Wikipedia talk:Editor review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives
  1. April 12 2006 – May 3 2006
  2. archived straw poll
Shortcut:
WT:ER

Contents

[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. -ZeroTalk 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... ConDemTalk 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. --Siva1979Talk 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 :) Ansell 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. --Tuspm(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. Yanksox 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. :) Daveydweeb (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? Daveydweeb (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. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Aye! Computerjoe's talk 07:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Done! Is this good? Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes that looks brilliant! --Alex (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! --Siva1979Talk 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. Daveydweeb (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. --Siva1979Talk 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. --Húsönd 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. --Kyoko 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. --Kyoko 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 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/Editor review, where you may read last minute additions.

We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor.. 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. --Kyoko 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.--Kyoko 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

  1. a review I solicited from someone else
  2. 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. --Kyoko 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.msc 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)
I think it is wrong. Editors who want an editor review want you to look through some of their contributions and talk posts, and reply to those. A generic script alone is not enough. YechielMan 06:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A sidebar

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

[edit] {{Editor review}}

I tried putting {{Editor review}} on my user page, but the preview shows an invalid link to my review page. Is that correct behavior? Thanks. Xiner 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By default, the template will point to your user name, in example, Wikipedia:Editor review/Xiner. If you are in your second review at "Xiner 2", then you need to pass the page as argument, like in {{editor review|Xiner 2}}. -- ReyBrujo 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you created your review at "xiner", not Xiner. Then, you need to use it as {{editor review|xiner}} -- ReyBrujo 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template created

Per the above discussion, {{Editreviewarchived}} has been created. The template text is as proposed, and the template can be moved to a friendlier name. I'm going to clean up the current page right now of those who have exceeded the time limit, and add them to the archive page. We also might want to consider shortening the time limit. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar & Backlog section

I added a sidebar in hope for better organization & browsing. I also created a backlog category for users that's been on Editor review for a while, but did not receive any reviews. To add yourself to this category, you just need to put {{Editor review|class=review needed}} on your userpage. For more details, visit Template talk:Editor review.

Please comment! =) AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I sorted out 18 users that's not yet been reviewed onto the backlog page. I was wondering if there were any reviews that wasn't reviewed, but was took off the main page anyway? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I like it. I would also suggest a change in the template of the editor review, so that new reviews are immediately classified in the backlog. A template like {{Editor review/backlog}} is put in the newly generated pages (by adding it to the template), with a message like:

<!-- Please remove {{editor review/backlog}} as soon as you review this user. Thanks. --> {{editor review/backlog}}

Once the first user reviews this user, he would remove the template, taking it away from the backlog. This is something similar to the AFD categories. -- ReyBrujo 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about this. I was worrying about redundancy though... But it actually look ok =)! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for TOC

Can I suggest something? Maybe we could have a template that would make an asterisk or something appear next to or under the name of anyone who has not been reviewed in the table of contents. I think that might make it easier to navigate the page. On the other hand, if this would be horribly difficult to implement, it might cancel out the benefit. Thoughts? delldot | talk 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could modify {{editor-review}} to put an asterisk in the section header by default, then add a line at the top telling people to remove the asterisk when they review someone. No extra work for the reviewee, but a small extra step for the reviewer – Gurch 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea. The first reviewer already removes something, so I doubt it would be much trouble. Other folks have any input? delldot | talk 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Methinks it's a good idea, low implementation, simple result, super help when I'm looking through reviewees (that what you say?) Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What does the first user already remove? --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes there's a commented out template to the effect of "not reviewed yet" that includes the user in Category:Wikipedians on Editor review/Backlog. Sometimes not, I've noticed, I dunno why. delldot | talk 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of going through and adding an asterisk to the unreviewed people already on the page, what do you think? Then we could tell if it would be annoying or cause problems for implementing in the template. I'd also add a little note on WP:ER saying "an asterisk next to the username means the editor has not been reviewed yet" or less awkward words to that effect. Anyone object? delldot | talk 03:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been reviewed yet. =) In fact, I think it might be a good idea to add two asterisks. The average review has about 2 reviews, so I think there should be a way to see how many reviews someone gets.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea too, though I wouldn't want to inadvertantly encourage a two review limit (or with the one asterisk, a one review limit). Maybe we should do it so something shows up in the subheader when someone does review someone (like you add an asterisk for each review)? Though it would probably be easier for finding unreviewed folks the other way. I dunno. Anyway, anyone object to me manually trying out the two asterisk thing with the editors already up for review? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delldot (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Here's another idea I just thought of: we could do subheaders for the review (e.g. ====delldot's review====, so each review would show up under the editor's name in the TOC. Unfortunately, though, this would triple or quadruple the size of the TOC. Which is already pretty long. Thoughts? delldot | talk 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one objected to the asterisk thing, so I'm going to go ahead and try it. I'm going to do one asterisk for now, and we can change it later if we like. I'm also adding this wording to the article:

Users with an asterisk next to their name in the subheader have not been reviewed at all yet. Users may still need further reviews even if they do not have an asterisk.

