Wikipedia talk:Editor review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:Admin neutrality Wikipedia:Usurpation (renaming users) Wikipedia:Userspace abuse Speedy deleting unsourced articles Galleries Attribution Protecting children's privacy
Conclusions

Archives
April 12 2006 – May 3 2006 archived straw poll

Shortcut: WT:ER

[edit] Straw Poll

I've archived the straw poll. I'm not sure what the poll was really asking, since a voluntary process can never become official. I'd suggest an appropriate venue for further discussion may be at WP:MFD. I have removed the proposal tag, the process gets usage and is linked to, so I think it has some validity. Those that choose to use it may find it a useful tool, other people are just as welcome to ignore it. Steve block Talk 13:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Just to be clear, there was absolutely no consensus in adopting this process in any official way, and any attempts to present this poll as having any approved status should be corrected. It would be hard to tag any such voluntary process as rejected when it is still in use. Steve block Talk 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time limit

This list is getting looooong, and there's not much in place to keep it from getting too unmanageable. Right now, the only point in which a name will be removed is "when [the user is] satisfied with the feedback." With the rising popularity of ER, the list is only going to get bigger; and a longer list means that fewer people are actually going to receive any sort of review. I'd suggest creating a time limit, whereafter a name will be automatically removed and archived — for now, two weeks may be appropriate, although I think one week will eventually become necessary. Afterwards, if an editor would like to be re-evaluated, they can post their name again after a two or four week waiting period. This way, the list will be concise, short, and manageable for both reviewers and reviewees. Thoughts? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good idea. I feel this project would fair well as a "rfc crossed with rfa" sort of thing. Get feedback from every chap across the wiki without the stress. -Zero^Talk 13:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Otherwise, the list is just gonna get way to long. Since there's nothing wrong with putting yourself up for review again (maybe after a 2 week waiting period), there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a time limit. The older reviews (like mine) are basically dead anyway... ConD e m^Talk 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Computerjoe 's talk 15:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How about using subpages? --Osbus 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We do. Computerjoe 's talk 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeh, ya do...nvm --Osbus 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Subpages sound like a good idea. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I archived the oldest five. The oldest one remaining is still over 3 weeks old (start date). NoSeptember ^talk 15:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the time limit be one month (30 days) from the listing of the subpage on the editor review main page. Kimchi.sg 17:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with one month. I've archived all the articles that didn't have activity in the last month. I've left ones started more than a month ago that are still active though, because there's a reasonable chance people will contribute to those. Icey 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space in username

I know if someone has a space in their username, they have to replace it with an underscore fot the external links to work, but why not just use {{PAGENAMEE}} instead of {{PAGENAME}}, so then on the external links we use pagenamee and on the wiki-links we use pagename. Also, why not just use a "create" box to make a subpage?--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 07:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pagename isn't used, I think. Computerjoe 's talk 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the "create" box? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Computerjoe 's talk 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the instructions section of WP:SIGPOLL. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Process Not Going to Pass

This will not become an official process. How about not making it a process, but just part of Wikipedia culture? Computerjoe 's talk 07:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. I am trialing it currently with my signature :) Ans e ll Review my progress! 11:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I keep reading about how the editcount tool is no longer updating, but my edit count keeps going up anyway. What gives? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Interiot indicates that there's some kind of bug in the replication, so apparently it's still replicating, just not accurately. In my experience it seems to be a few days behind, but I can't comment on the accuracy (or lack thereof). Ziggurat 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I have here the template for Wikipedians. They might want to place it on their userpage.--陈鼎翔贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capatilise

In the instructions on how to do this, it states you should go to Wikipedia:Editor review/Username (replacing username with your own) and start the review with the template. However, upon adding the correct template to Wikipedia:Editor_review I found that it couldnt see the review page I had just made. So, I follwed that link and copy pasted my review from the old one to the new one. It now found my review. I eventually worked out that there was a difference in capatalisation: I created my first page at Wikipedia:Editor review/Viridae and the one that worked at Wikipedia:Editor Review/Viridae (note the R). I was wondering what should be done about this - I tried capatalising the R in the instructions, but that breaks the link to the example review. Viridae 10:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignore that - I had a look at Wikipedia:Editor review/Username and realised it was just a redirect anyway. Have created Wikipedia:Editor Review/Username as the same redirect, fixing problem. Viridae 10:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, check out Wikipedia:Editor review pages and Wikipedia:Editor Review pages. Nice complete listing. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Why does Wikipedia:Editor Review/Username redirect to Wikipedia:Editor review/Siva1979? - Aksi_great (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

People editing the example, me think! Computerjoe 's talk 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I put an RFD on Wikipedia:Editor Review/Username. See here. --Tu s pm^{(C | @)} 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative to editor review

