User talk:ChristieBot

Archives

1  · 2

New reviewer

Hello, I've reviewed the Talk:Parliament railway station/GA1 nomination after the original reviewer abandoned it. How can I make sure that the bot counts me as the reviewer instead of the previous reviewer? — Golden ^talk 20:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no current way to do this; see this conversation for an explanation. I'll post a note at WT:GAN in a few minutes raising this, to see if enough people would support a change to overcome the opposition there might be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

GA icons

Please thank your handler for helping you to add GA icons. I've noticed a few being added manually to articles which haven't been through GAN and clearly aren't good. (This is often through innocent copy-pasting of boilerplate headings such as an infobox from a real GA.) Does anything check automatically for {{good article}} or similar on articles which haven't earned it? I realise that this isn't ChristieBot's job and it might be difficult due to page moves, ancient GAs without a systematic GAN and other complications but I suspect you already have 90% of the required code. Certes (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I can take a look at the code this evening, but this post might be better at WT:GAN, where there are people like Bryan Rutherford who I believe already do this sort of cross-checking. I suspect human involvement would usually be necessary to resolve the conflicts, and I think there's even a category that is maintained of mismatches that Bryan and others keep an eye on, but the WT:GAN regulars would know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

GreenC_bot periodically updates a list of category mismatches relating to Good Articles here, which a human can then address. Unfortunately, the issues are often not routine and take some human judgment to sort out. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Good to know someone's on the case! I did a rough database query and all the pages it flagged are real GAs which moved recently, so it seems to be working well. There are 2000 GAs without a Talk:Whatever/GA1 page, but I expect they're all moved pages and other oddities. Certes (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate GA's reviewed count

Hello,

I believe I was told it was fine to make a manual update to User:GA bot/Stats before, but that no longer seems the case - the Bot reverted me here. I'm not sure how ChristieBot decides who the reviewer was, but I'm guessing it's whoever started the subpage. However, that isn't quite correct for Talk:Pitfall!/GA1, where the original reviewer just abandoned it. I guess that by the letter of the law, it could have been a procedural fail followed by an immediate renomination, but that was skipped here in the name of NOTBURO and not having a misleading "failed" nomination in the history through no fault of the nominator. (Checking the history... I guess it updates the bot updates the counts when a review is claimed, not completed? It looks like Indrian did get a credit around 11 June. I'd definitely assumed it'd be on completion, myself.) With the 2023 GA changes to the rules, the GA reviewed count is actually kinda important now. Would it be possible to update the numbers to include my review here? SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid the numbers reflect what's in the database, and as you've guessed that is determined by the creator of the review page. There has been periodic discussion about creating |nominator= and |reviewer= parameters for {{article history}} and/or {{GA}}, which would allow this to be resolved, but there has never been support for that. Perhaps it would be best to fail and renominate in these cases; an editor's failed GAs aren't easily visible as the nominator is not recorded in the database so there's little stain on the nominator's reputation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that it's obviously too late in this particular circumstance to do such a quick-fail. And I'm not sure it's a good idea anyway - the tech should adapt to reviewers, not the other way around. If it is truly a hard requirement, then I think this needs to go in the GA instructions somewhere that reviews must be performed by whoever started the GA review page. Although really, fixing the tech is still preferable.

I looked at the code snippets from the user page. Does the Bot "reconstruct history" from the ground up, or are there reviewer totals in the DB that can just be incremented with deltas of recent changes? If the latter, then can you just increment the count? It seems like the kind of admin function that would be useful to have anyway. This case will almost assuredly happen again.

I'm aware we're all volunteers here so I don't want to be too demanding, and I'm also aware that maybe this wouldn't be a big deal for most GA users who do quick reviews on short topics. I try to provide somewhat in-depth reviews and also tend to nominate topics that are very long, so being short on the new QPQ system is a lot more significant; it's not just a vanity concern anymore (I wouldn't have cared under the old system). SnowFire (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I could just modify the internal database -- the numbers were reconstructed initially, but I could edit the output. I agree that the tech should adapt to the needs, not the other way round. I would want to see a consensus that this should be done, and one thing I think would have to be settled is what is acceptable as authority to change the attribution of a review. Can I just put in a delta because an editor requests it? Or does someone need to verify it first? And I think there would have to be an audit trail of some kind -- if someone says "why is X credited with N reviews" the database should contain the answer to that question. So I don't think it's as simple as just editing a number. I should also say that though it's clear the new sort order has had an effect, it hasn't had as big an effect as you might think --- old nominations by nominators who rarely review still get reviewed; it's not like a poor ratio leaves you languishing unreviewed for ever. And there are other things about the current system that are less than perfectly accurate already -- for example, anyone who responds to a "second opinion" request gets no credit for it in the sort order. Anyway, I would suggest starting a conversation at WT:GAN about this -- it's come up before and that's probably the best place to have this discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally, my suggestion would be to just accept any requests you get and assume good faith (including mine and the requests above), and if something really wacky is going on then to raise the issue at WT:GAN for whatever the problem seems to be. If someone exploits this to get "extra" GA reviews under their belt, shame on them, but the harm isn't that huge, and it'd be rapidly obvious after you get asked the second or third time that something is up.

I think it's more about the new social expectation. Doug Coldwell was being a huge leech by nom'ing tons of GAs while being too incompetent to do any reviews. If I see someone nominating a big long article and not having enough reviews under their belt, I'd definitely be very uninterested in doing the review. Maybe the articles still get reviewed, sure, but I'd want to attract high-quality reviewers to my noms, whom I suspect would care more about meeting QPQ expectations. (And I realize after writing this that this makes me come across as some sort of GA megalomaniac despite having fairly few nom's and review's, but... so it is.) SnowFire (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

GA nominations count inaccurate

Hi! I wanted to report a bug. I noticed that at WP:GAN, by an article I recently nominated, the bot seems to think I have only nominated 4 GAs, which means my nomination has been pushed to the top of the list. However, that count is not right, as a glance at my user page will show - I've nominated eight articles for GA, I believe. One of them was a co-nomination, so that one (Early life and career of Joe Biden) might well have been missed, leaving 7. Three of them are also now FAs - are those ones not counted by the bot? That would explain where it got the number 4 from. I assume the issue is affecting others as well. Thanks, as always, for your hard work on the bot. I'm curious to hear if my guess about the issue is correct here! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The counts come from SDZeroBot -- I use whatever numbers it gives me. As you've guessed, it drops a GA from its list when it becomes an FA. Looking here you can see it credited the Biden article to your conominator. I've periodically thought about using an independent database to avoid these issues but it's not yet come to the top of my to-do list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks for the quick answer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Frequency of the bot runs

Can you please make a small FAQ for the bot? In particular, I'm interested in a question of a frequency of the bot runs if runs on schedule, or what triggers its runs, and whether it can be manually triggered? I completed a few reviews bot the bot didn't update the information on the Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations according to the page's history. I read on the page User:ChristieBot that bot updates the following once every twenty minutes, but it is almost one day passed, but the bot didn't update the page I mentioned. Please help. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It does run every twenty minutes, but there was a problem with the bot, which your note alerted me to, so thank you for that. I've just fixed it (I think) and the bot is running now. I'll keep an eye on it. ChristieBot (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep up the good work ChristieBot. Geometry guy 01:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)