If you don't like the change, you can revert me or discuss it here. delldot | talk 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the asterisks to the unreviewed pages (I also changed the commented out text to read <!-- Remove this tag and the asterisk next to the username in the header when you review this user -->). However, until we change the template, we're still going to have to do this by hand to anyone new that gets added. What do folks say about changing the template now and undoing it if we end up hating it? I think I'll go ahead and do this in a day or two if no one objects. delldot | talk 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Table of contents doesn't seem to appear in Firefox these days (?) though? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That's weird, I'm using Firefox, and it works for me. delldot | talk 01:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me as well. -- ReyBrujo 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one objected, so I went ahead and changed the template. If you end up not liking it, you can revert me or discuss it here, as usual. delldot | talk 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editcountitis

Wikipedia:Editor review states:

When reviewing consider:

  • User conduct
  • Number and types of edits

User conduct, by all means... but is it really necessary to encourage editcountitis here? Users will get more useful feedback from people who look at their contributions, rather than just counting them. And no, that doesn't mean running their edits through one of those tools that gives you distribution of edits by namespace and stuff like that. That's counting too. I suppose it could be worse; at least it doesn't mention edit summary usage *shudder* – Gurch 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How else, practically, are you gonna review them? I can't look through every freakin' edit they've made, let alone all their recent ones. I take it on faith they aren't spamming another user talk page with useless comments, etc. Besides, I'm not going to kill an editor just because he doesn't leave edit summaries, but it makes people like me on RC patrol happy to not have to look over diffs if they provide a coherent and plausible summary. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Finding out the "number and type" of a user's edits involves nothing more than entering the user's name into a statistics tool and pressing "Go". The user can do that themselves if they are so inclined. I'm suggesting going through, picking some edits at random to see the sort of work they've been doing, and if anything stands out, looking at that too. In other words, actually looking at some diffs. Now I'm not suggesting for a moment that reviewers don't do this already; in fact, I'm sure they do. But the page doesn't say that's what they do. My problem is with the text at the top of the Editor Review page, not current practise of reviewers; I just feel the former should reflect the latter – Gurch 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Touche. That said, this is wikipedia- I'd change it to read better, or at least propose it on the talk page of WP:ER. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Er... this is the talk page of WP:ER, and I am proposing it :) – Gurch 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*stares at Gurch with a glazed look.* ... oh .... right. :) well, I say change it (be bold!) and refer them to this discussion. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Gurch, I'm with you on the editcountitis thing. I'd love to see more emphasis on, for example, looking at the user's talk page for evidence of conflicts or other troubles. But I think the reason that people rely so heavily on edit counts in things like RFAs is because it is easier than looking closely at their contributions. Thus edit counts have become more emphasised in RFAs, which just puts more overall stress on those concepts (which I think might ultimately be bad for the encyclopedia). However, ER is used by many folks as kind of a dry run for RFA, and edit counts are stressed in RFAs. Would we be doing users a disservice by evaluating them here based on different criteria than they'll get in RFA's? I know I've reviewed a number of editors who I thought had great records--friendly, helpful, good contributions, etc-- but who had less than 2000 edits. Seems to me those folks would be unlikely to pass an RFA right yet. I don't know the answer to this problem, I just hate to set folks up for dissappointment by telling them they're awesome here and making them overly brave about trying for adminship. I'd certainly agree that we shouldn't be putting emphasis on edit counts for users that don't express an interest in adminship. I say go ahead and change the wording as you like and we can discuss it here if there's any need. delldot | talk 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "Number and types of edits" is encouraging editcountits. The sentence merely suggests that it's something the reviewer may consider to have in mind.

The minimum requirement for RFAs are like 2000 edits these days. Bringing this up probably shouldn't be an example of encouraging editcountits, but a reminder. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I take it to mean to consider the number of edits, and then analyse what they've done with them. I.e. having 9,000 edits, but 3,000 of them as welcome messages or just arsing about chatting, wouldn't look good hey? That's what I interpret it as. --Dane ~nya 11:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review from bottom

Since new requests are put at the top of the list, it makes sense to go from the bottom up to review, so the wait time for a review is more consistent. Just a suggestion. I wonder if anyone would mind adding that as a suggestion for reviewers? Or should we maybe think about moving unreviewed folks back to the top? Or archiving reviewed pages more often? Maybe the asterisk thing discussed above will help with this too. delldot | talk 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive more often would do. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I suggest creating a couple of templates like {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} to archive editor reviews. I have seen some that are active even after they have been archived, and many who have removed them from here but haven't put the link in the archive (thus, next time they may just clear the review instead of starting a new one). -- ReyBrujo 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, though it probably won't be as big of a problem for people to add to old ER discussions, since the person probably has it watchlisted, and the info's mainly for them anyway. You're saying people might accidentally clear the review, or do it on purpose? Because if the latter, the templates might not help. delldot | talk 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested change in template

This is very minor, but isn't the "User:" part of the heading redundant? At WP:RfA, there's no "User:" part before the username of the candidate; is it really needed for editor reviews? –Llama mansign here 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, but it's a really good point. I can't think of why it would be useful, and changing it might make it easier to navigate using the TOC by eliminating unnessary stuff. I say go for it. delldot | talk 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
changed. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something has gone horribly wrong...

Something has gone horribly wrong on Wikipedia, when this page exists to promote the idea that adminship is a goal in and of itself. Too many users have forgotten why we are here, namely to write an encyclopedia, and enjoy doing it. This page has nothing to do with this encyclopedic goal, in fact, it encourages superficial editing (high edit counts) and arbitrary standards for the RfA process. I view this page as a serious detriment to this encyclopedia, albeit indirectly.

Users who request an Editor Review seek to design themselves according to these arbitrary standards. Sd31415, "would like to know not just how am [he's] doing", as if this were a game with a quantitative score. Well he has a high edit count (in only three months!), and he doesn't use, "silly abbreviations such as 'rv' or 'fix'", in his numerous edit summaries; he has a "beautiful" userpage: he's a prime candidate. He can go up on Arjun's wall of fame, he's such a great find!

