Wikipedia talk:Editor review

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The result of the discussion was Keep per the pile of snow and the nom was withdrawn.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.

Mark Historical?

This page has been dead for a long, long time. Shall we mark it historical? If nobody opposes within a week I'll go right ahead. KonveyorBelt 16:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's the best option. I have done a few reviews, and keep meaning to do a couple more, as constructive feedback is good for editor retention - but with such a low take-up, it's not worth anyone's while adding new reviews anymore. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per the discussion above only 11 months ago. It's not doing any harm where it is and to close it down would simply be an overzealous solution looking for a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, what generally happens now is an editor posts a review, nothing happens, it falls off the list and they get at best no feedback and at worst the impression that no-one cares. I think that is harmful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Kudpung, It's not doing much good for anybody right now. Marking historical s not supposed to kill it, it's merely the end result of the board's desertion.

@Konveyor Belt: I'd agree that it's a good idea to mark historical. I'm not sure if anyone has any suggestions to get this discussion a bit more attention? We certainly don't want editors coming here getting the impression that nobody cares or taking the lack of comments in a negative way for any other reason. Gloss • talk 21:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kudpung, if you are referring to the MfD that occurred a year ago, many editors actually included recommendations to mark this process as historical in their keep rationales. Although I agree the RFC is a much better option than WP:BOLD would have been for here. Mz7 (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Historical It seems as though no one cares or has the time to review other editors. Plus, there is over a year backlog and that shows my point. The page is of no use now. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 04:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Turn this discussion into a full-blown formal RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Historical I tried out ER years ago, possibly misunderstanding its purpose. Even back then, it looked like interest in the board was dying off. Many of the comments I got were complaints that should have gone to my user talk, but ended up there because people who had gripes with me following new page patrolling or reverts saw the banner and clicked through. To a less experienced editor that might indeed have been disheartening. While I did get some good advice, that was nearly six years ago already. Honestly, this board looks at least as dead as WP:ABUSE was when we marked it historical last year (and there at least seemed to be some interest in listing new cases back then). It's time. I'm going to start a formal RfC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposal

Declare Editor Reviews as closed and mark it as historical.

Statement of issue

WP:ER is woefully backlogged and has been for a very long time. Presently, the oldest "active" Editor Review request dates to October 2012. A MfD took place in February 2013, while it closed as keep, many of those arguing keep felt it was time for a discussion to mark the board as historical. While there have been a few recent reviews made, of those currently listed, only Wikipedia:Editor review/Born2cycle has more than the most cursory of commentary. While looking at the archives for 2013 reveals a number of listings that received attention (particularly in the wake of the MfD), the standard seems to be one medium-to-long comment, no real response, and then closure. It seems to me that this is very much a sister case of WP:ABUSE, which was marked historical in December (though new reports were still being filed at that time).

