The untrusted users edit would not have been reviewed. So a good revert is all they need. When the next reviewer comes, it will prompt to review on edit with a diff. Since the bad stuff was reverted, their change would be the only think to review (cake).

-Aaron Schulz

> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:41:36 +0200
> From: erik@wikimedia.org
> To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Non-editor reverting to stable version
>
> On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > Indeed. All that "sighted" says is that it's believed to be free of
> > > vandalism, not that there might not be a useful change.
>
> > Reversion to an old version can be vandalism as much as the insertion
> > of new text. ... it depends on the context.
>
> The situation right now:
>
> 1) Trusted user A makes an edit.
> 2) Untrusted user B vandalizes.
> 3) Trusted user A reverts.
> 4) Trusted user A has to re-review after save, because the revert is
> counted the same as any other change to an untrusted version.
>
> This doesn't make sense; when a trusted user performs a revert to the
> most recently screened version, the newly created version should be
> sighted.
>
> --
> Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l

---

Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now!