Last modified: 2014-11-18 18:07:07 UTC
If an edit has been rolled back by an administrator (or whoever has the right), there is no point in patrolling it; such edits should be automatically marked as patrolled (with a log text different from the standard one, to avoid misunderstandings).
The only thing is that the admin doesn't necessarily know what revision he is reverting to.
That revision shouldn't be autopatrolled; the revisions that have been undone by the rollback should. Whatever they contained was removed from the article; there is no point in checking them anymore.
(In reply to comment #0) > If an edit has been rolled back by an administrator (or whoever has the right), > there is no point in patrolling it; such edits should be automatically marked > as patrolled (with a log text different from the standard one, to avoid > misunderstandings). > Actually, if this is going to be implemented, "all" revisions that were reverted through a rollback should be marked as patrolled. Actually, the current bahaviour of MediaWiki is that it marks the reverting edit as patrolled, not the reverted edits. Article.php lines 2364-2367: if ( $wgUseRCPatrol ) { # Mark all reverted edits as patrolled $set['rc_patrolled'] = 1; }
On second thought, patrol and rollback might be separate rights on some wikis. So reverted revisions should be marked as patrolled only if the rollback-user has patrol right; and the reverting edit should be marked patrolled only if the user has autopatrol right. (Marking the reverting edit as patrolled doesn't seem too dangerous; whether the user reverts to a vandalized revision won't show in the diff, so anyone manually patrolling the reverting edit wouldn't notice it either. Instead, it would be caught when patrolling the edit that came before the reverted ones.)
This was added a while ago.