I have been trying to find places to refer another editor for assistance with some sort of guidance, mentoring, or coaching (call it what you will), suitable for someone who is relatively new. There does not seem to be any sort of equivalent to Editor Review or Admin Coaching for less experienced wikipedians. Editor review might be too harsh a process for someone trying to learn in the early stages, and Admin Coaching is far down the road. If people could brainstorm for some sort of "wikicoaching" or "wikimentoring" program, it might help develop and assist a lot of new users. Agent 86 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A wikimentor program would be quite excellent. Wikipedia gets alot of great users but some of the complexiaties can turn alot of users away from it. Yank sox 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly volunteer to help with something like this. Should we propose it through Esperanza? If you do, don't forget to drop me a line about it. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We sorta have one, don't we? {{helpme}} Has worked every time I've seen it used. ---J.S (t|c) 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Helpme is for use when you have a specific problem, ER exists for editors to give feedback on your edits. Computerjoe 's talk 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a battle with another user right now who keeps reverting my edits but being very cryptic about why (deleted 10 paragraphs, says WP:V, and threatens to report me to the admin for incivility when I ask them to be more specific). How do I get myself put with a more experienced user to sympathetically guide me to doing things the right way? perfectblue 18:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

If it doesn't bother anyone, I will be archiving all requests that are 30 days or older around the 10th of every month. --Evan Robidoux 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd be great! Computerjoe 's talk 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewer userbox

As a means of advertising WP:ER, and of ensuring that no review goes unnoticed, I thought it might be worth advertising that I'm a regular editor reviewer on my own userpage. I've created a userbox that people might like to use for themselves, so that (hopefully) users will notice it and be able to approach individuals if their request for a review proves fruitless.

The code, here...

<div style="float: left; border: solid #CCCCFF 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #F8F8FF;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #CCCCFF; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt;" | [[Image:Nuvola apps edu languages.png|43px]]
| style="font-size: 7pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is a regular '''[[WP:ER|editor reviewer]]'''.
|}</div>

... produces this:

This user is a regular editor reviewer.

Hope you guys get some use out of this. :) Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 13:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning

I re-wrote most of the beginning section - I hope it's an improvement. 0L1 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to improve the clarity. Do we need an alternative, guided method to creating the page for newer users, like at WP:RfA? I'm thinking of something like this code (not sure if this works, since I'm unfamiliar with the original code, but we'll see):

What think ye? Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The prototype now works, using this page as the default. If we decide to use this permanently, it might be wise to create a page for it in the template space. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye! Computerjoe 's talk 07:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Is this good? Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes that looks brilliant! --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An inquiry

I was just wandering about a situation here. If an editor submits a second editor review, is it necessary for him/her to add the number 2 (just like in RfA) at the end of the username and 3, 4... for subsequent reviews requested by the same user? I have already gone through an editor review but the lack of comments made by users is a cause for concern to me personally. As a result, I failed my third RfA as well. Any advise here would be appreciated! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. You got to add a 2. Computerjoe 's talk 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Make sure it doesn't screw up the template, though! :) By the way, some users don't add a 2, and it isn't a tremendous problem. I noted on Daniel 123's talk page that he hadn't done it "properly", but since it's noted nowhere at WP:ER I didn't press him. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, we should add this important bit of information on WP:ER. This information could be added under the sub-section of Requesting Reviews. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on the reviews

Perhaps the questions to the user could be placed before the review section (instead of in the bottom as they are now). Such move occured in RfA's before, and I do think that it makes more sense that way, so that everybody may see some answers before start reviewing. --Hús ö nd 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. That way you can see what they are proud of and know what their perception of any edit conflicts are right off the bat. Jcam 17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question about responding to editor review

Hello, I've placed myself under editor review, and now I wonder if I am allowed to or expected to respond to any comments that I receive, similar to what people do for an RfA. Could anybody answer that question, and perhaps explain on the main page whether or not that is the norm? Thank you. --Kyok o 14:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, after reading several archived reviews, it seems that some editors choose to respond, while others choose not to. --Kyok o 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Some just create the review, post it there, and (apparently) never come back. I am tempted to notify users when archiving their editor reviews (which I guess I will start soon), as a way to ensure they know their reviews were not deleted. -- ReyBrujo 17:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting to users that their review is being archived

