Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than90 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Wk3v78k23tnsa has made many edits recently primarily to Vince Guaraldi/Charlie Brown-related articles. I noticed some AI tells on one of them while searching, and more jumped out when skimming the other articles. And then I foundthis. This diff adds a lot of supposed quotes, such as this:Trotter does not just arrange, he amplifies. That bossa nova piece could have been background filler, but instead it feels deeply emotional—like it is telling its own story. Which sounds exactly like ChatGPT coming out of someone's mouth. Annoyingly, the interview it is cited to is a40-minute video, but it does have a transcript; while I'm pretty sure the transcript is auto-generated, I CTRL-F'd multiple words out of that quotation and not one of them shows up in the transcript, and while machine-learning transcripts can mess up they usually don't mess upthat much. So I did the same with some other quotes from the article and still have yet to find a hit. Fucking sheesh.

I don't know how far back this issue goes. Before the Charlie Brown stuff they did a lot of plot summary revisions, which I'm not sure are AI -- for instance,this edit is tonally glib, but it sounds more like human ad copy than LLM slop (this is a gut feeling), and there's at least one grammatical error uncharacteristic of AI. (Also, they seem to have radically changed the way they write edit summaries betweennow andthen.)Gnomingstuff (talk)00:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I documented new concerns atSpecial:Diff/1319145378. I asked for clarification and if I made a mistake I will strike this. But would appreciate if someone here could take a lookNicheSports (talk)01:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be right. With the caveat that I haven't checked other recent edits from this user yet.Gurkubondinn (talk)03:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There's alsothis edit with the chatbot responseHere is the revised version with all formatting removed while maintaining the academic tone and word limit:, so I guess their rewrites may now be in play too.Gnomingstuff (talk)00:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is tough because the user has a high level of English fluency (seethis exchange on their talk page from 2016). Then you havethis, which feels more like a troll than an LLM. But based onthe smoking gun you found that included the chatbot response, I think we have to assume that the majority of their plot summary rewrites involved LLMs. I mean on March 2 2024 they rewrote108 plot summaries, often 1-2 minutes apart, without grammatical errors. There are many examples of this. On Feburary 17 2024 they rewrote these 7 plot summaries in 9 minutes:[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. And of course they never made any edits like this prior to November 2022.NicheSports (talk)02:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)04:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I manually restored theA Boy Named Charlie Brown § Plot section to the revision from before it was rewritten with LLM garbage:Diff/1315012813/1269499672. --Gurkubondinn (talk)11:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, the supposed Trotter quote listed above is back in the article. Either it was there before the last reversion, or someone put it back in manually. I don't have time to watch the video to correct it myself, but want to flag it.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)11:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on their talk page about the issue(s), waiting to hear back.Gnomingstuff (talk)14:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Wk3v78k23tnsa is currently working on resolving the AI issues on the Peanuts articles according to their most recent contributions.sjones23 (talk -contributions)19:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wk3v78k23tnsa I see that you've been endeavoring to tidy up the edits yourself (thank you!), do you think you'll be able to handle the totality of the cleanup on your own? If not, could you please disclose the date ranges of when an LLM was used so I can create a list of articles that other editors can help review.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is another big one.

For the past year-ish,Ritwik Deuba has been adding hundreds of instances of text with consistent AI indicators (though nothing unambiguous that I've found), primarily to world politics articles.One other person has pointed this out, but they didn't respond; I left another edit on their talk page.

I'm less sure about this one than some of the others. It looks like they are probably editing the output somewhat -- although not completely enough to be detectable. It also seems like they may be using a newer LLM model and/or different prompts than most do; the older edits seem more problematic than the newer ones. In particular, most of the "reflecting the significance" AI opinion-ese is attributed as other people's opinion rather than just dangling as unattributed editorializing like it usually does, but if it's AI it still may not be an accurate summation of what those people said.

The big challenge here is that almost literally all of these edits involve very contentious geopolitical topics, and some of them have been dragged into edit wars (that don't seem to be about AI). Because of this I haven't touched them with a 1000-foot pole, besides adding the AI generated tag if the indicators were clear enough. The articles are also high-traffic enough that "just reverting" would be difficult to impossible, and might re-ignite the edit warring. So frankly I don't know what to do.Gnomingstuff (talk)17:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. do you have any diffs we can look at? I checkedthe edits thatthe other person pointed out and didn't find any hallucinations - all claims are backed by the cited source. LLMs hallucinate at high rates so I think that edit would have been significantly human reviewed. This is just one diff of course so could be missing somethingNicheSports (talk)18:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok finding problems. I noticed that these three edits[8],[9],[10] were made within 15 minutes (although with significant overlap in content), without any subsequent copy-editing or typo-fixing.This one also has clear copyright violations - to the point it should be reported, which I have never doneNicheSports (talk)18:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will take another look tomorrow. I mentioned this on a few of the talk pages but some of the edits are the same paragraph added to multiple articles (which isn't necessarily a problem by itself).

For stuff like this I'm less concerned about blatant hallucinations so much as any NPOV issues/interpretations that might have been introduced by the AI.Gnomingstuff (talk)05:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be someone adding news stories with the assistance of AI.LDW5432 (talk)15:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hintha is a prolific and experienced editor who seems to have started using LLMs at some point. They have made thousands of edits since 2022 so this will be a major cleanup effort. In 2025 alone they have created 40 articles and done hundreds of article expansions. Puffery is a problem but the major issues are widespreadWP:V failures and occasional, sometimes significant, copyright violations. LLMs may not be the cause of all of these issues but I am confident it is involved. Their created articles do not qualify forWP:G15 - Hintha seems to be at least ensuring that references exist. They are aware of my concerns as they addressed many of the issues with theBowkylion article after I documented issues on the talk page. But they have not responded to any of my comments on their user talk page or on any article to which they contributed. They have been inactive for the past two weeks.

• Bowkylion: seethis version before some of these issues were fixed. I documented the issues, including a minor copyright violation, on thetalk page
• These three articles[11][12][13] cover similar subjects toBowkylion and were created within 50 minutes of each other
• Private Security Services Law about 20% of this article (300+ words) was copied word for word from[14]. In an LLM tell, some of the copyrighted material was cited to a source other than the one it was copied from. I filed a copyvio report and it has beenhandled, with revdeletion pending. The editor from CCI who addressed the copyright cleaned up the rest of the article including thisWP:V failure[15]
• Fish patty two of the three sources for this article are recipe blogs. The article also has unsourced puffery:bears a striking resemblance to Spanish empanadas and Southeast Asian curry puffs

NicheSports (talk)13:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be inANI? This falls more into disruptive editing especially as this isn't just an LLM only issue212.70.110.25 (talk)14:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my post is to document the need for cleanup, not to pursue sanctions. Also I think its too early for ANI - this is a long-term editor who is currently (likely temporarily) inactive. They deserve a chance to respond here, hopefully they will be willing to stop using LLMs and help with cleanup.NicheSports (talk)16:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone take a look at this? Would like a second opinion given this is a very experienced editorNicheSports (talk)20:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Went through history -- I could be wrong but the LLM use feels fairly recent, nothing prior to 2024-ish jumped out at me. You also probably saw this but they seem to have switched to MediaWiki's content translation tool.

Cleaned upInya Lake Hotel -- this one honestly wasn't too bad, idk how reliable the sources are but besides a few promotional asides everything was backed up as claimed.Gnomingstuff (talk)19:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DidWaziya Cinema, the main problem here seemed to be questionable sourcing (one scoure seemed to be AI-generated) and someclose paraphrasing but no major hallucinations. Honestly, I don't really feel like this rises to the level of ANI, the editor seems conscientious enough.

In general, apologies for not doing more actual cleanup -- I don't really consider myself much of a writer.Gnomingstuff (talk)20:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have no interest in ANI here. Just wanted to get a second perspective on whether LLMs were involved (thank you!). Is it fair to say that most of their substantive edits in 2025 should be checked, but the issues may not go back further than that?NicheSports (talk)20:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not sure, apologies - a lot of it is linguistics articles that are way outside my wheelhouseGnomingstuff (talk)20:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors have noticed that @Gengeros has added realistic but non-existent citations that seem to be generated by ChatGPT, and have asked Gengeros to be more careful. Affected articles have includedCharlie Kirk,Ann Coulter,Transgender personnel in the United States military,Social conservatism in the United States,LGBTQ rights in Rwanda,LGBTQ rights in Burundi, andLGBTQ rights in Hungary. Examples of concerns:September 15, 2024 (acknowledged using ChatGPT),March 12, 2025,September 12, 2025 (also acknowledged using ChatGPT),September 30, 2025, and most recently me (October 17, 2025).

I do want to assume good faith; I believe their intent is to make constructive contributions. However, this pattern means that they have made a lot of edits that look decently cited at a glance, but actually need thorough review. I've reviewed some of their recent edits, but more help is needed for review and cleanup.Dreamyshade (talk)15:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the user ignores questions about their edits and polite pleas to stop adding LLM generated nonsense, would it be reasonable to take this toWP:ANI?Gurkubondinn (talk)23:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. You could also considerWP:AE.Kovcszaln6 (talk)13:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading throughUser talk:Gengeros § Removal of additional AI content I agree with Kovcszaln6, this should be taken to ANI right awayNicheSports (talk)14:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concurring with the others here. Either you or more likely @Dreamyshade should take this to ANI.Athanelar (talk)16:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, appreciate the validation that this is a serious concern. I'm working on an ANI post.Dreamyshade (talk)17:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted here:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pattern of LLM edits on contentious topics.Dreamyshade (talk)17:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for filing. Btw you might want to movethe ANI notice to a new section on their talk page - admins do check to verify that users have been notified and they might miss it at the bottom of the long thread thereNicheSports (talk)18:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on cleaning upTransgender rights in the United States, this is a mess.~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?)21:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inthis teahouse thread the user in question says they've been "using AI on Wikipedia for about 4 something months now [...] hundreds of times" and one reply already notes they reverted a couple of the user's edits due to the results being poor. Might be worth giving some scrutiny to this editor's contributions to see if things need to be reverted/changed.Athanelar (talk)13:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked one of their most recent significant edits[16] and found multiple verification failures. Agreed this user's entire edit history will need to be checkedNicheSports (talk)15:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I documented more extensive issuesat their talk page. I also notified them about this thread. They are on a wikibreak now, hopefully when they come back they will discuss what happened hereNicheSports (talk)15:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's worth making a {{AINB-notice}} template for informing users like ANI/COIN etc.Athanelar (talk)15:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar: how doesUser:EF5/AINB-notice look?^EF⁵16:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's stylistically consistent with the ANI and COIN notices which is good. I'd reword to "regarding an AI cleanup investigation which may include activity you were involved in" or something to that effect though because the current verbiage implies that the warned user may be involved in the investigation itself.