If these are the standards by which users are judged to be worthy of adminship, then Wikipedia is far worse off than I can imagine. Forgotten is the all-important word used in Wikipedia:Administrators, "trust". As that page poingantly states,

“ In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should... From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. However, they are equipped with a few more tools to do some chores that would potentially be harmful if everyone were entrusted with them. ”

Adminship today is too far removed from this ideal. As I stated, it has become an end itself, and not merely a set of tools given to anyone proven to not abuse them. Users must be well-rounded (as if those were the users that make this encyclopedia great) and do many hours of chores. We should not, with our ever increasing population, be so afraid of abuse of admin powers that we construct these arbitrary standards. I think I must nominate this page for deletion in good conscience; though I'd rather spend my time writing articles, I really must. -- Rmrfstar 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the page for deletion. Personally, many times users come wondering how they are doing, and what they should do. While I agree with you in that the main focus of Wikipedia is to write articles, nobody is forced to do that. People here do what they like, including patrolling and mediating. If someone asks what to do in order to become an administrator, it is better to get a reply here than having to ask somewhere else where they would reply with a RTFM. Now, if just too many come here asking how to become administrators, we could begin directing them to Wikipedia:Admin coaching instead of advicing here, restricting this place only for reviews. As I said, feel free to send this to MFD, it would be a good way to determine how the community is reacting against this. -- ReyBrujo 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Since when should an editor do anything in particular? Our administrators should simply be users who have proven themselves to be competent and trustworthy, not those who see it as a trophy to be granted. If a user wants to know what it takes to become an administrator, he should go to Wikipedia:Administrators which explains it very clearly. He should not be directed to Wikipedia:Admin coaching, a page that is even worse than this one, for all of the above reasons! -- Rmrfstar 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • While I agree with many of your ideas about how adminship should and shouldn't be, Rmrfstar, I feel that to delete this page would be to treat the symptom rather than the cause. Rather than trying to force people not to act as though adminship is a status symbol or goal, I think we must begin serious discussions about what causes this mindset in the first place and how we can confront those causes. Otherwise we'll just be talking the talk. Plus, many editors use this page for guidance other than "prepping" for the RfA process. I've reviewed a bunch of editors that have expressely stated that they're not interested in adminship. They want pointers about their editing, which they very frequently get. I've heard from a lot of editors that the reviews have helped them, and not just those interested in RfA. delldot | talk 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This symptom, I think, exacerbates the problem; it encourages and establishes many of the problems which may have originated on WP:RfA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmrfstar (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
I think this mindset is largely the result of our condoning it. When pages such as this prescribe editcountitis, it must encourage said mentality. I know no other way to confront this issue than attempting to deinstitutionalize it. And I can't see any problem with editors asking questions such as "How could I more effectively help the encyclopedia?" or, "Are there any suggestions as to where I might put my effort to the most efficient use?" But the general idea here is that there is some paradigm of an editor to which everyone should strive; there should be no such general questions as "how am I doing?", the answer to which should always be "you're doing fine." -- Rmrfstar 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like to add that when I said "how I'm doing," I wanted to know how I could improve as an editor (such as, you may possibly want to join a WikiProject of a subject you are interested in, you may want to help write a Good Article). I stated that I do not want to be judged an admin candidate (though I am not going to stop anyone from reviewing me as one). Also, I do not check my edit count every day to see when it will reach 3,000 nor do I constantly think of how to improve my own user page. I also won't criticize Arjun's review because he states, "I always review from a standpoint that assumes that you are willing to undergo an RFA and try to become an admin. Anything said in this review is from my standpoint and does not necessarily reflect the community consensus." My goal here isn't to become an admin, since "adminship is not a trophy." I edit around here as a hobby. By the way, if you want to do it, please review me as an editor, not an admin candidate. The question I intended in the first place was "How could I more effectively help the encyclopedia?" S.D. ¿п? § 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I am personally sorry that I have offended anyone here. As I say in my reviews I review from an adminship look. I do this for numerous reasons, first off if a user doesn't state what the goal of the review is...I might as well go on the safe side and review from an administrative standpoint. That way the user who doesn't want to be an administrator can disregard points of my review and apply the others to mind. If you note I review the mainspace, I look at the articles that they have improved. This part of the review will help anybody. Confidence wise and knowledgeable wise and apply them to their thinking. Also worth noting I have had users *literally* come up to me to review them. This implies that my review is helpful and nobody is offended. I have also had a couple of users want me to review "everybody" on the list to clear the backlog. If the user says in the review "I don't want to become an administrator" than I will not review them from that viewpoint. If the user is a little iffy and says "I don't want to apply for administrator *anytime* soon then I will review them from an administrative point so that they can know that info down the road. And once again if the user doesn't say if they want to or not...I might as well review them from that mindset. So that parts of the review can be taken and parts of the review can be disregarded. Arjun 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry mate, I feel the same way (somewhat). Whenever someone posts something along the lines of '...as a posible step to an RfA' I try and get them to reconsider: do they need the tools? or are they just after the 'glory'? Frankly I think wikipedia itself is partly to blame for keeping records, but I try and lay it out when I see something (see Juggler's review I recently did.) Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this page in months, and what the heck is with it? All it seems to be is 'reviewers' going over edit counts and telling people how to beef up their counts in certain areas to pass an RFA, things like "RfA goers would probably like to see a little more activity at XfDs to show that you know the policies that are brought up there". The people who apply this nimbly pimbly nitpickery criteria to RFA (must be 23.7% Wikipedia talk edits or more!) are the same ones carrying out the reviews, thus perpetuating the supposition that the person isn't important, it's the numbers. Show you're trustworthy, civil, kind, sensible and willing to help out. Don't get in lots of edit wars or cause conflict. Try and help resolve disputes sensibly, within policy, and with a outcome everyone can be happy with. That's all you need. Don't go voting on AFDs just so you can get your "XFD count up". That proves nothing. Proto::► 11:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
