User talk:ClueBot Commons

False positives and false negatives

If you believe that ClueBot NG has mistakenly identified a good edit as vandalism, please follow the directions in the warning it gave or click here. Please do not report it on this talk page. It takes less time to report the case to the correct location, and we can handle it more effectively there.
If you believe that ClueBot NG has missed an edit that is vandalism, again do not report it here. ClueBot is unable to catch all vandalism. Just revert the edit and warn the editor.

The current status of ClueBot NG is: Running
The current status of ClueBot III is: Running
Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.
Use the "new section" button at the top of this page to add a new section. Use the [edit] link above each section to edit that section.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
The ClueBots' owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page.

ClueBots
ClueBot NG/Anti-vandalism · ClueBot II/ClueBot Script
ClueBot III/Archive · Talk page for all ClueBots

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Damian has been working hard to bring the Report and Review interfaces back. We are now happy to announce that all is ready!

Report Interface: We need Wikipedians to assist with clearing the backlog of false positive reports

Review Interface: This has a direct effect on the bot and what it knows about vandalism or constructive edits. We need Wikipedians to review edits to effect how the bot should be trained.

Please reply under this message if you want to get involved - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to get involved, as a new rollbacker, I wish to help out! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valorrr: I've added the relevant rights to you on both interfaces. You'll be able to review edits now - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith I would be interested in helping out. I just happened to stumble onto this today, as ClueBot kept beating me to several rollbacks I thought I caught instantly! Nubzor [T][C] 20:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nubzor: You need to login to either Report or Review first before I can give you the relevant rights, although a new update may have you the rights straight away - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith Long time no speak! Been busy learning a new job which is why I didn't initially reply. I'm happy to help though. I just logged in and looks like I still have rights from last time 5 albert square (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square: Good to hear from you! Perfect, glad to hear it :) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith Sorry about that. I didn't even try to log in earlier. I (believe) I was successful at logging into both. I will look into this more tomorrow before I start tinkering. Seems like something more useful/helpful than just patrolling RC. I always chuckle when I am positive a rollback will be successful, only to see it was ClueBot that beat me to it :) Nubzor [T][C] 00:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question for you after taking a look--The Reviewer Interface & instructions provided there make perfect sense. But I'm not 100% certain on the Report Interface. Are we "defer[ing] to reviewer interface" regardless if it's a false positive or not, so that it can then be potentially incorporated into the dataset, either as vandalism or as constructive? Are we just filtering out bugged/invalid entries? Or am I misunderstanding. Nubzor [T][C] 02:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nubzor: Essentially yes, if it's an edit that would be helpful for the bot to learn what is/isn't a FP, then defer. If the edit has been suppressed or deleted, then mark it as invalid - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith Perfect, thank you! Nubzor [T][C] 14:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to editing but I'd love to help out if I can.

Seantavius (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I've been granted access to the review interface. Thanks

Seantavius (talk) Seantavius (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sign me up. I'm busy this month but hopefully I'll have more time to dedicate in the coming months —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@K6ka: You should be able to just sign in, your Wiki rights will give you instant access :) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snazzy snazzy! —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rich Smith: I can help :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Usernamekiran: Your Wiki rights will automatically give you access upon login - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rich Smith, yes, I logged in, and reviewed some edits successfully. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith, I'm interested. However, when I go the review interface, my username shows as "Chessenjoyer", an account that doesn't exist, and it says it's "pending approval by one of the administrators." Is this a bug? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess enjoyer Thats a bit odd, either way, I've given you the relevant rights (I'm too lazy to log in to the Wikipedia app...) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 09:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the mediawiki social auth backend passes the username with a space (as returned by the API) and the default clean username function strips spaces out.

We have a scheduled job that updates usernames (in case they change), but this can be better during creation.

- Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed for future accounts creations by [1], I just ran the username update script which fixed the existing entries for Chess enjoyer and Bowler the Carmine.

- Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith I'd love to help with this! AaronNealLucas (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aplucas0703: I have given you access on the Report interface, the Review interface gave you access automatically. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i want to get involved! ToTheLightmama (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is "affect", not "effect", unless there is some obscure meaning that makes it grammatically correct. SeaDragon1 (talk, contribs, happy birthday!) 16:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@SeaDragon1: No, "effect" is the correct spelling. "Affect" is generally a verb, while "effect" can be both a verb and a noun. In this case, "effect" is a noun being "The result or outcome of a cause."—that is, work in the review interface produces a result in the bot. "Affect" used as a verb can include, "My work reviewing false positive reports affects the bot's performance", or "The work Wikipedians invest in reviewing false positive reports have positively affected the bot's performance". "Effect" is usually a noun (e.g. "Your work reviewing false positive reports has a positive effect on the bot's performance"), but it can also (confusingly) be used as a verb: "More accurate false positive reviewing effects better bot performance". I know, English is weird. My day job involves professional writing and sometimes the better option is to simply avoid using those two words. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This has a direct effect on the bot and what it knows about vandalism or constructive edits. We need Wikipedians to review edits to affect how the bot should be trained. seems better than This has a direct effect on the bot and what it knows about vandalism or constructive edits. We need Wikipedians to review edits to effect how the bot should be trained., but I could be wrong. SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 17:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Text diff:

−

This has a direct effect on the bot and what it knows about vandalism or constructive edits. We need Wikipedians to review edits to effect how the bot should be trained.

+

This has a direct effect on the bot and what it knows about vandalism or constructive edits. We need Wikipedians to review edits to affect how the bot should be trained.

SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 17:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thought you meant the first use of "effect" in there. The second instance of "effect" should be "affect", yes. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should've clarified. SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 18:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been active on the review and report interface lately, but I just have one question: What do all the buttons on the report interface mean? I understand refer to review interface and invalid but not the other ones. FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 19:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-32651-88 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-32651-88: If the bot has made a mistake, please report it on the false positives reporting interface, and not on this talk page. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I access my report? ~2026-31462-23 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-31462-23: Simply enter the revert ID for the edit you reported in the report interface, and you'll be able to see your report, if you had reported it previously. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, messing about with revert IDs is too much work. Your bot should not force work onto innocent users. It has just wrongly reverted me again. Please control your defective bot. ~2026-33020-30 (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having the same problem. While AI may have its advantages, it becomes problematic when it begins reverting perfectly legitimate edits made by experienced users. That undermines much of the appeal of contributing to Wikipedia. I also find it burdensome to repeatedly check whether I have inadvertently become involved in an edit war with a machine. That's not what I became involved in this project for. No! No! No! Lieberraldus (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original request was around this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breudher&diff=1357467853&oldid=1357467768  Stepho  talk  09:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An anon user corrected "clearence" to the correct "clearance" and ClueBot reverted him. Just in case this was a US vs UK spelling thing, I checked but it seems that "clearence" is wrong in both forms of English. Given ClueBot's excellent track record, this leaves me a bit confused why he was reverted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Car_body_style&diff=1357783821&oldid=1357783815  Stepho  talk  01:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with the word 'depicted' when an edit was made on the Scooby Doo (character) article.[2] I've never known ClueBot to revert possible vandalism after a simple spelling fix. This programming may need to be looked at carefully. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the bot's edits and found other similar problems on reverting anon edits from the correct to incorrect spellings:[3][4][5][6]. A lot of those anon/newbie editors may be confused as to why their edits were marked as vandalism. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone several reverts by ClueBot NG this week. I've never had to do so in the past, but the bot is undoing constructive (or at least not harmful) edits. I came here wondering if other editors were noticing this as well. Schazjmd (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This One Is For The Edits On Uri, Jammu and Kashmir:

Hey, Usually I Don't Do Any Sort Of Vandalism, Not Even In This One! The Reason Why I Changed The Pronunciation Language Code, Is Because The Pronunciation Given Was Assigned To The Wrong Language Code, I Merely Corrected It (From Urdu To Kashmiri, As The Pronunciation Of Long "ū" Is Of The Kashmiri Pronunciation, Not In Hindi-Urdu Versions Of The Word "Uri")! Marlena3032 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are the false positives being monitored still? I can see edits from as far back as 2010 sitting as unreviewed... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reports and reviews are still being conducted - see the top of the talk page asking for more volunteers.

While there are 1903 reports pending review, ~500 have been sent for review in the last month and 400+ have been reviwed (by multiple people).

You can also see regular interaction on the talk page regarding reviews.

Can you expand on your concerns? - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah makes sense - it just appeared from the outside like it didn't appear to be moving, but evidently I'm incorrect :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve reverted my edits 2 times so far. (It keeps making me have temporary accounts) First on Dropkick Murphys, second on List of Pink Floyd band members. I am kindly asking you to leave me alone. Othersideoftheroad (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can report false positives, but the bot cannot exempt you from its actions. -- Least Action (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your years of relentless vigilance, deep analysis and untiring work, I award you this Barnstar. Please enjoy :) Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Least_Action/Guide_to_changing_ClueBot_III_archive_prefixes -- Least Action (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]