Proposal talk:Submissions get a "editor, inspect this" (allow readers to request review)

From Strategic Planning

difference to flagged revisions

I'm not quite clear how this would work, (though I'll make a tweak to define the 100 edits as 100 edits since the last block, rollback or warning as auto confirming IPs because they've now vandalised 100 article is unlikely to have been the editors intention). With flagged revisions we get the advantage over watchlists, huggle and recent changes patrol that if an IP edits an article and fixes a typo, the first person to review that edit will likely flag it as a good edit, and the other reviewers won't bother looking at it but will look at other unreviewed edits instead. That is a more efficient use of volunteer time, and a better way of spotting vandalsim than the current situation where an IP edit might be looked at by twenty people, or by none. But I'm not clear what this proposal is trying to achieve, if it was "auto confirm every account that has made 100 good edits" then I might support, but autoconfirming IP addresses is dangerous as they often are used by more than one person. WereSpielChequers 12:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 01:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]