Last modified: 2009-01-23 19:29:06 UTC
This request is basically the same as bug 16604, except that it's about the review log. Most anti-vandalism tools are based on the irc feeds and would profit a lot from getting information about sightings.
Yes, as with bug 16604, this is really a big part of using the reviewing feature efficiently for its intended purpose. (Not that I agree with doing that in the first place). I assume the same objection that was raised there applies here, though.
wontfixing due to flood factor
(In reply to comment #2)
> wontfixing due to flood factor
Is this due to actual bandwidth issues, or the idea that humans might actually be reading the feed directly? If it's the latter, can we *please* either abandon that idea or set up a separate feed for automated processes because they are by far the majority consumers of this information. Especially on en.wikipedia, where I doubt anyone has used the feed for patrolling in its raw form for years.
In particular, I would like to point out that in [[bugzilla:16604]], some things are pointed out to reduce the flood factor.
(In reply to comment #4)
> In particular, I would like to point out that in [[bugzilla:16604]], some
> things are pointed out to reduce the flood factor.
True, although sighting seems to generate more (manual) activity than patrolling, so not listing the automated ones separately wouldn't help quite as much. In particular, if you were trying to read the feed directly, then assuming the wiki's users are staying on top of their backlog there would be one sight for every edit, which would certainly get in the way of trying to read the edits.
Hence the aforementioned need to either make the feeds' intended purpose a machine-readable source or provide alternative feeds. :/
I checked .de and .en IRC channels...seems to just be filled with bots. I suppose then, we don't need a separate channel.
Done in r45610 et al and r45622
Note that autopatrol doesn't show here, but ! marks will be shown on edits as needed, so the information is there.
At the moment the output lines give the user, name of the page being reviewed and review levels. Since it's possible to review revisions of a page other than the most recent one, it should supply the revision id as well.
Done in r46094