Also make sure it's editable with a |thread=threadtitle parameter like the ANI and COIN notices.Athanelar (talk)16:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but would you and EF5 be fine moving the template discussion toWT:AIC? Once there you should pingChaotic Enby as they have helped with a lot of the template work here.NicheSports (talk)16:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was also thinking of bringing it up here, but hesitated as I had already given them advice at their talk page, good initiative!ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)17:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see alsothis village pump threadGnomingstuff (talk)19:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think CostalCal should be indeffed based on editing disruptively and not wanting to correct course. The WikiBreak doesn't do it for me. —Alalch E.14:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, CostalCal has recently returned from their wikibreak, about ten minutes ago. A block of any length would be justified or unjustified depending on how they edit and act now they've returned, and if there is evidence of continued LLM usage.Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk)00:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they are able to turn stuff around, since they are a self-declared young editor and they may not understand how bad LLMs really are for writing encyclopedically/accurately.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)01:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another long series, this time related to singerJolin Tsai. I'm tagging the articles now but also bringing the issue up here as a permanent note, because based on the user's talk page, I suspect the tags aren't going to be around for very long and that this isn't going to go well. I'm not looking forward to this.Gnomingstuff (talk)21:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editorhas authored ~60% of theJolin Tsai article, oof. --Gurkubondinn (talk)16:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They said earlier that they're translations; I haven't had time to confirm but I don't have any reason to disbelieve it. But if they're translations they specifically seem like AI translations, given the text that came out of the translation.Gnomingstuff (talk)17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and read their reply to your questions, and to be fair they just said that they "did not use any AI tools to fabricate or generate text". I want to assume good faith, but the translations could have been produced by an LLM. --Gurkubondinn (talk)21:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RobertoBriago (talk ·contribs)

Being worked on:Newer user with ~380 edits, many to talk space. Those in draft/article space include article creations and expansions, all of which require reviewNicheSports (talk)17:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been browsing wikipedia articles and I've found a few pages where LLMs were probably used, these pages arethe page on bit, the page onrevolut, the page onendstream and the page onthe mir page. I've cleaned revolut a lot but I think it might benefit from more eyes.173.206.50.207 (talk)20:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there's also the article onHSBC Life that seems LLM generated173.206.50.207 (talk)20:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor that created thebit (payment application) article also createdAccessiWay, which other editors have then tried to clean up LLM generated text from, and tagging it as{{AI-generated}}, but the editor removed the hatnote. --Gurkubondinn (talk)21:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asked the editor onUser talk:Eliezer1987 § LLM use. --Gurkubondinn (talk)21:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i'd also like to point out that, for accessiway, there isn't really ways in which one can automate WCAG standards perhttps://html5accessibility.com/stuff/2025/03/27/mind-the-wcag-automation-gap/ andhttps://karlgroves.com/web-accessibility-testing-what-can-be-tested-and-how/ and even W3 points it out athttps://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/selecting/173.206.50.207 (talk)23:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, @Gurkubondinn, regardingAccessiWay, I didn't remove the AI-generated tag. I saw the comment and plan to address it later on.

As I mentioned on mytalk page, I mainly use AI for translating texts and articles that I first write in Hebrew (which is my primary language).

This is actually the first time I've come across the guidelines about using AI for writing on Wikipedia. I haven't finished reading all the instructions yet, but I'll get to that soon.

Besides that, I guess I'm not the first to say that, in my opinion, artificial intelligence can really help make Wikipedia more reliable and powerful, though of course it also comes with serious risks...Eliezer1987 (talk)06:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliezer1987: Do you check the references you (or the AI) cite, and ensure they align with what the article says?ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!}06:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it's content I write from scratch, yes. When it comes to translations I make from Hebrew Wikipedia, unfortunately, I sometimes don't delve deeply into the sources.Eliezer1987 (talk)07:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highly advise you cease using LLMs in any capacity on Wikipedia until you've fully read and understood theLLM essay. While LLM usage is not yet banned on Wikipedia, there is a certainlevel of understanding and competency about the problems that using AI can create that anyone using an LLM is expected to have. There aremore problems than just unreliable references. It's especially risky to use an LLM for machine translation if you're not 100% confident you can verify the accuracy of the output.Athanelar (talk)07:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have been an editor long before artificial intelligence changed our lives... Of course I will read the guidelines and follow them.Eliezer1987 (talk)09:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123 It doesn't seem that they do, seethis page creation where most of the links were never in the internet archive,this other page which contains poor sourcing, links that don't lead to anywhere like one would expect from the text likethis one orthat one, there are also bizarre translations like inthis article's further reading page where the further reading references have been translated to english(!)173.206.50.207 (talk)16:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To say that I translated or wrote all the articles perfectly? Probably not. Unfortunately, these are mostly articles that I wrote in a hurry and did it from my cell phone. In any case, as I wrote above, I will read the instructions thoroughly before repeating the same mistakes. Dear Anonymous, I would be happy if you would also help with correcting the articles, and not just identifying the problems.Eliezer1987 (talk)19:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the AI really labor-saving if it introduces problems that editors have to spend time identifying and correcting?Einsof (talk)20:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliezer1987 Could you explain what you meant by "I would be happy if you would also help with correcting the articles, and not just identifying the problems."?173.206.50.207 (talk)19:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My approach is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where we aim to improve, not to blame. You have pointed out some issues that were done carelessly (by me, I apologize and will also make sure to fix them). Instead of searching for more mistakes, I would appreciate if you could join in improving them together.Eliezer1987 (talk)03:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, it's unfortunate that they weren't verified beforehand. (also the fixed ping worked)ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!}02:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/ScewingA couple of this user's pages were recently CSDed since one edit included communications for the user.[17]After reviewing their other edits, it seems to me like pretty much everything since June is LLM generated, or at least LLM assisted. Many references are DOA, don't match content, or are straight up references to Wikipedia itself. Everything since June (at least) needs to be reviewed.Lovelyfurball (talk)21:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally perplexed that someone apparently editing Wikipediasince 2007 isonly learning now that Wikipedia articles aren't valid sources for other Wikipedia articles.Einsof (talk)21:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me feel like the original owner of the account is no longer in control of it for one reason or another. It just makes no sense to me that such an experienced editor would do this.Lovelyfurball (talk)22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could also just as likely just be an easy excuse to avoid admitting to uncritical use of LLMs and blindly trusting the output.Gurkubondinn (talk)22:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the LLM generated rewrite ofCooper Township, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania andWP:BLARedNorth Ridge, Alexandria, Virginia, which had several citations to other Wikipedia articles. A couple articles are still up with CSD notices.Lovelyfurball (talk)22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Markdown syntax:Diff/1319074348.Gurkubondinn (talk)16:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came across the editor on NPP reviewingMagic fallacy, which I'm probably going to redirect somewhere, but most if not all of their major insertions appear to be unedited or minimally edited generative output. I've undidCatallactics and some others have also already been removed, for example atAntisemitic trope, thanks to Cdjp1, however there are still other edits that need to be assessed and cleaned up, such as their edits toLudwig von Mises, which they have apparently generated 43% of current content andGabriel Bonnot de Mably, 16%. I think those two are the major ones, but I'm mostly listing it here because I'd probably forget otherwise.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed thatthis edit toLudwig von Mises added a URL that gives a 404 error and was never archived in the Wayback Machine. Seems iffy.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)22:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably going to just remove it all once I have the time to get to it. Have removed the additions toGabriel Bonnot de Mably, added 50 words myself. I had also removed the addition toCognitive appraisal, just forgot to note that, so pages that still need to be reviewed arePolylogism (diff, 53.1%),Destructionism,Magic fallacy (I had tagged it but didn't finish looking at it) and I think that should be all.Alpha3031 (t •c)03:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have still been thinking of a redirect target, and I think I'd want to do it toMagical thinking if anywhere given the attestation given in the article appears to be entirely hallucinated. (Indeed, the LLM appears to have resurrected Hayek to publishthe book it's attributed to in 2021, after his death in 1992 and theactual year of publication which seems to be 1988, and there are no mentions of the two words together in, AFAICT, either that book or the other two cited,The Road to Serfdom (1944) andThe Counter-Revolution of Science (1952), though a few* of one or the other)

Concerningly for cleanup efforts, the IPs which have also edited this made up nonsense, which I'm provisionally callingSpecial:Contributions/142.245.0.0/16, though I'm not sure if a wider or narrower range could capture things better, has also inserted things into several articles, including mentions of this "magic fallacy" which fails attestation. No doubt those edits also need to be reviewed, ugh. They replied to the IP onTalk:Wall Street crash of 1929 § Unorthodox economic interpretation being presented as NPOV in opening remarks so I'm not sure if they're two people just happening to chance on the same obscure article (on an apparently made up phrase) or a case of MEAT orWP:LOUTSOCK.

* For a list of mentions that I have been able to find,

I think I might just go for an AFD nom actually. Someone else can decide whether they want the redirect or not.Alpha3031 (t •c)09:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The line inPolylogism about how..the writings ofThomas Kuhn and others made relativism a mainstream doctrine is a brutal oversimplification of the philosophy of science. It doesn't reflect the given source, for sure. Furthermore, I suspect the entire "Comparison to Kuhn's incommensurability" section to be OR, whether LLM-enhanced or not.

Moreover, if we look at what theLudwig von Mises article itself says about "polylogism", we find the following:He rejected the notion that there could be distinct sciences or truths based on race, class, or nationality, such as "Jewish science" or "German science". The given source is a book thatdoes not mention Ludwig von Mises at all. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the text waswritten first and the citationadded later.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)17:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book talks about jewish vs german science, and is a citation for such.Follynomics (talk)18:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't talk aboutLudwig von Mises, so it doesn't support the claim to which it was attached, i.e., that Ludwig von Misesrejected the notion that there could be distinct sciences or truths.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)01:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Magic fallacy" has been deleted.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)01:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaBetaGamma123 has made hundreds of quick-succession rewrites, almost all of which display theusual signs. Working through tagging them currently.

(At some point the editor was blocked for sockpuppeting reasons.)Gnomingstuff (talk)06:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup note: all edits by this account are eligible to beWP:BANREVERTed, as they were made while violating a block via socking.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)11:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bechamel (talk ·contribs) recently submitted the article 'English afternoon tea' for FA review. I came across this article in a happenstance manner, but I noticed numerous problems immediately. I suspect that an LLM was used to create this article. The smattering of dashes, the strange definitive language likeAfternoon tea is served at nearly all important official, social, and sporting events – without five o’clock tea, none of these occasions would be truly British, and the presence of an odd, bulleted list concern me. A look at Bechamel's other contributions show a strange variation in writing style from article to article. I asked Bechamel about this, buthe denied using an LLM. I am hoping that the veteran editors here may be able provide assistance in confirming if my assessment is correct.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎23:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing with editor atTalk:English afternoon tea#Problems with this article, requesting other editors here to hold off on disclosing any assessments they've made before Bechamel has a chance to respond, thank you.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)03:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

**Markdown** added atEnglish afternoon tea[18][19] andVenetian window[20], and removed[21][22][23].

Indiscussion editor stated they use MS Word but notcopilot. After being informed of the markdown issues they stated they couldn't rule out the possibility that Word might be using copilot mechanisms despite copilot otherwise not functioning on their Windows install.