Survey

• Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support: please prune the withered branch... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support: I found it useful a few years back and was planning on perhaps using it again if I beefed up my editing time to where it used to be, but it's pretty useless if most receive little to no response. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I've never even heard of it before. Anything with such a big backlog (aside from core issues such as copyvio checking) needs to be considered for historical-tagging, and this seems ready for said tagging. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, largely per the proposal and others above and below. Admittedly, I've heard of this process, but never actually used it. However, judging from the backlog and the ERs that I've read through, I do not believe that this is a very effective forum. Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support per my earlier comment. Very ineffective having a backlog of requests and nobody answering them. Gloss • talk 06:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Mendaliv's point about how harmful it is. I think Editor Review is a good concept but it's not currently in operation. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Mendaliv. I've tried to use it twice, but got zero response, so the pages are now deleted...sad. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs more advertising. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per SmokeyJoe. This seems to be something needing a broader community consensus. It should be brought up at the Village Pump and needs to be mentioned on all the relevant projects. I also am of the opinion that this page needs to be revitalized and not removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support ER is no longer satisfactorily effective, but a superior alternative is less likely to emerge while ER is still in the way. Northern Antarctica (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support: per my comment above. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This seems to be used fairly frequently. The main problem is that we don't have any people to review editors. This could be easily improved if someone put the time in it. --Thebirdlover (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor review and let it fall under the purview of WER. The type of users over at WER are precisely the ones who can properly utilize this method. Make it one of the tabs at the top of the Project page ("Main page" "Editor review" "Editor of the Week" "Members" "Templates" "Talk page"). Rgrds. --64.85.215.143 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I can support this.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as stated above, unless those voting "Oppose" suddenly clear the entire backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have to admit I'm a bit biased since I had a number of ERs a few years back and had been planning to have another one. Never knew it had a big backlog, but I think the problem is that there aren't enough users who could review contributions, since the page seems to be pretty under the radar. Let's first see what happens if the page gets more publicity and the backlog gets cleared. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support If we've got backlogs dating back nearly 1 1/2 years, and nearly every review that is doing anything is only barely showing signs of life, then it could not be any clearer that this has outlived its usefulness. The last attempt at "getting publicity" was in the wake of the MFD, and even that had only the most tangential of effects. Previous attempts to "draw more traffic" to underused sections of the site, such as most of the Portal namespace, have gone completely ignored or been ineffective. And to those saying "we just need more people who want to review" — where do you suppose we can pull said people from? Our own asses? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think this WP:ER has far more merit than any Portal. WP:ER requires advertising. WP:PORTALs are supposed to be the advertising. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above in the other section. KonveyorBelt 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I've just discovered this page and I had so much fun reading it. It's epic WP:MMORPG in parts and amusing WP:THERAPY in others. 86.127.138.18 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I get this is probably intended to be a bit facetious, but I should just clarify that the closure of the project will not mean the deletion of its pages. It'll all be retained for historical purposes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support because it's not working. People ask for feedback, but are not getting it. Perhaps we can consider why some editors open an ER. Editors tend to already receive feedback directly on their talkpages, and indirectly by how people in general respond to their edits and contributions, so why would they, in general, seek further or more detailed feedback? I think some are looking to become admins, and are looking for advice on what they can do to improve their chances. Well, we had Wikipedia:Admin coaching, but that was closed down. But we still have Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, so there is some advice and guidance for prospective admins to follow. Other than prospective admins, there may be new editors unsure of what to do. I think the Wikipedia:Teahouse is a better place to go than ER - and that seems to be working well as questions are quickly answered. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's clearly not a going concern any more. — Scott • talk 15:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support ER's been dead for months and it's not getting any better!, The backlogs don't help neither!, Close it for good! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Editor retention is most important when the Wikimedia Foundation is actively trying to pursue it as a long-term goal. This page is important for facilitating that process. As a personal COI of sorts on the matter, I myself have done a couple of reviews from December 2013 to January 2014, and I have one pending review on my talkpage already by Soham, and I'd really hate to have the efforts go wasted. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a great way to give feedback on editors, and as others have said, it needs more publicity. -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
• Oppose Its a great learning curve for new editors albeit with a few months experience. It helps them to choose their path in the wiki-career. —Soham (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @TeleComNasSprVen, Newyorkadam, and Soham: - Would it not make more sense to direct new users to the teahouse? If we can centralize the learning process, both the people looking for help and the people able to help will always know where to go. The Teahouse already has a body of helpers signed up, while this process doesn't. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 22:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • @Sven Manguard: The teahouse seems to be more for new users and general questions, sort of like the help desk. In that respect, the purpose differs somewhat significantly from this page, which is usually used by longtime editors looking for extra community feedback on their work, not necessarily for new users. As I said below though, I'm not opposed to a merger between this and Wikipedia:Administrator review, but I would strongly hold off closing down this Wikipedia project page until the editor review requests have been fulfilled. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed. -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
• Support As has already been stated here, almost no one cares enough to give people feedback, so it's clear this system isn't working as intended and should therefore be marked historical. As someone who has an ER of his own, in which I only got feedback from 1 person, it seems we need a new way to get feedback on how well you're doing here. Jinkinson talk to me 17:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Merge with Wikipedia:Administrator review instead (or at least rename that page and expand its scope). Peter James (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, because participation is horribly low. It's morally wrong to raise editors' expectations that they'll get some kind of review or feedback from a process that nobody is really interested in.—S Marshall T/C 02:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's way more efficient to go around asking people you trust about where should you improve. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 02:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose if this is dead in the water then there's a reason to at least try to shock it back to life first. This isn't exactly useless. If it can be saved it should be.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support We've been at this point with this page already. The initial proposal to have this page shut down was closed as unsuccessful in the hopes that this process could be revived. That clearly hasn't happened, and I don't see any benefit to a second attempt at reviving the page. Ultimately, new and inexperienced users would be better served asking for advice at the teahouse, where they are more likely to get a response in a reasonable amount of time, while the old hands can get feedback by asking people that they know and trust, as Hahc21 said above. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support am in favour of removing Wikipedia's redundant structures --LT910001 (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because lack of participation is not an intractable problem in this case.   — C M B J   22:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - sounds about right --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - the process is basically dead. If someone wants to create a new and improved process, marking this as historical won't prevent them from doing it. But nothing came of the reform attempts last year, so I see no reason to keep this thing limping along indefinitely, hoping for a miracle. Mr.Z-man 17:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Should be killed off, as it serves no useful purpose if reviews are backlogged for months or even years; there are better ways to solicit feedback. JMHamo (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support On top of the many good reasons above, I can recall an instance earlier this year where an editor facing fairly serious accusations opened an ER on themselves as a means of placating the accusers, but in retrospect maybe this was to avoid some of the scrutiny that would have come in a more well-trafficked forum, e.g. an ANI thread. If there's a specific issue it should happen on noticeboards or talk pages rather than an oft-forgotten ghost town. benmoore 19:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's not really working. Gigs (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose  Trying to pretend that something is dead is unconvincing.  The idea of killing it off because it is not dead, fails in its own logic.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

While some argument has been made before that ER does no harm, and that its level of activity is not so low as to be deemed true inactivity, I disagree and say that it is harmful for these reasons:

• Having little to no response is disheartening to less-experienced and marginally active editors. My own ER, while I got some advice, really was not a success for me. I was interested in how to actually write something that could become a GA or FA, or how the whole process even works, and where my own writing needed to improve. Perhaps I didn't say it in those exact words, but the low level of responses, coupled with the fact that some were critical, was a bit discouraging.
• Having one or two active contributors that respond to virtually all the ERs can introduce a dangerous bias into people's perceptions. Those few editors, especially if nobody's watching their responses, can serve to deliver an incorrect view of Wikipedia policy or community standards. It becomes very much a walled garden. In something that might be a step in RfA prep, that can really be harmful. A poorly executed RfA can stick with an editor for a long time.

