This user account is a bot operated by Dvandersluis (talk). It is used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the bot policy. This bot was previously approved but has since been retired, and therefore shouldn't be making edits that appear to be unassisted except in the operator's or its own user and user talk space. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.

If there is an urgent issue with this bot, it will likely be resolved quicker if you email the owner about it.

Edits such as this are incorrect as the articles are marked as on review or on hold. A change in template may be the cause; please fix. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed now, let me know if you encounter any problems. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're great! 72.189.67.27 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure why the bot is saying there's no date for Canning Dam and Mongolian language. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot failed to run last night.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot has failed to run the last two nights.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this bot updates Category:Cleanup by month on a daily basis. Ever since Rich Farmbrough has developed his "progess" templates and added them to all maintnance categories, this has become redundant. I'd like to request you to remove Category:Cleanup by month from the list of pages updated by this bot. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there appears to be no update for 7 April 2010 - usually at 09:00 (UTC). –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you again, but the bot hasn't reported since 29 April. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report is not doing well. Nergaal (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The format of WP:GAN was changed recently which was causing an issue with the bot. It is fixed now. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still updating /before/ GABot can refresh the nom page, resulting in an override of manual updates between.[1][2] Could it check to see the last time the backlog was updated and update only if the GABot date update of the nomination page is more recent? Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the report didn't update today 13 March. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, report didn't run for 30 April. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There have been some recent changes to the listing of Arts articles on the WP:GAN page. This has unfortunately lead to Statistician bot ignoring any articles in this category. Is it possible to update the bot to deal with the recent changes. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bot,

the report did not run this morning. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see taking off Labor Day, but missing both September 4 and 5 is a bit much. Any chance of you reporting to work tomorrow? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess not: StatisticianBot is now down for three days running. I hope someone who knows how can get it restarted soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix; it ran the morning of September 7. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The report did not run the morning of October 20 (this morning). Hope it's back tomorrow. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No StatisticianBot action on this last day of 2012. I hope the early celebrations of the New Year don't leave it incapable of reporting as 2013 begins. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the second week of July, the Bot has been failing on its second daily step, updating the GAN Report, since only the first archiving step is getting done. It failed again today, missed four days in a row before yesterday (August 24 through 27), and has generally been getting less reliable finishing the report during the summer.

Can you please take a look and see what's preventing the Bot from creating the GAN Report so frequently? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bot last ran on August 15; so far it's missed two days. Perhaps it needs a restart? Please take a look when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset have you heard anything back on this matter?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I didn't really expect to—a reply would have been posted here, after all—but figured it couldn't hurt. Since I don't email on Wikipedia and thus haven't emailed him, I've been suggesting someone who does use email here write as he suggests. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, thanks for getting the bot back up and running so quickly after getting the email. We greatly appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I don't mean to be alarmist, but the StatisticianBot has for the past two days updated the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report/Backlog archive, but not proceeded on to update the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report itself. We do have a high number of total nominations at the moment (514), but we've gone higher in the past, so that may not be it.

These are actually the third and fourth skipped days recently; the bot didn't update on December 9 and 13 either. If you could please check the bot and see why it isn't producing the main /Report page every day, we would very much appreciate it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologize I didn't see this earlier. It seems the bot is getting a 503 Service Unavailable error from wikipedia when it tries to access it, I'm not quite sure yet why this is happening but I'll look into it ASAP. (Sorry I wasn't logged in originally) —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 03:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran the bot manually and everything worked fine, so I'm not quite sure what's going on. It's possible that wikipedia has been doing nightly maintenance during the bot's window perhaps? I changed the run time to be 3AM EST. Please keep an eye on it and let me know if it continues to not run. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 04:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, the 3AM EST run was just the Backlog archive; the new Report page wasn't created. I'll continue to keep an eye on it, and post here for the next few days at least. Thanks for taking a look at everything, and getting in the manual run, so we have a recent update. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did another manual run which succeeded so I'm confused as to why this is happening! I added a bunch of extra logging to the bot so I hope next time around if there is an error it will be caught, or at least I'll have better information to work with. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the extra logging helps you debug the problem, because the non-manual run this morning didn't create a new Report page. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, it ran successfully last night. Many thanks. However, the tab menu at the top of the page didn't appear (and hasn't for a few days); instead, some template code is being reproduced. Also, as long as I have you here, I've been curious about the explanation wording under the bold "Old reviews" and "Old requests for a 2nd opinion" headers, both of which end "7 days or longer". In my experience, entries don't show up until they are (and say) "8 days"; I think it would be more accurate to say "over 7 days", much like the first of these header's "Holds over 7 days old". Of course, strictly speaking, in all three cases the time is how long in days the review has been ongoing, and reflects its current status of onhold, onreview, or 2ndopinion. For complete accuracy, the first header could have an explanation added of "Nominations that have been under review for over 7 days that are on hold.", the "Old reviews" explanation could be updated to "Nominations that have been under review for over 7 days that are neither on hold nor awaiting a 2nd opinion.", and the "Old requests for 2nd opinion" explanation could read "Nominations that have been under review for over 7 days where a 2nd opinion has been requested." If you have the time and think these are reasonable, by all means modify the wording. Again, thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the tab header, I'll look into that ASAP. I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean with the headers, but I'll try to make the titles more self-explanatory. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, the Report didn't run today. I hope the extra logging will have provided some clues for you to pursue. Thanks as always for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also missed January 7. Someone has manually fixed the header on the page, but I don't know if that will last past the next successful Report run. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to get to it and probably won't until next week, unfortunately. Hopefully the update will happen the next couple days in the meantime. I have one more idea to deal with this, but the problem seems to be on wikipedia's end (the 503 error I'm receiving is basically "the server isn't working properly right now"), so there isn't a ton I can do about. I've tried to find any additional information about why this is happening or if it's affecting other bots but haven't not come up with any details (and the error page I get is sparse and unhelpful). —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 05:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm afraid the update didn't happen again tonight; sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. (Now three days in a row.) Fingers crossed that we get a successful run soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the bot manually and it succeeded so the data is up to date for now at least. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made a few more changes to the bot:

1. Fixed the header (sorry about that)
2. If I get a 503 error from wikipedia, the bot will sleep for a bit and then try again, up to 3 times. Hopefully this will allow whatever reason we're getting a server error to be avoided
3. I changed the order that the pages are written so that the backlog is written last (which means if some of the pages update at least it'll be something more important)

I'll continue to keep an eye on this. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Daniel. It's great to have the listings current, the header fixed, and the bot able to retry if it gets an initial rebuff. I'll assume you're monitoring the situation, and only mention the problem again if the bot skips updating the Report two days running. Hope you're having a Happy New Year so far, despite the Wikipedia server's standoffishness... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been running successfully for a week now, I think (hope) we should be out of the woods! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: On the GAN page, for each nomination, we have a 90-day page view counter available. I check that stat before I decide to take on a review, as it would appear to me that a page with 100K views should be reviewed earlier than a page with 1000 views in the past 90 days. If a tabular view of this statistic across all GANs was made available, maybe others reviewers would also use that statistic to drive their decisions on what reviews to take on? Thank you for considering this suggestion! --Concertmusic (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, the bot didn't run yesterday or today, so you might want to take a look at it to see what's up. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's been a problem with the API lately, I made a change and ran the bot manually, hopefully it should resume proper nightly updates now! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvandersluis: It now hasn't run since the 4th of November: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Report&action=history Kind of annoying given it "only" having been five fucking months, and there's older ones is being given as a reason why there's no rush to review my GAN. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GACstats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]