Yeah, at the moment I'm leaning towards extended-confirmed. CopyPatrol is a really niche tool for very active contributors. About a dozen people have been taking care of all the cases on the biggest wiki, so it's not like we're hurting for patrollers and need to open this process up to new users.

Since extended-confirmed is only on English Wikipedia, we'll just do auto-confirmed for now.

What's the progress on this?

@WingedBladesofGodric: See the previous comments in this task.This task is in the backlog until someone finds time to work on this.
Your code contributions are welcome if this task is important to you.

@WingedBladesofGodric: This task isn't considered high priority since the previous task to mitigate abuse (T178681) seems to have been effective, i.e. we haven't heard any complaints of bad reviews since then. Of course it's still relatively easy to abuse, so if you notice any problems in the meantime, let us know and we will make this higher priority.

I just undid all reviews by WizardGamer775 (currently 747 edits and 3 months old) directly in the database due to a significant number of them being inaccurate (35%) and/or not having the proper actions taken (20%). Since I have no other recourse to prevent them from reviewing, I've blocked them.

Barring objections, I'm just going to add a check for a minimum of 1,000 edits on the corresponding project. Someone like WizardGamer775 may have gotten there eventually, but there will always be outliers. A 1K edit requirement should shield us from most intentional disruption.

Since I have no other recourse to prevent them from reviewing, I've blocked them.

It's an action taken with their account (though it's not logged on-wiki), so I think this is still appropriate. Or were you suggesting we build a CopyPatrol-specific block function or something?

In T178700#9728211, @MusikAnimal wrote:

Barring objections, I'm just going to add a check for a minimum of 1,000 edits on the corresponding project.

Sounds good

Or were you suggesting we build a CopyPatrol-specific block function or something?

No, just noting as an example of an inexperienced user reviewing, which I'd like to prevent.