. I know for one I actually did look at this subject of SIGCOV as an update with no substantial changes once I found out about this RM, and there is quite a bit I would have added for updates. KoA (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, but others editors are free to judge for themselves. Several editors defended the position that the ant topic is co-primary, including many who participated in past RMs and at least one editor of Gamergate (ant). I presented new sources, including recent publications and database searches that were not previously discussed, as well as breakdown of publications by date to show the change in coverage, and sustained coverage, in diverse sources following the harassment campaign. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A notice was placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Move discussion of interest on June 14, the day the RM was opened. This page is far more active than Talk:Gamergate (ant). This further refutes the notion that the RM was somehow hidden from entomology editors. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Tree of Life discussion would have been a very supplemental notification, though Wikiproject Insects would have been even more focused as not all entomology editors are involved in ToL (nor all involved in WP Ento). That is far from the same thing as notifying the page though. If it were for two sports teams with the same name (let's say baseball and soccer), it would be like notifying Wikiproject Sports, but not the baseball or soccer wikiprojects (assuming they exist). Helpful, but still avoiding notifying who really would be most knowledgeable on the opposing topic excluding either the baseball or soccer team. If only the disambiguation page was notified and not either article, that would be more even-handed as it wouldn't have the bias of only notifying one page, but that's not how the system works. That's why you really can't get around notifying the other page when the two have this history. In my case had I of known, I might have alerted on the insect side Wikiproject Insects, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods (where I also watchlist), or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life would have been too broad. In any case, those would be secondary/optional to alerting the page itself.

  WP:RMCI and WP:RSPM mention it's not just the direct targets of the move that need to be notified, but they're not going to list every single scenario per WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. The point is that the blind assertion that the ant page did not need to be notified is falling into WP:NOTBURO territory and goes against the spirit of our policies and guidelines. There are plenty of cases (not just move discussions) where if I did not do something claiming a policy or guideline didn't say I had to specifically do this one thing in this exact instance, I'd potentially be looking at sanctions for WP:WIKILAWYERING. If this discussion were closed saying it's not needed to notify topics that have been repeatedly included in discussion as likely primary topics, it's really opening the door to WP:GAMING the system that I mentioned above, and I don't know how the closer of this review would be able to reconcile that. I honestly mean that too. I as a closer would not be able to say it's ok not to notify a page whose previously agreed upon navigation is going to change or that it's ok to exclude those most knowledgeable on the competing topic. KoA (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's helpful to repeat myself but I believe I have addressed these points already. Happy to respond if it is helpful. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Partially striking previous vote to reflect notice on Tree of Life. A correct judgment call by the closer, and notice was given to entomologists by giving notice to taxonomists. No substantive reason to question the closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The following is what I posted on the closer's talk page before this MR was opened by another editor:

  "Blackberry" gets 4,629 hits on JSTOR for the last 9 years the BlackBerry was available vs 1,332 hits in the 9 years before it was released and 2,674 in the 9 years since its discontinuation. You can do something similar with Apple. JSTOR as a repository is biased towards the humanities and social sciences. Wiley gives very different results [for gamerage]. I don't see that the harassment campaign predominates there. Nor at Springer. The number one discipline is "Life sciences", with 162 of 536 results.

  The RM was relisted by one potential non-admin closer only to be closed less than 48 hours later by a different non-admin. Yet the only !vote in the interim was an oppose. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't the place to make arguments that might have been made during the RM itself, so I'll refrain from responding to the substantive points about Wiley, Springer, and BlackBerry, but I take your point about the timing. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea that sixteen days is not enough time for a move request... I just am unable to agree with that Red Slash 23:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also note that Srnec had the opportunity to raise these issues when they commented in the RM 5 days before the close. Why didn't they? The Apple issue, similar to BlackBerry, was also raised and responded to in the RM. While editors may disagree about optimal timing, RMCI is clear that RMs can be closed at any time after relisting. There was no policy violation and the record shows editors had ample opportunity to make these arguments during the two-week+ RM. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When Red Slash was alerted of this overall issue by both Srnec and I, that is pretty squarely describing a key reason for move challenges given at WP:IMR: [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. Just within that scope, it doesn't matter who was alerted or how long the RM was open when that kind of event happens, especially when the closer acknowledges it like here. That really should have put an end to Red Slash or other folks saying to endorse this as-is.

