Page MenuHomePhabricator

Hide edits by certain (trusted) users on RecentChanges and RecentChangesLinked
Closed, DeclinedPublic


Forwarding from

the capability to anonymously "trust" other users' decisions when they triage/make edits. If users such as [...] make a recent edit to a WP:MED page, I don't want to see it. I trust them. It duplicates effort to check behind them, for me at least. When I view a watchlist that doesn't allow me to trust other editors I see it as a philosophical contradiction to the idea of a collaborative wiki.

Version: 1.23.0
Severity: enhancement



Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Low.Nov 22 2014, 2:15 AM
bzimport set Reference to bz56719.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

Isn't this basically a request to enable $wgUseRCPatrol?

Ah, thanks legoktm! I hope the original reporter on the wikipage follows this ticket and speaks up in case comment 1 is not a sufficient workaround.

Apparently $wgUseRCPatrol isn't enabled on the English Wikipedia, so that won't work as a workaround. Also, that wouldn't work per the feature request anyway, as:

  1. a change reviewing (or more specifically, vandalism hunting) user wouldn't be able to tag another user as trusted so they wouldn't see their edits in the first place.
  2. it would assume that there would be active-enough patrol of edits per $wgUseRCPatrol to keep the edits to review under control to the extent desired by the change reviewing user.
  3. it would assume that the change reviewing user has 'patrol' user rights so they could hide patrolled edits.

For general use by all editors, I would like to see this feature request re-examined and possibly re-opened. That is, unless someone can show a workaround that can be used on the English Wikipedia today.

I have created a proposal to implement this in watchlists and RC pages at the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey. Voting started today.

The wishlist proposal related to this enhancement requested is listed at #40 out of 265 proposals (technically, tied at #39). There is clearly at least moderate interest in this.