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.