Forum:Changes to Editor Review

Forums: Yew Grove > Changes to Editor Review

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 July 2009 by Azaz129.

Hi all! Since a few weeks, we have something new on this wiki: Editor Review. As it still is quite new, it is unknown to much of our users, and the rules aren't very clear either. Horsehead and me thought about a few rules that would make it work better:

Not more than 5 Editor Reviews per time. If one request is closed (which currently is after 2 weeks) a new one can be added.
The owner of the Editor Review may choose of which users they want comments. They can choose between Administrators, or All users. This should work, as (most of the time) the comments by administrators are more helpful than other comments (Example at Dave Lopo's current ER: "I've never come into contact with you before reading this, so have no idea what you are good/bad at")
The owner of the Editor Review may close the review at any time.
UPDATE: IPs are nót allowed to vote.

If there are any more ideas, just post them under here. Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!}. 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding no.3, isn't that already the case? Taken from Editor Review page: "Any registered user may request to be reviewed, and the said user may close their request at any time." C.Chiam^Talk 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh okay. Yeah I see it now lol. But think about the other 2. Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!}. 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked gaz to put editor review in the site notice to increase critics.-- Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 and 3, oppose for 2 - I feel that a 5 user limit would be good, that way users wouldn't feel overwhelmed at having to rate more than that. Also, I think that a user can close it on their own if they wanted too. But, I don't support number 2, as I feel that it disrupts RS:AEAE by selectively picking out editors to rate from. And just to comment, and Editor Review is not a "I never saw you before" contest. Raters should take a look at their contributions and point out the strengths and weaknesses of their editing points, and if they feel that their activity is limited, they should point that out. ~Muz^Talk 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe we can change it into "No IP-accounts are allowed to vote"? Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!}. 14:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, due to IPs not allowed to vote in RfAs and the such, as it is considered to be sock/meatpuppetry in many cases. ~Muz^Talk 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 1,2 Support No IPs Limiting it to 5 users could end up with it being really hard to request a review, which would be annoying, and I don't see there being lots of users up there is a problem. As for two, I'd agree with muzzy. --Serenity1137 14:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC) (p.s. it was me who wrote the quoted review and I did it because the review request had been there a long time and no-one had posted on it, on further research I saw that he was actually a very active user with massive numbers of edits but at the time it appeared as though he was new and thought he was better known than he was.)

Oppose 1 and 2 - Per Serenity and Muzzy, respectively. However, I think we could raise the limit to 10 or so, because having no limit at all would probably fill the page up with requests. And I agree that comments like, "I don't know you" don't help very much. Ti en 15:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Last I checked, we have 10 11 up for review, and I found that many editors overwhelming. Three to five seems like a manageable number. To do a thoughtful review can take time, and the idea of having to do the process for 10 11 wikians seems daunting. Maybe we can set a time limit on the duration of the review? And I agree that reviewers should come prepared to review the reviewees. We want these to be useful. Writing "I'm not familiar with your work" is not a helpful review. But "I've looked over your edits and comments on the forums and like what you do and feel you could be a more active member" is helpful. Horsehead^Talk 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - 5 is way to little. You'd have like 10 people in line that have to wait to get a review - — ^E n _ig^ma 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Due to overwhelming opposition in the above proposal, I have dreated this one with slightly different preferences:

Limit the number of reviews to 10 at a time
IPs are not allowed to review/be reviewed, so the page be semi-protected

I believe most users that opposed the above proposal will agree with this settings.

