|This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.|
Editor review (ER), created in 2006, was a Wikipedia process where editors could request other editors to comment on their edits or conduct. Like a voluntary RFC/U, or a peer review for users, ER spun off the (still active) Administrator review process. Editors' reasons for requesting this sort of review were manifold. Some were young users wanting advice on what to do next, some were experienced users just coming off a long dispute, and many were RfA hopefuls wanting a sort of pre-flight check. At the time of its closure, ER was argued as redundant to several processes: For admins, the aforementioned administrator review served the same purpose. For disputes, an involuntary RfC/U was more likely the right result if the dispute was serious. For young users wanting advice, the Help Desk, Teahouse and Editor Assistance were better venues. The need for RfA preparation was a bit more complex: other admin coaching efforts in the past had failed. The best suggestion available for this was to seek out coaching on an ad hoc basis.
This process was never very active—while requests for review always poured in, high-quality editor review comments were uncommon. In 2013 and 2014, discussions were held to determine the status of this project. At that point, there were discussions listed here from as far back as late 2012 with no responses. The initial MfD in 2013 failed, with the conclusion that deletion was not the right outcome. The first RfC in 2014 reached a consensus that the process was dying if not dead, though many participants felt some restructuring might rescue the process. A second RfC, held immediately following the closure of the first, rejected the only restructuring proposal to emerge from this. Both RfCs were listed at Central Discussion.