Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Archive 4

Revamp of ER
I recently came to ER and found an enormous backlog, which I have helped cleared. I noticed that the archives is really disorganized and I believe it would benefit ER if a separate archive for ER was made for 2009 and the archives before 2009 should remain where they are now, this way it can be more organized to search for your ER. In addition, it would benefit if we add discussion top and discussion bottom to the archived nominations. If this is done, that means even a user only had one review (despite the instructions stating you can resubmit an old one) it should be archived and if that user wanted to resubmit one, it would have to be recreated with an appended number. This helps keeping discussions more organized in an orderly fashion. This would also require rewriting the instructions. Thoughts?-- TRU  CO   19:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * sounds good. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me too. I would have thought that a bot should be able to do the actual archiving, though I wouldn't have a clue how to get one to do it. --Ged UK (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For now, it will be best to it manually. In the future, once the backlog is cleared, we can probably get Gimmebot or Miszabot to do the archiving, if it can be programmed to do that.-- TRU  CO   22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally I felt people supported so I went ahead and did the changes. In this way hopefully we can keep the backlog down.-- TRU  CO   23:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think we need more than a few hours to determine consensus. I'd wait a bit if I were you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if people disagree with the changes, I will revert them back.-- TRU  CO   23:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'm trying to figure out why this is helping to clear out the backlog. Perhaps we need to clarify how long we want to leave the reviews up for, but archiving the ones without reviews isn't a great way to clear the backlog.-- Terrillja talk  00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to archive that one. I mistakenly placed those templates on there while archiving some of the other nominations older than 30 days. I have reverted my edits on all my mistakes.-- TRU  CO   00:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be more careful in your approach. While I agree that we need to reduce backlogs, I don't think it's a good thing to do it against people's wishes. And that you archived mine which I created only yesterday is frankly beyond my understanding. Simply put: People should remove them themselves if they think they got enough reviews. Under your proposal, ERs with 6 reviews would have 6 different pages, which is completely unnecessary and creates more work. We can have a bot maybe that archives all ERs with no edits in say 60 days but we need to tell people first to do it. But I oppose any proposal that just archives them on basis of the number of reviews got. Because some people get more than others, that's just natural. And as Julian said above, to change ER this way, I think more than a couple of hours worth of discussion are needed to determine consensus. Regards  So Why  09:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That was also my mistake, I mistakenly archived a couple. My proposal is that [like the original guideline] stated, after 30 days if you had at least one review, it can [possibly will not] be archived. If it has no reviews for 60 days then it will be archived. The reviewer always has the option of when to archive it. If a request has had reviews or comments that are still ongoing, even past 30 days, it can still be listed.-- TRU  CO   12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you just move the editor review to your userspace after the 30 days if you want more reviews, remove your user name from ER, and make a custom notice about the review on the user's user page? Versus22 talk 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we want to add archived templates which close it from further comments to the request page. So I don't know how that will work.-- TRU  CO   22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Mandatory review

 * Proposal: If someone puts up an editor review, he or she will be required to review another person?  miranda  02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Its not mandatory, but we encourage it to get the backlog down.-- TRU  CO   03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as at any other reviewing-based system (e.g.WP:GAN, WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:PR), it is only fair that if one adds to the backlog, they should do their part in subtracting from it also. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we should have Gimmebot do this. Isn't Miszabot for talk pages only? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, and I've reviewed ImperatorExercitus but I don't feel comfortable reviewing more experienced editors.  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if they can't do that, we might have to see if we can come up with a new bot. Yeah, but those aren't mandatory just "requested [optional]". Like here.-- TRU  CO   12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Archive all requests older than 30 days, with notifications and keep-alive template

 * One problem with the backlog is that when the editors are finally reviewed, often months after the request, they have moved on or are no longer watching the review page. In some cases, the reason that they requested a review may no longer be relevant. For this reason, I think some unreviewed requests should be archived and removed from the backlog. Set a time limit of, say, a month for each request. At the end of the month, if the editor is still interested in a review, they can "refresh" their request and keep their place in the queue; instructions for doing this would be posted to the top of the ER page. I could be talked into writing a bot that would handle archives and user notifications for expiring requests automatically. Wronkiew (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree because when I was archiving I saw some reviews of Users were retired or blocked. The current time limit is 30 days, I think it would be best that a template should be created if an editor wants to keep it in cue they should add a template that is like a "hang-on" (which should give the review a couple more days open). Right now I will go around asking editors if they still want it open and I will go on from there. Who agrees on a template?-- TRU  CO   21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I asked those from older than 30 days, and about half have replied (some archive/some will be kept open for a max of 2 weeks).-- TRU  CO   12:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Archive directors?
I guess to keep a backlog from happening ever again, should we have like directors for it?-- TRU  CO   02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit much for an informal editor feedback process. Consider this to be peer review for editors. What you could do is make a neat little backlog box, similar to ones such as User:Deckiller/FAC urgents and Peer review/backlog. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess, but the main problem is that there is a "great depression" of reviewers, so it reviewers don't know when to "archive" their own request after 30 days. -- TRU  CO   12:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, if you notice an un-archived section after 30 days with reviews, archive it. Having a director here would be like having a director for peer review, which does not exist.  iMatthew //  talk  // 23:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its called a bot for PR. I guess directors wont work here. But I feel a bot should be created to archive ERs.-- TRU  CO   00:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
Just a little question but could this guideline apply to peer reviewing in anyway? SNESCDADDON (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how when we need actual users to review other users.-- TRU  CO   21:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Userbox
I've just created a userbox User Editor review. Now it's only referring to the first review, and by adding parameters it should be possible to add the second, third review etc. and the colors and grapics could probably be far better. Is this an idea to work futher on? I've used it on my page. Nsaa (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good, but is this suppose to be a replacement for our banner?-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More as an user box pointing to an already done review, so a link is maintained at the user page after the banners asking for input has been removed. Added it as an 9 point to the list on what to do. Nsaa (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohh. I think one way to improve it would be to add optional parameters in order for users to add multiple reviews. This should be optional since not every users nominates more than one nomination.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried to add parameters. It works for the two first at least. Nsaa (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now it should work for up to nine optional parameters (reviews), see Template:User_Editor_review. Nsaa (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help please
Hi, what are the "rules" regarding the review's subject removing negative comments? Could some people knowledgeable about this process look at the history onwards from this diff please. Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In an instance like this when the comment was added in bad faith by a sock created to harass inclusionists and as such adds nothing constructive to the discussion, it is okay to remove it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)There aren't directly any straight-forward rules about it (from what I read). If the negative comments are from a sock (like its mentioned) and if its pure nonsense (and in bad-faith) and not a legit review, the comments IMO should be removed. But if they are true negative comments, then they should remain.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   23:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If either of you would like further information on the circumstances involved here, please send me an email as I will gladly clarify things further, but the circumstances concerning that account and its long term history of incivility and personal attacks towards inclusionists are such that it should not be humored in this instance. Editors are more than welcome to offer their honest thoughts and as such you will see that some who have said negative things will absolutely not be reverted by me, even the IP that didn't like getting a welcome message, but this particular account in question has such an eggregious edit history toward myself and others that its comments cannot be regarded by anyone familiar with that history as good faith and legitimate.  Again, if more evidence needs to be provided, I will gladly provide it.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The comment was unhelpful and inflammatory. However, it was not vandalism, it did not name any previous accounts, and this is not user space, so according to WP:CIVIL it should not have been removed. Practically speaking, since these two seem to be old friends, I think we should leave the review page as it is, and interpret the revert as "message received". Wronkiew (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