  The timing is an issue too though. It was mentioned above RMs can be closed at any time after relisting, but that doesn't mean closes can be done in this manner. When a previous relisting determines there isn't enough for a consensus, you can't just wait two days and declare there's consensus when nothing came in for additional support (much less when there's a previous RM consensus to weigh against too). You're fighting against the trend of the relisters, discussion, and previous RMs, so you would need something pretty extraordinary to say there was now consensus in favor, and nothing like that was described. Regardless of intent, that can come across as a WP:SUPERVOTE, though I don't like to sling that term around lightly since that can be heftier things than this. It does come across as putting a finger on the scales though rather than assessing the current discussion and how it weighs against previous consensus like we're supposed to do as closers. KoA (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What Red Slash said was that could've certainly been influential. I don't read this as some earth shattering revelation that would definitely or even likely have changed the assessment. Srnec commented in the RM five days before the close and did not raise these issues and there was a thorough discussion of the diversity and quality of sources in the RM. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. « uninvolved » I agree with editor Srnec. This RM was relisted because there was no consensus to either keep the current title or to move the article to the proposed title. Then two days later the closer thought consensus had been achieved? Sorry, no – there was if anything even more reason (continued opposition after the relist) to decide that there was no consensus garnered as yet in this RM. Reopen and let the relist continue, because this RM needs more time and discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bro, with respect--how is sixteen days not enough time? Red Slash 23:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, sorry, I see no consensus in that RM at this time. 16 days in my opinion would be enough time to close as no consensus; however, since you closed it as "moved", then it should be relisted to either continue to build consensus or to confirm that there is no consensus. Hope this helps. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus (involved). The discussion ended equally split between 24 participants, after being relisted twice because there was no consensus. That's not a consensus to move the article. Woodroar (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (as nominator, technically uninvolved in this RM and not by choice, but commented on past ones). After seeing discussion play out, my first formal recommendation would be to overturn and relist with notification. A close second would be just to overturn to no consensus and revert pages back to the status quo to give things a break, but relisting/notifying is the more even-handed approach if patience hasn't worn out.

Others have said formally notifying the insect page is likely to just move the RM from a no consensus situation to consensus against the harassment topic like exact same format RM a handful of months ago, so relisting might be just beating a dead horse and not change the outcome. I can't disagree with that, but it's not the first thing I'd personally advocate for on the fairness side of things if there's gas left in the tank. I'd get the practical angle of going with no consensus for the RM though since it wouldn't be a fresh start and the insect article would be at a handicap again (less time notified than others). Reasonings for my !vote are obviously in the nom and conversations above, but the content angle of closing shortly after relisting where there wasn't consensus yet, the relative split of !votes (not just counting numbers either), not weighing against the previous RM's consensus, and the closer outright admitting new information presented on usertalk would have swayed the decision are already more than enough to justify it. That's without even getting into the notification/bias issues that relisting/notifying would have fixed. There are just too many problems going on here to say it's a straight endorse, and it should be sitting at no consensus until it can truly overcome the November RM. KoA (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am going to add the notification component to my !vote as I'm really noticing numerous people (and I wanted to say recognize that) saying the ant page did not need to be notified while saying this essay doesn't "require" them to do that. If I were closing any other discussion seeing comments like that though, I'd have a tough time giving them any weight from a WP:!VOTE and WP:PAG perspective. That's in part because our WP:VOTESTACK guideline is very clear In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (. . .), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. I obviously don't need to repeat the details how the ant topic had been notified in previous RMs, but in this RM/reconsideration, they had been left out (i.e., disproportionate) with pretty clear results. I would not be able to reconcile that as a closer.