More awful, awful comments that completely misunderstand what Wikipedia is, and what being an admin means (it means, basically, nothing) - "A timeframe in which I can become an admin is also helpful". "For RfA people may want to see one or two months more consistent contributions. Otherwise the stats look well rounded.".
This page is doing nothing other than fostering Adminitis. Being an admin only means you get a couple of extra buttons, that are sometimes handy. It's not a magical promotion - Wikipedia isn't a game where the aim is to become an Administrator, administrators are no better or worse than any other editor - they are editors, like everyone else. Not a special tribe, we immediately and inherently have any greater status or 'respect' (and frankly, some admins have less than a lot of non-sysopped editors). If you believe the tools would be helpful, and you've been around Wikipedia for a while, and dipped into most areas from time to time, then make a request for adminship. I am very seriously considering putting an MFD together for this page, as its net contribution to Wikipedia is negative, but will cast around for opinions first. Proto::► 11:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I second Proto's words. Promoting arbitrary criteria for adminship is not useful, endorsing them is worse than not useful. >Radiant< 13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I note that in the guidelines on this project page it notes two things to consider in conducting editor review. One is user conduct, which makes sense. The other is "Number and types of edits". I.e., profiling editors based on editcountitis types of reviews. Also, the two questions posed to each editor seeking review are copies of two of three questions posed on every RfA. I.e., editor review is RfA preening. Bad. Very bad. --Durin 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
That is because editor review was born as a way to prevent people from applying to RFAs before being ready. In any case, please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WikiPrograms that are not useful, we have already three pages doing comments about the same, and it would be good to centralize everything somewhere. -- ReyBrujo 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Personally, from what I've seen so far, this project has gone astray and seeks a similar goal to admin coaching. My comments in regards to that I've kept out of this prior to this. My comments above were restricted to what I saw as shortcomings to this particular project, not towards RfA and Admin Coaching as well. --Durin 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a significant number of people who support an RfA only if the candidate has X edits, Y% of it in the wikispace. As long as such standards exist, so will these coaching centres. If these are deleted, they will incarnate in some other form. Tintin 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Such standards shouldn't exist. Having the admin tools is about one thing; trust. Supporting or opposing someone based on the right ratio of namespace edits has nothing to do with that. It misses the point entirely. --Durin 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. But that is the way the current RfA system often evaluates candidates, and there is not much we can do about changing the attitude there. Tintin 13:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, that is not the way the current RfA system evaluates candidates. The people who use editcountitic standards are a minority, albeit a visual one. The problem is that reenforcing the belief that this is the way RfA works, encourages people to work that way on RfA. That is a vicious circle, and the way to stop it is by not perpetuating the misconception. >Radiant< 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Then, we should teach the people doing reviews in that way about that fact, before teaching the people under review about how to be an admin, don't you think? Kind of, if this page is deleted, they will leave with the thought intact. If we change the mentality, however, it does not matter whether this page is deleted or not, they have already learned about that fact. -- ReyBrujo 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't bring myself to post the same things in three different threads, so I'll give a diff instead. The main points are to maybe consider broadening the editor improvement areas (see Wikipedia:Coaching) and that there are many ways to learn. If we work to diversify the options, that might help any one area degrading and becoming unacceptable. Carcharoth 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two things. First, I feel like maybe people are overestimating the amount that these reviews are used just to preen for RfAs. Plenty of editors seem to just want some affirmation that they're doing a good job and there's nothing that they're messing up. And they do get helpful advice--reviews include plenty of non-RfA-related stuff. So we may be going too far by deleting. Second, I agree with many of the analyses of RfA; edit counts should not be anywhere near as important as kindness and level-headedness, etc. However, edit counts are easier to look at than a user's contributions, and people do and will probably continue to use them as criteria in RfA !voting. Certainly a review that implies, "you don't have enough WP space edits and therefore you're not as good of an editor" would be reinforcing that practice and would be harmful. But the way I've been looking at it, if the review says "the reality of RfA these days is that yours is unlikely to pass if you have less than 2000 edits (sigh)", that just seems to me to be pointing out a fact. We've all seen RfA's fail due to more or less veiled "edit count too low" rationale. I think it's pretty likely that good editors will submit RfAs and have them fail, and get their feelings hurt. While maybe that's not the end of the world, it just seems best to avoid hurt feelings where possible. The whole RfA process seems kind of brutal to me. There are all these standards you have to live up to if you want to have a hope of passing, but no one tells you what they are. Doesn't it seem like this could be disheartening for some folks? Is it really that bad to give them a chance to go through something less painful first? If we really want to get rid of RfA preening, we'd need