On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Consider the following edit sequence:
A, B, C, D, E
A is a previously approved version. B, and D are all excellent edits. C and E are obvious vandalism. E even managed to undo all the good changes of B,D while adding the vandalism.
The only way to handle this sort of thing is to actually look at the intermediate edits. I don't know if there is a nice way to simplify that workflow, but it points me towards the idea that reviewing should be done off the history page, not directly off a list of "unreviewed pages".
This is how the software worked until recently. :(
I feel foolish for not catching this until now even though I was aware of the addition of the reject button. Sorry.