I believe we should inform in the user's talk page that their review is being archived, to thank them for requesting an editor review, and to invite them to review someone. There is a big backlog here, and we could use some casual hands from people who may give fresh ideas. What do you think? -- ReyBrujo 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, you could make a template, like Template:Editreviewarchived. Cbrown1023 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I gather that when you talk about archiving old reviews, the review pages are still there, but they are no longer listed on the main page, right? A template would be a good idea. I plan on keeping my own review on my watchlist too. --Kyok o 04:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I was thinking about a template, but decided to first propose the message and then the template. And yes, the archived editor reviews are not listed in the main page, but are put in Wikipedia:Editor review/Archives. Currently the page has 66 requests, and is taking 140kbs. It is not as bad as Peer review (which at one time had 800kb), but in the first 4 days of November we have received 17 requests. As the page becomes more and more known, it is better to both archive reviews as fast as possible, and to ask users to give us a hand. -- ReyBrujo 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't realize it had gotten that bad. I just killed my (very verbose) editor review. At least its only 65 now... could we perhaps start nixing the ones that have been inactive for three weeks, versus four? EVula 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already modified the introduction of the Editor Review: instead of archiving reviews with a month of innactivity, we would be archiving them one month after posted. The bad thing about innactivity is that any old review can be "resurrected" by posting a new review. Thus, reviewers may get yet another one for review. If we remove them exactly after a month (as long as it has had at least one review), we can prevent reviews from being listed forever. Note that Wikipedia:Peer review removes reviews with 2 weeks of innactivity, or after a month since they were posted. I don't believe the "innactivity" section should be applied here: first, because they currently have 120 peer review requests, twice as much as we, and second, because they have a semi automated script that can give reviews when executed. We don't have such thing, thus we should give more time to our reviews. The problem, again, is that we don't have enough reviewers. When you find an article with several reviewers it is because either they are well-known between their peers, they have asked for review in other places, they have used some mean to communicate the editor review (a template, or a message in a WikiProject), or because they were led here by others who have had editor reviews. But for the many new users, those who don't know or can't apply any of the mentioned points, it is harder. I did 7 reviews today (was aiming at 8), and hopefully 13 on Sunday (originally aiming at 12). However, each of my reviews take 30-60 minutes to create, and I feel like spending less time after having reviewed dozens of editors this way is not just. Dang morals :-P -- ReyBrujo 05:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is my template text proposal:

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/XXX, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor.

I don't think a message box suits this message, so I would prefer a {{test}}-like message. What do you think? -- ReyBrujo 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. EVula 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another review

Back in May I posted a review and got no responses. If I wanted to now request another review of myself, how would I do that? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, HighInBC! My understanding is that if you aren't making any changes to your original entry, you can just edit the main Wikipedia:Editor review page by adding {{Wikipedia:Editor review/HighInBC}} to the top of the request list. If you do want to make changes to your entry, you can always edit the subpage Wikipedia:Editor review/HighInBC. I could be wrong, though. I hope this helps.--Kyok o 22:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. When an AFD has no replies, it is relisted. But I am not sure here about what is better. If most of what you wrote in that request is similar to what you would write now, then edit the old one, add a new introduction text (leave the previous text there, don't delete it), and repost it. If you want to remove some text from there, strike it with <s></s>. If you would change most of what is already written in the review, then create a new review, saving it into Wikipedia:Editor review/HighInBC 2 instead. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 21:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problems

Hello, ER. I'm having some problems with my subpage. I follow the instructions, but the result is this Wikipedia:Editor review/AndonicO. From what I understand, I have to remove "STATEMENT" and put my message in it's place. The result is very bad; it doesn't look like the other comments, my message is in the wrong place, and worst of all, about 70% of my comment was cut off. Am I doing something wrong? | AndonicO Talk 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Arjun fixed it while I was writing the message. | AndonicO Talk 17:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listed 9 days, no review from this project...

Hi,

My review page certainly looks as tho it has been reviewed. However, the two things on it are

a review I solicited from someone else
complaints from someone whose edits (marked minor, despite introducing eleven grammatical errors and three factual errors) I reverted.

Forgive me for speaking up.. if anyone has a moment..

Thanks --Ling.Nut 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, Ling.Nut. Unluckily, we are very few around to review editors. I do review them, but go in order from the oldest to the newest, and will hopefully be finishing User:ScienceApologist today. If you can give us a hand and review a couple random editors, we would appreciate it! -- ReyBrujo 16:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put in two cents, but I am not an admin. I thought only admins were supposed to do it...

But I can chip in some comments here and there. :-)

--Ling.Nut 16:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither I am, so don't worry ;-) -- ReyBrujo 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how do you archive your own review?

Hello, how do you archive your own review (or alternatively, could someone archive my own review, under Wikipedia:Editor review/Tachikoma)? Thanks. --Kyok o 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, put your review under Wikipedia:Editor_review/Archives within the alphabetical order, if that's what you wanted? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it Wrong?

To copy and paste the same statement into everyones review?

These are the many things to ensure you have and you are doing:

A Strong edit history
Varied experience
User interaction (helpful and polite)
Trustworthiness
Helping with chores (RC patrol and XFD)
High quality of Articles (Featured Articles, Featured Pictures and Featured Lists)
Observing policy
Edit Summaries (Accurate and Constructive)

I'm sure you are more aware if you are doing these things than I could ever be. So, continue to work hard and expand in area's that you think you are lacking.

It appears valid for everyone, but Is it wrong to do? Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It is much like the Peer review automated script that generates a list of suggested improvements. It also helps people who have not asked others to review them (and usually wait for weeks before someone actually reviews them). Much like a welcome message, is helpful only for those users, as it may be disrespectful to post that message in a review that has already several ones. -- ReyBrujo 13:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A sidebar

Can I plant a sidebar for organizational purposes? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This user is currently on editor review. You may comment about his or her edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Editor review

I tried putting