I am also not talking about mediawiki at all. This evidence of edits that needs further review could be stored off-wiki, for example on wikimedia labs using some universal interface that all antivandalism tools can use
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Petr Bena <[email protected]> wrote: > No I wouldn't. The queue would start getting filled up by good edits > in case everyone who uses huggle would disconnect or stopped using it. > The current system as it is clearly isn't sufficient for this. We need > to cherry-pick the bad edits, not good edits. Current system allows > only to flag good edits as "don't need review" which isn't really > useful for anything... > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> That's a problem in the client, not in MediaWiki. To implement that with >> current code, you can patrol everything that is not suspicious and you'll >> get what you describe; if your patrolling bot is error-prone you may >> hypothetically need an "unpatrol" feature, but then just fix the bot. >> >> >> Nemo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
