For two months, this edit: http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Start-a-Car&diff=7013379&oldid=6946011
Went un-noticed, until I was patrolling, and I noticed there was no steps. I looked at the history and was shocked. This edit had been kept, and no one noticed this higly viewed articles had no steps.
Good catch. You could check the Patrol Log, see who patrolled the edit, then coach them.
system
4
The patroller did quite a bit of patrolling for a couple of days, but hasn’t been back in over a month, so he may have moved on to bigger and better things.
I agree with Metsguy. We all make mistakes, but you’re making it look like a travesty if *God forbid* somebody misses a patrol.
I’ve had a whole lot of these I found, one night, so this isn’t the only one he found. I only had to corrected three major ones, however, when I found three of them one night a few weeks ago. I marked this edit summary as “reverting page to last good edit-spam went originally unreverted”. One of them had a diff page of “ http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Lucid-Dream&diff=prev&oldid=7125021
”, (the links I’m giving you, are the times when I’ve repaired the diffs). i know I fixed others, but I can’t seem to find the rest of the links I repaired.)
system
7
Bummer, thanks for catching this. I wrote up this article a while ago, by the way, about coaching patrollers, if anyone is interested: http://www.wikihow.com/Patrol-Patrollers-on-wikiHow
If you see a patroller who made a big mistake, or several mistakes, please feel free to send me an e-mail so I can look into it further and offer some feedback and/or unpatrol their patrols.
system
8
The interesting thing I see about Chris’s post is the edit you reverted to left out a substantial amount of formerly accepted content, including the warnings, tips, and interwiki links and citations. This may not be the best edit from the history tab to restore to, I rolled it further back, to here: http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Lucid-Dream&diff=7162582&oldid=7125021
but I still think even this revision needs some attention since there are some things in the formatting that don’t look just right>
system
9
Ha, I could use a class there myself. And, being as I’m bad about this myself, I’ll say that I now am much less surprised by weeds in some corner than I was. I sort of take it more as a given now that, as we speak, there is surely something heinous in some warnings section or something, that has been there for three years, lol.
Thanks @BR
for doing that. It looked a bit awkward with those few issues you put in place with your reversion of the edit.
You’ve made threads like this before. It’s better to just discreetly contact the patroller, who just made a mistake most likely, rather than start a whole forum discussion each time you find a mess-up like this.
