This is the combined talk page for ClueBot NG and ClueBot III. These users are automated computer programs and are not humans. Please be aware that bots cannot think like a human and cannot operate outside of their programming. Messages you leave on this talk page will not be answered by a bot – either a bot operator or another human will answer you.
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.
This page is for comments on or questions about the ClueBots.
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.
Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
ClueBot NG Needs You!
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.
@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 - RichT|C|E-Mail21:57, 13 August 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 - RichT|C|E-Mail10:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of the page, it clearly says the user here is not human. It can't read your message, much less answer questions or obey your demands. It's a dumb robot, even though using "AI". The edit you did was to remove a table entry -- that itself is a very common form of vandalism (or can be a good edit). You have very little known editing history. At a guess, those things were part of how the bot came to guess that your edit itself was vandalism. The bot is carefully tuned to remove an edit if it has a 99% chance of being right and a 1% chance of being wrong. It happened to be wrong in your case. The edit summary it left says what you can do to report such a "false positive". - R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was using Cluebot until I switched to the lowercase bot recently. On my talk page, there's a {{talkheader}} template with automatically-placed links to my new archives based on the info in my archiving template. There's also an Index link, which is a remnant from Cluebot's archiving. Is the only way to remove that to have the index page deleted? If so, can someone please tag that for CSD? And if that's not the way to remove that link, any advice on how I could go about it? Thank you :) --tony16:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
September 2025
You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
False positives and false negatives