Finally, all the tasks that ER can conceivably support are fulfilled by other processes or noticeboards to the extent possible (WP:ADRV, WP:RfA, WP:EAR, WP:TEA), or have been demonstrated not to work (e.g., WP:WQA, WP:ADCO, and in my view WP:RfC/U). Let's close this. It's time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging something as historical/inactive just because it's backlogged always seemed to me like giving up on an important process. Seen this same thing happen with WP:Requests for feedback and it saddened me. I really wish more Wikipedians just had the drive to provide others with feedback. Providing incentive seemed to work however. I once offered barnstars at WP:Reward board to editors who can provide good reviews to at least 3 editors. The results were encouraging, in fact I had to set a limit as editors kept showing up at my talk page for more barnstars! I agree that this process is failing, I just think that before throwing up our hands in despair and closing it down we should first try some alternative methods to generate interest. -- œ^™ 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with, say, delaying the implementation of a consensus to close/mark historical for a few months if there's an honest move towards revitalizing the project. There did seem to be an increase in participation following the MfD, though again, those reviews wound up being pretty sparsely commented on, and interest has clearly waned. I could see a sort of reward system working, but I'm still concerned about there being a bias in the sort of advice given if it's just a few regulars hanging around here, and only one person winds up commenting on an ER before it's archived. With WP:ABUSE the problem was not merely a lack of participation, but the general (and probably correct) impression that ISPs weren't taking action on the abuse reports that were submitted. There as here, increasing interest only takes us partway: we need to determine how to ensure that responses actually addressed the requester's concerns, that advice given is acted upon, and that advice given is effective. In order to figure the third out, I think we would need to determine what ER's concrete goals are. That is, is ER peer review for editors, RfA prep, a voluntary RfC/U or WQA, or something else? There's also the problem of whether those tasks aren't better served by other processes. Anyway, I think those are the issues that would need to be addressed by any movement towards bringing ER back to life. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So any editor may submit themselves at Wikipedia:Administrator review, not only administrators? Peter James (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm just wondering whether we shouldn't be working on increasing the visibility of the board rather than shutting it down. I've been thinking for a while that all of the review processes seem to suffer from a lack of neutral input, and that just having a standing watchlist notice that lists the editors with open RfAs, Editor Reviews, and block/ban discussions on AN/ANI might be worth exploring. VanIsaac_WS^cont 23:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• @SmokeyJoe and Mark Miller: this discussion is already on the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion template, which displays prominently on several pages, including WP:AN and subpages. (Although SmokeyJoe's comment is vague as to whether it means that or whether WP:Editor review itself "needs more advertising". meh.) ₆an⁶sh₆ 02:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not enough. You need to take this to the community at large and many may feel the Village Pump would be the best place to bring this up. A local consensus cannot override the broader community consensus to have this board.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I will also add that this board falls under the scope of Wikipedia Project Editor Retention and I see no attempt to bring this up there.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Mark, this is listed at WP:VPR already and is furthermore a listed RfC. I don't know what else you could ask for. If you think additional VP threads would help, I suggest you place notifications on those boards directing them to this discussion. Given the low traffic this board has seen for years I don't think there's a real need in something more extreme. The WP:ABUSE closure didn't get that much (iirc, it was just a thread at WP:AN), and that was a far bigger project in its heyday. And regardless, I don't see how the extent this discussion has been announced has any bearing on the validity of the concerns raised, nor on how dead this board truly is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Edit conflicted, so basically I second what Mendaliv says. ₆an⁶sh₆ 02:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I haven't seen it at the VP, but I will trust that, but it needs to be brought up at Editor Retention.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Done. I've also notified prior discussants that a formal RfC is underway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Thanks. I have also brought it up with a neutral mention on Jimbo's talk page. Whatever the outcome, I just want the broadest consensus as possible for this type of thing. Thanks for the good work.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• I have been aware of WP:Editor review for a long time. However, I have never before seriously considered providing an editor review for someone else, thinking "who am I to offer such opinions". However, I have managed to contribute to at least one Admin review. I think WP:Editor Review is a valuable mechanism for providing positive-leaning feedback to an editor interested in hearing it. Other forums are decidedly negative or critical. I recently had no idea that WP:Editor review was so poorly participated by reviewers, and I mean to make an effort to provide some reviews.

WP:Editor Review itself needs some advertising. These reviews, probably together with WP:ADRV, deserve an expandable line at Wikipedia:Dashboard. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Template:Dispute-resolution, and other similar pages should link to WP:Editor Review, although it should remain a place for voluntary invitation of comment on oneself, and should not assume any issues requiring DR, although I suggest (based on real world knowledge) that these voluntary self-reviews are indirectly preventative of toxic disputes. Also, as I saw one editor do once, I think it would be a very good idea for editors on review to add "^{review me}" to their signature, both to generally advertise, and to specifically attract other editors actually, currently, interacting with the editor.

I propose that Wikipedia:Administrator review should be merged onto Wikipedia:Editor review. I'm guessing that admins participating in admin reviews simply don't see or think of participating in any of the ordinary editor reviews. I am pretty confident that these admins don't intentionally mean to ignore the development of non-admins.

