Theymos: Created page with "On the Bitcoin Wiki, users' edits are held for review unless said users are designated as Editors. Permittors approve/reject edits held for review, and they also make people into Editors. === Reviewing edits === You review edits on the :Special:Moderation page. * For obvious spam, you should "mark as spammer" and "reject all". * You should only "mark as spammer" if you are '''100%''' sure that the person is an ''irredeemable'' spammer. If you're only 99% sure, reje..."

2024-12-07T21:47:49Z

Created page with "On the Bitcoin Wiki, users' edits are held for review unless said users are designated as Editors. Permittors approve/reject edits held for review, and they also make people into Editors. === Reviewing edits === You review edits on the Special:Moderation page. * For obvious spam, you should "mark as spammer" and "reject all". * You should only "mark as spammer" if you are '''100%''' sure that the person is an ''irredeemable'' spammer. If you're only 99% sure, reje..."

New page

On the Bitcoin Wiki, users' edits are held for review unless said users are designated as Editors. Permittors approve/reject edits held for review, and they also make people into Editors.

=== Reviewing edits ===

You review edits on the [[:Special:Moderation]] page.
* For obvious spam, you should "mark as spammer" and "reject all".
* You should only "mark as spammer" if you are '''100%''' sure that the person is an ''irredeemable'' spammer. If you're only 99% sure, reject just that one edit, and observe their actions further.
* If an edit is definitely bad, but the user is not an irredeemable spammer, it's best to '''approve''' the edit, revert it, and then leave a comment on their talk page telling them why you reverted it. This is the healthiest thing to do for the community, since it's the best way to turn a bad editor into a good editor. If you reject the edit without comment, then it's a sort of "shadowban" which is likely to make the editor annoyed or frustrated, and they also won't learn what they did wrong.
* You should ''definitely'' not reject an edit when reasonable people could argue that it was a good edit. Approve it and then revert it with your reasoning, so that people can argue about it if they want.

===== Edit conflicts =====

When approving an edit, there can sometimes be edit conflicts, which means that the software can't figure out how to automatically merge the edit. After you get the edit conflict error, you should click the red edit-conflict link to do the manual merge. The current page will be in the top text box, and the user's (now-outdated) version of the page will be in the text box at the bottom of the page. It's also helpful to refer to just the "diff" of the edit, linked back at the main moderation page.

It may be easier to reject the edit and then make the changes to the page yourself, but you should '''not''' do this if at all possible, since then the user won't be properly credited.

=== Promoting Editors ===

After a user has made a couple of good contributions, or if you have other good reasons for thinking that they're a good user, you can add them to the "editor" group at [[:Special:UserRights]].

Bitcoin Wiki:Guide for Permittors - Revision history