Wikipedia talk:Editor review Information & Wikipedia talk:Editor review Links at HealthHaven.com

Shortcuts: WT:ER WT:ERV

General information
Main page
Discussion
Backlog
Archives: (2005–2008) • (2009)
Templates

edit · changes

[edit] Userbox

I've just created a userbox {{User Editor review}}. Now it's only referring to the first review, and by adding parameters it should be possible to add the second, third review etc. and the colors and grapics could probably be far better. Is this an idea to work futher on? I've used it on my page. Nsaa (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, but is this suppose to be a replacement for our banner?--₮RU CӨ 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

More as an user box pointing to an already done review, so a link is maintained at the user page after the banners asking for input has been removed. Added it as an 9 point to the list on what to do. Nsaa (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohh. I think one way to improve it would be to add optional parameters in order for users to add multiple reviews. This should be optional since not every users nominates more than one nomination.--₮RU CӨ 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tried to add parameters. It works for the two first at least. Nsaa (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it should work for up to nine optional parameters (reviews), see Template:User_Editor_review. Nsaa (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help please

Hi, what are the "rules" regarding the review's subject removing negative comments? Could some people knowledgeable about this process look at the history onwards from this diff please. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In an instance like this when the comment was added in bad faith by a sock created to harass inclusionists and as such adds nothing constructive to the discussion, it is okay to remove it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There aren't directly any straight-forward rules about it (from what I read). If the negative comments are from a sock (like its mentioned) and if its pure nonsense (and in bad-faith) and not a legit review, the comments IMO should be removed. But if they are true negative comments, then they should remain.--₮RU CӨ 23:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If either of you would like further information on the circumstances involved here, please send me an email as I will gladly clarify things further, but the circumstances concerning that account and its long term history of incivility and personal attacks towards inclusionists are such that it should not be humored in this instance. Editors are more than welcome to offer their honest thoughts and as such you will see that some who have said negative things will absolutely not be reverted by me, even the IP that didn't like getting a welcome message, but this particular account in question has such an eggregious edit history toward myself and others that its comments cannot be regarded by anyone familiar with that history as good faith and legitimate. Again, if more evidence needs to be provided, I will gladly provide it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The comment was unhelpful and inflammatory. However, it was not vandalism, it did not name any previous accounts, and this is not user space, so according to WP:CIVIL it should not have been removed. Practically speaking, since these two seem to be old friends, I think we should leave the review page as it is, and interpret the revert as "message received". Wronkiew (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog

I just checked the current review requests and all of them are done; given this, surprisely, there is still a backlog: "Click here for the backlog of unreviewed requests."

Anyone care to do them?WhatisFeelings? (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the requests in the backlog, and it seems like most of the requesting users have not been reviewed. Not sure if these users are still looking for a review, and they could simply start another review request. -down load | sign! 02:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archive bot proposal

I'm interested in adding a new task for DustyBot (talk · contribs) to maintain the ER page and its archives. It will take over closing reviews, listing reviews in the archives, and notifying users that their reviews are about to be closed. Reviews will be closed when these conditions are met:

Open for 30 days
Not edited in 7 days
Marked as reviewed

DustyBot will notify editors of impending closures. It will not close a review until at least 3 days after the notification. The minimum review time (default 30 days) and the inactivity time (7 days) will be configurable by anyone. This task will run once per day. Please let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions for improvements. Wronkiew (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Computerjoe 's talk 11:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Request filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot 5. Wronkiew (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I was doing that originally, the notifications and archives operation :P You need a partner Wronkiew?--Tru co 01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questions when submitting a review request

There are 2 questions an editor is requested to ask. The first one says: "Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?" It doesn't ask what you are particularly pleased with. For example, "Are there any (edits/articles/contributions) about which you are particularly pleased? Why?" One of the three bolded items may possibly be added. Any comments?--Rockfang (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it. Computerjoe 's talk 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It still says

Answer the following questions under "q1" and "q2":
q1: Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Still not fixed as of today, causing me to incompletely answer question #1. Dan D. Ric (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

I have just added my request for editor review but the first pargraph doesn't show on the page.