Without evidence of greater disruptive activity, I don't think there is much else to productively do at this time.​fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)18:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your hard work. I have gone through the article, line by line. A combination ofWP:OR of primary sources, grandiose assertions that were not supported by their citations, mistaken page numbers, strange phrasings, and close paraphrasing. This is the first time I've bothered to enter the 'AI cleanup' line of work, and I can't say it was very enjoyable. I appreciate the work everyone does here.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎08:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-11-18 Gyða1981, 64 pages need review.

Hello! I am new to this board. I came across the articleSvarfdæla saga and saw that it was tagged with containing LLM content. The user who made the suspected edits to that article, Gyða1981[24] has also made many other edits to other articles, especially ones on lesser-known sagas, that I believe to be LLM-generated. The biggest giveaway, besides no sourcing, is that many of the edits in their edit summary contain communication intended for the LLM user (e.g. "I took the information from the Norse/Icelandic source you provided and listed the events of the saga in chronological order"). I believe this user is using an LLM to "translate" non-English text and pasting it into articles.

I have put an AI notice on all the articles in this genre that I believe Gyða1981 has pasted LLM text into. I can read Old Icelandic and can write better articles for these with correct sourcing, but I don't have very much time at the moment, and probably won't for a few months, so if anyone else can do that, I would greatly appreciate it. A few of them also probably have existing English translations of the texts in question so I can also help locate those. Also, there are a number of topics that this user has touched on that I am not as familiar with, so they should probably be looked over for LLM text as well.

I'm not sure if I should warn the user in question? I am a bit non-confrontational so maybe someone else could do that if it is appropriate. Their talk page seems to be filled with other copyright issues also. But they haven't been active on Wikipedia for a few months, and maybe notifying them will make them come back and make sneakier LLM edits, I don't know.

I'm still learning editor etiquette, so apologies if I made any mistakes.Rorb lalorb (talk)11:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackingsubpage created and populated with articles that warrant further review or cleanup.

Accurate assessment, a warning would be appropriate but Gyða1981 has not edited since 31 August. They certainly are using an LLM to generate plot summaries, as well as to make other edits. I believe this sequence of edits atAfter I'm Gone is emblematic of their process:

• Special:Diff/1302476101 –Added detailed plot summary based on Goodreads descriptions.
• Special:Diff/1302476261 –Added detailed plot summary based on Amazon descriptions.
• Special:Diff/1302476322 –Added detailed plot summary based on Amazon and Goodreads descriptions.

My favorite diff isthis attack of the '''s.​fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)15:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that she has also been active on iswiki so I asked her toWP:LLMDISCLOSE there, thinking it might come off more as more gentle in a smaller space::is:Notandaspjall:Gyða1981 § LLM notkun. But I haven't heard back.--Gurkubondinn (talk)11:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also brought this up on:is:WP:Potturinn § Gyða1981 og LLM notkun, so this can be addressed on iswiki as well.--Gurkubondinn (talk)14:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorb lalorb You can read Old Icelandic? That's a skill I wish I had. Rare and valuable! (I'm not joking.) Cheers.David10244 (talk)23:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-11-19 Noxoug1, 209 pages need review.

Requesting advice/assistance regardingUser:Noxoug1. Their May 2025 edits toArsenate sulfate andCystinosis#Investigational treatments seem very likely to be AI-generated. I first encountered these in October, notifying them using the {{Uw-ai1}} template in5 October 2025, which they archived without response. After a month's pause, their pattern of rapid LLM-assisted editing seems to have recommenced in articles likeImmunocytokine andPaluratide. Vetting/oversight seems to have improved somewhat, but in my view is still likely to be inadequate given the volume of material being added to the encyclopedia. Can I get a second pair of eyes on this to check whether there's an actual issue here? (If this is actually what's going on, theirXtools edit statistics suggest they only started heavily using LLMs in May, leaving us with 4000 article-space edits to check.)Preimage (talk)15:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that this is a user who's been inserting LLM content, often with too little regard for WP:RS or copyright.

• Special:Diff/1295057234 –rich history sourced to the ever-reliable de.wikipedia.org
• Special:Diff/1298590992 –becoming a beacon of hope and innovation in nurturing young talent and inspiring the next generation of golfers copied fromsource, andThis holistic approach has been recognized for its effectiveness in developing well-rounded young people who excel both on the golf course and in their academic pursuits sourced to tripadvisor.
• Special:Diff/1296972618 –*Imani* also contributed to the growth of Uganda’s film industry, encouraging community-driven storytelling.

etc.

The articles you've singled out structurally look like model creations to me, and some **markdown**made it into Immunocytokine (stilllive), so they're definitely still using an LLM. It would be helpful if an editor familiar with the topic areas Noxoug is favoring lately could audit their edits forWP:V discrepancies.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)17:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immunocytokine is definitely AI created. Please seeUser talk:Noxoug1#Problems in Immunocytokine for some details.Викидим (talk)19:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftified andtagged. Extensive issues with citations having an incorrect link, doi, pmc or pmid. Their other creations will likely need to be reviewed as well.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked multiple article about (mostly unsuccessful) drugs. AI is used almost every time, but mostly results are not bad. Some, with hallucinated sources, were sent to draftspace.Викидим (talk)02:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if you let me know what articles you've reviewed/how far back you've reviewed I can put the rest into a tracking list.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)04:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Posdinemab, with two PRODs and one draft.Викидим (talk)05:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackingsubpage created, of 333 articles 209 appear to warrant further review or cleanup, but the editing pattern used has resulted in a less exact triage. Ranges checked are from 01 May 2025 to 22 September 2025, as it seems they likelystartedusing LLMs in May. While reviewing I frequently encountered LLM prose across a wide variety of topics, although less so in medical ones.

Trackingsubpage created, of 333 articles 209 appear to warrant further review or cleanup, the editing pattern used has resulted in a less exact triage. Ranges checked are from 01 May 2025 to 22 September 2025, as it seems they likelystartedusing LLMs in May. While reviewing I frequently encountered LLM prose across a wide variety of topics, although less so in medical ones.
I'veinvited Noxoug1 to join the discussion to disclose more about their LLM use and hopefully assist with cleanup.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)09:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Cleanup has been completed, see/2025-11-20 Bob C. Alexander for reference.

Bob C. Alexander (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has been making a ton of high-speed LLM edits, and I don't have the energy to review them myself because I just finished reviewing another large batch of LLM edits byWhiteFactLoom (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). I've been seeing a lot of LLM slop in draftspace; now I'm turning my focus to mainspace for a bit and MAN do things look bleak.—pythoncoder (talk |contribs)19:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed this after they edited an article (Organizational culture) I had previously added to my watchlist after it was expanded by a group of undeclared students who were also using LLMs. A lot of the same articles are hit with LLM rewrites over and over again. No buenoNicheSports (talk)04:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The corporate/consultant/management/"leadership"-focused articles are doubly hard because so much of the verbiage there sounds like LLMs already. Even before ChatGPT I wouldn't have batted an eye at an article on organizational culture containing a sentence like "sustaining cultural shifts after major events or disruptions requires embedding new expectations into day-to-day routines, leadership behavior, and HR systems, rather than relying on single initiatives or symbolic events".Einsof (talk)04:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"MAN do things look bleak" -- yep. this has been my reaction in reverse, collecting draftspace articles to add to the AI dataset after having spent time mostly in mainspace.

The AI text-crunching script I'm working on has some loose categorization of articles based on where they come from. One folder is articles tagged as promotional/advertising prior to mid-2022, to see if it's possible to study how exactly AI promotional slop differs from human promotional slop. Comparing the drafts folder to the promo folder -- not a perfect comparison, but rejected drafts are often more skewed promotional than stuff that survived in mainspace -- the usual AI words still show up at high frequency. The datasets are not perfect matches, and they're too small still for there to be many statistically significant results for phrases, but there are a few:

• been featured in (2079% increase in AI vs. human text)
• serves as the (1416% increase)
• contributions to the (1102% increase)
• various other things that are either different slices of the above ("featured in the"), obvious flukes, or not statistically significant at this dataset size

Take this with a full shaker of salt obviously; but it feels telling that these phrases are showing up more commonly in AI text even when the human text is explicitly restricted to promotional tone and the AI text is a free-for-all.Gnomingstuff (talk)07:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trackingsubpage created. Of 199 articles, 134 appear to warrant further review and cleanup. I'd advocate for indiscriminate mass revert in this instance, there is clear evidence of pervasive unreviewed LLM additions. Also noting that in addition to the promotional tone, the account has added 16 references to a podcast at adammendler.com/blog across multiple articles, probablerefspam.

User has been adequately warned on their talk page and any future disruption should also be reported toWP:ANI.Pinging @Tacyarg, as they've reverted many of their additions already.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)06:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAN do things look bleak

Been going through the subpage and reverting some of this LLM nonsense and sawDiff/1319446660 with the edit summary "Removed my citation due to 404 error page".--Gurkubondinn (talk)12:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-11-23 HyenaInTheSyntax, 2 pages need review.

• HyenaInTheSyntax (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Many new articles with AI tells (e.g.public-history projects and media essays have highlighted her trajectory inKateryna Hrushevska § Legacy), as well as onefilter hit for Markdown formatting. I checked a citation inOleksandra Yefymenko:

Surman, Jan (2014). "Gender, Empire and Scholarship: Oleksandra Yefymenko in Context".Austrian Journal of History.25 (2):77–102.

That issue (which is actually in German) does not include anything by Jan Surman or with Yefymenko in the title.jlwoodwa (talk)02:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackingsubpage created, please let me know if I've missed anything.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)04:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, @Jlwoodwa Hyena admits to using LLMs "for various purposes during editing" on their Talk page and rather than agreeing to stop, they basically vow to do a better job of verifying the AI slop.David10244 (talk)23:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no policy against general LLM use, only against using them to create new articles from scratch (WP:NEWLLM), or for generating talk page comments (WP:AITALK). So long as Hyena is able to edit in compliance with core policies likeWP:V andWP:NPOV, there's nothing to be done about it.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)00:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-11-23 Orlando Davis, 17 pages need review.