Archive bot proposal
I'm interested in adding a new task for to maintain the ER page and its archives. It will take over closing reviews, listing reviews in the archives, and notifying users that their reviews are about to be closed. Reviews will be closed when these conditions are met: DustyBot will notify editors of impending closures. It will not close a review until at least 3 days after the notification. The minimum review time (default 30 days) and the inactivity time (7 days) will be configurable by anyone. This task will run once per day. Please let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions for improvements. Wronkiew (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Open for 30 days
 * Not edited in 7 days
 * Marked as reviewed
 * Sounds good. Computerjoe 's talk 11:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Request filed at Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot 5. Wronkiew (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I was doing that originally, the notifications and archives operation :P You need a partner Wronkiew?-- T ru  c o   01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions when submitting a review request
There are 2 questions an editor is requested to ask. The first one says: "Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?" It doesn't ask what you are particularly pleased with. For example, "Are there any (edits/articles/contributions) about which you are particularly pleased? Why?" One of the three bolded items may possibly be added. Any comments?--Rockfang (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone fixed it. Computerjoe 's talk 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It still says

Answer the following questions under "q1" and "q2":

q1: Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


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

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

This is what shows up in the editing screen: ===Gaia Octavia Agrippa*===

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

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

Gaia Octavia Agrippa*

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

Whats gone wrong? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It shows up perfectly on my screen both on the main page and your review page. Try bypassing your cache, refresh your browser, or purge the main screen or your editor review page.-- T ru  c o   14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrator review
I've noticed admins posting editor reviews specifically seeking input on their administrative actions, so I've revived an old page and set it to work for this process. Comments invited. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two processes. Admins are just editors with a few more user rights. Computerjoe 's talk 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw editor review
Hey guys, I would like to withdraw my request for an editor review (Editor review/DoxTxob). There were no responses in several weeks and I am not sure if I can archive it myself or if it can be just deleted. There is quite some backlog anyway and I am no longer interested in opinions regarding the review. Please delete, archive or let me know the steps to take. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 22:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There were no comments because it was never transcluded to the main WP:ER page. If you don't want it listed, just leave it the way it is or you can request to have it deleted.  Your choice.  MBisanz  talk 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut
I added another shortcut to the main Editor Review page, as WP:ERV. The problem is, I can't seem to figure out the template syntax to get the new shortcut to show up in the box on the right side of the page. Can someone help out with this? Thanks. Quantumobserver (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. The template itself had to be modified. Computerjoe 's talk 09:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Why?
How come noone has reviewed me yet? Parker1297 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thar be a pretty big backlog, matey, so 't may be takin' a bit o' time. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's DustyBot?
A lot of the current reviews listed are very old. It may be time to fix the bot that should be archiving these; it hasn't closed or archived a review since June. Tim meh  ( review me ) 00:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess nobody's watching this page. There are now 72 editor reviews listed here, with more than half being more than two months old. Tim  meh  00:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been doing some. But it takes a long time to do one well, so haven't been working at it much. I think we need to recruit more people. Maybe we should offer some sort of reward system? Like a badges of merit for doing 5, 10 20, 50, etc, editor reviews, similar to these: Service awards -- LK (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem here I think is that old review requests (that have reviews) are not being archived by a bot that used to and is supposed to be closing them. Tim  meh  11:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also been trying to do at least 1 review a week or so.. and I've tried offering a reward to get others more involved but so far no takers. You are right though, a bot should be archiving the old ones.. Truco used to archive them manually but s/he hasn't edited this page in months.. so what happened with User:DustyBot? Looks like its last close was on June 28, 2009.. and its operator User:Wronkiew's last edit was on July 4, 2009.. and there are messages piling up on his talk page including one about not archiving reviews.. so it looks like User:Wronkiew has gone missing unfortunately.. another one for WP:MISS.. sigh. I've posted a request for a replacement.. (don't know how to program bots and too lazy to archive them manually ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the project, leaving only unreviewed and newer requests. I feel like a bot now, cutting 77 requests down to about 20. I just feel amazing right now. =D <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk  05:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You deserve a barnstar for your efforts! In fact, I'll drop one on your talk page right now .... --LK (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also gone ahead and closed a few dozen of the reviews Netalarm archived to get it all caught up. It certainly is time consuming and tedious to go through each of them. In fact, this whole process would be a whole lot faster if the bot wasn't down. Oh well; that's what editors with big chunks of free time are for. :) Tim  meh  14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions to help alleviate backlog
I'm seeing that there is an extremely high number of editors that wish to be reviewed to see how they're doing - which is good, but we don't have the people to complete all of the reviews in a reasonable time frame. We're backlogged all the way to July/August 2009. I believe that for Editor review to be useful for those that request it, the requests should not have to wait months until they are reviewed. So here are my suggestions to improve the current situation and my reasons for suggesting them. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk  22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Limit the number of reviews an editor may request in a year.
 * There is no need for someone to request a review every other month. After receiving their latest review, an editor should spend some time improving their editing based on the suggestions. I'm thinking no more than twice a year, or somewhere around that. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk  22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Establish a minimum number of edits required before a user may submit a review.
 * While it's good to see new editors wanting to improve their editing, it isn't really possible to give them valuable constructive feedback when they only have 10-50 edits. The number of automated edits should be considered here too as well. Another reason for placing this restriction is that people learn on their own from their mistakes. If an editor makes a mistake while editing, they'll most likely get a warning or a message from another editor notifying them of their mistake. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm  <font color="#FF9933">talk  22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Make the "review another editor" a requirement instead of a suggestion.
 * Reviewing an editors contributions takes a considerable amount of time. It would help out a lot if each editor reviewed someone else when they file their own request to be reviewed. This is different from abuse response, AfD, or the COI noticeboard, where the time needed comes nowhere close to the time needed to review an editor. It would also seem fair that an editor gives something back to the project when they are able to gain valuable feedback from the project. Just dropping of a request and waiting for other editors to review their contributions and give feedback seems a bit self centered in my view. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk  22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Automatically archive all reports that are not filed correctly, or something similar.
 * The instructions clearly state (many times too) for an editor to transclude their request onto the main page. This shows that they don't even bother reading the instructions, yet still want to be reviewed. We could archive their request and place a message on their talk page reminding them to read the instructions. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk  22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not review administrative actions here.
 * There is already Administrator_review for that. While this is no longer a big problem, I think we should still make it clear that Editor review is for reviewing edits only. The option should be removed for the template, because they do not pertain to an administrator's edits. Of course, reviewing the edits of a sysop should be perfectly acceptable. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm  <font color="#FF9933">talk  22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Netalarm, as you may have noticed, I'm working my way through the backlog, and also archiving the ones that are 30+ days old with at least 1 review (I plan on doing that every week, or every fortnight at least - for example during the coming holidays, RL is a bit more important than WP!)
 * May I suggest that we see what the backlog is like once more reviews have been done? I think that once we're up to date (I hope to get some more done during the next couple of days) it'll be manageable. If not, then we can consider your suggestions, which I think have merit. Can we just leave it until, say, the end of January before continuing this discussion? -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How long for review to come up?
I created Editor review/Aaroncrick (2) yesterday and it's still not showing. Have I missed something? Sorry.  Aaroncrick  (<font color="#FE2712">talk )  00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is showing up now. It needs to be transcluded by adding Wikipedia:Editor review/Aaroncrick (2) to the top of the request section.  I did it for you.   GB fan  talk 01:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Silly me. Thanks.  Aaroncrick  (<font color="#FE2712">talk )  01:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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


