Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Archive 1

Improvements
If anyone in anyway can improve this policy, please do edit and list your interest below. When we feel as though it is final, we will create a straw poll. Computerjoe 's talk 19:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to differentiate this from RFA, you can't show the user's edits and ask the same questions as on the RFA. This should be a separate area for more constructive comments, not like "RFA-light". --Danaman5 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I chose those questions as they do provide a good impression of the user. However, if you are in disagreement, please post the questions you think should be there. Computerjoe 's talk 20:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with Computer Joe. I also think that an editor should only request Editor Review if they have a certain goal in mind, i.e. an rfa. We could have a different set of questions for each goal, each set of questions specifically for that goal. --Osbus 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a little complex though. Computerjoe 's talk 08:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's complex, but it would be worth it. The whole point of this policy is to help editors become better, and for that cause I'm willing to set up the questions. --Osbus 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure! Computerjoe 's talk 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, I've created my own version of this policy. It's very incomplete, but the basic structure/ideas is there. Feel free to discuss and comment. --Osbus 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's too many different things there. A more logical idea would be simply to have those wanting a review (with no intention of user group change), those wanting sysopship and those want bcatship. Also, mediator cabalist is a dumb one to add: anyone can join the cabal. Computerjoe 's talk 15:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not anyone can become a cabalist. Maybe I phrased it wrong, but they have some kind of position requiring approval. Besides, I don't think an editor review for those who do not want a usergroup change is a good idea. What are we going to say? "Um, you need more edits. You can also, uh, contribute more to talk pages." I don't understand how that's helpful. All comments would be virtually the same. --Osbus 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess so. BTW, Cabal needs no approval. MedCom does, not MedCab. Computerjoe 's talk 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'd like to say this is definitely a great idea. One suggestion I have is to clarify that Wikipedians who don't want to go through an RfA can still use this service to improve their work on Wikipedia. Right now, it seems that Wikipedians who use this service are expected to go through an RfA. Great work, ComputerJoe. (^'-')^ Covington 06:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. It could also be helpful for users who want to see what the community feels about them before deciding to try out for RfA. After all, once you nominate yourself for RfA, you are usually advised not to be nominated again until after three months or more. -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 07:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3 months? Isn't it normally 2? LOL< if it isn't I have a longer wait than I thought. :P Computerjoe 's talk 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a bug with spaces, see General Eisenhower. Computerjoe 's talk 20:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Question
Is this also meant for people who have already passed RfA and just wish to gather a bit of feedback about what other users think of their work and activities? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 16:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Computerjoe 's talk 16:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Question
Is there a maximum amount of times that I can put myself on the Editor Review list? Evan Robidoux 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Computerjoe 's talk 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sub Page
How about moving noms to sub-pages. This would allow them to be watched and would reduce the size. Also, don't display each full sub-page on the project page as they could go on very long. Computerjoe 's talk 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. ;-p I also started an archive page at the bottom of the page. I'm thinking that we will leave reviews up for the same amount that RFA's are? M o e   ε  05:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. An editor should be able to ask for reviews for as long as they want. But, don't include all full convos on the full screen - just links to their ERs. Computerjoe 's talk 09:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Constructive criticism
I suppose, editor's review should be all about giving constructive criticism and not appreciation (without much looking into). If you have come across any other editor, who has made any mistake on his part, you can report it here, so that the user is capable of understanding in the future. -- Andy123  (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is important to criticise. Computerjoe 's talk 20:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My ER
I'm curious if I should evicerate my nomination on the main page. Only MONGO has given any feedback. Does this mean I should recluse it from the page due to no major problems found in my behavior around the wiki..? -ZeroTalk 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just dead. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 14:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean, I'm afraid. -ZeroTalk 11:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This page. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 11:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Brillant, how people are hasty in critising on rfa's, but neglect to barely make a comment on WP:ER, which is where all that should be talked about. -ZeroTalk 13:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a wiki, of course certain aspect's would be fecked up. You can ask people to review you, this page is pretty isolated, it's need more publicity. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 13:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently, this is still a proposed policy! It needs fine touching, for example there needs to be either a time limit or not to include all ERs in full. Computerjoe 's talk 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Still needs more publicity. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 14:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd still appreciate some more input on my behavior though. -ZeroTalk 06:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Me, too. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

full support
I fully support this proposed scheme. I hope it will win consensus soon. Rama&#39;s Arrow 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's still a lot of work. I don't think all editor reviews should be included on the page - I think just wikilinks to them should. Computerjoe 's talk 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I bollocksed it up...
I created Editor review/Username inadvertently by not pressing Enter after changing the username; could an admin speedy the blank page please? Thanks, dewet|✉ 14:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pushing to Poll
I think this thing is nearly ready, and if it was made official it would become more active. Any thoughts on having a straw poll ASAP? Computerjoe 's talk 18:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are any more improvements to be made.  F e  tofs  Hello! 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I say, "Go for it!" --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for the poll.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! (^'-')^ Covington 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's poll time, baby. Con  D  e  m Talk 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll create one. Computerjoe 's talk 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)