Orlando Davis (talk ·contribs) has almost certainly been using LLMs to create articles while repeatedly denying doing so. I have been watching this user's edits for a while as they have repeated triggered EF 1325.

• Examples of LLM-generated content

• Draft:Aluma Restaurant (Jerusalem): this was full of AISIGNS, and both theHistory and Concept andCuisine and Staff sections contained multiple material source-to-text integrity issues.Note: OD extensively rewrote this article after I flagged the issues with it to them (without explaining what caused those issues)
• Draft:Prince Alexander Literary Prize (Belgium): this draft was declined at AfC. It contains a reference with a broken url and this seeming LLM communication intended for the user in the reference section:Multiple sources support the details in this article. It is G15-able but I left it so I can refer to it here
• All of their article creations are written in a similar style, so I assume many moreWP:V issues are out there
• They are also now nominating some of their articles for GA review[25]. See the first draft of this article, which was teeming with AISIGNS[26]

• Talk page messages written in the user's voice, which is different from the prose style of their mainspace edits:[27][28][29]
• Denials of using LLMs to generate content:[30] (also see the edit summary when they reverted this message[31])[32]
• Repeatedly blanking their talk page to remove AfC declines + warnings due LLM use:[33][34][35] (+ many more reversions of warnings about things other than LLM use)
• Recent non-collaborative talk page messages about potential LLM use:[36][37]

NicheSports (talk)23:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by alarge language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line withthe relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments ofconsensus.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I am working diligently to bring these articles up to an acceptable standard, and I ask for the opportunity to complete that work. I believe this situation arises from a misunderstanding. I am following policy by working through the Articles for Creation process and revising my drafts based on the feedback provided. Once I have acknowledged the issues and agreed to improve the material, it is unnecessary—and contrary to the spirit of constructive collaboration—to continue posting repeated messages about matters that are already being addressed. As outlined at[WP:HARASSMENT], continuing to pursue an issue after it is resolved, or repeatedly messaging a user about the same concern, can constitute harassment. The AfC process, its rejections, and the relevant tags are already sufficient to guide improvement. Additional repeated posts go beyond what is needed and are not appropriate.Orlando Davis (talk)23:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Additionally, I do not see anything inappropriate about nominating an article for GA review. My intention in doing so is simply to improve the article by inviting structured feedback. The Good Article process exists precisely to help identify areas where an article can be strengthened, and I believe the topic is important enough to warrant broader collaboration. I do not understand why this should be held against me, as seeking constructive review is entirely consistent with Wikipedia’s collaborative principles.Orlando Davis (talk)23:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a question last week atthis AfC review. OD said they used AI to find sources, which is not inherently a problem. But the formatting of the response they'd given looked to me -- not an expert by any means -- like what I typically get from ChatGPT. FWIW, I've interacted with Orlando Davis at multiple articles so far, and I do think they could develop into a productive editor if they'll just start listening to more experienced editors.Valereee (talk)17:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am optimistic that OD has heard us as they have carefully rewritten several of their article creations (thanks, OD!). @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four sorry for the ping, but after my conversations with OD I think I'm too involved here to constructively contribute to this cleanup. If you have time, can you please take a look at some of OD's earlier article creations? I think they may have started using LLMs more recently, so if they are rewriting their more recent drafts there may be no more cleanup required here.NicheSports (talk)19:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by alarge language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line withthe relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments ofconsensus.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Thank you for letting people in this conversation know that I have rewritten all of the articles that were flagged, except for the MasterCooks article, which I am finishing now. Since I have been an editor for a long time, it would be unreasonable to say that I used AI in my early work. I think the confusion comes from the AI detection program noticing that I used ChatGPT to help create infoboxes and citations. I did use it for that, because in my early Wikipedia work I did not know how to do those more advanced technical tasks, and it is now helping me with them. I understand that we must be careful with AI because it often writes inaccurately, but I challenge anyone to find any inaccuracies in the work that was flagged as AI-generated. I take pride in ensuring that everything I write matches the sources, but is not plagiarized. I do not add original content. I think that Niche does a great job trying to reduce LLM use, but there is a difference between constructive use and misuse. As far as I can tell, the work I have done is solid. I read and reread sources to make sure that I am not plagiarizing or adding original research. Thank you, and I appreciate your help in improving my articles.Orlando Davis (talk)19:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trackingsubpage created, only articles edited since December 2024 were considered. Out of all considered, triage indicates 17may warrant closer review. I personally attempted to review and correct four of the smaller contributions atFrank J. Holmes,Craftsmanship Museum,Argentina at the 2017 World Games andWayne Wesolowski. The oldest had edits circa January. These edits primarily consisted of adding sources, and verifiability issues were identified in each. Given that Orlando Davis hasused LLMs to find sources, this is a somewhat troubling result.

Concerning earlier article creations and possible LLM use:this edit from December 2024 atSamba (book),theseedits from January 2025 atStatic model aircraft, andthis edit from January 2025 atPhilip Reed (model ship maker) do not bode well. There is a wide gap in editing activity before December 2024, edits from before that gap are mainly toGuillermo Rojas Bazan, have an entirely different citation style, and do not appear to be assisted.​fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)05:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by alarge language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line withthe relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments ofconsensus.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Thank you for taking the time to take a look at my work. Most of my articles were accepted by going through the Articles for Creation process. The exception is Philip Reed, and that article is well-sourced. Wayne Wesolowski, Frank J. Holmes, and Argentina at the 2017 World Games were random articles I found that were not doing well and are now decent articles. For example, with Wesolowski, I changed very little content, but I did add sources to an article that had almost no citations, no image, and no infobox; it essentially had no proper Wikipedia structure. Frank J. Holmes is an American cultural icon, and when an editor attempted to delete the page, I stepped in and helped keep it during an Afd. As a volunteer receiving nothing in return, I improved Wikipedia significantly. If anything, User:150024 has reminded me that I have made great contributions to Wikipedia that I have not received credit for. Perhaps I could have become a page reviewer by now, but I haven't chosen to, simply because I don't want to dedicate that much time to Wikipedia—I have other hobbies that I care about more. I have been, perhaps, one of the greatest Wikipedia contributors, ranking in the top 1% of editors and creating articles that are far from inconsequential, yet I feel I am not being respected. Please don't take this personally. I am frustrated by Wikipedia's choice to grant IP-block-exempt to relatively inexperienced editors. I may start a thread at the village pump. My standards for such a role are much higher: perhaps 100 articles created, with at least 20 at GA level, and at least 15 recommendations from fellow Wikipedians. Yet it is fairly easy to become an IP reviewer. During the editing process, User:150024 did some genuinely useful work, but also made an unjustifiable mistake by nearly blanking most of the Argentina at the 2017 World Games article. When I pointed this out, he became defensive and blanked my criticisms on his own page. Regarding LLM use, I can also assure you that I have never used any AI tools before this past month, and have only used them for technical issues such as finding citations quickly. I welcome any editor to find any information that is not well backed by sources in articles mentioned by 150024. If I have made any errors, it is only because I am mostly tough on my own articles, and I do not care to judge the work of others too much—that would be an arrogance I do not have. There are so many neutrality issues and so much non-fact-based editing on Wikipedia, yet time is wasted on tearing down the work of an above-average editor. Most of my 15 creations rank as above-average Wikipedia articles. However, I think that Wikipedia's culture is not one that I enjoy. So I will be ending my career as an editor once I take care of the articles I am working on. I am a conscientious person, and feel an obligation to the articles I have written, in making sure that the quality is as high as I can make it. Thank you for your time and input.Orlando Davis (talk)10:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Grammarly, but if that is AI, so is Microsoft Word's spell checker. It is very useful. I have seen many articles badly written by non-native English speakers; their articles might have been better if they had used it.Orlando Davis (talk)11:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious editors can see myunjustifiable mistakehere, and are encouraged to review the subsequent conversation on my talk pagehere, as well as my[blanking]here.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)18:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been thinking about this issue and would like to share my perspective. I was concerned by the way I was asked to provide a “confession,” as it felt as though I was being treated as if I had engaged in serious misconduct. In reality, my use of AI has been limited to citations, spelling, and grammar checks.

There is an important distinction between editors who use AI tools responsibly—as assistants while verifying all information—and editors who use AI to produce fabricated content or invented sources that have no place on Wikipedia. Necessary restrictions on LLM use are understandable, but these restrictions should not become a pretext for challenging good-faith editors who follow policy and use AI only as a tool.

Clearer guidance and training on appropriate conduct in the supervision of LLM use would help avoid future misunderstandings. If an editor suspects that AI was used, the next step should be to review the article and its sources to determine whether there is actually fabricated material. If the content is verifiable, well-sourced, and policy-compliant, the matter should be considered resolved.

It’s also worth remembering that all editors make minor mistakes in good faith. A few imperfect sentences in a long, well-sourced article are not comparable to an article built on fabricated information from start to finish.Orlando Davis (talk)18:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One issue that I forgot to discuss is that it doesn't make sense to review my drafts, as I have some articles that I started and decided that I didn't feel like finishing. I believe my draft space should be private, and I should only be judged on live articles, or ones that I have turned in to the Articles of Creation, but only by the page reviewers.Orlando Davis (talk)01:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't make sense to review my drafts – No drafts are listed.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The articles that were flagged by Niche were the Aluma restaurant draft, the Prince Alexander Literary Prize draft, and the Mastercooks article that had just gotten accepted by the articles of creation. Also, 15224 linked in her response an early draft of the static model aircraft that was way before I turned it in. I did not even use most of what is written in that draft.Orlando Davis (talk)03:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While 15224 provided the current version of the Static model aircraft page, she also linked to a very early draft version in her(theseedits) link. That draft was only a very rough draft, and was heavily edited before submitting it to Articles for Creation and afterward.

Orlando Davis (talk)09:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your drafts to be edited only by you, draft them in user space instead of draft space.Valereee (talk)01:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that some of the concerns raised about my work seem to be influenced by earlier conversation during this(AfD) discussion. I understand that editors can encounter each other across different pages, but I want to clarify that some of the comments made about me in that AfD felt personal and, in my view, were not grounded in what I had actually written. I also understand that one of the editors (Polygnotus, who I only name for context) involved in that discussion was cautioned by several administrators at thisArbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard regarding possible canvassing.