This is what shows up in the editing screen:

===[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Gaia Octavia Agrippa|Gaia Octavia Agrippa]]*=== {{user|Gaia Octavia Agrippa}} I have been editing wikipedia since September 2007. I have been considering applying for admin coaching and then applying for adminship. However I would like to get some feedback on my strong/weak points and on things I need to improve or get involved with if I am to be a successful admin candidate. [[User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa|Gaia Octavia Agrippa]] [[User talk:Gaia Octavia Agrippa|Talk]] | [[User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa/Guestbook|Sign]] 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is what shows up on the Editor Review page:

Gaia Octavia Agrippa*
Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · contribs) Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats gone wrong? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows up perfectly on my screen both on the main page and your review page. Try bypassing your cache, refresh your browser, or purge the main screen or your editor review page.--Tru co 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrator review

I've noticed admins posting editor reviews specifically seeking input on their administrative actions, so I've revived an old page and set it to work for this process. Comments invited. –xeno ^talk 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge the two processes. Admins are just editors with a few more user rights. Computerjoe 's talk 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Withdraw editor review

Hey guys, I would like to withdraw my request for an editor review (Wikipedia:Editor review/DoxTxob). There were no responses in several weeks and I am not sure if I can archive it myself or if it can be just deleted. There is quite some backlog anyway and I am no longer interested in opinions regarding the review. Please delete, archive or let me know the steps to take. Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 22:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There were no comments because it was never transcluded to the main WP:ER page. If you don't want it listed, just leave it the way it is or you can request to have it deleted. Your choice. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

I added another shortcut to the main Editor Review page, as WP:ERV. The problem is, I can't seem to figure out the template syntax to get the new shortcut to show up in the box on the right side of the page. Can someone help out with this? Thanks. Quantumobserver (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. The template itself had to be modified. Computerjoe 's talk 09:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Change Editor Review Template

How do I change it on my userpage to go to this one, when it is automatically linking here?. Thanks, Silver seren^C 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

How come noone has reviewed me yet? Parker1297 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thar be a pretty big backlog, matey, so 't may be takin' a bit o' time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where's DustyBot?

A lot of the current reviews listed are very old. It may be time to fix the bot that should be archiving these; it hasn't closed or archived a review since June. Tim meh (review me) 00:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess nobody's watching this page. There are now 72 editor reviews listed here, with more than half being more than two months old. Tim meh 00:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing some. But it takes a long time to do one well, so haven't been working at it much. I think we need to recruit more people. Maybe we should offer some sort of reward system? Like a badges of merit for doing 5, 10 20, 50, etc, editor reviews, similar to these: Wikipedia:Service awards -- LK (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem here I think is that old review requests (that have reviews) are not being archived by a bot that used to and is supposed to be closing them. Tim meh 11:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also been trying to do at least 1 review a week or so.. and I've tried offering a reward to get others more involved but so far no takers. You are right though, a bot should be archiving the old ones.. Truco used to archive them manually but s/he hasn't edited this page in months.. so what happened with User:DustyBot? Looks like its last close was on June 28, 2009.. and its operator User:Wronkiew's last edit was on July 4, 2009.. and there are messages piling up on his talk page including one about not archiving reviews.. so it looks like User:Wronkiew has gone missing unfortunately.. another one for WP:MISS.. sigh. I've posted a request for a replacement.. (don't know how to program bots and too lazy to archive them manually ;) -- œ ^™ 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the project, leaving only unreviewed and newer requests. I feel like a bot now, cutting 77 requests down to about 20. I just feel amazing right now. =D Netalarmtalk 05:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You deserve a barnstar for your efforts! In fact, I'll drop one on your talk page right now .... --LK (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and closed a few dozen of the reviews Netalarm archived to get it all caught up. It certainly is time consuming and tedious to go through each of them. In fact, this whole process would be a whole lot faster if the bot wasn't down. Oh well; that's what editors with big chunks of free time are for. :) Tim meh 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions to help alleviate backlog

I'm seeing that there is an extremely high number of editors that wish to be reviewed to see how they're doing - which is good, but we don't have the people to complete all of the reviews in a reasonable time frame. We're backlogged all the way to July/August 2009. I believe that for Editor review to be useful for those that request it, the requests should not have to wait months until they are reviewed. So here are my suggestions to improve the current situation and my reasons for suggesting them. Netalarmtalk 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Limit the number of reviews an editor may request in a year.

There is no need for someone to request a review every other month. After receiving their latest review, an editor should spend some time improving their editing based on the suggestions. I'm thinking no more than twice a year, or somewhere around that. Netalarmtalk 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Establish a minimum number of edits required before a user may submit a review.

While it's good to see new editors wanting to improve their editing, it isn't really possible to give them valuable constructive feedback when they only have 10-50 edits. The number of automated edits should be considered here too as well. Another reason for placing this restriction is that people learn on their own from their mistakes. If an editor makes a mistake while editing, they'll most likely get a warning or a message from another editor notifying them of their mistake. Netalarmtalk 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Make the "review another editor" a requirement instead of a suggestion.

