Extension talk:Moderation

DownLoad
I am not quite sure what to download from here or from Git. Am I supposed to install Vagrant? Please tell us more exactly what to do. --Ruud Habets (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a direct link: https://github.com/edwardspec/mediawiki-moderation/archive/master.zip

Existing users moderated?
Where it says "Every edit (or image upload) by a new user is being sent to moderation.", does that also apply to existing users? I've tested it out on another site and regular, existing users are being forwarded to moderation and I'm having to manually go through the most active users and hange them to automoderated users, is that supposed to happen? --2A02:C7F:5E14:BD00:115B:E256:8C43:DCC9 18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the user should be manually made "automoderated" to bypass moderation. This is not done automatically.
 * You can, of course, set $wgAutoConfirmCount and write something like
 * to make users automoderated after 10 approved edits.
 * This is not a default behavior, because such configuration would allow a human vandal to easily bypass Moderation (they can fix 10 typos, which you would approve, and then they can start vandalizing. With manual promotion, you can approve the typo fixes without making the user automoderated). Edward Chernenko (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So where the doc says "new user", that's not quite correct. They mean "any non-autoconfirmed user" or "any non-automoderated user" or "any non-skip-moderation user". Or something like that. Even if they're a very long-time user. Right? Johnywhy (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It doesn't depend on when the user registered (or how many edits made). The user must have "skip-moderation" permission (e.g. be made "automoderated" by admin). Edward Chernenko (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The docs say "new user", because when the admin follows "Best practices" (#2), he would grant "automoderated" flag to everyone except new users (users who contributed too little to tell if they are ok). Edward Chernenko (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for on wiki notification
Please could moderators get immediate notifications on wiki? That is some sort of message appearing at the top of whichever page they're looking at saying "new edits requiring moderation". --Rob Kam (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea, will implement this. Edward Chernenko (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Implemented in 1.1.14. Edward Chernenko (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Exclude Namespaces
Is it possible to exclude several namespaces from the extension?
 * Implemented in 1.1.20. Edward Chernenko (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This extension is very good
I am very pleased with how effective this is at stopping vandalism. After installing it on a small project focused wiki prone to outrageous trolling and vandalism, the problem was solved overnight. After a few days the vandals actually gave up and stopped even bothering, clearly bored that they could do no damage. All the main project contributors are auto-moderated so the moderation workload is very light. Would certainly recommend. JLJ001 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Moderation meant to replace patrolling?
The stock mediawiki patrolling feature is a bit of a pain to use, because there's no "approve all" button, and it has some other design issues that Moderation does not seem to have. Do users of the Moderation extension disable the stock patrolling feature, or use Moderation as a supplement to it? 73.118.51.32 00:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some wikis use both. Patrolling (or an extension like FlaggedRevs) is used for quality control (high-quality edits are marked as patrolled, but there may also be unpatrolled pages/revisions in the wiki and it's ok) and Moderation as an anti-vandalism tool (everything that is not vandalism gets approved, even if you don't have the time to thoroughly check the edit). Very few wikis use Moderation for quality control. Edward Chernenko (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Feature request: view-only access
For the purpose of transparency, could a moderation view-only user right be added? I request this to allow users to view the moderation logs, and to view (but not approve/reject) intercepted edits at Special:Moderation. It is a right that we would like to give to all registered users on our wiki, because there does not seem to be any danger in allowing everyone to have view only access.

In addition, could this view only right allow someone who is editing a page with pending edits to see those pending edits, to prevent edit conflicts? In a perfect world, we would have enough moderators to quickly approve all edits, but we don't, and on our wiki people are very likely to heavily edit the same content, and we do not want to give automoderated status to everyone. People who are editing a page with pending edits deserve to see any pending edits from non-automoderated users, to know if their own effort would be wasted. Extension:Moderation could be like the other review extensions in allowing editors to see pending edits, but while still keeping the Extension:Moderation benefits of those edits not being in the recent changes, and not being saved to the page's history until approved. 73.118.51.32 01:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that in the documentation the question "Can other editors improve non-approved edits?" is answered with "No". It this an intentional design decision, or a fixable shortcoming? It would be sufficient to hide potential vandalism edits from everyone except someone who is editing the page in question (and has the moderation view only right), is that agreeable? 73.118.51.32 01:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an intentional design decision. Moderation is not a review extension and such use is neither recommended nor endorsed. You should use FlaggedRevs or something if you want pending edits to be public and non-malicious users to remain non-automoderated for long periods of time. Edward Chernenko (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw, if "people are very likely to heavily edit the same content" on your wiki, then it's very inconvenient to delay making them automoderated: the moderator would often have to resolve edit conflicts when approving their edits, which would otherwise be done by the users themselves. Edward Chernenko (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I understand now that auto moderated should not be delayed. 73.118.51.32 13:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)