User:AntiVandalBot/diffs

AntiVandalBot diffs

AntiVandalBot is currently running at less than 25% of normal capacity, it's gonna miss stuff (ETA on full capacity < 48h -- Tawker 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please place diffs of false positives (stuff that was reverted that shouldn't have been) as well as vandalism the bot didn't get - we are working on the next version of AVB and we need your help!

Note: Vandalism not reverted by the bot does not necessarily mean that the bot did not detect it. The bot will usually not do anything if someone else (such as another anti-vandalism bot running different software) reverted the edit.

they vandalized me for something i havent even looked at!

Vandalism not caught

Please format entries like this example:

[1]
[2] Fairly simple page blanking vandalism; I'm amazed AntiVandalBot didn't get this one, and it had ten minutes in which to do so.
[3] Reverted back to the previous Missouri article. Bot caught most of the vandal's other edits.
[4] Many more follow directly after this one. The bot reverted only the last.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Notice that this page has a bit more vandalism on it since part of it was reverted by the bot; the earlier of these two is the last valid change. Could it be that the bot does not catch multiple vandalisms from the same user?
[17] '\
[18] / - how did the bot not catch these two!? Andeh 16:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot only checks things that a pgkbot-like part flags, IIRC, and those are too short for it to notice. --Rory096 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[19] Page blanking...no idea why you didn't catch it. alphaChimp^(talk) 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverted the next minute, bot might've just been a bit slow at the time.--Andeh 16:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous edit was by AntiVandalBot. Unless the bot is in "angry" mode, it won't revert more than once in a row. In this case, another bot may revert the page, but this doesn't happen every time. --Ixfd64 20:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] (ironically, the very next edit to the page was reverted)
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] and [37] right after it
- note that this was followed by a third defacement by a different user, which the bot did catch, and reverted back to the second vandalized version above!
[38]. How ironic that the bot doesn't revert this page :P Fredil Yupi go ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 22:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[39]
[40]
[41]--Exir Kamalabadi ^{Join Esperanza!} 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[42]--Exir Kamalabadi ^{Join Esperanza!} 13:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[43] --Exir Kamalabadi ^{Join Esperanza!} 07:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[44]--Football_(soccer)
[45]--Biomagnification - reverted a vandalism after this one back to this one. Crystallina 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[46]--Topology (a very sneaky way to blank half an article)
[47]--Weed - Should be fairely easy to detect this sort of thing. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[48]--George_W._Bush - Pretty obvious.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 15:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[49]--Liberal_Democrats
[50]--J.R._Writer - no text was removed (I've noticed that AntiVandalBot usually needs to have some text removed), but in my time as a vandal fighter, I've often found that people will add nonsense to the very end of the article (even after the categories and interwiki links). You might be able to pick these up pretty easily. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See [51] for similar example -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one--Green_Eggs_and_Ham_in_popular_culture - could be picked up because of the multiple ! -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [52]]--Category:Canadian_inventors Last one I promise -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[53]--Spam_in_blogs
[54]--Carbohydrate
[55]--Constantine_I // FrankB
- [56]--same article, but somewhat earlier edit—interleaved with good fixes. // FrankB 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[57]
[58]
[59], [60], [61], [62] USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77): The bot is missing some vandalism on this page, mostly from anti-war/anti-Bush camps. Thankfully, RC patrolers have caught what the bot has not. These example are arranged from newest to oldest. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[63] Caught some vandalism, but missed that the editor before the blanker had filled it with profanity. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[64] Caught some vandalism, but missed that the editor before the blanker had filled it with nonsense - Jack (talk)