This is probably my last comment in part because I was already planning not to be really commenting after after my last question. Dealing with the topic and close already required a large amount of text just to document things, and I'm away again for awhile anyways. However, what I'm seeing on a perceived culture on RM notifications vs. guideline is really concerning me both on this topic and the potential project-wide knock-on effects. KoA (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - textbook case of NOTAVOTE. The support arguments are strong, the opposing arguments weak. Nothing more that needs to be said except kudos to Red Slash for reading the arguments correctly. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for Red Slash. This has been asked a few times in larger discussion without much depth in response to go on, so hopefully focusing what you saw in the supports can shed some light. In your close you said Overall, the preponderance of the harassment campaign even in scholarly literature won the most support in the discussion and won the argument. Did you weigh this against the previous RM that showed scholarly literature did not indicate this (and still does not)? Usage in scholarly literature has remained unchanged (about 50/50) since that last RM. That discussion determined there was consensus the harassment topic is not primary. You also indicated on your user talk that if this information had been repeated or re-presented, it would have influenced your close, yet you did not reopen the RM when you indicated this.

So if you did weigh this RM (focusing on the supports here) against consensus of the Nov. RM:

1. How did you take information from the supports on pageviews and long-term significance arguments that was largely repeated from the Nov. RM (again used to determine there was consensus against primary topic status) and previous RMs to say consensus had changed? Previous consensus still determined consensus against even with substantially the same information. Normally as a closer I'd have to say no consensus or at least no consensus to overturn previous consensus in such situations.
2. How did you take information on scholarly use (which used subpar methods) in this RM and overturn previous consensus from the past RM that used stronger evidence on scholarly use that the harassment topic was not primary? You're currently aware of this based on your usertalk discussion here, but even if we're ignoring the second bullet of WP:IMR, you would have also known this in determining that consensus had changed when reviewing the existing consensus in the Nov. RM.
3. In either of these overall areas, how can you go from a previous consensus against being the primary topic and say consensus has changed when support !votes are substantially similar?

Again, this is focusing on the support side of things primarily because in addition to all the other issues brought up earlier, this doesn't look like a clear case of consensus or actual real-world evidence changing in support. If it's just that oppposes didn't argue as hard this time for whatever reason, that is a red flag. KoA (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per User:Srnec and User:Paine Ellsworth. User:Red Slash, you are being far too combative, tending too belligerent. In part, you are being reviewed here, you should not be all over the discussion. I noted years ago a great improvement in your style, but here you are worked up over things that you should not be. User:KoA, you are a subject-expert entomologist? Great, people like you should get more standing on subjects they work on, but, you have posted far too many word, both in the nomination and responses. Please work on being concise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I agree with both points, well made, but personally, I don't think the figures support such an even-handed approach, unfortunately. If anyone's "all over the discussion", in fact, it's KoA who's WP:BLUDGEONing: [13]. Koa: 24 edits, >61.7% of the text; Red Slash: 9 edits, <7% of the text. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that due to KoA's continued bludgeoning, it's now 25 edits/>62%. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna, I did not reply to your first ping in part because you were already complaining about me posting, so please stop pinging me yet again and if you are concerned about my edit count. You've got your reply now even though I already indicated I was stepping back, and I hope the irony is apparent.

And yes, I did have a number of copyedits and having to deal with a lot of background on this subject that resulted in a lot of text being the nominator while having discussion with some editors (though only 3 endorse !votes I commented on). I wish the topic procedure history and the issues themselves were simpler and less numerous so we'd all have an easier time, but if wishes were fishes . . .