to deal with the !voting based on edit count (probably by discussing it more). Because people are going to continue to want the tools, for good reasons or bad ones. Just my take. delldot | talk 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My point is this is editor review. This is not editor review towards passing RfA. Any references to the latter should be removed, defocused, etc. A great editor can be singularly unqualified to be an admin. The two can have virtually no overlap, or considerable overlap. Any attempt by this effort to be both is misguided. There are other areas where a admin-wannabe can get advice. And yes, there are references for them to review...for example WP:GRFA. If this editor review effort is to live, it should be strongly understood by all seeking a review that this review has nothing to do with qualifications towards RfA. Steps toward that should include revamping the two questions away from mimics of RfA questions and get rid of the "Number and types of edits" review aspect. A great, fantastic, truly stunning editor can edit in on particular area, say a project on a favorite sci fi, and have no interest in vandal reverts, XfD, etc. Yet, this editor review uses such contributions as a basis of evaluating whether an editor is any good or not. This project needs to shift away from notional good editor heading towards admin. Being an admin is not a natural progression from beginning editor to experienced editor to admin. It might be useful to review Wikipedia:What adminship is not here. Any slant of helping a user towards RfA just isn't pertinent or useful here.
  • Editor review, in my opinion, should focus on what makes an editor great. Some example criteria off the top of my head:
  • Do they use easy to follow edit summaries?
  • When making potentially controversial changes, do they bring it up on the talk pages first?
  • Do they use proper inline citations?
  • Are they careful to provide citable references when available and as appropriate?
  • Do they follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style well?
  • I think you get the idea. There's plenty more to be had in that line of thinking. Being a good editor has everything to do with the mainspace and virtually NOTHING to do with Wikipedia namespace. --Durin 17:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with any of that. I'm not opposed to making editor review be more strictly about editing and not about adminship, as long as there's another place folks can go to get a realistic evaluation of whether they'll pass an RfA (e.g. coaching). I don't know that doing so will help with any of the problems with RfAs being focused on the wrong things, though. But sure, we do review the types of things you bring up and more like them when reviewing. Maybe we should focus and be more explicitly just about those things. I hadn't been, since I haven't seen the RfA directedness as being particularly harmful, but if others do, maybe that does need to change. delldot | talk 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should create a checklist for reviewers with such points and add it as a subpage. Tintin 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If this page really is working as a misguided "pre-RfA", then something needs to be done about it. However, can you wait until my review is looked at? lol
Seriously though, while I realise that there are various (some misguided) requirements in practice for adminship that go above and beyond the question of "can this editor be trusted and is he/she competant?", why on earth should they be a lens through which editors are reviewed, and why should those adminship tinted glasses be a cause for even thinking about MfDing this page?
Personally, I've requested a review for one reason alone - I want to see what other editors make of my conduct and contribution wo wiki so far. I'm not really interested in "you've achieved 1FA, but you don't have a large number of XfD contribs yet." because it isn't useful to me. I already know these things, and the only reason they'd be (unfortunately) important would be should I wish to run the RfA gauntlet or should I take it upon myself (as I'm doing slowly) to participate in a wider range of wiki areas for my own enjoyment/experience. What I am interested in is how people see my conduct, and how people view my contribution. If this page were deleted, just how might I go about seeking those opinions - it is Editor Review after all? Instead of MfDing, why can't we just make it more about the editor? Crimsone 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm all for making it simply about the editor and their actions as an editor. But, substantial revisions are going to need to be done to make this happen. That's not a reason to not do them, or to submit this to MfD. I'm just stating they need to be done. Any concerns I have, on this page, regarding it's filter towards adminship then evaporate. There are other places where a person can go to aid themselves in preparing for RfA. I concur with Tintin's suggestion of a subpage, or some implementation thereof, of a list of how an editor requesting reviewed is reviewed. --Durin 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As someone who has just recently started contributing to this page, I'm all for a clarification of what the Community wants it to be about given recent discussions. As pointed out elsewhere the possibility of seeking an editor review prior to applying for adminship was suggested from the start of this page. One is so far guided by what other reviews look like into what approach one should take in reviewing. If it is felt that this page should take a different path, then clarity is asked for in stating what exactly it should be for and what is relevant for purposes of a review. I'm having diffiulty following the many different debates on this topic spread around various pages. Should someone start a centralised discussion? WJBscribe -WJB talk- 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know if the issue is complex enough to merit a centralised discussion, why not just pick one of the pages that this is happening on and direct discussion there? delldot | talk 04:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        • This issue at hand is the existence of this page and Wikipedia:Admin Coaching which both seem to exist to promote Admintitis and editcountitis. -- Rmrfstar 11:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that this page too much advocates the universally deplorable values outlined and agreed upon above. The question has become:what do we do about it?
Do we simply remove all references to adminship from this page and de-emphasise that aspect of the reviews? Is there some way that editors may still be able to readily ask the only such justified question, "How may I more effectively help the encyclopedia?" Are the positive aspects of these pages just redundant with WP:ADOPT, WP:HELPDESK and others in Category:Wikipedia help forums? Perhaps we should just delete this and Admin Coaching and redirect them to Wikipedia:Coaching which seems general enough to be positive: as Carcharoth says, we need a more flexible and non-specific venue for such help. -- Rmrfstar 11:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions to the introduction of the Editor Review page