I am mentioning this only to provide context for why I may feel that certain assumptions about my editing practices are not being made in a neutral light. I am not alleging wrongdoing; I only want to explain why I believe some judgments about my drafts or sources may stem from earlier misunderstandings.Orlando Davis (talk)09:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was referring to blanking thispage. I also want to clarify that I believe he has every right to blank his talk page.Orlando Davis (talk)19:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To quote:blanked my criticisms on his own page, and so I provided a link to that removal as well.(also, not a "he")fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)20:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you start accusing people of AI use just for using Grammarly or some other constructive tool, you lose support in the fight against LLMs. This is dangerous because it undermines the encyclopedia's reliability and creates false beliefs.Orlando Davis (talk)02:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits had strings like:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3} where references should be. Describing that as "constructive use of Grammarly" is insultingly dishonest.jlwoodwa (talk)03:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you start accusing people of AI use just for using Grammarly:

• https://www.grammarly.com – Page title,Grammarly: Free AI Writing Assistance
• https://www.grammarly.com/grammar-check –Write with confidence using Grammarly’s AI-powered grammar checker.
• https://www.grammarly.com/ai –We build AI that transforms how people communicate, making writing faster, clearer, and more impactful—no matter where you work or write.

I have checked the extension pages for chrome, firefox, and safari, as well as the android and apple app stores. Each one hasAI in the title. Part ofcompetent editing means understanding the tools you use.

Youused an LLM, multiple editors noticed you used an LLM, there were issues found in some of the pages you edited while using an LLM, a report was opened at the LLM Noticeboard, I (an uninvolved editor) was requested to review edits, I closely reviewed four pages where references were added, source-text verifiability issues were found in each, I then compiled a list of other articles that may need further review. This is a logical sequence of events.

PleaseWP:DROPTHESTICK.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)03:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

What did I write that is not verifiable? Nothing. I'm not worried about it. I know that in the end, the conclusion will be that all of my live articles where accepted at the articles of creation for a reason. I do good work. I apologize if I'm posting too much. it's not a good habit.

Have a good night.Orlando Davis (talk)04:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis, what in the world makes you think this is just about verifiability? This is also aboutwasting the time of other editors who have to check your work, because we know AI is often wrong. In my own prompts to AI, it often offers me unreliable sources for what it tells me. AI work has to be checked. Which means when Editor A is too lazy to do their own research and writing, Editors B, C, and D have to form a frickin' WikiProject to clean up after them.Using AI wastes the time of other editors.

The discussions you and I had atTalk:Mastercooks of Belgium and atDraft talk:Michael Katz (chef) over which of the dozens of sources for each supported notability represented hours of my work. I thought you were just a slow learner. But now I think you couldn't tell me which of the sources represented significant coverage because you didn't actually create the articles from the sources yourself. So you'd never read them. You were just as unfamiliar as I was with them. So when I asked you which three supported notability, you had no idea. So you kept asking me "What about this one?" And I kept going and reading and saying, "Nope, not sigcov". Over and over and over again. What a waste of my time.

For the record, you arenot doing good work. The writing at those two articles is competent, but the sourcing is slipshod. AI is great at writing. It's often pretty crap at research. If you think the writing matters most, you've got it backward. Writing is easy to fix. Checking sources is tedious, thankless work.Valereee (talk)10:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando, take a look atthis page. This is the work you've caused for other editors because you used AI to create articles.Valereee (talk)11:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration.

If I use a Google search or use ChatGPT to search, what's the difference? As long as I read the source. And just to make sure ChatGPT isn't giving fake sources, I cut and paste the headline to verify that it is a source. And are you saying our difference of opinion on notability means I'm stupid and you are smart? In my AVSAB score (Navy), I got a perfect score in reading comprehension, though for privacy reasons I can't prove it.

You know, in the end, there are no rules on Wikipedia. See:

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

And I was frustrated because I thought you were wasting my time. Because it's a subject that doesn't take long to infer it's notable. The ethical concern is fake articles; my ethics are sound. Everything is true. And to obsess about minor human mistakes, and if there are any, they are human mistakes, is unreasonable. And you didn't have to accept reviewing the article; you could have let a reviewer interested in reading and adding to that article take care of it.

And I was told to drop the stick, which I will, but I think so should you.

Thank you. I do appreciate your help on the articles.Orlando Davis (talk)11:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting other editors' time to clean up after you falls clearly underwp:disruptive editing. Doing it intentionally also falls underwp:nothere. Both are blockable offenses. Agree to stop using AI altogether and I'll drop the stick, but you seem completely unrepentant for all the work you've caused other editors.Valereee (talk)11:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration.

I am not currently using AI tools and have committed to avoiding them. The articles under review were almost all written before I had heard of ChatGPT or anything similar.

I hope we can continue to work constructively on improving content.

Thank you.Orlando Davis (talk)12:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando has since used an LLM to generate this talk page comment atSpecial:Diff/1324971229. This is the end of the road, they have been given more than enough ROPE but are NOTHERE. Can an admin handle or do I need to take this to ANI?NicheSports (talk)16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What doesIPBE have to do with anything, and what's an "IP reviewer"?jlwoodwa (talk)04:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I filed at ANI due to today's continued LLM misuse and apparent retaliatory article tagging, seeWP:ANI § Orlando Davis: LLM use, dishonesty, generally NOTHERENicheSports (talk)23:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI,Star Mississippi (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) has blocked OD for one week fordisruptive editing.sjones23 (talk -contributions)00:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Wesolowski, one of the pages cited at the cleanup tracker, needs to be inspected again:[38]. Should we just refresh the tracker when the issue is resolved? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)23:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-11-28 ForayHistory, 19 pages need review.

ForayHistory (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has made almost 800 edits, mostly back in May and June, many of which seem to be AI-generated. Every article created by this user either is or has been tagged with{{AI-generated}} in part because of references that don't exist or don't support the article content. One of these articles was deleted inan AfD where the user used an LLM to comment. In addition to creating new articles, they've also done major rewrites of several existing articles. Some of the articles edited by this user have already been cleaned up or reverted, but others still need to be cleaned up.EvenTwist41 (talk)18:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a subpage (usingUser:DVRTed/AINB-helper which hada few issues) and noted which edits have already been reverted. I included everything except pages with only minor edits that didn't seem AI-related (e.g. adding existing pages to "See also"), and around 150 edits toSurrealist Ball of 1972 made while it was atUser:ForayHistory/sandbox and used to prepare edits to other articles. This was my first time doing this so let me know if I did anything wrong.EvenTwist41 (talk)16:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

let me know if I did anything wrong – Nothing wrong, but I do have a suggestion, when creating a list consider selecting only entries where LLM involvement is reasonable plausible and potentially impactful. Personally I'd likely exclude edits likeSpecial:Diff/1288074197,Special:Diff/1289823057 orSpecial:Diff/1287001153/1289718552, but this isn't an exact science.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)23:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I was the one who tagged all of these I think - I went through all the substantive contributions and tagged the pages. I think I reverted most of the unambiguously problematic ones (there were some that had outright hallucinated citations, etc) but there were a few I was less sure about how to handle, which I think are all on your list.Andrew Gray (talk)22:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a village pump discussion related to AI cleanup atWikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Mass-reverting AI serial abusers.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸04:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I already have this notification here, I'll note that I've opened a different discussion about the public-facing side of Wikipedia's relationship with AI atWikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Wikipedia as a human-written encyclopedia.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸02:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-11-29 AKLKPhilo, 2 pages need review.

• AKLKPhilo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Many new articles with AI tells, as well as onefilter hit for Markdown formatting.M-1 Studios has no fewer than fivefictitious references:

• https://patch.com/michigan/troy/troy-based-scottish-society-ferndale-studio-to-produce-scottish-culture-videos
• https://metromodemedia.com/devnews/m1royaloak0108
• https://metromodemedia.com/devnews/m1studiosferndale0283
• https://s3.amazonaws.com/attachments.crainsdetroit.com/article/20120415/Free/304159996/Business_Diary_041512.pdf
• https://oaklandcounty115.com/2012/01/15/m-1-studios-makin-money-makin-movies-2012/

This isafter they"verified statements against sources", so their claims about human review shouldn't be taken at face value.jlwoodwa (talk)04:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional consideration: They are the co-owner of M-1 studiosSpecial:Diff/1307512086, they have been warned about COI editing but have elected to continue regardless, the mainspace M-1 Studios article was created by them after theirdraft wasG11d. Considering this and their unreviewed LLM editing, this might be aWP:NOTHERE issue worth raising at another noticeboard in addition to the report here.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)04:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at some of their recent contributions and draft creations, I can see a few comments on their recent drafts pointing out source-to-text discrepancies that must be AI-generated. I'm going to bump this up the chain to ANI because it's clear this person is being deceptive about the amount of review going into their AI usage, not to mention the COI violation by recreating M-1 studios in mainspace after their draft was declined (AND they got blocked for their previously promotional username and had to be unblocked after requesting that it be changed)Athanelar (talk)02:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User was immediately indeffed for disruptive editing by Star Mississippi after I brought this up at ANI, so now it's just a matter of cleaning up what's left behind.Athanelar (talk)02:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at/2025-12-01 A Touch of Humanity, 30 pages need review.

This user has been warned for possible AI use many times ontheir talk page and has neither confirmed or denied it. They have made a lot of edits, which have promotional-tone issues even by AI standards.Gnomingstuff (talk)17:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly have been using an LLM, there'sutm_source=chatgpt.com inthis edit, and the prose issues are grossly indisputable:

employing a rich tapestry of metaphors to underscore ...[39]

In summary, Anthea Sylbert contributed toJulia not merely as a costume designer, but as a creative force who deeply enriched the storytelling by capturing the spirit of the characters and the atmosphere of the era.[40]

In summary,Everybody Loves a Happy Ending stands out as a nostalgic yet modern and emotionally rich album that carries the characteristic elements of Tears for Fears' mature period.[41]

Easy mass revert candidate.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackingsubpage created, I reviewed and excluded some plot CE, but those types of edits were unfortunately a minority.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)22:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all of their edits which were simple enough to do (i.e., they were in the most recent edits and I could mass-revert by restoring an earlier version without fucking up other peoples' edits too much.) The rest are more complex/buried cases that will need actual copyediting to remove AI slop and verify sources.Athanelar (talk)20:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested.

Owais Al Qarni (talk ·contribs ·global contribs ·logs ·block log) is an editor, also very active atbn.wikipedia.org, who has been using LLMs on English WP so prolifically since late 2023 that they gained many advanced permissions while doing so, including autopatrolled. They have created hundreds of articlesaccording to XTools. Based on the evidence below, I think we should assume that most of this user's substantive mainspace contributions since late 2023 were LLM-assisted.

While digging into this I also discovered significant copyright violations in their userspace,flagged it for MCE89, whofound more in their mainspace contributions, and aCCI request was made and a CCI investigation opened. My intuition is that the pure copyvio is primarily in their userspace or pre-LLM mainspace contributions; mainspace copyvio since late 2023 is (while apparently common) likely LLM-related.