If, with better visibility, WP:Editor review remains moribund, then reconsider archiving. I hope this doesn't happen, its decline being a forewarning of the decline of the editor community more generally. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support merger between administrator review and editor review. In my opinion their processes are pretty much the same, except that one discusses the subject editor with regards to their administrative capacity and one discusses the same with regards to their editorial capacity. Barring the difference between two separate classes of users, I think that discussion of an editor's holistic merit and the potential benefits of his being part of the Wikipedia community can be better facilitated by the merger. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merger for now as unrelated to this RfC. The death of this process has nothing to do with the possible expansion in scope of WP:ADRV. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's entirely related - "Declare Editor Reviews as closed and mark it as historical" - closing it without a replacement prepared is only one option, there are others such as merging it with an existing process. Peter James (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's merely a matter of convenient wording: "merging" this with ADRV would merely have the effect of expanding ADRV's scope while ceremonially burying this process (given this process is dead as a doornail). It's like when people have proposed "merging" WP:PM and WP:RM with AfD: while there are participants in those first two, the whole idea is to take advantage of the large userbase at AfD. But time and again that proposal has been roundly rejected. This is the same issue squared. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I can't see any discussion on this since Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Archive 4#Wikipedia:Administrator review in 2009, when Administrator review was revived and split from Editor review. Peter James (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. So as recently as 2009 there was an expression of community consensus that ADRV should not be part of ER. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Almost five years ago, and there was no consensus or even discussion, just an action by one administrator. Peter James (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia talk:Administrator review. The first several threads on that page date to when the process was revived by Xeno, and show absolutely no sign of anybody questioning the revival of that process. If anything, there was no involvement from ER, just a notice that Xeno was reviving an older process. And really, the discussion there shows why ADRV belongs elsewhere. The commentary needed to adequately review an administrator is of a much different character than that you'd hope to see at an ER. ADRV commentary needs to be candid, and sometimes even harsh. Many ER requesters are new or young editors who very well might be driven away by harshness. As I said above, there's a good reason why AfD has not been combined with PM and RM into systems like RfD and CfD. AfD would not revitalize those processes, and ADRV would not revitalize this process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It's clearly not working as is, but Wikipedia does need a editor reviewing process. One option is the pass it to WER, and if they're willing to take that up, it'd be a good idea. Another option would be to mark this process as historical and put some work into creating a new process that does a similar job. Not sure what's best, but I don't want the only structured feedback service Wikipedia has to be gone completely. Worm^TT(talk) 11:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm more in favor of marking this process as historical and moving to something new, fresh, and with a clean slate. Kind of like what happened when we merged WP:RFCU and WP:SSP; we didn't just roll the checkuser process into SSP, we developed a new hybrid process. Also, ER isn't the only structured review process, though it's certainly the only one that's voluntary (unlike WP:RfC/U), useful for all users (unlike WP:ADRV), and specific to user feedback (unlike the teahouse). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand SmokeyJoe's response to TenPoundHammer's support. This discussion isn't about the merits of ER as a concept (I'd have been out in front supporting it had I been here at its inception), but an evaluation of whether the ER project has failed, and whether the next step should be to just formally close it to keep people from futilely (as they have been) opening new requests for editor review. At any rate, the point that TPH raised—rightly so—is that while we may feel like it'd be good to at least give those interested in this project another chance to revitalize it, this already happened after the MfD. Activity picked up for a couple months. Then it died down again. If that's not a clear indication that this project is dead, I don't know what is, yet in spite of it those opposing ER's closure are calling for giving it another chance. I would say that unless someone presents some structured, concrete proposal for what direction ER should be taken in, and it's clear they're serious about it, and there's clear support for it, there's no just rational basis for opposing closure. Merely calling out the portals, or wherever else on Wikipedia, for not doing their job advertising ER, and claiming that it would work with sufficient advertising is not a compelling argument for keeping this dead project's corpse unburied. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• @TeleComNasSprVen, Newyorkadam, and Soham: Whereas I agree with the sentiments carried in your !votes, I must point out that the facts have borne out that the Editor Review process has failed, and at this point only serves to harm the mission of editor retention (as discussed above). "Advertising" this process, so far as is possible on Wikipedia, will not be effective, as the response to the MfD, and even to this RfC has shown. SmokeyJoe appears to be attempting to address the backlog as I write, I presume in the hopes of rendering the backlog issue moot. The problem is that, after the MfD, the uptick in activity was by a few concerned people and quickly died down. Here, we have SmokeyJoe alone addressing the backlog, providing reviews of a few sentences. That's not enough. If this process is to be revitalized, those opposing its closure on the grounds that the process has merit should either be rolling up their sleeves themselves or showing there's actually a broad community interest in keeping this process around. No matter how meritorious a process may be, if the community interest is not there, it does more harm than good to keep it around, because people will get bad advice, and real issues will get ignored. I respectfully ask you to look at these factors and reconsider your positions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• It makes more sense to provide a note warning new submitters that they may have to do their own advertising. Last years advertising through an MfD listing is a far from ideal method, and of no lasting value. It doesn't make sense to close this down while saying it is a good idea that should be taken up elsewhere. No, if it is to be restarted, set up the new start and then redirect. The merge with admin review makes sense. It should not be archived while there are active reviews, that would be actively rude. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The problem is that the MfD is going to be more effective than any intentional advertising you could want, much as an AfD will often somehow manage to do a lot more to promote interest in and save an article faster than even processes tailor made to saving articles. And honestly, even this discussion has far greater advertising than ER could ever actually hope for: it's on T:CENT, which is displayed prominently on virtually every important page on the project. Yet aside from yourself, even after I mentioned this, nobody has rolled up their sleeves and taken on the backlog. As to there being "active" reviews, I think that's a somewhat unrealistic assumption. Any of the listed reviews that are over a month old can't really be called "active" anymore. Even for those that were recently submitted, there is precedent for closing a project with even that level of interest in WP:ABUSE: there were multiple new, untouched abuse reports being submitted by active vandal fighters. Joe, I'm sorry, but it's been demonstrated that the community won't support even net failure processes, regardless of how well they would work if improved (i.e., WP:WQA). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• What if we create a type of RFC called "VRFC" (voluntary request for comment) where you open an RFC about yourself because you want to hear what people think? This could be a replacement for ER if it gets marked as historical. Jinkinson talk to me 02:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with allowing WP:RfC/U to include self-RfCs, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the RfC/U process to begin with, having started one and seen it go utterly nowhere for weeks. I really think the ideal would be for editors to either do something in a subpage of their own userspace, to directly solicit other users for commentary and criticism (if that's what they're after instead of RfA prep or suggestions for new things to do on-wiki, which is what I suspect most of these requests are about anyway). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe, but RfC/U is "user conduct", and has been a reason to ban clean starts and decline resysopping. "ADRV commentary needs to be candid, and sometimes even harsh" - that applies, probably even more so, to RfC/U. ADRV would be more appropriate for more experienced editors - as it isn't just about use of administrative tools - and would be no worse than RfC/U for new or young editors. Peter James (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hm. I could see that. I just don't see an easy way to actively discourage young editors from using the process, when they might not get anything useful out of it. Perhaps those more deeply involved in editor retention can chime in on how to achieve that (or whether it's even a problem). Of course the stakeholders in ADRV will have concerns as well. I still disagree that whatever happens actually involves the disposition of Editor Review as a process trying to be reached here, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• If this is dead in the water then there's a reason to at least try to shock it back to life first. This isn't exactly useless. If it can be saved it should be. The conversation at least contain a search for ways to save it before killing it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, we aren't trying to "kill" it, it's already dead. It's been dead. No matter how many times people have tried to revive it, it's stayed dead. And honestly, a look at its history suggests that it never really was alive for any significant period. It's been said over and over again, but perhaps if I put it this way, those calling for a revival would understand better: "This [process] is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late [process]. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-[process]." No matter how many times we argue that the process has merit, or how beautiful its plumage is, that does not change the fact that this process wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• If a new proccess\proposal\overhaul were to occur, how would it be done? A list of an always dedicated staff of users providing feedback? Of course they would be elected every year or maybe a term and the staff would have to judged to be unbiased, balanced and fair. Perhaps users who focus on specific areas of editing or any that can give general overviews? Or would this be too beuraucratic? Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think just a list of dedicated/approved contributors who actually contribute to providing reviews of substance (i.e., more than a paragraph), though I don't think there's a need for a MEDCOM/ARBCOM framework for becoming a contributor. Truth be told, I think the amount of work in providing a proper review is enough of a barrier to entry. Anyway I hope that answers your question. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Quid pro quo model

