https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70349
--- Comment #9 from MusikAnimal <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Dan Garry from comment #7) > I'm not sure this is as much of a problem as it seems. I took at the last 15 > edits made from the app that used canned edit summaries, and only two of > them misused them. > > Anyway, I'm sorry if you're having to slightly adjust your anti-vandalism > patterns, but we're not considering tagging the edits at this time. The > standard format of the canned edit summary is easy enough to spot if you > want to look out for them, and you can always use the "mobile app edit" tag > to give special scrutiny to app edits if you must. There's many, many patrollers out there, and new ones recruited regularly. It's not going to be easy to train them that a mobile edit with a "Fixed typo" edit summary should not be interpreted as such. It's perfectly understandable why they'd think the user is trying to be deceiving, and that's just not fair to the user – or the patrollers. Again, I can create an edit filter to look for mobile edits with the known canned edit summaries and tag them as such, but this is unnecessarily taxing the system. It's also fragile as it'd have to be updated when the canned edit summary list is updated. Could we at the very least move "fixed typo" further down the list? I think having "added content" as the first option is not only going to help alleviate the overall issue, but it is also probably more commonly accurate. E.g. I see new content added more than typos being fixed. If I could get confirmation that this change will or will not happen, that'd be appreciated, so that I know whether or not to move forward the edit filter implementation at en-wikipedia. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
