On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/9/07, Erik Moeller
<erik(a)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.
To a reviewed version, I assume.
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.
So, how about:
* An edit to a reviewed version by a trusted user automatically becomes reviewed
* A revert by a trusted user to a reviewed version becomes the latest
reviewed version
Problem solved. Or did I miss something?
Magnus