 * will use the editor's name as the review page
 * will use the review-name

For example, if these were placed on User:Test's talk page:
 * will link to Wikipedia:Editor review/Test
 * will link to Wikipedia:Editor review/Test 2

The next section shows the output for the latter format

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it really necessary to disambiguate "Edit conflict"?
On recent editor reviews, Question 2 contains the warning "(please note that this does not refer to (Edit Conflict))". I feel this is unnecessary because while there is definitely some confusion over the two terms, it almost always runs the other direction. I have seen a lot of people read "edit conflict" and assume it refers to disputes, but I've never seen someone read "disputes over editing in the past" and think that it refers to WP:Edit conflict. I don't know where the template for editor reviews is stored or if it is full protected, but to someone who can make the change I suggest reverting it back to its earlier form. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is Editor-review. You might want to contact User:Phantomsteve about this directly because he's the one who changed the wording, claiming it was confusing editors. My personal opinion would be the same as yours, Soap. I think the question was worded clearly enough before that there would be minimal confusion and no need for the editing conflict link. Tim  meh  01:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to contact me, 'cos I'm here! I changed the wording after I had done **3** reviews in a row where the editors had responded to the question by mentioning something along the lines of "I have had conflicts, but I just type it again after the other editor has saved their edit". If you feel it is not necessary, I will revert it now -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I shouldn't have assumed you weren't watching this page. :) You do have a point, and it seems some inexperienced editors do make the mistake that you're referring to. I wouldn't oppose a wording change to make the question more clear, but I'm not sure the added note was necessary. Maybe just changing "conflicts" to "disputes" would prevent any misunderstandings. By the way, great work reviewing editors who have been waiting a while. Tim  meh  02:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I tend to do 3 or 4 one day, then nothing for 3 or so weeks! Mind you, that's because of the time it takes to do! I hope to get some more done next week (and more archiving as well) - although I'd be glad if the Bot was working, as that'd be so much easier! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 02:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the change from "conflict" to "dispute" was a great idea, but that adding the clause in parentheses on top of it was probably unnecessary because the word itself would be clear enough. And Timmeh seems to agree with changing "conflict" to "dispute". So I've half-restored it now, and I hope we can all agree on this version.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 03:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. Tim  meh  03:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant to leave a comment and forgot: Yes, I think that looks good. Thanks! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Reviews
I have manually archived all ERs that are 30+ days old with at least one review.

I will try to do this once a week, if possible (although obviously it's less likely to get done during the Christmas/New Year period!)

Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 02:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be great if you could do that. Netalarm got rid of a ginormous backlog a few months ago, and they've been piling up ever since. I thought about doing the same thing myself, but I just haven't had the time lately. Netalarm suggested some possible reforms for preventing backlogs a while back, but nothing came of it. Maybe you'd want to share your thoughts. Tim  meh  03:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since October 2008 (and excluding this month), there have been an average of 21 requests for review per month, which works out about about 4-5 per week. Once the backlog has been caught up with, it shouldn't be too hard to keep up to date - it only needs 2 or 3 editors to do a couple of reviews per week, and we'll keep on top of it!
 * I will try to do archiving every week (obviously, after Friday, it may or may not happen once a week during the Christmas/New Year holidays!) - I will try to do it on a Thursday night (UTC) or Friday morning. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't we get a bot to archive? -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a bot being used for this, but it's not been working in a while. It's no hard task to archive a few per week - it only takes a couple of minutes.! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in here (I'm trolling Recent Changes, 'cause I'm bored). I just wanted to mention that Bots are often used for archiving not only to save time/effort, but also because it removes (most of) the potential of emotional reactions to archivals. If there's an "ongoing" dispute that ends up archived, if that's done formulaicly by a bot it's usually not complained about. If, on the other hand, the archival is done by a person... instant drama! Just a random observation that I wanted to make, so take it for what (little) it's worth. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A good point, Ohms law - however, ER doesn't seem to very often have such "drama"! Also, ER is slightly different to a talk page archiving: the original page where the discussion is happening is still in the same place - the only thing that is archived is the link to that discussion! Also, when archiving, if I see that there is an on-going discussion, I would leave the link in place on the page. However, so far, every discussion has ended before it would be archived! Thanks for your input though - and when the bot is available again, I'd be quite happy for the bot to do the archiving, although as I say, it's no great hardship to do it myself - there's normally only 3-7 entries to be archived! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor reviews don't have much drama? When did this happen? Because I really wish it had been the case with mine... By the way, thanks for archiving that. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 18:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, there are exceptions, but they are rare (not that that would be much comfort to you, thejadefalcon!) Again, I must point out that when that discussion was archived, all the discussion was over. Should a review be eligible for archiving (i.e. more than 30 days old with at least one review), but the last comment was left within the previous few days, I would add a comment along the lines of As this review is still actively being added to, it will not be archived until at least a few days after the discussion has ended. If, however, it was a review in which I was not involved, and the comments were not being constructive, then I might consider archiving even if the discussion was still active - but I don't think that would happen very often. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, though I don't think it'd matter to me all that much. After an RfA, I doubt an editor review will phase me all that much... but until I actually go through an RfA, I can be totally stunned by my review. I've checked this page from time to time before I submitted myself and I have never seen one as long as mine became. Please tell me that I didn't just set a record. I'm not too sure that's a record worth having. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 20:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Making "review another editor" a requirement instead of a suggestion
Real life has been very busy, and I haven't been contributing for the past few months, but I have been watching the page. It seems that most of the activity we have is people adding review requests and archiving of old requests – only a low percentage of the requested reviews are done. The only way I can see out of this situation, where most requests are unfulfilled, is to make sure that we get as many finished as there are requests added. IMO, the only way to do that is to make reviewing another editor a requirement for getting an editor review oneself. We can phrase it politely by stating that if an requester performs an editor review, the regulars here will guarantee a review in return. Whereas an requester that does not perform an editor review will have to wait, and perhaps never obtain a review. Thoughts? Objections? LK (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say that I oppose this, for three reasons:
 * As in all areas of Wikipedia, reviewing other editors is a voluntary thing. Editors have real life commitments, and can't always commit to such an undertaking. Some of them are relatively new to Wikipedia, which is why they are asking for a review - and they are unsure about what is expected of them, let alone what they could say about another editor! Article review areas don't have this kind of requirement - why should ER being different to WP:RFF, WP:PR, etc? All the areas where articles are reviewed also say "if you would like to review another article, that would be nice" in effect. Would you insist that people who post at WP:ANI must respond to other threads? One of the good points of Wikipedia is that everyone is a volunteer who chooses what (or what not) to do. Hell, even on WP:RFA, there are only 3 mandatory questions - candidates do not have to answer all of the optional questions they are presented with!
 * I object to the implication that very little is happening here! Yes, there is a backlog, but as I said earlier this morning (above), this is getting cleared! I have been doing reviews, has been doing reviews,  has,  has... I could go on.
 * You suggest that if they do a review, this guarantees that the regulars here will review in turn: if we have regulars here who do reviews then we don't have a problem; if we don't have regulars here then it's a promise that may not be kept - either way, I would suggest that it is not required.
 * Ideally, it would be nice if an editor received more than 1 review, but 1 is the minimum for archiving, and at the moment, out of the 29 current requests, only 11 haven't been reviewed yet (38%) - and only 4 of those are older than 2 weeks! I will be doing some more reviews today (I usually only do a couple in any particular day, as they take from 20 mins up to 2 hours to research and type, depending on how many contributions they have made, whether they are thinking of an RfA, etc - today I plan on doing a blitz and do more!) - however, please feel free to do some yourself to help with the backlog!
 * Incidently, when I review an editor and leave a message on their talk page to let them know, I always mention reviewing another editor: I feel that they are more likely to review another editor if they have had one themselves!
 * Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 08:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Backlog cleared!
There are now only 5 editors whose requests have had no reviews so far - and none of those requests are older than a week!

Well done to those who have helped catch up with the backlog - especially and, but also to everyone else who has done reviews in the last couple of weeks!

I'm going to suggest that we have a backlog if there are any requests which still have a star next to them (i.e. no reviews yet) which are over a week old. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Archived 8 requests, leaving 20. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 11:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving for the year
When I do the archiving on 4th Feb, I will move all the 2009 archive into the 2005-2008 archive, then moving it to 2005-2009 archive - and starting the 2010 archive (which on that date will have 1-3 Jan requests) as well as updating the links on the main page.

Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

New Question?
I've noticed Doc Quintana add a question to a few editor reviews recently: "Why did you come to Wikipedia, and what do you get out of it?" As far as I can see, Doc Quintana, doesn't then make a review based on their answer to the question. However, it might potentially throw up some interesting responses and I haven't seen anyone complain about it so far. Are there any views on making this an official Question Three? -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 02:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, don't need anymore official questions.  Aaroncrick  (<font color="#FE2712">talk )   03:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aaron. Asking why an editor came to Wikipedia has nothing to do with their contributions or behavior here. Tim  meh  03:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, just checking to see if it would be in any way useful. When I've seen that question asked on another wiki, it threw up some interesting new facts about a user (though I can't for the live of me remember what those were). -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Archives
I have created Editor review/Archive (2005–2009)‎, which contains the old 2005-2008 archives updated with the 2009 archives. There are still some ERs floating around which are not there (such as on the Archive talk page) but I'll get those added next week or the week after!

Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 19:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: All of the old ERs on the Archive talk page are now on the main Archive page! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 01:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving of this page
I have set up automatic archiving of this talk page, using MiszaBot.

Any threads which have had no comments added in the previous 31 days will be archived - and a minimum of 4 threads will be left on this page.

Unlike the reviews themselves, this page can be automatically archived, so it seems daft to rely on someone to do it manually!

The first archiving should happen within the next 24 hours - I'll check on it on Monday if it has not been done automatically!

Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 08:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress
I have done the archiving of the reviews that were 30+ days old with at least 1 review. In future, I'll continue to do it on Thursday evenings where possible.

I have not got to do many ERs this week, but I plan on doing a blitz next week!

I'll put the table here, it's more to show me (and anyone else who is interested) what the backlog is like: <removed table which is still on main page> -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 07:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A big thank you...
To Ginsengbomb, for the reviews you have done today! Along with everyone else, it means that all requests apart from the ones added during the last couple of days have at least one review! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Review not showing up?
I created a review page for myself a few days ago, but it's not showing up on the main page. Did I do something wrong or am I just missing something? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You forgot to transclude it. I have now done this, so that it shows up! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why have I not been reviewed yet?
I requested a review several days ago, and I have still not been reviewed. Why? Immunize (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like all of Wikipedia, the reviewers here are volunteers. You have waited 3 days - in the past, there used to be waits of up to 4 weeks! Recently, the average length of wait for a review has been about 8 days - please be patient and you will be reviewed. For example, I have reviewed people in the past, but over the last month or so, I have not done any - not because I don't want to, but because other real-life commitments, or Wikipedia commitments have prevented me! Also, remember that you can do reviews of others yourself - for example, has been waiting since 8th May (4 times as long as you have waited) - perhaps you could do a review of them? I hope to get to do a couple of reviews later this week (including you, hopefully) - but a review takes me anything from 1/2 hour up to 2 hours, depending on how many contributions the editor has made, whether they want RfA-type feedback, etc - it's not something which can be done in a couple of minutes if you are going to do it properly! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 20:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I might get around to doing a review here at some later point, but at this time I am busy with real life and vandalism patrol. Note that I have still not been reviewed. Regards. Immunize (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're on my list to do right after Naruto. I'll try to get to it sometime this weekend. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr royal court 23:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please leave a note on my talk page when you review me. Regards. Immunize (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that review has been completed and user notified. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice
What is the URL of the editnotice (the one you get when you request a review)? I want to touch up a link but I can't seem to get to the editnotice's page to do so... (If you have the time can you tell me on my talkpage? Its easier for me that way, my watchlist is massive...) Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 08:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on talk page as requested. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

