Wikipedia talk:Editor review

Confusion over when to request a review

If you have fewer than 300 edits (or your last request was not within the last 3 months), your request may be removed without notice. This statement from the page presents two cases when your request may be ignored. The first, less than 300 edits, makes perfect sense to me. The second does not. If you last request was NOT within the last three months, it seems to me that you should be okay to request another. If it WAS in the last three months, it seems to me that it should be too soon for another review. This is the opposite of the statement on the page and copied above. Am I reading something wrong or am I totally confused? Will someone please explain this to me. Many thanks. Probing Mind (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the wording from "was not within the last 3 months" to "was within the last 3 months". It seem to make more sense now. Alex Shih^Talk 21:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF grant proposal

I have submitted a proposal for one of WMF's new Individual Engagement Grants. It is a pilot project to determine whether coaching new editors on their writing for the English Wikipedia improves editor retention, focusing on women and Global Southerners. If you would like to endorse this project, you can do so here. I would also appreciate any other feedback, pro or con, which can be posted here. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor review MfD

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep per the pile of snow and the nom was withdrawn. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review

Wikipedia:Editor review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating the editor review page for deletion. It is, unfortunately, incredibly little-used. Editors post their requests for review and receive no response whatsoever. I posted a request several months ago; traffic was so quiet on the page I completely forgot about it. Upon perusal of other requests, I found no evidence that anyone has replied to them. If you look at the page history, the vast majority of edits within the past five months are from AnomieBot, while the others are from people posting or removing unanswered requests.

Basically, this process is useless and receives no reviewer traffic anymore. I would suggest that some sort of "review request" page be made, which experienced editors could check over, but this page is a waste of space and, unfortunately, a waste of time. dci | TALK 20:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the response below, which I have come to agree entirely with, I'll withdraw the nom and will presently move transclude this discussion onto the talk page. dci | TALK 03:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree, this page receives very little traffic if any at all now. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 04:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - If the process isn't working it should be marked historical, but that is a discussion for a different page. It should not be deleted as it was used extensively in the past and should be retained for that historical perspective. GB fan 12:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and mark historical. As already pointed out, it was a process used in the past by a significant number of people. That should be preserved. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Mark historical and delete or redirect all unfinished requests. The fact that some have sat since last year and haven't been touched is alarming. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and instigate a discussion on whether to mark historical. What would be the benefit in deleting it? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• The action required here is to discuss whether the editor review process is a useful one that would justify editors spending time conducting reviews; and if so, how to get more participation from reviewers (bearing in mind that the community's time is a finite and precious resource, so we need to prioritize among Wikipedia-space processes). I am quite unsure that MfD is the right forum for this discussion, however, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's clearly not a useful one if no one's bothering to do anything here. Any efforts I've seen in the past to increase participation in any forum (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for expansion) have utterly failed and only led to said forum getting marked historical. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and discuss marking historical, as it was used frequently in the past. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and discuss per above. Additionally, we should discuss possible ways of making the page functional, because while it isn't active and doesn't work as it should, it has a useful purpose for the project that could be quite beneficial. —Rutebega (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and discuss I agree with the nom that this is lowly used and not frequently seen wherein the traffic is so quiet. However, this page is just somewhat inactive. It doesn't commit violations against WP policies. Marking this page for historical would be better than deleting this page. Also, as per SarekOfVulcan and Rutebega points, we should discuss this page's marking for historical to know that this page is really inactive. Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Traffic may be low because many editors considering an RFA don't know it's available and those who have passed an RFA don't see this as a chance to "give back" to the community. With RFA reform a possibility, editor review is an especially useful tool for potential admins before requesting (or accepting) a nomination. Miniapolis 14:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The page is supposed to be for editor review, not pre-RFA review. KTC (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • It's both. When an editor wants to know if they'd be ready for RfA, they're often sent here. It's a lot better than people submitting RfA's just to test the waters. —Rutebega (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rutebega; editor review has been used as a de facto pre-RFA vetting. Miniapolis 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Instead of deleting, begin a discussion about marking this page as historical. - ʈucoxn\^talk 23:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps mark as historical - Significant usage dating back to 2006. Useful for editors, and would greatly reduce a stack of WP:NOTNOW closures at RfA. hmssolent\Let's convene 08:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep perhaps with discussion about reform. We don't have enough people who come by to actively review, which means that people who are interested in being reviewed should be more proactive. I've done a fair few reviews in my time, and looking at the page there are at least a few who have been reviewed, generally people who have advertised their review on their user/talk pages or have actively asked for review. Unfortunately, I have less time these days, but I'd be against removing pretty much the only voluntary review process on the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 08:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep' no valid reason for deletion outlined by the nominator. Discussing the traffic of the page, or marking it as historical is a talk page matter and MFD, like AFD is not cleanup. As for my opinion, we should have an RFC on this, at one point the editor review process was one of the most active namespace pages, and still can be used in a useful matter, especially with the discussion of RFA reform going on right now. Secret ^account 04:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Please note that I have withdrawn the actual deletion nom; this was done prior to a few of the more recent !votes. I transcluded the discussion to WT:editor review with hopes that discussion will continue there. dci | TALK 04:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep – While DCI2026 has withdrawn the nomination, my perusal of the pages indicates we have a greater level of participation. Well, to promote ER and to help clear the backlog, I recommend: 1. provide a nice userbox that says "This editor contributes as an Editor Reviewer". 2. Add a proviso to the Adminship vetting process that says "Experience in conducting Editor Reviews is appreciated/favorable/recommended/required/whatever." – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there now, or could we create, a project dedicated to editor education and improvement? It seems logical. —Rutebega (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I've looked through the page but cannot find such a template. Only the "Editor on review" (as in "being reviewed") templates. The talk page has an ER logo, which might be used to decorate my proposed userbox. As for a project, I'll be looking for such a project later today. Another thought – I have not looked, but is there an ER barnstar? – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Editor review improvement