This editor had an intermediate level of English as of early 2023[42][43][44] - also see[45]. By late 2023 or so they had started contributing via LLM both in and out of mainspace[46]. Some of their earlier LLM article creations were tagged by Gnomingstuff; OAQ then went to G's talk page and denied using LLMs[47]. I then independently found their edits via EF1325 (hist ·log), specifically, their recent creation ofRisala Ahlus Sunnat wal Jamaat. That led tothis exchange where they repeatedly prevaricated about their LLM usage. They eventually, after the CCI request was opened, admitted to having used LLMs but said they had stopped at some point[48]. I am sure their English has improved in the last few years, but I amhighly skeptical of their claim about no longer using LLMs given the following, both of which this user created in the past month.

• Sirat-un-Noman: they created this entire article, but see theReviews section in particular
• User:Owais_Al_Qarni/35 includes many chatbot responses about creating biographical article summaries, such asIf you want, I can **continue translating the rest of his journalistic career** along with his editorial achievements and compile the full biography, covering **all his literary, translation, and journalistic contributions**.. Created at[49]

NicheSports (talk)03:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox is pretty unambiguous. I don't remember whether this was a case where I independently stumbled across multiple of their articles or only tagged the more obvious articlesGnomingstuff (talk)06:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff Based on that sandbox, and the earlier denials followed by the admission (described above), why is that user not yet blocked? They claim they are on a Wikibreak, maybe waiting for this to blow over...David10244 (talk)06:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new one. I was looking at their currentBN user page and noticed they have a Taliban flag there as well as a custom user box that Google translated to "This user supports the Taliban and is proud of it". Unrelated to any LLM stuff but I suppose people should be aware of this if they come back to editingNicheSports (talk)06:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contributions, on 20 November they moved a mass of articles to "User:Owais Al Qarni/[Article Title]" with the edit summaryRewrite needed due to issues with LLM usage, which seems like a pretty flat admission in those cases I'd say. --Cdjp1 (talk)17:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested.

I asked this user about possible LLM uselast month, and they said they din't use AI. However, based on their past and current edits. I don't believe this is true. At the very least, AI summarization and/or copyediting appear to be in play. The standardWP:AISIGNS are all present, and digging into the citations attached to said signs, I have consistently foundverification issues:

• Source misrepresentations onMidwest Rock & Roll
• Source misrepresentations onBurn (Papa Roach song)
• Source misrepresentaitons onKilling Fields (song)

I stopped here, but I don't really have much reason to think the earlier stuff is better on this metric.Gnomingstuff (talk)00:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theirassertion that theydon't use AI for any of [their] contributions to Wikipedia is provably untrue,utm_source=chatgpt.com is present inSpecial:Diff/1282797287 andSpecial:Diff/1281838015. This may indicate a behavioral issue.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

welp there it is

(how are you finding these?)Gnomingstuff (talk)01:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like filtering the log at1346 (hist ·log) for this editor's contributionsNicheSports (talk)01:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct,Special:AbuseLog allows searching by user. Useful for supplementing manual checks.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

looks like they're still making edits, could someone please talk to them because I just don't have it in me right now, apologiesGnomingstuff (talk)17:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying a different approach, I've carefullytagged all issues within an article they recently created (nowdraftified), andstarted a new topic on their talk page referencing it. Hopefully a demonstration of the issues involved will help.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)21:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four They have continued to edit since your note on their Talk page, with (of course) no reply to you. Your diffs above are troubling.David10244 (talk)06:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last, more directmessage, they have only made four small and issue free edits.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)07:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested.

@OmeletteRice: has created a large amount of pages all within minutes of each other over the past few months. Many of the pages were already moved the the draft space or deleted via deletion discussion, however ~20 articles still exist that I need help checking over. While it is completely possible that they are writing these in an external editor and copying them over, the articles written still have a bunch of signs of LLM generated text.

• xtools articles created (note the time between article creations)

While I am not 100% sure on this, I do believe they are using an LLM and additional eyes would be very much helpful.–LuniZunie ツ_(talk)17:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These do seem plausibly LLM generated, yeah.

Did some spot-checking -- it's a little difficult since most/all of these sources are in Japanese. Haven't found anything that blatantly isn't mentioned by the source yet; some statements might be borderlineWP:CLOP but it's hard to tell with the translation gap.Gnomingstuff (talk)17:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have been warned several times to follow our MoS, e.g., to use Sentence Case for the name of then band they keep writing about, but they persist in using ALL CAPS FOR THE BAND NAME, because that's what the band/their marketing company/Japanese press do, which would certainly suggest at least a lot of copy-pasting.Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!}17:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering a lot of these are in Japanese, I'll look into this case.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)10:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't figure out a good summary to this. Surviving articles doesn't look too bad after a quick glance. Notability concerns and tone/promotion issues left and right, however/AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)10:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaBetaGamma Agreed, I would also note that this has now been discussed with the userhere.–LuniZunie ツ_(talk)13:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested.

• Adamsecretxx (talk ·contribs)

Most of the edits that have been made show signs of LLM (most significantly the bolding, and some sources not linking to what they say they link to), but not enough for G15; additionally, most of the articles that have been created seem to be non-notable, but in that frustrating boundary region where it's not obvious whether it seems non-notable because of the LLM or because it is. (Or maybe I'm being too lenient here.) User has also made significant changes toVictor Mayer, a preexisting article, and made half of it look AI generated. Would appreciate more eyes on the contribs.Fermiboson (talk)22:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that most/all of their substantive mainspace contributions seem to be unreviewed LLM.Albert Mayer (Davos) is G15-able (looks like you tagged it for A7). I thinkMarie Fabergé can be G15'd as well, and it is teeming withWP:AISIGNS. Also seeSpecial:Diff/1322820628: I wonder about this editor's English level. I will drop them a note on their talk page. We should create a tracking page as wellNicheSports (talk)23:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I´ll be more mindful firm now on to explain my edits and new page proposals. AdamAdamsecretxx (talk)00:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1, as the kids say. Idraftified one of their creations a couple of weeks ago for a possible combination of LLM and CIR issues, and now their talk page has lit up with many similar notices and no response from this user.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)13:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the messages.

I´m admitting that I had LLM check up on my texts. I did not know thats not allowed. the research and the original texts were mine. I¨m also not sure what is noticeabale and what not.

MARIE FABERGE For example Marie Fabergé is the wife of one of the most prominent jewellers ...so is she noticeable or not? The entire lineage of Fabergé is written about in basically every monograph about carl Fabergé. It is not up to me to decide.

I do have knack to research topics that are NOT extremely published, so that might be the problem, plus that I used ai to check up on my form and content, I´ll update how I work.

REUCHLINHAUS I did edit one page now. Reuchlinhaus, I hope it looks clean. The German wikipedia already has a page on that subject, so at least in germany it seems to be noticeable, and I kept it very close to what was in the German wikipedia. Thanks for checking my writings and for being lenient with me as an on and off user. AdamAdamsecretxx (talk)23:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I¨m also not sure what is noticeabale and what not – The relevant policy isWP:NOTABILITY, and the section to pay the most attention to is the one on thegeneral notability guidelines. Do note that the English and German Wikipedias have different standards for notability, so a topic that is notable on one project may not be on the other. (You may wish to visit theIntroduction, which can help get you up-to-speed on what is expected from editors on enwiki.)

As a more general note aboutlarge language models, they are ill-suited to assist with editing. LLMs are prone tohallucinations, have issues maintaining aneutral tone, and often produce prose incompatible with themanual of style. As these models are predictive, they can predict incorrectly even for simple prompts or requests. Thank you for discussing this with us.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)00:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I study the guidelines now for the different countries and it becomes more clear. It helps to be sure about what generally all the rules are, albeit jn detail it iS about a group effort.Adamsecretxx (talk)00:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Maria Fabergé contains sources that are entirely hallucinated. The ancestry link goes nowhere and the book "Gustav Fabergé and his Dresden Years" doesn't even seem to exist exist; the only results for it on google are the Wikipedia articles for the Fabergés, and gbooks turns up nothing. Your fourth{{cite web}} reference doesn't even have a URL specified.Athanelar (talk)01:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yes the text is largely based on that book with the recent research. It¨s not hallucinated. the link does not go to a real page and I will see that I can find a link that works.Adamsecretxx (talk)02:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text is based on what book? The book "Gustav Fabergé and his Dresden Years" doesn't seem to exist. I can't find any evidence of it whatsoever. Can you show some indication that it exists?

How did you end up adding a link to an Ancestry page that doesn't exist?Athanelar (talk)02:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the citation in question is:<refname="Skurlov">{{Cite book|last=Skurlov|first=Valentin|title=Gustav Fabergé and his Dresden Years|publisher=Igor Carl Fabergé Foundation|location=Moscow|year=2018}}</ref>

Could you please provide an ISBN or other similar identifier? The title does not appear to exist.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)02:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested above that that article could probably be G15'd, but after seeing this source analysis that probably is now definitely. You want to take it?NicheSports (talk)02:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look, I've already tagged it.Athanelar (talk)02:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks!NicheSports (talk)02:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested.

The LLM edits byDJ Sturm (talk ·contribs) to theEstonia article need an edit-by-edit tracker for this special case, since the LLM edit reverts have to be integrated with subsequent revisions. I don't think this deserves notifying DJ Sturm. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)02:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, notifying them would be somewhat pointless since they've been infed'd sitewide for their conduct on commons. Though I'd question the "deserves notifying" phrasing in general.--Gurkubondinn (talk)11:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested.

I'm concerned about the edits ofUser:User7312549 atPop music. I have twice deleted the edits, but a second opinion would be great. Thank you!Magnolia677 (talk)22:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on AI use here, but the source-to-text integrity is poor, and the choice of sources is also not great:

In the late 1990s and early 2000s the digital distribution of music became increasingly popular, platforms like CD Baby and Tunecore made it easier for independent artists to release and distribute music without a major label - Thesource it is cited to does not mention CD Baby/CDBaby or TuneCore. The source also doesn't mention any of the 1990s, "nineties," any 199X year, etc.

During the early to mid 2000s streaming platforms became popularized with apps like Pandora and Spotify, pushing artists to prioritize singles over full albums. Thesource (paywalled but accessible via Wikipedia Library) does not mention Pandora (which was pretty minor in terms of impact anyway). The sentence here also does a poor job of explainingwhy streaming platforms encourage artists to prioritize singles over full albums; skimming the source there does seem to be potential information about that.

Pop music shifted towards shorter songs, with catchy hooks, and shorter attention grabbing intros, optimized for replay. --Source-to-text integrity OK although there is probably a better source than The Washington Times. "Catchy hooks" is also a bit sus - whendidn't pop songs have catchy hooks?

Advances in digital audio workstations (DAWs) and home recording equipment made music production more accessible, allowing independent and emerging artists to create commercially ready tracks without relying on traditional studio settings. Probably verifiable but not backed up by thesource it's cited to, mostly because the source appears to be someone's crappy business-school assignment (Choose a company that provides an interesting example of how digital transformation has created opportunities or challenges for business and operating models.)

