User talk:ClueBot Commons

This user is NOT a human

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.

ClueBot NG Links!

Report False Positives • Review Edits To Improve The ANN  • Frequently Asked Questions

Purpose of this Page

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.

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

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

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

@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)

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

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

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

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

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Request to Achieve my user talkpage on Wikimedia Commons and Sindhi Wikipedia

Hello, I request this bot to archive my user talk page on Wikimedia Commons and Sindhi Wikipedia. Thank you JogiAsad ^talk 17:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@JogiAsad, see instructions on User:ClueBot III. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 02:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Clarification regarding recent edits

The recent edits to the article Hugo Herrera (Chilean philosopher) should not be understood as vandalism. They were made in good faith and with the aim of improving the article in accordance with core Wikipedia content policies. The changes primarily sought to: Strengthen the sourcing by replacing or supplementing weaker, primary, or self-referential references with more reliable and independent secondary sources (per WP:RS and WP:V). Improve the structure and internal organization of the article to enhance clarity and readability. Reduce evaluative or potentially promotional language so that the tone better complies with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Ensure that interpretive claims (e.g., theoretical characterizations or praise) are clearly attributed to reliable sources rather than stated in Wikipedia’s voice. No material was added without citation, and no content was removed for disruptive purposes. The intent was strictly editorial: to improve neutrality, verifiability, and encyclopedic quality. If there are specific concerns about any individual edit, I welcome discussion so that consensus can be reached in line with WP:CONSENSUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanes2029 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

questions about the review interface

something happens when i press the arrow keys (up down left or right), the spinning animation shows. what did i do? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 02:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)