Forum:QA patrollers

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > QA patrollers
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2227 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

The QA log needs patrolling, which means it needs patrollers, which means I'm going to pick some users out right now and tell them to hop to it.

Official list of QA patrollers

Your duties

  • To revert any illegitimate template removals, including but not limited to the removal of ICUs by the author of the article;
  • To re-consider articles {{construction}} has been removed from for either {{ICU}}, {{fix}}, or nomination on VFD;
  • To report any bad faith template removals to Ban Patrol;
  • To keep an eye out for any other sneaky ways people may try to slip crappy articles past our various QA systems;
  • To give Special:NewPages a gander every once in a while to make sure nothing stupid has escaped tagging or listing on QVFD.

Now, hop to it.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 02:08 Jul 04, 2011

If you don't want this, raise your hand

If you'd really like to do this, raise your chin

Pointless banter goes here

I discovered a rather sneaky, but hopefully unknown method of dodging the QA log. if you type {{subst:Construction}} into a new article. It will not regester on the QA log, but if its viewed under Special:NewPages, unless you view the source. It appears to be a typical work in progree. This is a big issue as an incomplete article can slip through the cracks and go unnoticed because once the templates removed, it cannot be traced in Category:Work in progress. Does anyone have a suggestion to fix this issue? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 02:20, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of a big deal because it just happened. I could potentially set the QA log to also stalk exact substitutions, but even that wouldn't work, since a single modification of the template would render it invisible to the bot. The only way I see around this is to actually check and make sure that a template is what it looks like in the source. If someone decides to be stealthy and subst it later, that will of course show up in the log as a removal.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 02:27 Jul 04, 2011
Shouldn't people checking Special:NewPages also check the ones with a construction template for vanity/cyberbullying/one line of very crappy content anyway? Also, I like your new sig. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:47, 4 July 2011
People check Special:NewPages? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 13:54, 4 July 2011
I hope so. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:02, 4 July 2011
They usually do, since QVFD is normally quite full up and I see a lot of ICU additions and whatnot. Problem is, instead of just looking at an article, they may need to take it a step further and look at an article's source too. And thanks!  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 14:37 Jul 04, 2011
Pretty sure they usually just use recent changes for that, as there tend to be very large gaps in what's checked on the newpages itself... I patrol it sometimes, see. And by 'patrol' I mean I look at it, click on all of them, and get steadily crankier as I check them all. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 15:08, 4 July 2011
I've been selected for something, I must be getting popular! Actually, I'm always on NewPages, anyway. I've got that handy little "add to QVFD" button at the top of every page. Although I've never actually QVFD'd anything with a construction tag on it, except maybe one-liners. I suppose if anything under construction falls under UN:CM (and I see a boatload of those) then I'll be sure to send it down the garbage chute. -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 22:35 July 4, 2011 (UTC)
Dunno if I made it clear enough but this is about the QA log in addition to Special:NewPages.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 02:49 Jul 05, 2011
Don't worry, I got it. I already have the QA log on my watchlist. ^_^ -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 11:27 July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Awesomesauce.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 17:07 Jul 05, 2011

I'm raising my chin.

I'd like to be a QA patroller. Thanks. --Tophat headless 01:12, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

You're not welcome. At all. Ever. Especially not to my parties. Unless you promise to do a magic trick. So long as it's not the one where you saw the host in half. I only fell for that twice. The doctors were not amused. Me in particular.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 01:19 Jul 13, 2011
Yeah, I'll do a magic trick, just let me be a QA patroller. --Tophat headless 01:25, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
I did that already. It's just that you're not welcome.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 03:22 Jul 15, 2011
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... I get it. Well, in that case, I revoke my thanks. Now there's nothing for you to not be welcome at. HA! --Tophat headless 04:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC)


How do you know you're a QA patroller and not a vulnerable anti-social teenager whose been duped into being the janitor on a crappy comedy wiki?--Sycamore (Talk) 09:40, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the two aren't mutually exclusive. One sounds better than the other, though. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:46, 14 July 2011
Many of us take up janitorial duties here. This is just a more specific subset. "Duped," I rather think not.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 03:21 Jul 15, 2011
Personal tools