When is a good time for an ER?
I have seen unofficial rules of thumb for adminship (e.g. 3000 edits etc.), but I'm curious when an ER is warranted. Obviously you can't do much with someone with little editing history, so I'm just curious what a good rule of thumb is, before you submit yourself for review :) -- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  01:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, this is nothing like RfA. Anyone can request a review. Like you mentioned, a certain number of edits is good as it gives the reviewer something to work with. A couple hundred is generally plenty. Said editor might get a short review, but they can still apply. Probably a new(ish) user will benefit most, but not a total newbie. In this case, you're plenty "experienced" enough to ask for review. (and your adopter has been very behind, or she would have given you a "review" already) <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr  royal court 02:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First review
Hi, Would somone mind having a quick look at WWEFan25's review, this is my first review. I just want to check it's OK. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Derild covered most of it. Your review is really good. The only thing is that actually the user's edit summary usage is low - 98-99% is preferred. Other than that, looks great! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We're backlogged... again
It seems that editor review is constantly backlogged with requests. It's good that editors want to gain some feedback on their editing, but a backlogged editor review doesn't make that happen. I had proposed a few solutions a few months ago, but that discussion has ended without any results.
 * It isn't possible to review an editor with few edits, or even if it was, it would not be too helpful. Would it be better if we suggest or require a minimum edit count?
 * Do not allow more than one editor review in a month? Or two months. There's no real need to get reviewed too often.
 * Suggest to users that request reviews to review someone else.

Any news on the bot? It seems to have just quit. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First point sounds good, but how do we determine what is enough edits? A lot of it depends on the quality, not quantity. Second point sounds good. At least no more than once a month. Third point is good too, but I think we already emphasize that. Actually, I think we need more of an outreach. We have no list of members who habitually review, no invite templates, etc. I think that would help with getting some more people involved in reviewing. I have no idea about the bot. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr royal court 15:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * edit conflict I think that around 300 is good for a first review. I had one at 600 edits and haven't had one since then. I actually think 2 months is fair unless the user is going for RFA of they have made MANY edits in a short time. Yes, it is good to suggest to review someone else, maybe in the instructions? Derild  49  21  ☼  15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, seeing that editors are not archived anymore with the -do not modify discussion ended template-, it will be okay for people to continue to review even if the entry is removed from the editor review main page. I view it as reviews on the main page are the one's people should focus on reviewing (i.e. the ones that are worked on), but once removed from the main page, the editor can still be reviewed by other users. Other users would know to review because the editor has a banner displayed on their user page. So thus, the ones on the main page are the ones that get the most attention, but that doesn't mean the old ones can't be reviewed. Would it be better for someone/a bot to leave a message on the editor requesting a review's talk page about some things? Like please review another editor, when the entry will be removed, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netalarm (talk • contribs)
 * Well, I don't like the idea of forcing someone who has submitted a review to review another, but a gentle prod sounds good. I don't know about the message - don't the instructions on the main page already say it would be nice to review another when submitting a review? I guess you could say that reviewing another when submitting your own review is considerate, but I don't like the idea of enforcing it… (OK, I just said the same thing three times, basically). As for the minimum edit count… again, I don't know. I like the idea of suggesting it, but again, requiring it draws quite an arbitrary boundary. As Princess stated earlier, and WP:EC states quite clearly, it is about the quality, not the quantity. To follow up on that suggestion, how about a suggested minimum Wiki-age, say, one week? The one month requirement I can agree on. For example, see Editor review/Fridae'sDoom, followed in a just a week by Editor review/Fridae'sDoom (2). I had question marks over my head for that one… As for news on the bot - what bot? Airplaneman   ✈  01:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that previous unsigned comment, must've been multitasking too much. I agree that enforcing another user to review someone else wouldn't be a good idea, so that's why I suggested that the user be suggested to do so. I like the "gentle prod" idea. Most of these can only be suggestions, since we shouldn't turn away someone who really wants feedback on his editing. As suggestions, no one should be required to follow them, but if they do, they would benefit more from their editor review. Fridae's Doom said that he started the second ER because he didn't like the first review... but he could've just kept it open. The bot I was referring to was DustyBot (it archived old reviews), which quit last year. I'll look into the bot issue. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 12:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose we could make ads for this and put it in our userpages for a while until the backlog is done. The only concern is that people start to ask for reviews instead of reviewing others. I also agree on how we cannot force people to ask for a review at a certain time. Derild 49  21  ☼  12:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the bot operator regarding the bot. So can we agree that:


 * It is suggested in the edit notice that displays when creating a new editor review that the requesting editor review another editor.
 * It is suggested that an editor only request a review when they have at least 300 edits, or have a significant need for a review. Otherwise, requesting feedback from another editor informally is suggested.
 * It is required that an editor not request a review more than once every 2 months unless there is a significant need.

I'm not sure about the duration for the third one. We might also want that to be a "suggested" too, but a much stronger suggestion. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 23:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... no comment on this? <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the above criteria. They are reasonable and can't be worse than what there is now. Airplaneman   ✈  02:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support although I am not sure about the first one. Yes, it is a suggestion - but I think that it should be on the ER page, rather than the edit notice. I'd amend the three slightly, with a notice along the following lines:
 * This page sometimes gets backlogged, and requests may wait up to several weeks for a response. It is suggested that requesting editors review other editor(s). Also, if you have less than 300 edits (or your last request was within the last 3 months), your request may be removed without notice.
 * With that there (or in the edit notice) then if we are majorly backlogged, we can cut down on the <300 edits/<3 months requests. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 07:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about review request
what happened to my review? it was opened on july 22, but i don't see it on the list. please let me know. irt is at: Editor_review/Sm8900_(2). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You forgot to transclude it onto the main page, as stated in line 3 of the instructions "After you save the page, add to the top of the list on the Editor Review page. Be sure to replace "USERNAME" with your username." Once you do that, it'll show up on the main page. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks! have done so. you're right. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving...
I have archived requests 30+ days old with at least one review - sorry it hasn't been done in a while, real life kind of got in the way (having a baby tends to do that!)