I've done some minor copyediting and changes to the top of the Editor Review page; the non-copyediting changes are intended to blunt a bit the "If you want to be an admin, start here" tone that is too easy to read into the page.

I considered adding to the directions (for those doing editor reviews) the following:

  • Don't offer tips to editors about how to be a successful RfA candidate - just offer advice on being a better editor

but I thought that was a bit too much of a change to the page without prior discussion, so I mention it here instead. John Broughton | ♫♫ 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be even more blunt and replace the "Often this is useful prior to a request for adminship, although it is voluntary rather than necessary. If you are here because your goal is to become an admin, you should (re)read and understand Wikipedia:What adminship is not before you ask for a review." with something like "This is not a page to seek advice on how to become an administrator" Tintin 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Or even more blunt and have a great big whopping sign that says "If you want to be an admin, turn and go this way" :) Editor review should be editor review, period. Not editor review so I can become an admin. Some people are calling for this page to be MfD'd. If it stays as it is, I agree it should be. I'm not inclined to put it up for MfD though until the people who support this page have a chance to redirect its efforts to editor review rather than pre-adminship review. It appears this page was viewed as a pre-adminship review (at least in part) since its inception. In fact, the two questions asked of each person up for review have, since the inception, matched two of three questions on every RfA. If the page doesn't become simple editor review, I'm not seeing much reason to keep. --Durin 15:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick question. In Wikipedia:Editor_review#Requesting_reviews, can I change Next, answer the questions. to Next, answer the questions. Be specific in your answers. ? The new line is intended at the answer to Q.1. Now there are vague answers like "I say that I'm pleased with most of my contributions. I haven't vandalized or done anything like that. There are a few of my edits which I'm not too happy about, but I don't have many of them fortunately." It will help the reviewer if they are specific about their better efforts. Tintin 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're amending the templates for editors submitting themselves for review, please revisit the deleting asterisk instructions. There are three asterisks on the line that says to delete an asterisk... and actually, the submitting editor shouldn't delete any. (I think). Anyway, it bamboozled me. --Dweller 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Tintin, I'm fine with that change. Dweller, the asterisk thing is probably my fault, that was a new thing we were trying out. The reviewer is supposed to remove the asterisk next to the username. You're right, the submitter doesn't remove any. Feel free to change it as you see fit or suggest further changes here. delldot | talk 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I added the line but couldn't find where the asterisk are. Tintin 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think Dweller was talking about the {{editor-review}} template. I'm not sure what to do about it. Dweller, do you have suggestions? delldot | talk 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do we do about the demand for RfA-readiness and RfA-improvement evaluations?

I want to follow up on this comment, in an earlier section: I'm not opposed to making editor review be more strictly about editing and not about adminship, as long as there's another place folks can go to get a realistic evaluation of whether they'll pass an RfA.

Part of me wants to say that is so wrong - adminship should (in theory) happen, not be forced. But I realize that a large number of editors won't understand or agree with that view, so I don't think it's realistic to avoid the issue. It's obvious that editor review has two very different purposes right now: to give editors feedback on how to be better editors and to help editors improve their resume (so to speak) so they look better for a future RfA. The second, a lot of folks (myself included) think to be a mistake. But it's a mistake that is responding to a demand.

So, a constructive (I hope) question: should Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship be revised? Or part of it spun off, into a (shudder) "Self-evaluation of your RfA prospects"? Or, at mimimum, put link from this project page to that one, saying something like:

If you want to evaluate whether you might want to become, or are qualified to become, an admin, you'll find guidance here.

-- John Broughton | ♫♫ 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting point. The very fact that there is a demand for such things doen't nessecarily mean it's one that should be satisfied. Many would say that rather than satisfying the demand, we should concentrate on removing the cause. It's a point of view thats quite clearly shown in the discussions above. I must confess, I agree with it. Crimsone 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Any demand for this service should be directed to request such services at Wikipedia:Admin coaching. That is the place for it. Also, WP:GRFA is already linked from WP:RFA. Personally, I think WP:GRFA has several failings. I created that page. But, what it has become has fundamental flaws over a single, fatal point; it can't decide whether it should be a guide to what RfA should be or a guide to what RfA is. --Durin 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving towards revamp

Is there anyone here who disagrees that:

  • Editor review should steer away from anything related to being an admin, and focus entirely on good editorship
  • Any elements of reviewing towards adminship should be refocused towards other places, such as Wikipedia:Admin coaching?

I'd like to see consensus on this, one way or another. --Durin 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • Okay, I'll start: Support. The page and process should make it clear that those being reviewed should not ask about improving their chances for passing an RfA, and reviewers should not offer such advice. And there should be a link to somewhere where editors who are interested in RfA success can go, instead. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. But I suppose it is up to the reviewer to comment on how civil the reviewee's interactions are with others, even though this can be a major issue in RfAs. Tintin 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per my comments above, this should be about being a good editor, not an admin candidate. --Durin 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We can try this to see if the old good ER can be brought back. -- ReyBrujo 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Arjun 21:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - however I don't think ER needs a revamp, just a clear statement of its goals. One thing I object to: good editorship often coincides with the qualities for a successful RfA candidate, though I certainly agree we shouldn't focus on the latter. I have noticed over the last few days however, at least for the people I've reviewed, that there have been less "I wanna do an RfA, how about it?" requests; I don't know if this is any trend, but regardless, I think that as long as we divert to admin coaching (which I rather dislike, but whatever) and state what our purpose is, we'll be fine. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Individuals with less experience need a place to come to get suggestions and feedback on how they're doing, without taking adminship (which is further down the road for them) into account. This would be perfect for that. Reviews for admin hopefuls could be offloaded into another area, as proposed. --Czj 06:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. As with David Fuchs, I think that the statements, not the whole process should be revised. Adminship should not be seen as a goal of any sort, but we should certainly come up to answer their doubts. But still, we'd still be helping a future RFA subliminally by helping them achieve a good editing experience. bibliomaniac15 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • Weak Oppose Admin coaching has a long backlog. Editor review is presumably a way to get feedback from people more quickly without waiting in line for an admin coach. Now, if there was a Wikipedia:RFA readiness review, I would support the above proposal. As a quick comment on the long discussion above, the problem is not editor review, the problem is what people think admin requirements are (>3000 count, x% in WP space, edit summaries, etc.). Fix the problem, not the consequence. Making this page go away won't change how people vote on WP:RFA. --Richard 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a user asks for advice about their prospects for adminship, I'll answer. Of course, my primary focus will be on the standard criteria of editor performance. YechielMan 06:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

