Help talk:User groups
From DoomWiki.org
FlaggedRevs autopromotion[edit]
mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs defines the following as the default settings for autopromotion. Feel free to discuss suggested changes. I realize this came up before but it got lost in a sea of more important issues. <source lang="php">
- Define when users get automatically promoted to Editors. Set as false to disable.
- Once users meet these requirements they will be promoted, unless previously demoted.
$wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote = array(
'days' => 60, # days since registration 'edits' => 250, # total edit count 'excludeLastDays' => 1, # exclude the last X days of edits from edit counts 'benchmarks' => 15, # number of "spread out" edits 'spacing' => 3, # number of days between these edits (the "spread") // Either totalContentEdits reqs OR totalCheckedEdits requirements needed 'totalContentEdits' => 300, # edits to pages in $wgContentNamespaces 'totalCheckedEdits' => 200, # edits before the stable version of pages 'uniqueContentPages' => 14, # unique pages in $wgContentNamespaces edited 'editComments' => 50, # number of manual edit summaries used 'userpageBytes' => 0, # size of userpage (use 0 to not require a userpage) 'neverBlocked' => true, # username was never blocked before? 'maxRevertedEditRatio' => .03, # max fraction of edits reverted via "rollback"/"undo"
); </source> --Quasar (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that — yes, I realize that you and manc were occupied. I've been persuaded that people don't find FlaggedRevs worth the overhead, so my suggested change would be to drop it entirely. Ryan W (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Since fixing those initial problems there haven't been any further issues with it, so I'm disinclined to agree. It helps keep spam from being visible, and encourages establishment of a level of quality which I try to see through on a daily basis. I am a bit disappointed that we've not gone further in establishing "pristine" versions of more of our well-written and complete articles, but there's always time to do that in that nebulous "later". --Quasar (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)