• A simple, sustainable solution is to require X reviews prior to submitting a request. This strategy could be adapted through the implementation of basic guidelines that help facilitate constructive commentary by regular contributors in common areas of concern and interest. This structure is also much more likely to solicit input from veteran contributors via renewed interest and Cunningham's Law.   — C M B J   22:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I know DYK uses that model very effectively. The problem is that bringing in that sort of system sort of requires an active but strained userbase with a great deal of work to be done. We just have the latter here. Anyway, the discussion here is more towards whether the process as it exists is dead, rather than what form a new process would take—and what's proposed here would more or less require a new process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • There is a reasonable possibility that this model would be effective here within the given constraints. The cost of amending this process is also very low as compared with starting new, which, seeing as the latter would still be very similar in design and nature, is an important consideration in going forward.   — C M B J   03:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I really don't see this as being particularly different than "give it more time" in that case. I see nobody rushing in to take the reins, and in fact there's a growing problem: we have a recent flurry of very inexperienced users providing reviews. Let me explain why that's a problem: Editor reviews is where people often want to get advice as to a prospective RfA, about how to better interact with the community, and about whether they've done something wrong but didn't realize it. While common sense that everyone has gets you part of the way, familiarity with community standards (especially when it comes to RfAs) is indispensable. For the listed ERs, of the 10 or so review responses posted in the last week, all or almost all were provided by editors with zero user talk activity prior to January 2014, and I'm reasonably certain with literally zero experience with RfAs. You may argue there is a reasonable chance of a QPQ system succeeding, but it's not nearly enough. Rule tweaks and advertising will not bring dedicated, experienced editors to this page and keep them here. If an editor review system is to work, it has to be built from the ground up... to shed the dead weight that this deceased process carries. As I said above, this process wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it. It's bleeding demised. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
      • QPQ somewhat works for DYK because the criteria are well defined and pass/fail. A sufficiently advanced script could nearly do DYK reviews without human intervention. This isn't like that. Gigs (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I have created a draft at Wikipedia:Editor review/Criteria to demonstrate that criteria can be defined for this process and instructions made simple enough that anyone can follow them. If there can be agreement in moving forward with such a model, I would be willing to further improve and refine this draft. Further, and if so, I would also be willing to support a stipulation that an objective increase in participation must be achieved within a designated timeframe.   — C M B J   11:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

I'm listing a request for closure since the RfC is now delisted and discussion has substantially slowed. Below is a list of !votes for the convenience of someone assessing the closure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

38 total !votes as of 1 April

• 26 "support" the proposal, including:
  • 23 plain "support" !votes
  • 1 "weak support"
  • 2 "strong support"
• 11 "oppose" the proposal, including:
  • 9 plain "oppose" !votes
  • 1 "strong oppose"
  • 1 "strong keep"
• 1 in favor of moving to within a WikiProject's space
  • I've prepared a working draft to accompany the above QPQ discussion that I would like to explore before closure.   — C M B J   11:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed solution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Purpose
Editor review provides an essential platform for users to ask others for feedback on their contributions. However, because the existing process has failed to maintain critical mass, it has been unable to adequately serve its intended purpose for quite some time. This proposal seeks to address that problem.

Scope
The proposed solution is two-fold:

• Quid pro quo system - Editor review will be amended to require participation in exchange for commentary. Such an incentive structure will enforce sustainability, while also intimating to users that editor review is a human process. This model has proved effective in other areas of our project, including DYK.

• Standardized criteria - This new framework will be implemented to improve the quality of reviews. Criteria will be designed to serve as a guide that both enables inexperienced users to meaningfully participate, while also serving as a reminder to experienced users that there is always great depth and breadth to be explored.

Caveats

• Effect on RfA - Editor review can be a point of contention in RfA discussions and may pose an issue in the form of (a) insistence that nominees first subject themselves to review, (b) overemphasis on unflattering comments in past reviews, or (c) deterring or pressuring prospective candidates by way of observation. These problems may be somewhat diminished by increased participation and broader criteria, but ultimately they ought to be addressed for the benefit of our community if this experiment is successful.

Timeline

• Implementation - The experiment will begin 72-hours after this discussion concludes. This interim period will facilitate preparation and related tasks.

• Analysis - Periodic attempts will be made to address problems and identify potential improvements in the process. If conditions permit, performance reports may also be generated to measure and evaluate useful metrics.

• Conclusion - The experiment will be considered complete one year after the date of implementation. Should the process fail to increase participation by an acceptable threshold to be determined at the end of the experimental period, the default action will be to move forward with existing consensus and follow through with the above directives.

Survey

• Support as proposer.   — C M B J   08:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support sounds like an excellent idea. I'll certainly do my best to help out. Happy to put myself forward as a guinea pig, should one be requested. Worm^TT(talk) 08:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry but I can't support this plan for the following reasons:

  As mentioned in the closure discussion above, QPQ requires good (I would argue straightforward and objective) standardized criteria and pass/fail. The criteria suggested above appear similar to WP:FA?/WP:GA?, but I don't see them working with editor reviews, and are so complex that they would serve to close off this process to the young users that have traditionally made up its core.

  Furthermore, while QPQ works for DYK, one of the major concerns articulated in the discussion above was that ER may have been functioning as a walled garden, with inexperienced users giving either incorrect or meaningless advice; this solution does not address that problem, and may serve to exacerbate it by discouraging people from staying here long-term.

  Additionally, there is no real reason for people to stay around for the QPQ: once their review gets answers, they have no reason to stay around. Others who obey the QPQ will review those ERs. There's no effective "carrot" like with DYK: namely, you need to do QPQ or you won't get listed.

  Finally, this is just kicking the problem down the road. There's no cause to have a one year experiment with this; even if we find consensus to adopt it, if it doesn't take off within three months it should be considered a failure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe that these criteria can be made approachable for the variety of users that find this process useful. If they are, then the problems that you describe should be largely addressed. On your third point, ERQPQ must be satisfied before filing a request, and a new verification step will check this status at the start of each review. This proposal is also not intended to stall or otherwise buy time, and while I think that the suggested window is necessary, the default outcome will be action in accordance with existing consensus if an affirmative condition is not met.   — C M B J   22:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate an attempt being made to find a way of assisting new editors to discover if their contributions are helpful. I'm not convinced this way is the answer, as the problem is that the best people to assess new editors are experienced editors, and I'm not convinced that QPQ is an incentive for experienced editors as by the time an editor is in a position to give advice to others, they are essentially in a position to asses themselves, and so are unlikely to feel the need for a review.

The criteria as written appears rather complex - we have fewer and simpler criteria for FA and GA, and people find those processes demanding enough, and frequently misrepresent or misunderstand the criteria. However, the notion of having some criteria is helpful, and perhaps together we could draw up some criteria for a self-assessment, whereby new editors could look at a list, and note what good things they could be doing, and what bad things they could avoid. Not a long list, just the basic, essential stuff that we all would regard as important:

Are you polite and helpful to others?

Do you contribute good quality content to the encyclopedia?

Do you get angry or frustrated and snap at people or revert non-vandalistic content?

Do you resolve disputes?

Do you cause disputes?

Do others complain about your behaviour/attitude?

Do you get involved in discussion and do people like your ideas?

A self-assessment check-list can be done at any time by anybody. There's no waiting for a response that may never come. And there's no risk of a new editor giving another new editor misleading advice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I think that's a pretty good idea myself, and I'm sure the folks at the greater Editor Retention project, as well as the people at the Teahouse would be interested in contributing as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

    I should note that I support it as an alternative to ER (i.e., something the Editor Retention project can develop going forward) rather than as an alternative to CMBJ's proposed QPQ criteria (which is intended to revitalize the editor review process). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support this development of template-assisted self assessment. Self assessment is always a good idea. It is far easier to comment on a completed self assessment than on a near blank sheet where the reviewer has to do a lot of research. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is too toxic of an environment for this program to work properly. There doesn't seem to be enough of an aggregate to keep it working at all, let alone dysfunctionally. SilkTork's checklist is the best idea with the exception that the real crazies can't honestly apply the list to themselves. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal claims that editor review is essential. In fact, the process is quite optional and its usefulness seems debatable. For example, the current review of User:Cwmhiraeth seems to have been mostly a battleground and it's not clear that any good has come of it. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a forum and we should "please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia". We should focus on content rather than personalities. Andrew (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose In the absence of paid, professional and qualified auditors and/or conflict negotiators this process should be closed. In the absence of this, and in my serious opinion, this process should be closed. There appear already to be semi-serious criteria and QPQ is not, in my opinion, helpful as the primary users of this page appear to be newish Wikipedians seeking opinions from experienced and long-standing Wikipedians. The group that is seeking review may not be confident enough to give review. --LT910001 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• eh Your criteria aren't wrong, but I think they are a far cry from objective. You've attempted to capture some of the irrational de-facto RfA criteria, such as "high output" while "not padding edit count". Ultimately though, our criteria have become seemingly irrational because they could be more accurately called "post-facto"... that is, they only come up if someone wants a reason to oppose you. We, collectively, don't really judge the borderline RfA cases on any concrete criteria that can be boiled down to an objective list, instead we just grasp at whatever straw seems justified in order to oppose someone without drawing excessive heckling. This kind of thing will always resist attempts to apply rational logic to turn it into an objective list. Our RfA vote rationales often serve more to quiet our own cognitive dissonance than they are expressive of any real yardstick of worthiness. Gigs (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was my intention to differentiate between overt stat padding and very high frequency editing. An example comparing the two might look something like this:

	Stat padding		High frequency editing
2014-05-06T07:19:25‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,267 bytes) (-134)‎ . . Undid revision 607279072 by Evad37 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:31‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,401 bytes) (+134)‎ . . Undid revision 607287634 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:33 User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,267 bytes) (-134)‎ . . Undid revision 607287665 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:37‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,401 bytes) (+134)‎ . . Undid revision 607287915 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:41‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,267 bytes) (-134)‎ . . Undid revision 607288004 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:45‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,401 bytes) (+134)‎ . . Undid revision 607288259 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:49‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,267 bytes) (-134)‎ . . Undid revision 607288301 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:50‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,401 bytes) (+134)‎ . . Undid revision 607288651 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:55‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,267 bytes) (-134)‎ . . Undid revision 607288933 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:57‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,401 bytes) (+134)‎ . . Undid revision 607289251 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:19:59‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,267 bytes) (-134)‎ . . Undid revision 607289363 by User1 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:20:04‎ User1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,401 bytes) (+134)‎ . . Undid revision 607289649 by User1 (talk)		2014-05-06T07:19:25‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,281 bytes) (+14)‎ . . Fix typos 2014-05-06T07:20:47‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,247 bytes) (+966)‎ . . Expand lead section 2014-05-06T07:21:20 User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,552 bytes) (+305)‎ . . Adding template 2014-05-06T07:21:29‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,247 bytes) (-305)‎ . . Undid revision 607299415 by User2 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:22:47‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,563 bytes) (+316)‎ . . Adding template 2014-05-06T07:23:17‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,697 bytes) (+134)‎ . . Categories 2014-05-06T07:25:59‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,349 bytes) (+652)‎ . . Infobox 2014-05-06T07:27:48‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,341 bytes) (-8)‎ . . Use American English 2014-05-06T07:28:36‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,745 bytes) (+404)‎ . . Adding refs 2014-05-06T07:29:00‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,341 bytes) (+134)‎ . . Undid revision 607300145 by User2 (talk) 2014-05-06T07:30:14‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,791 bytes) (+450)‎ . . Adding refs 2014-05-06T07:30:51‎ User2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,001 bytes) (+210)‎ . . Adding refs
Suggestion: Consider exploring this observation.		Suggestion: Disregard unless user appears unaware of special considerations, such as edit conflicts.

The former can be indicative of a real problem. The latter is not a point of concern in my mind, excepting the rare instance where an editor appears unaware of their effect on others.   — C M B J   08:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get the relevance of this to the discussion at hand, which is whether the proposal can make Editor reviews a viable process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Gigs' concern that the proposed criteria may reinforce unrealistic double standards (e.g., "high output" without "padding edit count") is a fair point. However, I see potential for the criteria to be strengthened by such criticism, because it is much easier to evaluate gaps in logic when analysis is removed from individual users and refocused on the full range of behavior that can be seen throughout the community as a whole.   — C M B J   18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but—and this speaks to my general concern with the plan—improving the objectivity or relevancy of the criteria doesn't bring in experienced users, nor does it particularly ensure the quality of reviews. In fact, I would argue that all this does is make less-qualified reviewers harder to spot for younger users by giving their reviews the sheen of experience. Experienced users' reviews more than likely approach these criteria on their own, and it is those users who should be encouraged to participate in giving reviews. And as LT910001 points out, QPQ may also have the confounding effect of scaring away less-experienced users who might not have the confidence to review others. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for a variety of reasons, including those summed up very well by Mendaliv. Ultimately, I just don't see this process as being a positive thing for Wikipedia, the community, and our core goal of building an encyclopedia. Closing it would be preferable to fixing it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Replacing one system that doesn't work with another system that won't work for many of the same reasons seems like a spectacular waste of time and effort. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sven Manguard took the words right out of my mouth! - Replacing one failing board with a soon to be another isn't the answer and it is just a waste of everyones time, effort and patience, As I said way above this ought to be closed for good and left as historical value. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I think it may be better to separate discussion into two threads, one to cover each part of the proposal. I think having criteria or a checklist to help guide reviewers can be quite helpful; it's common for organizations with regular review processes to have forms for guidance. However, I think assuming that having guidelines is sufficient to enable anyone to do an effective review is overly optimistic. Reviewing the performance of others is one of the most challenging aspects of collaborative interactions; most people feel uneasy about critiquing others, and it is not a simple matter to provide accurate yet constructive criticism. Spending a significant amount of time to investigate the edits and behaviour of an editor, coupled with careful crafting of a written review is needed for the editor and Wikipedia to mutually benefit from the process.

Reviewers willing to make the the required time investment are probably more likely to be motivated by a genuine desire to build a stronger editing community, and those able to write the best reviews are naturally those with the best communication skills. Although hopefully there is some overlap with those seeking reviews, I suspect the intersection isn't as large as would be desirable in order for quid pro quo reviews to be suitable. isaacl (talk)

I agree that it's just too optimistic to think that guidelines are going to revitalize the process... to the point that I think discussing the contents of those guidelines is putting the cart before the horse. If we were already revitalized to the point that we had regular experienced reviewers that couldn't manage the load of doing reviews alone, then asking our requesters to do some legwork for them (in, say, looking at other requesters' edit histories and doing general "issue spotting"), it might be different (though, then again, that's almost exactly how WP:ABUSE worked, and that process was closed earlier this year). But with every step of these two RfCs, and with the MfD before it, there was a brief spike of activity. But even now, the reviewing activity stimulated by the RfC has just died off. We're still getting new reviews, of course, but they're just gradually sinking to the bottom. I have no problem with letting this RfC run the full 30 days, but it's pretty clear this plan won't have the consensus for implementation in the end. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think guidelines could help draw additional attention to editor reviews and, by making them more systematic, provide a general framework that would make them less daunting and thus attract more reviewers. So I think developing a set of guidelines can help revive the process. I don't believe that they will lead to a situation where anyone can be expected to perform an effective review, though. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Notes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preparing for closure

So I'm just going to list out what needs to happen to implement the closure of this process. Obviously, if CMBJ's proposal works out this will be unnecessary, but I think it'd be a good idea to lay this out ahead of time so things don't get missed.

• First, Wikipedia:Editor review, Wikipedia:Editor review/Templates, Wikipedia:Editor review/deletion edits review, Category:Wikipedians on editor review and Category:Wikipedians on editor review/Backlog should to be marked with {{historical}}. {{Closed down}} could work as well, but I think the implementation of the template is broken. Done.
• Disable AnomieBOT's automatic listing of new reviews. Done?
• Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Editor review needs to be replaced with a notice that the process is closed, and provide alternate locations to seek advice (WP:ADRV, WP:EAR, WP:TH, WP:RFC/U, etc.) (Requires an admin)
• The review request creation box (in Wikipedia:Editor review/Header) should be greyed out/disabled (not sure if that's possible with the current extension, but it works in HTML). (May not be possible)
• Wikipedia:Editor review/Editor-reviewsubst should be deleted or replaced such that if someone creates a page using it, it will transclude {{db-g6}} (probably unnecessary if the above is done). Done.
• Template:Editor-review/editintro should be deleted or replaced with a notice that ER is closed and suggesting alternate locations to seek advice. Done.
• Wikipedia:Editor review/USERNAME should just be deleted and salted, or replaced with a notice that ER is closed and suggesting alternate locations to seek advice. (Requires an admin)
• Template:Editor review, Template:Editor review sticker and Template:ER done should contain a warning that the process is closed. All marked historical.
• All pending reviews should have a warning added to them that the process has been closed, and they should be moved to the archives. Those involved should be notified of the process's closure and suggestions given for where else they can go for advice. In particular, the Cwmhiraeth ER, which is quite active at the moment (started following an AN thread) may end up remaining open for some time (though it may be suggested that those involved move to a RfC/U). All open reviews have been archived, and all requesters have been notified.
• The Editor review link should be removed from Template:Noticeboard links, as well as other sundry places around the project (e.g., Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing#Where can I get feedback? and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship). Done.
• Finally, {{backlog}} should be removed from the ER page. Done.

I think that's everything. Again, I don't mean this to look like a premature closure since CMBJ is developing a proposal, I just think it'd be useful to get all the ducks in a row given this process has seen continued attempts at use, so that should closure formally happen it'll see that users genuinely wanting comments or criticism get what they need. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have personally notified everyone who has an open ER that the process is closed, and stated that some alternatives will likely be listed in the coming weeks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The last three tasks above are probably unnecessary. I would say at this point that the closure is  Done. While some more info on where else to seek traditional ER-type advice might be helpful, I'm not sure what to do apart from referring people to the Teahouse or Help Desk. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Update

Thanks for the large amount of work you've put into this, Mendaliv. There are a few things, in my mind, which still need to be done:

• Increase the prominence of the 'historical' reference on this page - perhaps a larger notice in the article space? Right now the size of the 'historical' template is very small, and pales in comparison to the larger 'request review' templates
• Remove the 'request a review' templates on this page so that future users do not request a review.
• Have a look and remove links here, particularly links in templates ([1]) and links in essays / guidelines ([2]) for adminship.

At the risk of WP:LIGHTBULBing myself, I'm a little hesitant to make these changes, as I haven't been very involved with editor review, am not sure about your and other opinions on this matter, and I haven't edited any guidelines before. --LT910001 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarafa_Baghajati help me reviewing this page please ...

can you please review this page.. ?

I have a problem in showing references properly. and I need to know if you think the editing is good so i can keep adding adding information .

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.23.60 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's an article on Simple English Wikipedia. This is standard English Wikipedia. Even if it were an article on this wiki, you'd be in the wrong place to ask for help. You may want Simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to re-open Editor Review.

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Revisiting Editor Review there is a proposal to re-open Editor Review. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I thought this was an excellent process although seldom used. I suspect it may have a bit of a revival in this day and age, between the short drop-off of new users and jaded old users between 2008 and 2012 I think things are starting to look up now and this process should be tried anew. Perhaps with some minor changes in format that I haven't given much though yet too but I intend to. -- œ^™ 14:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Anyone around still interested in revival? Alex Shih^Talk 05:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting Editor Review

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse to formalize the request for comment.

Wikipedia:Editor review (ER) was a process for editors to receive feedbacks on their editing before it was marked historical in May 2014. While the page received consistent traffic and requests, there was always minimal reviewer activity. In October 2015, there were two discussions (1 and 2) that took place concurrently to figure out some kind of process to replace some of the former functions of ER, one of which was to serve as a platform to solicit opinions from the community before running for adminship. The former (optional poll) was adopted, while the latter discussion never received the consensus needed for revival. Do you think it would be a reasonable idea to revive this page? Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 00:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It died because of a lack of reviewers, and honestly looking back it never had many reviewers to begin with. How do you think this could be changed it if were revived? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• I fully agree with Ajraddatz. In the last days of the Editor review, requests piled up in dozens and nobody was willing to look at them because a full scrutiny of an editor is a very time-consuming task. This is probably not going to change. If one finds a different format, and avoids an overlap with ORCP, reviving it might be a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above - As the years went on ER had less reviewers and in 2014 it more or less became deserted[3], Now we have ORCP I really don't see the point in revival, If this is revived then alot of things would need to change and as noted by Ymblanter it would have to be done in a way so that it doesn't overlap ORCP,

In short I don't have high hopes in a revival succeeding and so IMHO we should simply leave it as historical. –Davey2010^Talk 11:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)