I am hoping to get back to doing it regularly (every Friday, if possible) - I also hope to get some more reviewing done (it's been even longer since I did that!)

Thanks to everyone who has been doing reviews - it's always nice to see them being done! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 20:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I really miss the bot :( I emailed Wronkiew about it a while back, but haven't received a reply, and it doesn't seem like I will. I was wondering, someone might have the source code. The only thing I've found is this, but BAG and Toolserver might have more. We'd have to look into the licensing / copyright issues though. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 23:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm back on Wikipedia for a bit of time every day, I'm quite happy to continue the manual archiving - it's not that hard to do, and doesn't take too long! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 06:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor_review/Airmatic
Is there some sort of process to remove review requests that are clearly... odd? I think he's looking for a peer review of the article. Someone might want to just archive this one as being not enough edits to review. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 23:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to archive that now - the comments received are sufficient, I think! As for the process I'll be using... it's being bold! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 06:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have archived my own request
I believe my request was filed well over one month ago, with no responses, I have archived the request. Ronk01  talk, Editor Review  18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent header issue fixed
Recently I modified the editor review templates to make it easier to create editor reviews. This update basically allowed requesting editors to have to fill in one less box - the username. I've also changed the header that users see when creating editor reviews, making it (in my opinion at least) easier to understand. However, one part of this system (auto fill username) was not functioning as planned, as it used SUBPAGENAME everywhere it was transcluded, meaning that the header for the review would actually say "Editor review" instead of the username. I have since fixed this issue by substituting it from the template. I've resolved this issue, and sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused. If anyone finds any other problems, feel free to fix them or report them here. Thanks. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you know what's going on with the categories? Why are some users in Category:Wikipedia editor review instead of in Category:Wikipedians on Editor review? -- &oelig; &trade; 13:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Sorry about that. It seems that I forgot some noinclude/include only tags on the template. The category WP editor review is meant for templates used for the administration of the project, while the WP on editor review is for editors that are currently on an editor review. I've looked over the pages in the second category, and it appears that there are several pages that should be in the first category (or not suppose to be there at all). I guess nobody really took a look at the behind the scenes organization... until now. I'll go ahead and fix when I have time, unless someone wants to do it now. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Instructions - instruction 3
Hi

I realise this may be a bit of a kicking myself in the nuts question, but, is it possible that instruction 3 is not there ?

I have read the first post here so realise that I could have just done it and said nothing, but after reading the instructions again, starting another review with a dummy name and cancelling it, there does not appear to be an instruction 3 on either the intro page or the top of the form page which instructs to transclude anything to the editor review page.

Instruction 3 on the Editor review page is simply "Follow the instructions above the editor form to complete your request." and the form header says "Wait to be reviewed. Your request will be archived manually after at least thirty days if it has received at least one review; the listing will also be removed from the main page. If you are satisfied with the feedback you have received, you may manually archive your editor review before the end of the thirty-day period."

I have also purged the page cache so will now do it manually :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, you are correct. The system was changed a few weeks ago so now a bot handles the transclusion, with no manual input needed. Back in the July (when the post you're referencing was made), requests needed to be manually transcluded onto the main page. The directions were rewritten to reflect that, so now you simply have to enter your username, fill in the form, and click save! And then wait for a review... :P <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 05:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

help!
i want to have another review but When i make another my first one pops up help! Parker1297  ( Talk to me · Sign my autograph page.)                              20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems you've fixed the issue by creating Editor_review/Parker1297_(2). <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested pilot program
User:Netalarm/Review exchange No real changes, aside from: Thoughts on this alternative? Please note that this is a proposed alternative, not a replacement. If people want a faster review, they can choose the alternative. If they don't bother waiting, they can go with the traditional system. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No limits on how many reviews an editor may request in a month.
 * 2) An editor must review another editor before requesting a review.
 * The only problem is the new editors with just a few weeks experience can't offer the type of review a more experienced editor may want. But we could also split up the reviews by experience and you place your review in a section and review someone in your section with similar experience instead? Derild  49  21  Review Me!  03:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good solution, but how do we determine who goes where?. I was hoping that the experienced users would participate in the exchange, while the new users that are uncomfortable with reviewing other users can continue to use the old system. The one thing I would really like to see though is new users attempting to review other users. While their attempt may not be perfect, it's the effort that counts. We could always extend on their review. Furthermore, reviewing another editor is a good way to gain experience, since you're comparing yourself and looking at how other users interact. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 03:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We could separate them by edit count and suggest to review people in some category below or equal to you, but have rule requiring for you to review a certain person. Derild  49  21  Review Me!  20:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would work too, so an alternate system would not be required. We could just require that all users that have a certain number of edits review another editor, but that idea has generally been frowned upon. However, times have changed, we we're now being flooded with requests from people who are fully capable of reviewing other users, yet are not doing so.
 * 1.Require that all users with over (1000?) edits review another editor before their review is placed at editor review. All they have to do is make a genuine attempt.
 * Or
 * 2.Require all users to review another editor. Again, all they have to do is make a genuine attempt. Thoughts? <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Experience based on edit count is a major fallacy on Wikipedia, I mean you can have 1000+ edits and still not be experienced. On Wikipedia experience is defined by a user's familiarity with policies and guidelines and the way the behind-the-scenes areas of Wikipedia work. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 5:57pm • 06:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So should we start giving exams before allowing people to request reviews? Hence the second option, which asks that all users seeking a review attempt to review another editor. If a new user is capable of normal editing and interacting with other users, he should be able to review another user, or at least attempt to do so. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 07:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with allowing all users to attempt to review others, but I believe a contribution analysis would help determine which users are inexperienced and which users aren't. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 6:04pm • 07:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's going to make the process more subjective and ... problematic. We need clear guidelines on what should be done, not an individual analysis of every editor that requests a review. The edit count is often times good enough to measure experience in this case, since editors with a more edits will know what type of behavior is allowed and what type isn't. Wait... all users that have significant contributions to be reviewed should be experienced enough to review someone else, no? As always, we could always step in and help the newer users review. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 07:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I see your point now. I think we should make the ER process as interactive as a classroom for example. We help the new reviewers get their wings, tell them what they should be analysing when reviewing another user and so on and so forth. Basically, taking a brief look at the requesting user's contributions and then analysing some of the larger edits, instead of looking through every single edit (which is fine but might take a while for users with huge edit counts), looking for edit summary usage and participation in the various content and non-content centred areas of Wikipedia. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 6:13pm • 07:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Just as the redesigned adopt-a-user program, this project also requires the active participation of both parties. You need people to request reviews and people to review. If people that requested reviews made an attempt to review someone (it doesn't even have to be good, just a attempt is all we're asking for), the system would be much better. Derild pointed out above that we may be able to require editors with a certain number of edits to review another user, but AA pointed out that edit counts aren't always an indicator of experience. So, should we simply require that all editors make an attempt to review someone else before they can request a review? <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 07:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that that would be beneficial in aiding new users progress, it would certainly teach new users a vital skill. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 6:29pm • 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal as a result of above discussion
Please note that this proposal simply requires an attempt, not an A+ review. A new user may simply attempt to review another user and their request will be transcluded. Reviewing another editor, as discussed above, is an excellent learning experience for new users since it exposes them to the editing styles of other users. Doing so would allow them to compare themselves and learn from others. Experienced editors (the vast majority of requesting editors) should have the capability to review users. But again, we're only looking for an attempt. If it is not sufficient, we could always extend on the review. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is proposed that all editors requesting an editor review must make an attempt to review another editor before their review may be transcluded onto the main page.
 * Support - Sounds good, maybe write up a guide on how to review people for newer editors. Derild  49  21  Review Me!  03:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - It will encourage participation from new inexperienced users, it helps them progress through the learning curve and the skills they learn will help them later on in their "Wiki Career". —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 9:44pm • 10:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I agree that we need more reviewers and I think it's great that this proposal is attempting to improve things, I applaud the attempt, but I worry that forcing users to do a review will result in poor-quality reviews, done only in a quick reluctant manner only to satisfy the condition. I realize they should only 'attempt' to make a review but is that what you would really want if you were looking for a review? I know I would want an honest and substantial review.. doesn't have to be long.. just specific, and tailored to me. Yes, I think higher quality reviews is a better target to shoot for.. quality over quantity as they say. With all that said, I realize we'll be left with the status quo of more reviewees than volunteer reviewers, and that we can't always expect unpaid volunteers to devote 100% of their time and effort to anything, but that's a problem any volunteer driven process faces, and I just wanted to voice a different perspective. But I want to support the proposal, I just think we should word it as: "All editors requesting an editor review are strongly encouraged to make an attempt to review another editor before transcluding their review onto the main page", possibly followed by a brief explanation of why it's important to give back. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware that there will probably be users that quickly do a review that's on the lines of "You're doing good", but I don't believe that will be a major problem for a few reasons. First, a new guide has been created to provide new and inexperienced users with tips on how to create a review. If the user simply follows the guide, a good review should be produced. Second, it seems that the requesting users are all now experienced users that are capable of doing a detailed review. Those users have the potential to create a good review and will be under pressure to do so, since their review will be "on their Wikipedia record" so to speak. I'm not sure how to best go about this task, because if nothing is changed, we'll still have this growing backlog of people that are getting no feedback. We need to prevent "quickie" reviews - which may be done by the safety net. If a review is not sufficient, the "regular reviewers" will step up and complete one. Just a note, users are already "strongly encouraged" to review another editor. In fact, we've sent messages to users that have requested a review, but they have mostly just ignored it and not reviewed anyone. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 06:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If they aren't going to attempt a review then we remove the transclusion for their review until they do so, simple as that. Wikipedia is about being bold and participating, if someone is going to request a review and not bother to try and review someone else then they can STFU and GTFO. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 11:34am • 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bit harsh. But perhaps we should go ahead with this proposal if for anything else than as a test run, to see how the numbers fare. I still have reservations though with the whole conditional-review model, I fear it goes against the spirit of freedom that is foundational to Wikipedia. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I honestly cannot think of any other way to even get this program on its feet. I think we would all rather there be no requirements like this, but that's really not compatible with what is going on. Should we do a test run for now and see how it impacts the system? If its a overall net positive, we can keep it, if not... we'll think of something - I hope. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 05:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm in trying it out. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If something blows up, I propose we blame the Ancient Apparition for it :P. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 06:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Second Proposal

 * I propose that we make it absolutely clear that all users requesting a review should try and attempt reviewing another user and should they ignore any messages we send out about reviewing others, for say 2 weeks, we remove the transclusion for their review, i.e. if the bot is exclusion compliant we add a tag to that review page. In any case we should encourage participation on Wikipedia, so I don't think coercing others into reviewing is a good idea, it should be of their own choice but if they choose to ignore any messages sent out about reviewing others they've made it clear that they really don't care. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 11:54am • 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to note here that I have indeed sent out notices in the past asking those that request a review to review another user, but those notices have all been ignored. While I do not want to have to go down the route of forcing users to review another user before requesting their own review, I see no other viable alternative that will keep the system going. The people requesting reviews are all capable of reviewing someone else - so they should. As always, we can step up and fix the inadequate reviews. I think it is already absolutely clear, and the 2 week period creates more maintenance work. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 05:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Guide
I've created a guide to reviewing here. At the moment it's a draft, I'm hoping for some refinements to be done BEFORE linking to it on the Editor review page. Any feedback would be appreciated/welcome. Regards, —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 10:15pm • 11:15, December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good. I made a few minor grammatical changes. <font color="#FF7F00">Sumsum2010 ·<font color="#007AFF">T ·<font color="#7FFF00" >C ·<font color="#FF0000" >Review me! 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about "editing by proxy"
User Barts1a is currently on a one-week block, but would like to have his edits reviewed. Is it appropriate for me to post that here, or should it wait until his block is over? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FWiW, I think he should "do the time" and then post the request for review himself. A week is not a long time. My 2 cents. <font color="#black" face="courier" size="2">[Charlie <font color="#black" face="courier" size="2">Echo <font color="#black" face="courier" size="2">Tango]  02:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone get Wikitan, the maid, in here
It looks like whatever archiving process that cleans up this page appears to have gone defunct. Can we consider reviews that have at least one response closed (unless it's requested to remain open)? Reviews from October of Last year are kinda stale at this point. Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How long is reasonable to wait for review?
I note with some dismay that my review request is one of the oldest that has not received any attention yet, while many much more recent requests have already been attended to. What is in fact the usual average time between a request being posted and it getting some attention? Is the size of my contributions history perhaps "intimidating" potential reviewers? Thanks Roger (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know; all i can say is certain review requesters receive more input, either from editors they interact with who notice the editor review tag on their userpage and decide to act upon it, or from spamming the talkpages of "wikifriends". benzband  ( talk ) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've just tagged my page, I hope it works and I don't need to resort to spamming :( Roger (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also have a tag… that's enough for me. The only reason i mention "spamming" is because i was on the receiving end :P (and having never reviewed anyone before, was in an awkward position ;-) benzband  ( talk ) 15:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange section: Soviet King
One of the entries here, Editor review/Soviet King, is quite anomalous. , the user for which the review is requested, has made no edits whatsoever. The request is signed by a second account,, which also has no contributions. The second account's user page redirects to User talk:Khvalamde, which bears a message that the user has permanently left Wikipedia. Despite this message, the account appears to be actively involved in editing. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * was renamed to, and later renamed to . At the time of requesting the editor he signed as "<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="blue" size="2">Soviet King Pound me if i messed up." with links to User:Abhijay, so maybe he was editing under the "Abhijay" account (his signature is no longer the same, though). I have updated the editor review page to "Khvalamde".  benzband  ( talk ) 07:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Requests for feedback
In the intro box atop this page, "Users requesting feedback on their newly created article should do so at requests for feedback."