As I understand it, there's a group of people saying that any program that encourages "RfA preening" should be deleted. Correct me if I'm wrong. So the question is really, 'is it bad to preen for RfAs or to fill that demand?' delldot | talk 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checklist for reviewers?

Not to distract from the poll, above, which I encourage everyone to post to, but: Maybe we should create a checklist for reviewers with such points and add it as a subpage. Tintin 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should, for example at Wikipedia:Editor review/Reviewer checklist.

That checklist could have items like:

  • Does the editor always include edit summaries, at least in major edits?
  • Are edit summaries informative?
  • Are edit summaries civil?
  • Are major and minor edits marked correctly?
  • Are reverts done only for obvious vandalism or errors?
  • When a vandalism is reverted, does the editor post a warning on the user page and/or, when appropriate, report the vandal at WP:AIV?
  • Has the editor participated in XfDs in the last two months? If so, were comments helpful rather than just "me to" or "I like it"? Was policy cited to support positions?
  • In any AfD discussions, did the user try to improve articles being assessed in cases where he/she argued that they should be kept?
  • Are postings to user talk pages informative and civil?
  • Are postings to article talk pages civil and constructive? Is discussion of user behavior kept off article talk pages?
  • If the editor has participated in any mediation or RfCs in the past six months, was his/her behavior there, and the behavior discussed there, appropriate?
  • Has the editor done a lot of rote edits (particularly posting "welcome" notices") that might be seen as trying to increase edit counts?
  • If the user has been active for more than a year, has he/she provided assistance to newer users at:
  • Has the user participated in any cleanup or maintenance work? (Perhaps this should be a question to the editor, not something on the reviewer checklist?)

What do others think? -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • "Has the editor participated in XfDs in the last two months" implies a requirement for editors to participate there. No such requirement exists. Other aspects of this sort of question are covered under civility and clarity considerations.
  • "That might be seen as trying to increase edit counts?" So what? If they are performing something useful, be it perfunctory welcome messages or no, it's useful. We shouldn't discourage people because of a perceived badness of inflated edit counts. Good for the project is good for the project, period.
  • "Has he/she provided assistance..." Editors are not required to do this in any respect. If all an editor did were to make minor additions to articles, they can still be a "good" editor. Again, this somewhat smacks of whether the person is ready for an RfA or not. Same goes up for cleanup and maintenance work.
  • In general, you've got to turn this away from pre-conceived notions of what a good editor is vis-a-vis future attempts at RfA and evaluate a user based on their abilities as an editor only. There are few requirements on editors. --Durin 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, editors should be encouraged to do what they want and pursue those venues that interest them, not that make them easy to evaluate. Sure, it is fine that we consider some things generally good practice, but this encyclopedia is not made of editors that all do these same things that are listed over and over again on this page. -- Rmrfstar 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel like this list could stand to be more vague. You're never going to make something exhaustive that many people are going to bother to read. I'm thinking more along the lines of "is the user civil and constructive in discussions?" type thing. Also, a lot of editors come to ER looking for advice on their content contributions to the mainspace, maybe we should add more mainspace focus to the checklist (though again, you're going to have trouble making a list that covers stuff adequately yet is not deadly to read). In other news, you could deal with concerns about implying a requirement for XfD participation (etc.) with the question by changing it to "If the user has contributed to XfD discussions in the past two months, have their edits been..." delldot | talk 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no particular attachment to any of the above questions; it was simply a long list to illustrate possibilities. I don't want to make such a list formulaic or misdirecting to reviewers, but it does seem to me that they would be helped by a list of things that they might want to check. Does someone want to put up a draft in their userspace where the rough spots can be ironed out (so to speak)? -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I copied it to User:Tintin1107/Editor Review and rewrote the XfD one as per comments above. The last three could also do with changes as John/Durin has suggested. Tintin 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes but I don't think I incorporated all the comments above. Thanks for the separate page. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the group agreed on the points, John's checklist would make a great bot project. I'm a big fan of User:AndyZ/peerreviewer, which has a similar function. Alternately, I guess you could just rank the bot review categories into universally agreed and controversial. TheronJ 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have started one of the lists, but it's hardly mine. I'm really hoping that someone who is more familiar with this project than I am will be bold and post the checklist as a subpage here. I think it's a great idea to separate the list into something sections, perhaps something like "recommended", "optional", and "possible/controversial". Also, I suggest it be called something like "Possible points for reviewers to consider".
With a list of possible things to consider, reviewers can then pick and chose; the advantage of having a checklist is that reviewers have something to start with when figuring out what to look for. The goal isn't consistency so much as it is helping reviewers, who can then concentrate on actually doing reviews. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ER Wikiproject?