Social media became increasingly popular during this time with platforms like MySpace and YouTube allowing artists to share their music and connect to fans more directly. This created a shift from traditional promotion methods to a more direct and interactive model. - Cited to anAI slop advertorial blog post that doesn't mention MySpace or YouTube. The second sentence is also redundant -- it didn't "create" a shift, itis the shift.

Research on contemporary songwriting practices indicates that platform standards shape the structure and format of pop songs, with elements adjusted to fit algorithmic playlist norms, including shorter intros, earlier hooks, and clearly defined song sections. This is probably verifiable but not corroborated bythe source it is cited to. "Research" is alsoWP:WEASELWORD-ing.

In the late 2010s-early 2020s, TikTok became a powerful tool for fan engagment and viral marketing. Challenges and memes made music trends and hit go viral giving rise to rapid chart success. In 2024, 84% of songs that entered the Billboard Global 200 chart initially went viral on TikTok, indicating the platform's role in influencing global pop music chart performance. - The statistic iscorroborated by the source, but not the stuff before it; furthermore, this whole sentence is promotional in tone. The last clause is also redundant captain obvious stuff -- and does sound very much like AI.

In the words ofAnthony Fantano: not good.Gnomingstuff (talk)02:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Gnomingstuff's analysis, yeah that's AI. Because this is a WikiEd situation you should contact the instructor and/orUser:Brianda (Wiki Ed), who actually reverts a lot of this content herself. I'm seeing a ton of this now bc of the end of the semester.NicheSports (talk)02:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much for your help.Magnolia677 (talk)11:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to ping myself or @Ian (Wiki Ed), when you encounter work that is not suitable for Wikipedia from our student editors, especially when it might be AI.Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk)22:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luis jimenez is an LLM-generated article that is up forCSD A10, as its subject is already covered byLuis Jiménez (sculptor). CreatorRyan162j (talk ·contribs), who is enrolled in a student program, also created numerous subpages in their userspace, including two more drafts on Luis Jiménez and one on theBlue Mustang. SeeWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ryan162j/Luis jimenez. I am not sure how to proceed on other subpages.

Other users atWikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University, San Bernardino/Latinx Art and the Politics of Presence (Fall 2025), e.g.User:Lamiy23/Mahmoud Mokhtar, also used LLMs for their work on subjects that are already covered here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)07:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not sure this is fully AI, at the very least it has been [poorly] human-edited. ("Luis Jimenez is just a sculptor" is pretty funny, even refreshing, in context.)

that said, probably the same advice as above, contact the instructor and/or wiki ed representatives.Gnomingstuff (talk)14:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Cleanup has been completed.

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

First off, all of this user's edits display the gamut ofWP:AISIGNS, this is the baseline we're working off and should be assumed. What elevates this to an actual noticeboard post, though, is two things.

One, most of their edits involve the Trump administration, QAnon, etc., all very contentious topics we don't want to get things wrong in. (alsoCAN bus for some reason) There are only a few articles they've added, but they've added a lot of text.

Two, their version of theMar-a-Lago Accord article has severe hallucination issues bordering onWP:HOAX. I nominated it for AfD but tl;dr: the draft calls it the "Margo Largo Accord" and discusses it as if it had actually been proposed and gotten reactions and analysis, which it hasn't. Even assuming good faith, this is very bad. Obviously they're not doing much review of their own output, and given that the Mar-a-Lago Accord article was largely unchanged until now it seems like others are at least sometimes taking that output at face value.Gnomingstuff (talk)20:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This actually led me down a rabbit hole of theForeign policy of the second Donald Trump administration article as a whole, which this user was a regular on.

I just did a massive trim of the Spain section there, because it had a lot of AI generated content, source-to-text discrepancies and verifiability issues. This combined with that user's activity there makes me think this article needs a fine-toothed comb; I intend to do it a bit myself, but it's about time for me to get off Wikipedia for the moment, so I thought I'd drop this here in case anybody else wants to give it a look over in the meantime.Athanelar (talk)05:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I've looked at that article before, I suspect a lot of it is either AI generated or AI edited but there are just so many edits to slog throughGnomingstuff (talk)14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

142 edits to mainspace across 9 articles mostly related to post-1992 American politics and conspiracy. Cleanup requested.Foreign policy of the Biden administration seems to have been hit by many other LLM users, and needsimmediate life support.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)10:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested.

I was surprised to find all nonexistent links inthis large addition. The editorEkabhishek (talk ·contribs) reverted themselves aftersome nagging and have stopped editing for the last couple of weeks. I found moreinstances of llm generated text added wholesale by them.

Going back in their contributions list up to July 2025 and looking at large edits, I've boldly (they are an admin) removed their edits which weren't backed up by the refs, fromMeenakshi Jain,Mrs (film) andDastak (1970 film) as original research. But I keep finding more - like [this edit] where the last ref link is a page not found - as I go further back.Legospy (talk)06:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, that first example is textbook AI text. I've seen NPPs and autopatrolled users throw LLM text around, but admins? That's new. I'm going to see how deep is this.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)03:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that sure has a fewWP:AISIGNS.And it had a bunch of broken links? That is a G15-level of proof of unreviewed LLM content. I also see that Ekabhishek chose to not answer three questions on their talk page from Legospy about LLM usage. @AlphaBetaGamma I will add an AINB notice to their talk page and tell them we need to hear from them. Do you want me to wait until you've dug more?NicheSports (talk)04:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they haven't edited since November 18 so no rush on the AINB notice. I'll wait until you've looked into this.NicheSports (talk)04:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be wise to bring it up atWP:AN? I would imagine an admin editing disruptively like this should at least warrant a reconsidering of their access to the tools.Athanelar (talk)04:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't edited in weeks so there's no rush imo. Let's look into their edits first? Also too early to talk about recall.NicheSports (talk)05:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a blatant assumption of bad faith that should usually be avoided, but if they simply return to editing and fly under the radar with their edits again, wouldn't the damage be severe? I can't feel safe until they give us a non-dodgy explanation/declaration. I really do not want an another recall drama (it has already depressed me a lot) unless the admin in question causes aWP:ANI level of disruption and refuses to communicate.

Speaking of digging through, I was seeing if I needed to blast off any faulty articles, but I don't think there is an urgent needcompared to their edits.they have made around 11 articles in 2025, and all of their other creations predate ChatGPT. Stuff likeBina Ramani had some eye-raising issues with promotional words (pionneering with no cited source actually saying that word). However, their 11 creations in 2025 probably needs some duct taping, so cleanup is requested.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)05:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by their creation activity, we might need to scan every one of their mainspace edits after the admin's return from inactivity in 2024ish, which is easily over a thousand. Holy hell...AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)05:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Thanks for looking into this. I agree with Athanelar that this probably needs to go to AN if Ekabhishek doesn't return and address these issues soon. If we go there, we should try to quantify the extent of the LLM misuse and bring representative diffs - any chance you can keep working on that?Added: Fifteen's diffs below look compelling. We could also ping an admin to get advice.Newslinger comes to mind. And if at any point Ekabhishek returns to editing without engaging with us I think we should go to AN right away.NicheSports (talk)06:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Ekabhishek of this discussion atUser talk:Ekabhishek § AI cleanup noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk06:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Pioneering" is probably a rendition of descriptions like this: "What really makes Bina Ramani's transformation of Hauz Khas Village so remarkable and memorable is that she did much more than just reviving a neighbourhood, she birthed the vibe of the place. She turned ruins into rendezvous spots, history into heritage, and then made the heritage turn into a social movement. It wasn’t long before the area became synonymous with indie fashion, experimental art, and late-night conversations under fairy lights." (The Godmother of Hauz Khas And Its Transformation Of The '80s (cited in th Bina Ramani article))

Another article that uses the word "pioneer" to describe Bina Ramani isthis one.

The first caseLegospy cited and the examplesfifteen thousand two hundred twenty four analyzed sound like llm/hallucination though.Deamonpen (talk)08:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Diff/1318901237 – bothquote=s appear to be hallucinations
• Special:Diff/1307138307 – contains markdown-style footnote refs:[^3][^4]
• Special:Diff/1295888253 –The Sabarmati Report And Hindi Journalism: A Political Narrative Disguised As Cinema does not exist,The Sabarmati Report movie review: Refreshing and fast-paced does not exist,The Sabarmati Report Review: Vikrant Massey shines in this ideological drama does not exist,The Sabarmati Report Review: A riveting but one-sided narrative does not exist (here is what the homepage of "thebrew.in" looked like in May 2024 when the supposed article was published).

This was a surface-level look. I've not included any snippets of LLM prose which often overstep the bounds ofWP:NPOV, nor utm_source indicators.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)04:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're unambiguously using AI for some things --here is an early sandbox edit that containsattributableIndex json all over the placeGnomingstuff (talk)22:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Cleanup has been completed.

I found a page that thats been modified heavily by LLM calledDer Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten, im not sure what to do about it. the edits were made between 23 June 2025 and 28 June 2025.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBird244 (talk •contribs)

Major case with a legacy IP, most of the page is written by a range of legacy IP with LLM assistance. This may be a single-page case. Honestly, with this degree of damage over time, I feel like this should be nuked to the pre-IP version.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)14:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. It is not feasible to clean it up, the effort is way too high for that to be realistic (but the effort of adding LLM generated text is almost zero).--Gurkubondinn (talk)14:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that nuking it is the best option as well. The citation style is typical of LLM. For example, the book and the author do exist inthis case, but no human will make this kind of citation, and without a physical copy of the book there is no way to verify the content....

cite book |last=Werberg |first=Dennis |title=Der Stahlhelm – League of Frontline Soldiers |publisher=Unknown |year=n.d. |page=110Deamonpen (talk)14:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneAlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)23:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested.

The main author,D'Lisye (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), ofMultinational Force – Ukraine hasbeen constructivelyengaging in discussion in relation to LLM use. However, the earlieraddition of aMicrosoft Copilot URL andaddition of aGoogle Gemini URLas sources shows that at least earlier, the user severely lacked understanding ofWP:VERIFIABILITY and of what LLMs actually are. I admit that I was flabbergasted. Anyway, I reverted both of those edits.

Myrecommendation was a voluntaryde factoWP:TNT ofMultinational Force – Ukraine by the main author; my suggestion doesn't seem to have been accepted. Just now in browsing LLM discussions, I see that some common LLM tracers are present inthe current version of the article. Just cleaning up obvious tracers seems pointless to me, since then all the more nuanced problems will remain, requiring much more editing energy in making corrections than would be needed to rewrite from scratch (by human-summarising key points in the sources, per all the regular Wikipedia policies and guidelines).

