On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
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:
- Trusted user A makes an edit.
- Untrusted user B vandalizes.
- Trusted user A reverts.
- Trusted user A has to re-review after save, because the revert is
counted the same as any other change to an untrusted version.
Ah, I see now that Avi was actually talking about a different scenario - sorry for not reading carefully. I agree that in the _non-editor_ scenario, the newly created version should not have the "sighted" flag since we don't know anything about the true nature of the change.