Last modified: 2010-07-07 20:48:41 UTC
Copying my post to wikien-l,wikitech-l: Further discussion with Risker has caused me to realize that there is another significant problem situation with the reject button. 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. A reviewer hits the pending revisions link in order to review, they get the span diff from A to E. All they see is vandalism, there is no indication of the redeeming edits in the intervening span. So they hit reject. The good edits are lost. Unlike the prior problem, the only way to solve this would be only display the REJECT button if all of the pending changes are by the same author (or limiting it to only one pending change in the span, which would be slightly more conservative but considering the behaviour of the rollback button I think the group-by-author behaviour would be fine). The accept button is still safe.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-June/048130.html (in case there is further discussion there)
There is no reject button. Are you talking about the item that howie wanted but does not exist yet?
Considering this a specification bug for the proposed "reject" button feature.
(In reply to comment #3) > Considering this a specification bug for the proposed "reject" button feature. See http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Reject_Pending_Revision
Still, one could think of the case with: accepted edit A, good edit B, vandalism C (which also reverted B), edit D (which removed the vandalism part of B and fixed a typo). The pending changes diff just shows a typo correction, and the reviewer would accept.
See also bug 22846. Maybe collapsible history excerpts or something would help.
Given #5, why is REJECT worse than ACCEPT?
It seems like it isn't. Why do we need links to review pages from the list of pages? It seems like that only encourages hasty reviewing. If there is more than one author among the unreviewed revisions, just giving a link to the page history seems reasonable.
(In reply to comment #7) > Given #5, why is REJECT worse than ACCEPT? It is a good reason to avoid language like "rejected 4 edits" in any REJECT auto-summary though.
We plan to take this into account (sorry for the "invalid" resolution...there wasn't anything more appropriate. We need an "under advisement" state)