I suggest a clean up if someone is willing to invest the huge of amount of energy needed to do so, or do a soft WP:TNT with a stub rewrite, or propose a formalWP:AFD forWP:TNT (the topic itself is clearly notable).Boud (talk)16:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the editor may actually accept a rebuild from a stub, i.e. a softWP:TNT. Let's see ...Boud (talk)17:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor accepted to restart, but is restoring a lot of LLM-style material.Boud (talk)20:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-12-10 Lamp21, 245 pages need review.

user:Lamp21 was indeffed a few days ago pursuant tothis ANI discussion. Most of their problematic contributions remain, and I am unsure how to proceed. Any advice/assistance?PARAKANYAA (talk)04:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

286 pages in mainspace. Major case with 4000+ edits by user. Are the rough machine translation from other wikis LLM, or are they just jamming it through a translator?AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)00:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trackingsubpage created, included entries are non-redirect page creations, 269 articles need review.

I am unsure how to proceed. Any advice – Draftify, tag with{{ai-generated}}, and leave a note on the talk page explaining why. Repeat 269 times. I've done this with 10 articles which can be seen on the subpage, here's the wording I've used:

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)02:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do the two images on right side of this composite image look AI-generated to anyone else? This image is in the infobox onSomali community of Minnesota, a new article that went through AfC just a few days ago.

The description on commons says that this composite was created with Photoshop. There is no link to the source images on commons, and I haven't been able to find them elsewhere either.--Gurkubondinn (talk)14:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. However, the path towards finding out is the same as the normal path, in that the file should be tagged with {{subst:dw-nsd}} as each individual element needs to have Commons-compatible copyright.CMD (talk)14:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn The image on the bottom right appears to be copyvio, seehttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/minnesota-somali-community-fears-trump-travel-ban-aid/story?id=46153010 and[50]Polygnotus (talk)15:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn The map appears to be copyvio taken from[51] That leaves the image on the top right, but since it is not useful to convey information I won't even bother looking up where that was taken from.Polygnotus (talk)15:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for figuring this out! I was mainly focusing on the flag image in the upper right corner, and I found it onsome facebook postthat I can't read. I'm not quite sure how to deal with the copyvio aspect of this (and I'm also busy with offwiki stuff), so thanks for taking care of that as well.--Gurkubondinn (talk)15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated, seehttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Somali_Community_of_Minnesota%E2%80%94Population_Distribution_and_Cultural_Identity.pngPolygnotus (talk)15:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a very LLMy response on article's talk page:§ Infobox image.--Gurkubondinn (talk)15:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn Decent chance that the article should be deleted as well. The alleged sources don't seem to support the claims.Polygnotus (talk)15:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox has three disamb links and the§ External links section is alsopretty weird.--Gurkubondinn (talk)15:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn That username is probably also not allowed perWP:USERNAME,WP:ISU.Polygnotus (talk)15:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, reported that toWP:UAA.--Gurkubondinn (talk)16:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I retracted my report because I'm not sure if it meets the requirements for aWP:UAA report.--Gurkubondinn (talk)16:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Left a{{uw-coi-username}} notice instead:User talk:Somali-wiki-community § Your username.--Gurkubondinn (talk)16:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-12-12 WorldPeace888, 119 pages need review.

WorldPeace888 akaFacrFinderW picks snippets from articles, usually the second and third paragraph, asks ChatGPT to rewrite them, then adds then to Wikipedia.User_talk:WorldPeace888#COI_/_PAID.

See alsoUser:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2025-10#WorldPeace888_aka_FacrFinderW.Polygnotus (talk)21:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at/2025-12-14 Kofi Meija, 2829 pages need review.

This user has made hundreds of copy edits between 2023-2025 (several of them prompted by the Newcomer Edits gamification) and is still active doing that. These edits appear to be AI-generated, based on the usualWP:AISIGNS that recur throughout. (Their talk page posts also seem like "Certainly! You're absolutely right"-type AI responses.)

Unsurprisingly, many of these changes display the usual problems with AI copyedits -- namely, claiming they are making the article neutral but actually making it promotional, claiming they are just copyedits but actually change meaning or introduce new content, or just generally making things wordy and awkward.

Here's a quick spot-check of some of those copyedits (I have only looked at a few) to demonstrate. I've left out citations and any sentences/paragraphs that are identical/only superficially changed.

• Blue = introduced new information, removed information for unclear reasons, or changed meaning
• Green = introduced puffery
• Orange = introduced clunky, wordy, or otherwise bad phrasing

Anyway let me know thoughts. There are so many of these going back to like 2023.Gnomingstuff (talk)01:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently seen a lot of adding of different |language= parameters to citations in what look like AI edits, see[52], not sure if it's new or something I've not noticed before.CMD (talk)02:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was skeptical, but I ran the numbers...

So... yep that appears to be a thing. (Unless there's some kind of wizard change introduced after 2022 to automatically add it, that the human dataset wouldn't have.)Gnomingstuff (talk)02:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have been going through these. The problematic stuff seems to start around June 2023. As expected, quality varies widely on these, they are all a mixed bag of acceptable to pointless to actively detrimental tobad bad, but I'm not even 2 weeks' worth of edits in and I've already found one that's pretty bad: "rephrasing the article to have a more neutral and clear tone" by changing "She did not support Donald Trump" to "She withdrew her support for Donald Trump" (implying that she did, at one point, support him) out of fucking nowhere. I even went back to the original version of the article to see whether it was maybe restoring some old text; it wasn't. Living person by the way.

How would I make a tracking page for these?Gnomingstuff (talk)04:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've edited 3174 different pages since June 2023, not great.

How would I make a tracking page for these? – Either use theAINB-helper script to create the subpage (not advised in this case), or create it manually. When manually creating large lists, I use CCI'scontribution surveyor (uncheck minor, set bytes to -999999, in this instance set a date range too) to fetch all edited pages, use regex to format the lines into{{AIC article row}}s, wrap the rows in{{AIC article list}}, then paste and preview the result in the editor and perform some manual checks and refinement if able.

Once the subpage is created, populate thetracking_subpage= parameter of{{AIC status}}.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)06:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

welp. made the page; it starts in mid-March as this is when the "rephrasing" edits start. have not filtered it yet beyond that— Precedingunsigned comment added byGnomingstuff (talk •contribs)03:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

welp indeed, so many entries it hits the transclusion limit if the templates are used. I've instead manually added the count to{{AIC status}}.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)08:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at/2025-12-13 Unxed, 117 pages need review.

I'm pretty sure they are posting translations with no/minimal editing because they did 2 articles one minute apart, and claim on their user talk page that ai output is so good they don't really need human editing. (t ·c)buIdhe05:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported:Unxednoping template, might be worth it to notify the user via template had saidThere are no rules in Wikipedia that prohibit the use of AI; someone has misinformed you., which is a red flag. While I don't think AI was outright banned for every single edit, everybody should know that just because guidelines and other "rules" aren't written on paper, nobody gets to commit something that doesn't improve the encyclopedia.Saint Petersburg trolleybus system has some obvious problems (fictional/bogus poorly pasted #1 #2, and effortlessly copy-pasted dates on #3 #4), so I'll investigate on this.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)06:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, that was probably his machine trying to translate the title which resulted me in finding none on google searches. The bits are well, ripped off from ruwiki. This isn't always a bad thing, but I can sense someWP:AISIGNS anyways.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)06:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get additional opinions on whetherHistory of Ipê is LLM?Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸22:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say in parts, yes.

There's the "x and y" heading format in some places, unnecessary bolding, a couple AISIGNS phrases likereinforcing the link between religious leadership and the municipality's political development.Athanelar (talk)19:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added multiple questionable citations toBlack conservatism in the United States and related pages. They have a history of questionable souring, which has been raised on their talk page:

• User talk:NathanBru § Black conservatism in the United States
• User talk:NathanBru § Felix C. Antoine
• User talk:NathanBru § Please find sources that back up what you claim

The sources that they are using are undoubtedly originating from an LLM, so I have tagged some of the most obvious cites (utm_source), but they have started reverting that (in multiple edits usling misleading edit summaries):Diff/1327313400/1327290244.

I'm not sure if this just a case of the usual source-to-text issues or a more blatant case ofWP:POVPUSHING. Depending on how they're prompting ChatGPT, I'm not sure if this unintentional or if they're specifically prompting for plausible-sounding sources. Though by looking at their userpage, I have to admit that I'm suspicious of their motives. I would appreciate some opinions or thoughts before I think about going with this to ANI, but I'll also wait and see howthe Talk page thread that I created plays out.--Gurkubondinn (talk)22:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think NathanBru is acting in good faith, but some of his edits have been less than helpful.This thread in which I spoke with him about the inclusion of William Webb Ferguson on the Black Conservative list seems to indicate that he doesn't understand what the Sandbox on Wikipedia is, though his talk page indicates he has been informed. He was adding people to the list on the Black Conservatism article fully without citation. In his defense, the Black Conservatism article is a mess, and he's far from the only contributor who've added uncited or poorly cited content. He may have thought it was okay to provide poor/no citation due to the precedent set by others on the article, which of course it's not.

It is clear he is using an AI chatbot to find sources. In the thread about William Webb Ferguson, he provided two citations after I contacted him about. Neither citation indicated Ferguson was a conservative. It seems like he didn't read the sources (this andthis). In regard to another addition, Charles Roxborough, he did have an ARGUMENT that the source indicated Roxborough was a conservative, though I'm not fully convinced.RoundSquare (talk)23:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are adding misinformation and don't seem to be receptive to fixing their ways. I have tried repeatedly to get them to stop adding people to an articel about conservatives that aren't described as such in reliable independent sources. The last post I made about a "colored" Reconstruction era politician they added with an offline source was removed[53]. I appreciate editors taking an interest and working to clean up the mess here.FloridaArmy (talk)01:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussions happened at:

• User talk:NathanBru § December 2025
• User talk:Gurkubondinn § Reverting

Analysed one of the sources on:Talk:Black conservatism in the United States § Sourcing issues.--Gurkubondinn (talk)22:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thai occult has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you. Most contents were LLM-generated byLamp21 (talk ·contribs), and contents will need to be cleaned before making a CfD judgment. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)17:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As an AfC reviewer, I struggle with AI-generated content. Any tips, tool or script to detect Ai AI-generated content?AlphaCoretalk22:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI detectors like GPTZero and ZeroGPT do a better-than-random job of detecting AI text, but have been unreliable in some notable cases.

The best thing to do is just to familiarise yourself withWP:AISIGNSAthanelar (talk)11:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(with the caveat that a lot of it is rapidly becoming obsolete as of GPT-5 and its successors)Gnomingstuff (talk)19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject AI Cleanup

• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Pages with ISBN errors