Jimmy Wales wrote:
The ability to signal to others that an edit is minor is useful and should be continued. Denying this ability to anon users is reasonable, and does not prevent them from making any edits. Soft security at its finest.
I agree with that. But, maybe we shouldn't abandon Jonathan's idea, but use it for soft security. Similar to a prior suggestion of mine:
Those who want can activate a user option that marks "suspicious" edits. That would include * edits by IPs (anons) that remove more than 20% of the article (in bytes) * edits (by IPs, or anyone) that add certain keywords (f**k, etc.) * edits by IPs whose edits have been "rolled back" (with the function) lately * edits by IPs who are listed on the Vandalism in Progress page
These are just some ideas that come to mind. More can be added. This won't find all vandals, and will have a false alert once in a while, but could improve the "hit rate" on malicious edits.
Magnus