Discussion

Support - As nominator --— ^E n _ig^ma 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support - My conditions are that there is a waiting list, rather than fastest finger first, that the reviews can't be on the main reviewing page more than 1 month, and finally that people who have been reviewed before are always bumped to the back of the que --Serenity1137 17:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is already so, as far as I know --— ^E n _ig^ma 21:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Serenity. A queue would be good. Oil4 ^Talk 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question - I know IPs cannot be reviewed, but any reason why IPs shouldn't review other users? az ^talk 21:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The same reason they can't edit semi-protected pages. --— ^E n _ig^ma 21:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're worried they would vandalize it or something? Because that's why we semi-protect pages. Also, semi-protecting it would bar non-autoconfirmed accounts from commenting as well. Butterman62 (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose IPs are an extremely valuable part of this community and to disallow them from commenting is not the way to go. Many people have very valid reasons for not wanting to make a user ID. This is basically a form of racism to try and disallow them form voicing their thoughts.--Degenret01 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Racism??? Don't use harsh words when they aren't applicable, people could get offended. What kind of reason were you thinking of though? (I essentially up to this point felt people who were IPs just hadn't signed up yet because they weren't sure they were going to stick with the wiki. Signing up is a sign of

commitment to the wiki if only a small one) --Serenity1137 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Modification of proposal - I changed up the proposal a bit to meet your concerns. I see the reasoning in allowing Ips to review. --— ^E n _ig^ma 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you make a new proposal, because now all the above supports/opposes are not related to the proposal actual --Serenity1137 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, a query and a notice - The points above make sense, so long as there's a waiting list too.

I'd like to ask what the process is to close a review:

Does the user request it and then an admin/'crat close and archive it?
Or, does the user just close and archive it when they're ready?

I'm not sure which. Our first two closures were of the first kind; continue that way, or switch to the second? Also, is it preferable for archived reviews to be semiprotected per RS:PP, or not bother?

And my notice is to here, where I suggested a new point. @Gaz#7521 20:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I would Support the first choice. I've been here for a while and I really don't feel comfortable archiving something other than my talk page.=/

Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 15:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I should had just madr a new proposal >.> This is a mess. Made a new proposal, though -— ^E n _ig^ma 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

New Proposal

Limit the number of reviews to 10 at a time
IPs are not allowed to be reviewed
IPs are allowed to review
Admin/Crats should close and archive the review after Reviewee has requested it

--— ^E n _ig^ma18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Have a queue section for people to sign in to wait to be reviewed. --— ^E n _ig^ma 03:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nominator --— ^E n _ig^ma18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support & Comment - Looks good. But, if we have a Queue, I don't entirely see why you need to limit the number of reviews too. But, I don't see any harm in it either, so I support this. Randox 18:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - But don't forget the "Admin/Crats should close and archive the review" rule! Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!}. 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Modification of proposal - Added that. Hope Randox supports that... --— ^E n _ig^ma 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Ahh yes, this seems real good. Great job, enigma! Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 23:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Conditional support You don't mention the word queue, if there is no que then I Strongly Oppose --Serenity1137 07:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In the original proposal queue was suggested and several people supported the idea with no opposes. But it was proposed in a rather informal way, so I guess it was forgotten and not added, so I'll just add it to the proposal to make a section for people to sign in a line who want to be reviewed... -— ^E n _ig^ma 03:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Works for me. @Gaz#7521 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, my above condition has been met : ) --Serenity1137 07:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good to me. Oil4 ^Talk 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - The ideas proposed sound good to me. A queue would be a good idea to have incase a user wouldn't be able to get on when a review is closed, it would just be whoever can jump to the create page button first gets reviewed. ~Muz^Talk 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all. ~ Sentry Telos ^Talk 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds very good to me. Brux ^Talk 04:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure, this has had 4 days without moving towards the red --Serenity1137 06:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently there are 14 requests for review. I suppose we just strike out the last four? Ti en 12:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems kinda mean, I think we should just let them have their review since they placed it before we have a consensus.

Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 12:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I still think we need to limit the number to something manageable. Fourteen seems like way too much. Ten seems like too much. Many of the people requesting a review aren't getting one, and I think it is because their names are getting lost in the list. if we limit the list to 3 or 5 names at a time, the list won't seem so daunting, and we may get more reviews per person. It worked for the CC rank, and I would hope it would work here. Horsehead^Talk 13:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. Though I'm thinking maybe 7... whatever the community says.

@Gaz#7521 21:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Closure - 100% Support --— ^E n _ig^ma 19:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Well...? Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!}. 10:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)