If you did read my last edit, you would've seen I was not planning to post further since I'm literally heading out the door for quite a few days, and I was only clarifying part of my !vote while not responding to anyone else. Even before your first ping I was even planning to largely stop replying to others after I asked my question above so that others could discuss on that specifically instead. My suggestion is to drop the stick that would have negated the need for this reply. No need to even reply as I won't be there to engage. KoA (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that while I don't disagree with the outcome or even the process - if something has been relisted twice it's ripe for closure, and one person's relist can be another's close - I'd be happy relisting this just because the closer has been - I'm not going to say combative, but definitely overly involved in this move discussion. Closing a discussion should be a neutral action for the benefit of the community - someone has decided upon consensus. What that decision is ultimately doesn't matter. If there's a problem with it, we can get a consensus on the consensus, as we're doing here. Continuing to argue comes across as not being neutral/needing to be correct, which can cause people to lose trust in the close, especially in a contentious discussion such as this one. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (involved). I strongly disagree with the claim that the ant's article had to be notified; as a page mover myself, I do not recall a single time where I (or any other editor) had to notify another article in a move request. The proponent did cite WP:RSPM for the notification argument, which does state that Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved, but that is only required under Single page move on a different talk page, which is not applicable here, because the RM was listed under the harassment campaign's talk page, and only having to do with the harassment campaign. Nothing in the RM had to do with the ant article. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn either to no consensus or to relist (uninvolved). I'm not sold that there were procedural issues here but I also don't see a very strong consensus to move. To be sure, there were pro-move arguments that would be very compelling in 95% of situations (nobody contests pageviews hugely favors the harassment campaign), but the other 5% of situations exist, and opposers made a decent case this is one of them. We don't always go with the most pageviews. SnowFire (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The only reason people make up arbitrary “exceptions” with no basis in policy is to win arguments. There is no “other 5%” because no reason is provided beyond it being the status quo; page views do indeed favor the harassment campaign, therefore it is the primary topic. That’s an extremely strong argument. Case closed. Dronebogus (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If that was actually the policy, then we wouldn't have the RM process at all. We'd just write a bot that made the highest pageview article the primary topic. That isn't the case; Java (programming language) still has higher hits than Java, but it's not going to claim primary topic. SnowFire (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While Java the island vs. Java the programming language is a perennial move candidate, at least there both topics could credibility claim primary status. Both are obviously very notable, and both of interest to laypeople. It’s a Buridan's ass. Here one is not only more notable (it’s discussed in scholarly and popular literature rather than just scholarly) but also clearly of far more interest to laypeople based on pageview statistics and common sense. In any case making the page with the most pageviews the primary topic actually sounds a lot better than having editors argue about which topic is more notable, which as shown here frequently just devolves into arguments based on personal preference, insular nerd bias, perceived subject worthiness, and maintaining status quo (or in some cases simple nationalistic posturing as in Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) vs. Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)) Dronebogus (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think that the correct answer is for the primary topic to be a disambiguation page, but Move Review is not Requested Move Round 2. I don't disagree with the closer. I disagree with the community, but sometimes one is in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, or failing that to a relist. It was relisted (which is done when consensus is not clear) and received only a single reply after that, which was an oppose. To then turn around and find a consensus to move is a clear WP:SUPERVOTE - it unambiguously establishes that this was moved because of who closed it, not because of the strength of the arguments. If there had been a clear disparity in the strength of the relevant arguments, it would not have been relisted. And beyond that I'm just not seeing a disparity in the strength of the arguments. Long-term significance is a valid argument. Beyond that, one key thing that Red Slash seems to have overlooked is that multiple opposers pointed to previous RMs (which of course means they were incorporating the arguments made in those RMs; when an article receives constant RM requests, it is reasonable to simply point to previous arguments rather than copy-pasting them every time.) Based on that, whether there was a clear majority in academic usage was obviously disputed using high-quality evidence. The people opposing the move, by pointing to previous RMs, also posted clear evidence of this, which contradicts Red Slash's closing statement. More generally, when something is the