[65] was missed for 4 days until a human found it BUT if you look at the edits by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=162.83.160.158 you can see that they did 3 edits. The first (missed by everyone until today) was followed quickly by two that cancelled each other out i.e. [66] and then [67]. Maybe I'm just paranoid but I'm thinking this is a crafty way of getting nonsense into WP. I'm wondering of a heuristic could be added so that if the bot sees a revert that contains a minimum leval of (bayesian weighted I guess) junk then previous edits are reverted too just in case. Ttiotsw 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[68] This was missed entirely. Can the bot take notice of the broken URLs and templates that result from this kind of vandalism? Chick Bowen 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[69]Sbmcmull
[70] Jam 01 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[71] Jam 01 05:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[72] Jam 01 05:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[73] - user completely "rewrote" Kim Possible (character)
[74] - pretty obvious
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78] - above three edits
[79]
[80] Multiple Warnings
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84] - "no changes" spam, no urls - with data clobber
[85] - "no changes" spam, no urls - with data clobber
[86] - "no changes" spam, no urls - with data clobber
[87] "no changes" spam with urls and data clobber
[88] "no changes" spam with urls and data clobber
[89]
[90] not caught, but 4 hours later instantly reverted accidental blanking during manual reversion
[91] Completely blanked out
[92] Obvious vandalism; added a toolbox link.
[93], [94], [95] — all three of these are from my little parade through the FPC page, the bot apparently did not catch any of them. 129.108.96.190 10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[96] Has enough keywords and capital letters that I'm quite disappointed in you, you silly bot :P. I'm tellin' you, Tawker, program in the multiple !!!!, it's tell-tale :)-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[97] Vandal deleted a block of text. Previous edit added a telephone number. --Oden 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[98] blank, replace with something like "FUCK MOHAMMED GAY" (in caps). Patstuart^talk|edits 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[99] Caught it last time by same vandal, but not this time. --Skb8721 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[100]
[101]
[102] - discussed below. Also the following edits: [103], [104], [105], and [106] are part of the same incident.
[107] -- The all-caps seems very obvious. Nihiltres 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[108]
[109] - very surprised that these weren't caught. - Banyan Tree 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was reverted to this. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[110]
[111] changed an abundance of words to "shit"
[112] nonsense, scatology, Anglo-Saxonisms revandalized.DaKine 03:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[113] Mass deletion. Kosebamse 07:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[114] sneeky word vandalism
[115] page blanking
[116]
[117]
[118]
[119]
[120]
[121] (warning: very big diff)
[122] Deletes all categories and references and cuts article size to 389 bytes from 2.5k (but isn't a conversion to a redirect). I'm sure AVB and MartinBot were both active at the time.
[123] The bad word in Slovak language is kokot. See for example The Alternative Slovak Dictionary.
[124] Next edit of the same author. The bad words in Slovak are pojebali and riti they are forms of the verb jebať and the noun riť. --pabouk 10:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[125] full out page blank. --Wafulz 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[126]
[127] Page blanking, even though previously caught same vandal doing something else, see Special:Contributions/207.109.61.129 ~ 19:44, 18 April 2007 Shenme 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[128] Need to widen the definition of page blanking?
[129] "beats the crap out of" isn't grounds for a reversion?
[130]
[131] Three incremental deletions of bits of content
[132] Replaced page with 'this game fucking rox!!!' Carlosguitar 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[133] Carlosguitar 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False vandalism positives