Reviewing an editors contributions takes a considerable amount of time. It would help out a lot if each editor reviewed someone else when they file their own request to be reviewed. This is different from abuse response, AfD, or the COI noticeboard, where the time needed comes nowhere close to the time needed to review an editor. It would also seem fair that an editor gives something back to the project when they are able to gain valuable feedback from the project. Just dropping of a request and waiting for other editors to review their contributions and give feedback seems a bit self centered in my view. Netalarmtalk 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Automatically archive all reports that are not filed correctly, or something similar.

The instructions clearly state (many times too) for an editor to transclude their request onto the main page. This shows that they don't even bother reading the instructions, yet still want to be reviewed. We could archive their request and place a message on their talk page reminding them to read the instructions. Netalarmtalk 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not review administrative actions here.

There is already Wikipedia:Administrator_review for that. While this is no longer a big problem, I think we should still make it clear that Editor review is for reviewing edits only. The {{admin|}} option should be removed for the template, because they do not pertain to an administrator's edits. Of course, reviewing the edits of a sysop should be perfectly acceptable. Netalarmtalk 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with all of your proposed ideas. I'll just throw out a few of my own ideas for the specifics. I would suggest a two-review-per-year limit based on our current backlogs. However, if your other proposals shrink the backlog, I could accept as many as four reviews per editor per year. I don't think there's any reason anyone would need more than a review every three months. They could even ask another editor for a quick informal review rather than starting up an editor review; maybe we should add such a suggestion here.

As for a minimum number of edits, I suggest requiring three months and/or 1000 edits (whichever comes first) before being allowed to start an editor review. I know it's arbitrary, but it seems to me to be indicative that you've had enough experience here to be able to be reviewed by others.

I'm not quite sure if I'd agree to making it a requirement to review someone else if you're submitting one yourself. On one hand, it would be certain to shrink the backlog and would be more fair and seem less "self-centered", as you say. However, I can think of a few problems right off the bat. Correctly reviewing another editor does take a big chunk of time and effort, and article building should take precedence over reviewing another editor's contributions. Also, I think instituting such a requirement would tempt people to do a very quick, short, and wholly unhelpful review of only a few of a candidate's contribs just to fulfill the requirement. If we enact your other suggestions, I don't think a "review someone else" requirement would even be necessary.

I'd prefer to just have malformed review requests deleted, but I'm not sure we can do that without the creator's consent except under special circumstances that usually don't apply to these requests. If a request was never transcluded onto the main page, I don't think it should be listed in the archives; my preference would be to just leave it alone and allow the creator to do with it as he pleases. Your suggestion on administrative actions is perfectly reasonable, and I'm a proponent of removing the {{admin|}} template option and requiring that reviews of administrative actions be placed only at WP:ADRV. Tim meh 01:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How long for review to come up?

I created Wikipedia:Editor review/Aaroncrick (2) yesterday and it's still not showing. Have I missed something? Sorry. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is showing up now. It needs to be transcluded by adding Wikipedia:Editor review/Aaroncrick (2) to the top of the request section. I did it for you. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly me. Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Review done" template

I have done a template that reviewers can use on the reviewed editor's talk page:

{{subst:User:Phantomsteve/er-done}} will use the editor's name as the review page
{{subst:User:Phantomsteve/er-done|review-name}} will use the review-name

For example, if these were placed on User:Test's talk page:

{{subst:User:Phantomsteve/er-done}} will link to Wikipedia:Editor review/Test
{{subst:User:Phantomsteve/er-done|Test 2}} will link to Wikipedia:Editor review/Test 2

The next section shows the output for the latter format

Incidently, as it generates a level 2 heading, it must be SUBSTd (if not, an error is generated)

Hope this helps! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Review: done

I have done an editor review for you at Wikipedia:Editor review/Test 2. Sorry for the delay in getting one done - we are slowly catching up with the backlog!

Perhaps you could consider doing a review of another editor? It takes a bit of time (reviews can take anywhere from about 30 minutes up to 2 hours, depending on how many contributions the editor has made, where they have contributed, etc).

The ones marked with a * are those editors who have not been reviewed yet - if you want to review one of these, make sure you remove the asterisks in the parts indicated!

If you have not done a review before, you might feel more comfortable giving a second review to an editor - this will show you an example of a review that has been done, and show you the kinds of things that can be commented on.

I hope that you find the review useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents