Wikipedia talk:Editor review

message: * Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support this.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title: Survey

message: *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)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: * 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)
thread_title: ''Quid pro quo'' model

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for closure

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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 .  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  (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,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The last three tasks above are probably unnecessary. I would say at this point that the closure is . 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)
thread_title:  Preparing for closure 

message: Thanks for the large amount of work you've put into this, . 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 () and links in essays / guidelines () 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)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarafa_Baghajati help me reviewing this page please ... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to re-open Editor Review. 

message: 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 ShihTalk 00:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In short I don't have high hopes in a revival succeeding and so IMHO we should simply leave it as historical. –Davey2010Talk 11:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting [[Wikipedia:Editor Review|Editor Review]]