subject of multiple RMs like this, it's reasonable to ask what has changed when a closer asserts that consensus has shifted, especially when one of the main arguments in opposition is that arguments made in previous RMs no longer apply; the only thing that appears to have changed this time was insufficient notifications relative to previous move attempts. Red Slash's closure seems to essentially say "well, you pointed to previous RMs but since you didn't actually copy-paste the arguments from them they don't apply, rendering your arguments weak." That's not how consensus or the strength of arguments are evaluated. -Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If all we did was defer to precedent, then the Reductio ad absurdum conclusion would be “the page author makes the rules”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of deferring. Multiple people in the close pointed to arguments from previous RMs; Red Slash, by falsely stating that no evidence had been provided, clearly ignored these. They even said above that if that evidence had been presented in the RM itself it would have been decisive! That's an obvious procedural issue with the close - they didn't evaluate the arguments people presented. At a bare minimum, then, it should be overturned and relisted so that all the arguments that were made in the RFC can be properly considered. --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Red Slash had been more detailed in their close, but arguments from the prior RMs were directly addressed and refuted, including ample evidence that coverage is not "50/50" in scholarly sources, with older source evidence that would have been relevant in prior RMs but was not presented, as well as new publications since the last RM showing ongoing SIGCOV. Down-weighting !votes that say "nothing has changed" when evidence is presented to the contrary is a reasonable approach to assessing P&G-based consensus. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Slash specifically indicated that they did not consider the arguments from previous discussions that people arguing against a move relied on (they didn't state that they felt it was refuted, they inaccurately said that no evidence was presented by those opposed to a move at all.) If you think that it would have been clear-cut even with such arguments considered, and agree that Red Slash's closure is deficient in that regard, why not support an overturn and relist so that it can be properly-closed by someone who considers all arguments? --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's relisted then there must be neutral notification beyond Talk:Gamergate (ant). I saw Red Slash's rather flippant (read: inappropriate) comment on his talk page as saying that the evidence and arguments presented in the new RM, which addressed and refuted issues raised previously, were not effectively rebutted here. I did not read it so literally. I read the entirety of the close and post-close discussion as down-weighting !votes that say "nothing has changed" when evidence is presented to the contrary, not as a failure to consider old arguments. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one to mention the relist, but it's important to point out that WP:RMCI says "Editors are under no obligation to wait to close a move request after it is relisted. Once a move request has been open for the full seven days, it may be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor." Further, the discussion was relisted once immediately after the first seven days, allowed to run another another seven days, then relisted again without comment by the same editor. IMO, the second relist was unnecessary (or at least should have been done by someone else). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus. The relist was, in effect, a declaration of no consensus by an uninvolved editor. Clearly nothing changed between the relist and the closure. So what we in effect have is dueling interpretations of consensus. In other words, it was a BADNAC because the close [was] likely to be controversial. Srnec (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus (involved) This is one of those embarassing-for-Wikipedia moves like trying to make Apple Computer primary over the fruit. While there's no question that the harassment campaign is more popular in terms of pageviews, trying to claim that an integral part of bug colonies on par with a worker or queen is unimportant compared to a short-lived online harassment campaign that came long afterwards is laughable. To wit: The article is not about the NAME "gamergate", which was coined recently, but the CONCEPT of a gamergate, which has existed for about a gazillion years. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What’s embarrassing for Wikipedia is the continued assertion that a topic nobody outside of one specific field has even heard of needs to be placed on the level as a major event in Internet history because it’s been around longer and is important in that field. Additionally, overturn voters keep bringing up wp:OTHERCRAP where two mainstream topics exist but the marginally less popular one is considered primary because it’s far older— this is an obscure specialist topic vs. a mainstream one. There is no comparison. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The shorter the title, the higher the level? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What does that mean? Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2025	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2024	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2023	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

See also

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

The current Wikipedia time is:
00:00, Thursday, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!