Please format entries like this example:

[134]
[135] Simple link fix, not sure why it got reverted.
[136]
[137]
[138]
[139]
[140]
[141]
[142]PieCam 22:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[143] (warning: this diff is very big!)
[144]
Diffs at [145] where Tawker reverts Werdnabot.
[146]
[147]It reverts a bowdlerisation, which IMHO is a legimate thing according to Wikipedia:Profanity.
[148]
[149] Wow.
[150] - but really nothing can be done about this. There is no way for the bot to know that the full version was the vandalized one.
[151] probably not such a great edit, but definitely not vandalism (the anon was reverted multiple times and reported for blocking).
[152] He reverted my revert.
[153] Mathbot Agathoclea 09:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[154] This one is kind of sad. Fredil Yupi go ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[155] I reverted vandalism on Playstation Underground (someone had copied all the info on Dog into the article), and it got reverted back to its ugly old self.
[156] (My favorite bot revert EVER!!) Grand master ka 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[157] reverting to a vandalized version. Kusma (討論) 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[158] reverted my edit here; it certainly was not vandalism - the reference was just a big, long, exhaustive description of a book about the subject bob rulz 02:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[159] reverted under the name AntiVandalBot -- Smjg 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[160] reverted my revert of the above (!) under the name Tawkerbot2 -- Smjg 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[161] see discussion below
[162] not vandalism, just shifting pages.
[163]
[164] not vandalism, just avoiding redirect page
[165] Category pages often have no content, so just removing the CfD notice seems to be picked up as vandalism.
[166] not vandalism - just creating wiki link
[167]
[168] - yet again
[169] - user added one word - THE
[170] pretty obvious there, got a false positive
[171]
[172] MER-C 10:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[173] on Wii. Grand master ka 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[174] - I reverted a search-and-replace vandal, and the bot reverted me (presumably because my edit also looked like a search-and-replace, or maybe because I was changing the word "jesus" back to "penis".) I'm not sure there's much that could be done to deal with this kind of false positive, since in most contexts my edit would be the kind of thing we want AVB to catch and revert. Come on Tawker et al, when are you going to upgrade AVB so that it can pass a turing test? ;-) -- AJR | Talk 19:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[175] Another one. MER-C 13:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[176] reversion of subject headings. clearly not vandalism. ... aa:talk 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[177] Reverted to vandalised version --Casper2k3 10:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[178] ...and again --Casper2k3 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[179] - I fail to see the logic behind that one... Grue 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reposted copyvio MER-C 12:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[180] Seems to have reverted just because it was all in capital letters. CheekyMonkey 13:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
diff Nailed the IP for putting {{db-attack}} onto an attack page. (I've now deleted the page.) GRBerry 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[181]
[182]
[183] WOO HOO FOR THE WILD THORNBERRIES MOVIE
[184] the page has been speedied.
[185] Bot reverted removal of vandalism. WjBscribe 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[186] Bot reverted my reversion of vandalism and warned me. Leafyplant 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[187] Didn't like talking about "shit" in Shite —dgies^t_c 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[188] It's not the Shelton/Straight alliance, and beans% is not a valid number. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[189] Bot reverted my reversion of vandalism and warned me. Leafyplant 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[190]
[191]
[192] Reverted me reverting a user copying his talkpage onto an article. Hut 8.5 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[193] MartinBot reverting MiszaBot II (archiving WP:AN) -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[194] I can't believe I got reverted here... Hut 8.5 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[195] MartinBot seems to be quite uptight about censoring. As the word is used in a direct quote, I don't think the man would have said "fu?%$ng". It's very difficult to pronounce. Is it really that hard to detect if something is being un-bowdlerized?
[196] - A similar edit by a different IP was also incorrectly reverted, please fix if you can. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[197] I just requested an article about the Refi Retaliator. I guess it reverted it because of the "Refi". -24.6.242.113 01:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

The bot reverted 63.147.153.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) but failed to leave a warning message.--Andeh 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happened to me too, when it reverted my reversion [198]. But I noticed that you did have a message from Tawkerbot4 on 5 October. Does it only put up the message if you don't already have a message from Tawkerbot or any of its clones on your talk page? -- Smjg 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot did the same for me just now. [199] The IP address AntiVandalBot was reverting was 71.32.210.15. Bushcarrot 03:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a glitch when User:AntiVandalBot reverted a vandalism at the same time as an IP: [200] [201] (but note the IP came back and reverted again to the right version: [202]). Someone else noted the same glitch on the bot's talk page wrt a different article. A.J.A. 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same thing. An IP vandal blanked a page [203], and the AntiVandalBot reverted the edit. However, the AntiVandalBot didn't give them a warning [204]. I had to do that myself. Presumably, this is because Tawkerbot made an edit before it. -NorsemanII 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[205] Bot reverted IP vandal but didn't create warning on said IP's talk page. --172.194.79.236 01:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[206] Ditto. --172.194.79.236 01:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...And it seems that the IP vandalised it twice. [207] --172.194.79.236 01:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a mother-lode of a heuristic for you. Watch the featured article of the day for edits that get reverted, and suspect the users or IPs that appear in that list—especially if they appear more than once. Granted, some of these will be valiant anti-vandal reverters who get re-reverted, but as their edits should on the whole make all the other heuristics score lower, you should be able to pick them out. Crawl the contributions of the rest, and you've got abundant vandalism for plinking. (And, of course, for extracting features.) eritain 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: [208]. The bot reverted an IP to an edit by the same IP! (Both vandalism, of course.) Grand master ka 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Wars

War of the BOTS!!!

