This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'd like to discuss the viability of gaining consensus to begin hosting "merge reviews" in a similarly named subsection of this page; it seems like this page is best suited for such reviews, if it is determined to be a thing worth doing.

For some background, I recently discovered a page I had created was unilaterally merged to another page and converted to a redirect by the wp:bold actions of a single editor.[1] Because no notifications are triggered by such an action, any contest I might otherwise have levied would now be untimely per Wikipedia:Merging#MergeReverse where it says: "mergers can be easily reversed if a consensus against the merger is formed shortly after the merger was performed." The emphasis is mine.

To save time, I am merely asking if there are others who tentatively agree that this seems worthwhile, or; if instead: there are those who disagree, if they will explain why this wouldn't work or is otherwise a bad Idea so I may know this as well. The discussion should indicate which direction is best, from here; either endeavoring it as a proposal, or letting it go as unneeded. Thank you for considering this; I look forward to, and hope to see, all replies that may come. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

1. The Bold merge&redirect should be freely reverted per BRD, and the action not to be repeat until supported by consensus through discussion preferably on a talk page (either the first page, or target page is OK). I assume you know this, but let's be clear that revert and discussion comes before a formal review process.

2. DRV should be reserved for deletion decisions and the deletion processes. This can include Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection as this is a common AfD result, but would exclude a merge&redirect like you highlight. DRV should be reserved for deletion because it is important to be kept a clean location for review, as a check and ongoing education forum for misuse of the administrator delete button. It should not be diluted for what is really an editing conflict. DRV is alread very busy with very diverse appeals concerning a wide variety of formal and informal deletions, XfD, CSD, PROD, BLPDELETE, IAR-DELETE. Limited OTRS and oversight deletion appeals are occasionally entertained, not that they have ever been successful.

3. Very similar to my March 2017 suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Move_review#Expand_scope_to_review_challenged_RfC_closes, I think WP:MR would be a good forum for "Merge Reviews". WP:MR is functioning very nicely, and in large part thanks to the setup work by Mike Cline. It has had a substantial calming effect on the preceding practice of move-wars and lack of respect for the WP:RM process. I think it can similarly serve "Merge Reviews" in addition to RfC closes, in addition to probably several other things that involve an administrative close of a discussion. Merge Reviews fit because if a merge is challenged, it should first be attempted to be resolved by discussion, and all contested discussions do well to be formally closed. A review forum would encourage good practice in the closes of merge discussions. WP:MR has the infrastructure already set up, and has room to broaden its scope. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with SmokeyJoe on #1 and #2 and have no opinion on #3 (don't know that forum well enough to comment). Hobit (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Smokey Joe gets it right when he says, DRV should be reserved for deletion ... as a check and ongoing education forum for misuse of the administrator delete button. The important point there is that admins have the ability to delete material, which is an action that cannot be reversed by most editors. Along with that power comes the requirement for public review, to ensure that it's not misused. Any editor can execute a merge, and any other editor can revert that action. There should be collaborative discussion around these actions, but such discussions don't require special admin abilities to resolve, so there's no need to bring them here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with SmokeyJoe, Hobit, and RoySmith above: DRV is not the place for such discussions. I haven't been at WP:MR much, but that seems like a plausible location. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  I appreciate all of the replies above. I agree with the counsel that reasonably dissuades advancing a proposal such as I had begun, and for adopting that counsel, I would now, myself, oppose the same. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Bold merge and redirects are one thing, but we also have AfDs closed as merge/redirect (like Covfefe). While not technically an admin action, these are in practice because AfD closers need to be able to delete if that's the decision. The AfD process has a sense of near finality to it, whatever the outcome. So whether it's here or at WP:MR, a well-defined appeal process is needed to enable discussion.

I'm for WP:MR as the place for two reasons. One, we unclog WP:DR. Two, it makes closing these realistic for more editors, not only admins. —Guanaco 08:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I just submitted a request re: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. I am not very familiar with WP:Deletion review, so I hope I submitted the request properly. Is there a template that needs to be added to the top of the page being discussed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

A brief about me.: I'm Vinuthnaah Neela. Senior Journalist to a Reputated Telugu News Paper and News Channel.

Why am posting this. : I'm right here to write an article on Person Krishna Hoccane but I can't because it is Deleted Various time by the Administrators. So I asking and requesting you to unprotect and share the rights of the article to my WikiPedia Account.

Thank You May I hope, you understood my intention -Vinuthnaah Neela(Journalist) Vinuthnaah (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest you create a userspace draft with the content you would like to add to this page and then post here for review. Given the number of inappropriate pages created at this title the title has been locked to prevent further inappropriate creations. Hut 8.5 17:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: Actually, it's been salted in draftspace as well per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Krishna Hoccane. See also conversation at User talk:Randykitty. --Finngall ^talk 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The article and its draft, according to the MfD discussion, has had 'repeated sock/spam creation'; the problem is, when an account appears to be set up purely in order to request its creation (and, incidentally, whose first post was to set up an RfA poll for itself), I'd be tempted to ping User:Bbb23, and to hell with the consequences. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)