Last modified: 2009-01-07 01:55:59 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 14737 - Allow the autoconfirmed timer to run from the first edit
Allow the autoconfirmed timer to run from the first edit
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 3 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-07-05 18:25 UTC by Mike.lifeguard
Modified: 2009-01-07 01:55 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Mike.lifeguard 2008-07-05 18:25:01 UTC
Currently when autoconfirmed is determined, it is based on edit count (or not, depending) and time since registration. Please implement a way to have the time be calculated since the first edit, not registration.

Some discussion about this:

	<gmaxwell>	Mike_lifeguard, what you really should want is the n-day counter to start from the first edit and not account creation...
	<SB_Johnny>	gmaxwell: wow, wish I had thought of that :)
	<Mike_lifeguard>	oh sure - can that be done (without coding changes?)
	<gmaxwell>	otherwise they can just make their 1 edit seconds before the page moves, etc begin..
	<Mike_lifeguard>	I thought not
	<Mike_lifeguard>	exactly
	<gmaxwell>	It would need coding changes, yes.
	<Mike_lifeguard>	:(
	<gmaxwell>	but it should be done.
	<Mike_lifeguard>	but that'd be amazing! it would be very very effective against sleepers, and wouldn't affect legitimate users
	<gmaxwell>	well it would screw with users whos only editing desire is editing a single semi-protected page. ;)
	<gmaxwell>	but ::shrugs:: they can hit the talk page. ;)
Comment 1 Aaron Schulz 2009-01-03 12:53:24 UTC
Made possible in r45365
Comment 2 Brion Vibber 2009-01-07 01:55:59 UTC
Why not use MIN(rev_timestamp) here rather than the order/limit thing? 

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links