Just thought I'd point out this series of edits:

User:129.21.230.148 vandalises Lucas [209]
User:129.21.230.149 changes the vandalism slightly [210]
User:AntiVandalBot reverts the changes by 129.21.230.149 to the version by 129.21.230.148 (remember, both are vandalism containing profanity) [211]
User:MartinBot reverts AntiVandalBot to the version by 129.21.230.149 [212]
Finally a human, User:Tom harrison comes along and reverts everyone back to the way the article was to begin with [213].

Are we now having Bot Wars? I've seen similar things happen before. For a while Tawkerbot and AntiVandalBot were edit warring on AntiVandalBot's userpage. Is there some way to stop this? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!!!!! Grand master ka 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one here [214] - first TB2 reverts, then AVB, then MartinBot. :S M a rtinp23 07:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TB2 clones (usually but not always AVB) seem to be reverting Mathbot a lot for legitimate edits; check the history of User talk:Mathbot. --ais523 12:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- AVB STILL vandalizes pages owned by Mathbot: [215]. Is there a reason Mathbot isn't whitelisted for editing the WP:1.0 pages nobody but Mathbot should be editing anyway? Kusma (討論) 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Canadian Inventions

Hi I was trying to clean up Category:Candian Inventions which currently reads more like an article than a category, anyway I had to delete a whole bunch of stuff from the category and well your bot flagged me and reverted my edit, if you could do something about this I would most appreciate it. Let me know. Deathawk 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things the bot reverts that it shouldn't should be reported under #False vandalism positives. It's what the section's there for. I've just added it.

In most cases, blanking an article is one of the most blatant forms of vandalism, so it's perhaps not surprising that the bot picked it up. Obviously, category pages have to be an exception. While blanking a category page can be vandalism, and it's hard for a bot to tell, it should be possible to program the bot to realise that the previous text is far too long for a category page and therefore not revert it blindly. -- Smjg 21:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water

(cur) (last) 23:14, October 17, 2006 J Di (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by AntiVandalBot to last version by Pcbene) [216]
(cur) (last) 23:13, October 17, 2006 AntiVandalBot (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv Pcbene (talk) to last version by Tawkerbot4) [217]
(cur) (last) 23:12, October 17, 2006 Pcbene (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 1 edits by Tawkerbot4 (talk) to last revision (82095812) by J Di using VP2) [218]
(cur) (last) 23:12, October 17, 2006 Tawkerbot4 (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv J Di (talk) to last version by AntiVandalBot) [219]
(cur) (last) 23:09, October 17, 2006 J Di (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by AntiVandalBot to last version by J Di) [220]
(cur) (last) 23:08, October 17, 2006 AntiVandalBot (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv J Di (talk) to last version by Bob billydoe joe) [221]
(cur) (last) 23:08, October 17, 2006 J Di (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by Bob billydoe joe to last version by Moonraker88) [222]
(cur) (last) 23:06, October 17, 2006 Bob billydoe joe (Talk | contribs) [223]

Users vandalizing multiple articles

I seem to be following in the AntiVandalBot's wake today. The Bot reverted soft drink once (then me a second time) but it didn't catch the page blanking by the same user a 1/2 hour earlier on Heart rate. The bot caught the vandalism of cookie but missed the vandalism on meatloaf by the same user two minutes earlier. As a human RC patroller, checking recent changes by the same user to other articles is something I always do. Apparently the bot doesn't? Rmhermen 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment on a similar incident to the one described above that happened this weekend (also posted in the missed vandalism section). The bot caught the following vandalism: [224] for the following IP user [225], however that IP had blanked several sections of the Multi-core (computing) article, which I had to restore manually today. It is clear that the bot missed looking at the user's contributions to see if other pages had been defaced. At the very least it would be nice if the bot could notify some responsible human of the IP's previous questionable contributions. --Stux 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuately, these requests are absolutely impossible, and are somewhat true of any anti-vandalism tool (popups, VP), though there are some controls in them, I believe. Looking at the trace given by the bots, they are running falt out - if the bots had to check the history of every user they reverted, it would make about one revert per ten minutes. Getting at least some vandalism is better than none, I'm afraid. Reporting that the bot has missed one page which was vandalised, but has hit another by the same user, only tells us what we know - the bot is limited by internet connection speed and edit throttles required by WP:BOT. Mart inp23 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive

My edit was falsely marked as vandalism. :( --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

[226] The purpose of the Sandbox is to give vandals a place for their random crap. Their edits to the sandbox and its subpages should not be reverted. Perhaps we can "block" AntiVandalBot from editing on the Sandbox...--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing images prior to deletion

Here, the bot reverted my edit (the removal of an image and its caption before its deletion) and a subsequent addition by another user. Admins make this kind of edit all the time, so I can't imagine why the bot took action just today. ×Meegs 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late

Antivandalbot comes in and reverts correctly, but not before someone else vandalises again. [227] --HappyCamper 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Positive

my edit was falsely marked as vandalisim

Only reverting one of the vandals edits.

diff.
diff, diff

Rettetast 11:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[228]
[229]. Some more. Rettetast 11:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also [230] and [231]. I placed some more examples on the talk page. Will (aka Wimt) 11:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - the reason for this is actually a change in Wikipedia's query system, which the bot makes heavy use of. In any case, it's an annoying error, so I've put a fix in place to stop the bot from reverting at all where the version reverting to was written by the vandal. User:MartinBot is running the updated script - AVB seems to be inactive at this moment in time, until Tawker gets around to restarting it, at which point he will (hopefully) install this patch I've written. Thanks, Mart inp23 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misidentified vandal

The bot caught an actual incidence of vandalism here, but identified it as originating from me instead of from the anon, and also revert a legitimate ad clean-up. --Xanzzibar 13:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered the same problem at Nintendo GameCube Disc. I remove an unfree image, an anon redirects the page, MartinBot activates and reverts to the edit prior to mine, and notifies me on my talk page. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misidentified Vandal

MartinBot reverted my reversion of vandalism (it appears I didn't revert back far enough). I assume its alright if I remove the warning it left on my userpage.--Mbc³⁶² 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing irrelevant template

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Category:Narcissism as reason template was incorrectly added to Category:Narcissism. Reason given was that a category discussion for deletion does not belong under Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion Did not mean to undo your work. Thought forgot to click on save. User_talk:172.191.147.254

False positive

No clue why, but MartinBot decided to revert my bot's edit. I am assuming it is because of the large removal of text, but it's still a false positive nonetheless. Either way, I hope you have a wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra_~(talk) 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[232] -Enviroboy (Talk|Contribs) 03:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False negative and friendly fire

Vandalism by Sepipe-l0: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisch&diff=116216304&oldid=115427834
My revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisch&diff=116216388&oldid=116216304
3 day gap
Vandalism by 214.3.40.3: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisch&diff=116917970&oldid=116216388
Revert by MartinBot: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisch&diff=116918020&oldid=116917970

As you can see from the final diff, MartinBot reverts back to Sepipe-l0's vandalism edit and then issues me with a false warning despite the 3 day gap. -- Netsnipe ► 18:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbification of living person

[233] I stubbified the article due to BLP concerns. Andjam 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive

MartinBot reverted my edit on Rick Ross (rapper) (diff) to the previous version which was vandalism. It appears the reason was that the rv was such a drastic reduction and the original included some swear words. Just thought I should let you know. MrSomeone 02:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another false positive

This edit was, as the edit comment said, removing text following a redirect. The editor who created the redirect neglected to delete the old text that had been there before. --Russ (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another false positive

Martinbot reverted my edit (diff) on Door County, Wisconsin--understandable, as it was adding swear words, but I was simply un-bowdlerizing in according with WP:Profanity policy, which says that profanity should either be there or not--not bowdlerized. You can revert it if you care. I don't, frankly. 160.39.190.60 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinBot censoring

I uncensored the clockers movie article, and the MartinBot reverted my edits. Looks like other people are having the same problems. This MartinBot needs to go. A bot just can't revert edits because of swear words. That is stupid coding. 74.139.197.26 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the bot will occasionally pick up false positives but that doesn't mean we should stop the bot. It does far more good than bad and stopping it would mean Wikipedia would be full of vandalism. Just see the bots contribs and you'll see how helpful he is. [234] -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems User:MartinBot in particular has some false positive issues. 128.158.145.51 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually runs the same code as AVB, so I'm not sure how the "in particular" has come about. Yes, it's a pain that the bot will sometimes revert the removal of censorship, but as I'm sure you found out, the fact that you'd been reverted wasn't hard to spot and fix, and significantly easier to fix than the thousands of vandalism edits we get every day. Minstakes are inevitable, but the net gain of having the bot present is thoroughly indisputable. Martinp23 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Gives Back