Besides my comments in the above MfD about improving the project, I have a few more ideas. 1. ER ought to be on {{Help navigation}}. (I think I'll add it to the Interactive help:Noticeboads subsection.) 2. ER should be part of {{Wikipedia Help Project}}. (I will add the template above.) 3. Next step, for me, is to look at the becoming and admin stuff with an eye towards promoting ER experience as a resume builder for adminship. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideas for boosting participation

Here are two main ideas and a variety of other points regarding what could be done to increase activity at ER.

• We need active contributors at ER.
  • As mentioned above, userboxes/barnstars would be a good start.
  • Ideas or basic guidelines regarding how editor reviews could be formatted/laid out would be helpful. This way, it could be demonstrated to editors how they could write short yet effective commentaries about people seeking feedback.
  • Perhaps volunteer reviewers could be assigned review-seekers on a separate subpage. They would have a reasonable but appropriate period of time in which to complete the review.
    • Set time periods for editor reviews would be nice. This could be accomplished in a manner similar to GAN - generally, seven days are given to nominators to respond to comments, but this is not a a definitive deadline and can be extended.
    • At any rate, it would be nice to have an accurate, frequently-updated list of highly-active editor reviewers.
• We need to get the word out about ER.
  • Perhaps the editing window at RfA could be accompanied by a blurb that would encourage participants there to engage in reviews here, as well.
  • It would be nice to encourage RfA-seekers to come here first. Perhaps a stronger recommendation on the various candidate-preparation pages could be made to get an editor review.
  • Reaching out to failed RfA candidates would be a decent way to start things out; this could be a place where they could go to see if they're ready for their 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, or whatever) whack at requesting adminship.

Cheers, dci | TALK 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just to note that the last review which got any attention was submitted on November 17, 2012. All reviews submitted after this date were only edited by the submitting editor(s).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've done a couple of reviews recently, mainly because I think if I don't, nobody else will! I'll see what else I can think of. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone that's wondering, this might appeal to some, maybe most. Sportsguy17 02:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That article makes it sound like the foundation is being run by Sheldon Cooper and friends at their apartment complex. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

New Review

Hi all,

I had a review quite some time ago and would like to open a request for a new one. Is this possible or should I tweak the old one?

Regards, KiraChinmoku 22:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If the old one has been closed and archived, simply start a new one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ideas for boosting participation

- in Wikipedia:

Look at the recent retirements of Khazar2 and AutomaticStrikeout, and unravel them well. Without pronouncing whatsoever on the reasons, these are the kind of content editors Wikipedia cannot afford to lose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-Requested Review ?

I got a notice today saying "User:Formerly6697 was reviewed by Benzband" timestamped about 12:28 WP time. It didn't link to anything except my own Userpage. I am not familiar with this process at Wikipedia and the only thing I could find was this article but I am confused since apparently that is supposed to be by request which I did not do. Can you help me understand what this is all about? Why was I reviewed? Is there a report of some sort connected with this review and if so where is it? Did I pass/fail some kind of test? What are the plus's and minus's in all this? Please enlighten me. Thanks. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 04:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)