There is no "requests for feedback" page. Clicking that link merely soft-redirects to the help desk. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:3D5 (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed it. I thought of Peer review but that's not for newly created articles. benzband  ( talk ) 09:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistake...
Hey all,

I just filled out an review request page - but I appear to have screwed up the syntax somehow and it's not obvious to me what happened - can someone fill me in on how to fix it? (not a great start to a review really...) Fayedizard (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

bot doesn't seem to want to archive Zhaofeng Li's editor review
The last edit at Editor review/Zhaofeng Li was more than three months ago. Should the bot have archived this? Is something broken in some way? The editor would like to submit a new request for review - they didn't get a great deal last time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

jc37
Do we really need to have a request from 2006 still open at the top of the list? Why has this never been archived? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * jc37's request was created 10 hours ago... .. and there are none from 2006... I'm a little lost. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT(<font color='#060'>talk ) 12:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Capital J. This is my fault: Jc37 was linking to the old one from his user page and somehow I got confused into thinking it was the one being transcluded. I've fixed the link on his user page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup
I performed some major clean up in the backlogs removing old requests. I hope to be able to clean up the main page in a a moment.— cyberpower <sub style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline <sup style="margin-left:-6.6ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Happy 2013 13:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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

New Review
Hi all,

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

Regards, <font color="#ff7f00">Kira <font color="Red">Chinmoku 22:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the old one has been closed and archived, simply start a new one. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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

Cheers, <font color="Cyan" face="Verdana">dci &#124; <font color="purple" face= "Times New Roman"> TALK   21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I've done a couple of reviews recently, mainly because I think if I don't, nobody else will! I'll see what else I can think of. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   08:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone that's wondering, this might appeal to some, maybe most. <font color="#0000FF">Sports guy <font color="#FF8C00">17  02:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That article makes it sound like the foundation is being run by Sheldon Cooper and friends at their apartment complex. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ideas for boosting participation
- in Wikipedia:

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

Non-Requested Review ?
I got a notice today saying "User:Formerly6697 was reviewed by Benzband" timestamped about 12:28 WP time. It didn't link to anything except my own Userpage. I am not familiar with this process at Wikipedia and the only thing I could find was this article but I am confused since apparently that is supposed to be by request which I did not do. Can you help me understand what this is all about? Why was I reviewed? Is there a report of some sort connected with this review and if so where is it? Did I pass/fail some kind of test? What are the plus's and minus's in all this? Please enlighten me. Thanks. F6697 FORMERLY   66.97.209.215 TALK 04:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That means that Benzband checked out your userpage and confirmed that it wasn't abusive in any way. Pretty much, Benzband said "this userpage is ok". The only reason why your userpage wouldn't have been reviewed would have been because it is abusive (like threats toward people). Newyorkadam (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
 * Newyorkadam: Thanks for the explanation. Not sure I quite understand the grammar of your last sentence but I think I get the general idea. If I could suggest to the Editor Reviewer community at large, it might be a good idea to:
 * (A) cleanup the explanation of this process on its article page so that it contains a "nutshell" box and includes something about NPP automatically triggering non-requested reviews. If this is not the right page for that then maybe a Policy/Guideline/Process "essay" type page needs to be created.
 * (B) Prominently explain on such a page that "no news is good news" or else (perhaps better still) include some kind of "results of review" entry somewhere that the user can be pointed to (perhaps something similar to an edit summary when triggering the notification?).
 * (C) modify the Notification text to help new users better understand what is happening or at the very least link to the (per suggestion A above) improved article on this process.
 * The bottom line is that a little bit more transparency and improved communication would not hurt this process, especially since, by design, it involves newcomers a great deal of the time. Just one man's opinion. F6697  FORMERLY   66.97.209.215 TALK 20:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto on A and C (I'm not sure I get your (B) suggestion though). In the case of new article reviews such confusion doesn't arise but when a user receives a note saying <tt>"User:<new user's name> was reviewed by "</tt> they may mistake it for a review of the User rather than of the Userpage. I agree that modifying the wording of the corresponding WP:Notification might be a good idea, also providing a link to explain what "reviewing" means in this case (if the notification doesn't provide one already? I don't know because I don't receive them). Since the issue has arisen, we should make a clear distinction between patrolling and WP:Editor review. ~ benzband  ( talk ) 23:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Benzband. Newyorkadam (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

''Note: Linking the discussion with a Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. ~ benzband  ( talk ) 23:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have found a similar case at Teahouse/Questions (explained to the user at User_talk:DavidAnstiss). benzband  ( talk ) 15:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I saw that too. ColinFine said; "...I can't find any evidence of that user or anybody having reviewed [your page]..." which leads me to ask how can a non-admin see any evidence of a review to post a link to in such a question? I think maybe that user saw the same thing I did, a Notification alert (that little number box next to the username link at the top edge of the page) which linked nowhere. That is what I meant by "no news is good news" (suggestion B) in the sense that if a user gets an alert of a review but the alert does NOT say there is a problem then everything is okay. Of course new users would still need a link to even this canned or stencilled explanation in the Notification alert. F6697  FORMERLY   66.97.209.215 TALK 23:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything is recorded in the logs (Special:Log, see also Help:Log). ColinFine could have accessed the patrol log for User:DavidAnstiss/Lower Leas Coastal Park [https: here] and that of User:DavidAnstiss/Barton's Point Coastal Park [https: here], just as anyone can access my patrol of your userpage at [https: here] (the review also appears [https: in the page curation log] because I used the curation tool). Now about the notifications, you may be interested in a thread I've started at Wikipedia talk:Notifications. benzband  ( talk ) 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)