I was trying to merge it into American Idol (Season 6), but I messed up the redirect.--70.162.46.19 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed vandalism, reverts to vandal version

The bot had some problems with a heavily vandalised school page. There were no interveaning edits between these diffs. (None of the bad reverts were from a good version)

[[235]] Missed Vandalism from good version
[[236]] Vandalised more
[[237]] Blatant Vandalism (At this point the article has lost all real content)
[[238]] Vandalism
[[239]] Bot reverts between vandalized versions
[[240]] More Vandalism
[[241]] More Vandalism
[[242]] More Vandalism
[[243]] More Vandalism
[[244]] More Vandalism
[[245]] More Vandalism
[[246]] Bot reverts between vandalized versions #2
[[247]] More Vandalism
[[248]] More Vandalism
[[249]] Bot reverts between vandalized versions #3
[[250]] More Vandalism

I don't know if there is really anything that can be done after the bot missed the first vandalism, but I figured I'd post this here incase it can be helpful in improving how vandalism is detected. Also all the vandalism edits occured in about a 30 minute period, perhaps something could done to provide addition scrutiny to edits around such heavy vandalism. Monty845 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion to a previously vandalized version

I'm not sure this case is covered above. Here's an example: [251]. I realise there will always be cases of lurking deep vandalism, but I can imagine a bot reverting this one both ways(!) How about a heuristic that says if the change had been the other way we'd still revert it then hold off the revert (and leave sorting out the mess to a human)? More examples, anyone? Philip Trueman 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More false positives

diff: MartinBot reverted my edits as well as those of the next user (not shown in the diff). We were both correcting misspellings in links, but MartinBot reverted them and now the links are pointing to redirects again instead of the right articles. I'm going to revert this. Have a nice day. Rosenknospe 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive - SMILES notation

Take a look here

It was an erroneous revert. The SMILES notation give was valid and correct. I'm reporting it, but I'm not sure how you can improve it. --Rifleman 82 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive: WP:AN archiving

MartinBot reverted MiszaBot II's automated archiving of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard...Just an FYI. — Scientizzle 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by adding MiszaBot to the whitelist. Martinp23 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on vandal revert

A vandal IP editor was going round doing copy and paste of articles onto people with similar names. I reverted him on this paste of Tommy Lee's biography on to Tommy Lee Jones but got bot reverted. Sam Blacketer 13:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Positive: legitimate edit on article sandbox.

This message decribed the reverting of a legitimate edit, where a sandbox subdirectory for a page was blanked after the talked about working changes were implemented on the main page. I suggest that the MARTINBOT not review subdirectories of articles, and that an opt-out mechanism be started, for which I will sign up immediately. -- Yellowdesk 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/sandbox (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

another bot-interfered-with sandbox clearing

[252] diff

False-Positive?

see: [253]

I was just removing what seems to be a bad link -- the site in question links to what is an obvious commercial based site without any actual information on it. The article in question 13 was something I came across while browsing Wikipedia. I would make the same change again, as well as removing the (correctly syntaxed) reference from the main article text.

The text that I removed read: "Latest scientific discoveries about the Mayan Calendar can be found at: http://www.mayan-calendar-code.com" which just screams "spam" and is located under "References" without actually being a reference. However, a reference to this website was added to the article, seemingly at random, to make it seem legitimate. The website in question (mayan-calander-code or something) holds no actual reference material past some nonsensical "if you want to know more, purchase this!" type crap.

