Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Notifications, Watchlists and Talk Pages/Highlight edits that are likely to have problems on page history

Random proposal ►◄ Notifications, Watchlists and Talk Pages The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Highlight edits that are likely to have problems on page history

Problem: I cannot see what bad edits have been made to a page on its history page or the degree of how bad edits are ("likely to have problems", "very likely to have problems", the different colors) like you can see with changes on your Watchlist.
Proposed solution: The revision history page should have an option for highlighting edits that are "Likely to have problems", and "Very likely to have problems".
Who would benefit: Patrollers
More comments:
Phabricator tickets: phab:T318372
Proposer: Lectrician1 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Pretty sure this is already possible on contributions by tweaking w:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc-ores-rc. Nardog (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Lectrician1 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turn on "Highlight likely problem edits with colors and an 'r' for 'needs review'". Nardog (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog I have that on and edits on Page History and User Contributions are still not highlighted as having problems. I think you're misunderstanding this proposal. Lectrician1 (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What am I seeing here then? Nardog (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh you're right. It does show up. It doesn't show the degree which the edit is likely to have problems though and it doesn't show edits that are likely to have problems on the View History page. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The degree is represented by the shade of the background. Nardog (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh true. they don't match the watchlist colors though Lectrician1 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectrician1: Would you like to adjust the proposal to match the oustanding work so we can look at it again? KSiebert (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KSiebert (WMF) Done. Lectrician1 (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria would be used to assess the problematicity of edits? Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support Strainu (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support PureTuber (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lectrician1 (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Klein Muçi (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support * Pppery * _{it has begun} 03:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support EpicPupper (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support CaféBuzz (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nw520 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Golmote (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 21:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Toadspike (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 18:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support YU1010 (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should highlight bad edits to prevent vandalism. Thingofme (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support cyrfaw (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Omegatron (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like common sense -- let's make the feature we've already developed more usable. CRGreathouse (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Althair (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]