"
 Yep.  This is one of several cases where the vast majority of the time the pattern is met, it is indeed vandalism.  (I suspect something like 99% or better, but have no actual data behind that, so it's really just a guestimate.)  There are a small number of cases on this and some other of the bot's criteria that are actually false positives.  The error matches a vandalistic pattern, but is actually not vandalism.  In general it has been decided that this is a small enough price to pay for the good that the bot does in rapidly reverting the rest that are indeed vandalism.  In general the bot is supposed to run in Friendly mode, where it will not edit war.  This means that if you get hit by a false positive, just make the edit again and remove the warning from your talk page.  The bot should not revert a second time on the same edit.
 As for refining, that's tricky.  What was there about those two edits that a bot, a computer program, could have used to identify them as not vandalism?  Sure, the bot could be programmed with the very specific examples of those two edits, but the next time won't be exactly the same.  If we told it that ""CITATION NEEDED"" was not vandalism, then the next time they used ""NEED CITATION"", or ""CITATION REQUIRED"" or ""FACT CHECK"", then the bot would not catch it.  We cannot anticipate every single way someone might make this mistake.  The radio station edit is even more tricky.  And what about the edits that have nothing to do with citations or radio stations?  We would need solid criteria that would allow the bot to tell that one all-cap edit is vandalism while another is not.  And I for one have no idea what we could use.  New ideas for improving the bot are welcome, but in this case we need very specific ideas for rules that will help a bot tell the difference.  The bot is stupid, and only does what it is programmed to do, nothing more.  It cannot make judgement calls edit by edit. -  "