User:Kingbotk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user account is a bot operated by Kingboyk. It is not a sock puppet, but rather an automated or semi-automated account for making repetitive edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.

This account is for bot activity by User:Kingboyk.

I will be using this account for some semi-automated talk page tagging, to assist with Wikipedia 1.0. Please message my owner if there is a problem, or block the account if anything is seriously amiss. --Kingbotk 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Bot permissions 2 Current operations 3 Planned operations 4 Done 5 FAQ 6 Plugins 7 Logs 8 Edit count

[edit] Bot permissions

This user is registered as a bot and has permission to tag talk pages with WikiProject/Wikipedia 1.0 assessment banners.

[edit] Current operations

• Replacing active importance= parameters with priority= (Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement) - done, needs occasional rerun
• Various tagging jobs for WP:WPBIO are often on the go, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Automation

[edit] Planned operations

• Tagging talk pages of articles in Category:Albums with {{album}}
• Possibly creating a new hold-all category for dead people, if there is agreement on WP:CFD (on hold)
• Tagging other people from e.g. Category:People by occupation, Category:People by status, people stub cats
• Tagging the talk pages of biographical articles about dead people (on hold)

[edit] Done

• Jobs done

[edit] FAQ

Please read these before leaving me a message.

1. You've tagged a dead person as living.

   Either the person died since I created my list of articles, or the article is incorrectly in Category:Living people. Please just amend the tag and/or the WikiProject template. I don't need to be told.

2. Why are you tagging talk pages with {{WPBiography}}

   So that the warning about the higher standards required of living person biographies appears, and so that the article will appear in Category:Unassessed biography articles. This will make it easier for Wikipedia 1.0 reviewers to locate unassessed articles. Eventually all articles should have an assessment so all I'm doing is hastening the inevitable

3. What's this class/importance thing all about anyway?

   Please see the WikiProject Council's Assessment FAQ.

4. Why have you tagged stubs with class=Stub? Isn't Stub-Class different from a stub article?

   They serve very different purposes, yes, and we need to categorise them seperately for a variety of reasons, but in most cases a stub article is Stub-Class in Wikipedia 1.0 parlance. We'll get a few false positives (less than 10% I would imagine) but it's a small price to pay for the huge benefit of automation. Also, a false positive is likely to result in the article being destubbed and properly assessed, which might not otherwise happen.

5. My article has been tagged with a living persons warning. Is there something wrong with my article? Am I now under pressure to remove any bias/POV?

   All living persons articles are being tagged this way, so the chances are that there's nothing wrong with the article you are working on. If indeed you've been working towards making a truthful, neutral article then thank you very much and please be assured there's no time limit as such. If you need help with a biography article, or are worried about non-neutral statements in a living persons bio, please post your questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography.

6. A song/album/biography article has been automatically tagged as "Stub class" and has a message which looks like this: {{stubclass}}. The article is better than a Stub. What do I do?

   Remove {{stubclass}} or the auto=yes parameter, and change the class= parameter to one of Start, B, A, GA or FA. A-class articles are rare, FA and GA is indicated by a template on the talk page. So, for a recently-former stub you're probably looking at a Start-class, maybe a B. The official meanings of these grades are at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.

7. Why do you get some false positives?

   Almost invariably because of errors or inconsistencies in categorisation, although there are other causes which I'll detail in a moment. I'd like to point out, though, that the bot has now tagged somewhere in the region of 150,000 pages. If there have been 300 false positives - and I have no reason to suspect the number is anything like that high - it's an error rate of 0.2%. I think that's a more than acceptable price for the work being done.

   • Categorisation errors - Some articles are incorrectly categorised. If a dead person is listed in living people, he'll be tagged a s living. If a song or songwriter is in an albums category it will be tagged as an album (possibly - I take a few precautions against these case, such as filtering out "(song)" and not tagging talk pages which have WPBiography or WPSongs tags).
   • Poorly organised categories. Category:Albums, for example, has over 4,000 subcategories, some of which don't contain albums at all. I attempt to clean my list by saving each level of category to a text file and running an inverse grep on the list. Any category which doesn't contain the word "albums" (in lower case) is output by grep to the console, and I check that list. Operator error can play a part here - if I miss a dodgy category - but mostly I don't miss them, and I fix any errors I find or send them to WP:CFD. I also remove any lists and any articles containing the word "discography". Of course, some incorrect articles will remain if folks choose to categorise non-album articles in album categories.
   • Redirects. I have the bot set up to follow redirects, so if a redirect is categorised the target page might get tagged.
   • Deleted pages. Sometimes pages get deleted after I've built my list. If that happens, let me know (I'm an admin), delete it yourself (if you're an admin), or put a speedy deletion tag on it. Version 0.4 of my plugin will trap talk pages with blue link articles, so this won't happen.

   If you find any false positives please just remove them; in minor cases (article is categorised incorrectly etc etc) I don't need to know, so if you can please just fix it (and if you can't/won't I'm always happy to help). If I'm tagging any complete categories incorrectly, or something is seriously amiss, let me know or ask an admin to block the bot if it's really terrible (unlikely but things can go wrong to the best of us, and I don't claim to be one of them :)).

8. The edit summary was truncated
9. Why was parameter X added?

   Starting from version 0.9, my plugin uploads logs of its operations. These include the full edit summary and a log of which parameters were added and which category was being trawled (and hence why certain parameters might have been added). To find the log entry/entries for the article in question, just use "what links here".

[edit] Plugins

• Plugin - Most of the jobs performed by Kingbotk use software written by Kingboyk in the form of an AWB plugin. The plugin is available for free download and is used by several other editors and bot operators.

[edit] Logs

• Logs

[edit] Edit count

As of ~noon 23 August 2006

Username        Kingbotk
Total edits     136304
Distinct pages edited   130291
Average edits/page      1.046
First edit      12:47, 4 August 2006
        
(main)  588
Talk    129903
User    1
User talk       1
Image talk      1
Template        1
Template talk   8
Category        1
Category talk   5776
Wikipedia       7
Wikipedia talk  10
Portal talk     7

Kingbotk was listed at number 4 on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits dated 23 September 2006 with an edit count of 175,000. Mind boggling.