I was looking around and thinking about the comments and polls above, and I was thinking perhaps it would help if we sort of turned the management of ER into a wikiproject. In my experience, having a project seems to motivate more to help out, and we certainly have plenty of people asking for reviews. It would also help to steer reviewers in the right direction, either with a checklist of guidelines like above or something else. What say you all? Dåvid Fuchs [talk • contribs] 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... personally I think it may turn into a Esperanza Coffee Lounge... -- ReyBrujo 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well god knows we would definitely not want that- the whole admin coaching thing was bonky anyhow, and definitely not what ER's about. Dåvid Fuchs [talk • contribs] 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought about the wikiproject thing, but I don't think it's a good idea for Editor Review. The current way is working just fine in my opinion. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MFD

As a result of the above discussion, the language of this page has certainly been softened, yet the problems mentioned above are still present in unacceptable quantity (editcountitis, adminitis, etc.). I thus plan on nominating both this page and Wikipedia:Admin coaching for deletion on WP:MFD. I do so because any admin-preparatory aid goes against our Wikipedian principles fundamentally and irreparably; any general aid asked for on this page either is highly redundant with other pages listed at Wikipedia:Coaching or quickly devolves into admin-prep. Then there's the fact that there is no "ideal editor" to whose attributes we should all aspire. We succeed in this encyclopedia because we are each different and independent; we should not institutionalize the creation of cookie-cutter users. Contrary to what is implied above, there is no standard of "good editorship" beyond what is self-explanatory in help pages. Any questions users have regarding this matter would best be directed elsewhere. I believe this issues to be fundamental to the nature of this very unnecessary and deleterious page, and that deletion is the best possible end. I also think this matter does warrant a more centralized and open discussion that MFD would provide, for something must be done. -- Rmrfstar 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with your conclusions, I certainly respect your motivations. Let the battle be joined! (Sorry, I just like over-dramatic phrases). P.S. Make sure to post the link here when you get around to it! Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
/me bows. I shall. -- Rmrfstar 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor review is separate from Admin coaching

I'd just like to mention that Wikipedia:Editor review is separate from Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Any discussion concerning the admin coaching project should be done over at Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching (assuming you want feedback from people who are actually active in the program). People active in one are not necessarily active in or reading the talk page of the other. Thank you. --Fang Aili talk 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this and am carrying on a separate discussion at the relevant talk page, where they too argue that the two MfDs should be separate. I am inclined to agree. -- Rmrfstar 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] multiple reviews

Is it the intent of those involved in this project that there be multiple reviews? It would seem a good idea, and the set-up permits doing it, but the wording "remove the asterisk (etc)" implies that there will be only a single review. DGG 19:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means people can have multiple reviews, but we added the asterisk system so it is easie to see who has been reviewed. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there should definitely be multiple reviews, but the current state of the backlog is that you're lucky if you even get one decent one. We should figure out ways to attract more reviewers (heh heh, start opposing RfA's based on "no ER reviewing". Just kidding, just kidding). We actually talked about the problem that DGG brings up when we were discussing whether to try out the asterisk thing. Someone suggested two asterisks, but that seemed like it would create the same limit but with two reviewers, and it would be more complicated. Anyone have ideas for how to deal with the problem? Maybe more wording in the header to say, "the more reviews the merrier" or something? Or change Reviews in the template to First review or something that emphasizes more than one? delldot talk 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If a user is going to get 2+ reviews, he will get it. Some users are very hard to review. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

The current way to archive reviews is painful. Anyone have any ideas on how we should do this in more technology-advanced ways? Like, who should we model to? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to rope someone into writing a bot to do the job. ~Steptrip 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Or can we just categorize them? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Hyperlink

I have just added a hyperlink to mathbot's tool on the Editor Review template. If anyone opposes, try to reach consensus and if it is reached, then remove the hyperlink from the template. ~Steptrip 19:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a good move. I usually don't check edit summary usage with the tool because I can see it on the contributions I look at, but it helps to have the tool available. YechielMan 05:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting reviews

I'd suggest removing this text from the "Requesting reviews" section:

Jump in and participate. Don't be shy! Don't just be a reviewee, be a reviewer too! All editors have strengths and can provide useful insights into each other's methods and approaches. Therefore, please participate in the editor reviews here, by studying the other editors' edit counts, contributions, and by asking questions, and posting reviews (your observations and advice). You may learn just as much by doing these things as by being reviewed. --The Transhumanist 07:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too wordy and makes the page longer than necessary (the longer a page is, the less likely it is that people will read it). I agree that it's important to encourage people to review others, but I don't think we need to go to this length to convince them that it's good for them. Maybe we could just pare it down: how about, "don't be shy, please review other users!" Anyone mind if I take this out or pare it down? delldot talk 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else has removed it. Since that worked so well, I have a few more suggestions for shortening the text (right now it's so long that the top reviews get squished up next to the TOC).
Surely one link to archives is enough? (plus there's one at the top of the page). Let's just take out the bulleted one. Though we might want to add "and archive it" to "Once you are happy with the feedback received, remove your section" under Requesting reviews.
  • Also, under Guidelines, it says,

Editors are asked to:

  • Remain civil.
  • Refrain from personal attacks.
  • Assume good faith.
    Is this really necessary? Aren't they always? Have we really had much problem with that in the past? (well, maybe this text is just doing a great job). Maybe we could shorten it to "Editors are asked to remain civil and assume good faith." (Since personal attacks are uncivil anyway, maybe we don't need to mention them specifically). At least that would shorten it down some.
    Any objections? delldot talk 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    I support all of the suggested modifications. YechielMan 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia_talk%7EEditor_review_90f0.html"