Rambling, I apologize. I'd appreciate if someone could edit 13 to remove the extraneous spam links though, thanks. Perhaps its time I signed up for a wikipedia account, eh? One last thing, it seems the account that made the original edit to 13 seems to have done so specifically to add their website to wikipedia. off to bed with me. Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Don't get the bot stuff. --74.133.46.24 08:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very unfortunate revert (false positive)

This is clearly a very bad revert by MartinBot, putting back an extremely biased rant that clearly breaches WP:BLP. Gwernol 10:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Positives

This edit of mine diff was rolled back. I can only assume because I deleted all the images. I had to. The template changes to Episode List make the episodes go wacky when the images are in but not used. Since they don't show up anyway, I've been going through and removing the info from the episode pages. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now my edit to List of Only Fools and Horses episodes (diff) was rolled back. Again. The template changed. The image fields are no longer being used. I am removing them. Is there a way to get around this because it's throwing up false positives here and I'm trying to clean that list out. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Positive

When merging two pages, MartinBot reverted it, then warned me. I am not a vandal and its kinda annoying to have to go back and do it all again. --TREYWiki 01:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on category page

I removed a large chunk of material from a category page (material duplicated in an article) with this edit. Any idea why MartinBot thought it was vandalism? Carcharoth 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on Category:Indian photographers

I had moved content specific to one person from the Category page to its own article but the MartinBot reverted it incorrectly. How does one get about correcting the MartinBot's behaviour or to make sure the Bot's reversion can be reverted? In the MartinBot report page it cited a reason as "content replaced with something useless" which is meaningless as I removed the content and placed it elsewhere and also marked my edits properly!

-Deepraj | Talk 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on Gareth Keenan

I reverted the spam on Gareth Keenan (diff), then User:MartinBot reverted me misleadingly (diff). I think the reason was the reduction in page size at my restoration. --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on "Sweet Jane"

With this diff, AntiVandalBot reverted my removal of copyvio text (which had been taken from here). — BillC ^talk 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on "Kayastha"

False positive on Kayastha.

False positive on "Industrial applications of microwave"

I was changing the article Industrial applications of microwave to a redirect and mis-typed the wikilink. My change was reverted before I even had a chance to correct my typeo! -- Whpq 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Positive of 55th United States Congress

no vandalism here stilltim 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positives on Requested Articles

User:MartinBot is marking a lot of edits to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet as vandalism, though they are not. For example, 1, 2, and 3. 128.158.145.51 15:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and also 4. 24.6.242.113 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive

Ip dip, bowdlerisation of quoted childrens selection rhyme. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on that. Having looked at the entire diff, I have discerned a problem, in that part of the bot edit is conceivably right, but not having first hand experience of the rhymes themselves, I couldn't know for sure. Can somebody take a look? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 20:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substantiated change

I deleted the line: (But the Berliners also used "Berliner" as the word for "jelly doughnut".) within the article "John F. Kennedy". That was no vandalism, but a correction. I made a comment to substantiate the change. But a bot reverted it.

Vanity plate

The bot has now twice reverted the legitimate addition of the word 'bullshit' to the article. Instead I shall just remove the section where it occurs as it is not necessary. --62.136.64.235 14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion to a previously vandalized version

MartinBot reverted to a previously vandalized version of Chuck Norris - see [254]. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Photo Ursula Andress

I received permission from Wikipedia to remove the photo.

Do not revert my edit.

See Ursula Andress Talk Page 87.243.196.167 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad revert

[255]. Obviously, the IP should have reverted rather than blanking, but still not so good to restore offensive text. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Revert

The revert MartinBot 01:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) to Red Lobster was an error. It was a legitimate edit and was not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.220.7 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 August 2007

No. It's vandalism. 76.190.220.7 is the vandal. --Ronz 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive and {{Courtesy blanked}}

The bot gave me this message, and reverted my edit. I had courtesy blanked the page. You may want to filter out courtesy blanking using {{Courtesy blanked}}.

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI. GRBerry 12:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandalism to another vandal edits

[[256]] ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 09:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Positive (or something like that)

I was reverting vandalism on Shahrukh Khan (diff) and the bot reverted it back to the vandalised page. Davidovic 00:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Positve on John David Booty

I can't figure out why it reverted this edit, other than because it was by an anon user. --Bobak 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on 2000

In this diff: [257] - possibly the bot could be programmed to recognise that use of image:example.jpg in articles is usually an indicator of vandalism. Addhoc 17:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive - Biodiversity

MartinBot incorrectly reverted the restoration of a vandalized page, Biodiversity. Here's the diff: [258]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False positive - Joe Bugner

MartinBot erroneously identified the addition of a large table as vandalism. SteveO 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]