Wikipedia:AI noticeboard

"WP:AIN" redirects here; not to be confused with WP:AN or WP:ANI.

AI noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues of AI misuse.

• For issues concerning a single article, please refer to the guide on how to deal with AI content before posting here.
• More general discussion about AI use and policies should be brought up at the village pump.
• You can inform an editor of a discussion involving them with {{subst:AINB-notice}}, but this is not required.
• {{subst:AIC status}} can be used to create a hatnote keeping track of a case's cleanup status.
• {{AINB status}} can be used to create a banner keeping track of the status of the user involved in a case.
• {{AINB article}} can be used to create a list of articles that may require cleanup.
• To view all open cases (including those whose reports have been archived), see Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases.

Start a new discussion

User:Kaspar-trout

 Cleanup has been requested.

Needs reviewUsyk17 Promotions

Needs reviewArtist-run publishing

Needs reviewFela Perelman

Needs reviewJewish Culture Month

Needs reviewSilenced No More report

Needs reviewList of Iranian artists killed during state crackdowns

Needs reviewÉric Hazan (entrepreneur)

Needs reviewStoehr machine pistol

Needs reviewE il Topo (art group)

Needs reviewHakoach Będzin

User was previously warned about their LLM use, which they responded to by admitting to use AI "in accordance with Wikipedia’s sourcing and neutrality guidelines" but without actually ceasing the use of AI tools. They have continued to create new pages showing clear AISIGNS. Other, non-page creation edits also show AI signs such as and , some of which are in contentious topics. StartOkayStop (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@StartOkayStop Hi, since the said previous warning - where I indeed responded and explained myself - my edits have been entirely researched, written, and reviewed by me. I'm doing my best to comply with Wikipedia’s sourcing, neutrality, and verifiability; especially with trying to stay within a "distant" and encyclopedic writing style (I try). If some specific case of sourcing, neutrality, copyright infringement or due-weight raise concern, I'll be happy to discuss and improve them on a case-by-case basis. Thank you for reviewing. Kaspar-trout (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but just to clarify, has 100% of the text added after 26 April been your own creation (no LLM involvement)? For example is the text in Special:Permalink/1354856263 entirely of your own construction? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kaspar-trout: Could you please respond to @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four's question? It looks like you're continuing to make edits that are AI-generated, such as Special:Diff/1355018008. Please be aware of WP:NOLLM; as a guideline, using AI to create article content is prohibited. StartOkayStop (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four and @StartOkayStop Hi both. No, I'm not. Please tell me what makes you think I'm using AI. We literally had an exchange yesterday, why would I use AI now. and what in that Norman mailer makes you think of LLM ebased adits. it's literally been written by me on a word document after reading archives from the NYT. and @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four I'd appreciate if you could give me precise indications of AI markers in those exemples you mentioned (which I doubt you can since i haven't make use of it). I don't mean being confrontational and I appreciate the work you do on this platform for making sure all the diting comply with Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately I can't prove you anything just as much as you can't prove my writing is based on LLM use. Everything is based on good fate. I heard your warining, I answered in good fate. I read Mailer's books and articles, I know his boxing passion, I researched in newspapers and edited the page. I am happy to know exactly what seems wrong with my contribution and respond accordingly. Thank you both of you Kaspar-trout (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't state that AI markers are present, but I did ask if the text of Special:Permalink/1354856263 was entirely of your own construction, and this doesn't seem to have gotten a response. I'm especially curious about provenance of the contents of the "Philosophy and development model" section. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Would be helpful to know why the statement The promotion described itself as a "digital-first platform" focused on storytelling and personality-building around fighters. is sourced to an article which does not contain the word "digital" (nor "storytelling", nor "personality-building", but at least those are not in quote marks). Putting the words aside, I don't see these concepts in the source either. Perhaps you could point them out to me? M kuhner (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

"Built as a digital-first platform, Usyk17 Promotions will emphasize storytelling, media presence, and strategic career development as its core competitive advantages." (1) (It's here in this ESPN article) and I just quoted it as is because it's a quote (I forgot to quotify it though). Thank you @M kuhner Kaspar-trout (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The ESPN article would have been a fine source for this statement. But I was responding to Special:PermanentLink/1354856263 which sources it to . It definitely is not in that source. So the article, as of that revision at least, falsely attributed a direct quote from ESPN to FanNation. M kuhner (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Morning @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four I think sources arecitet to be read and crosse read when curious for more information. I decided to call the section "Philosophy and development model" hoping that this would be developed further in the future when more details on the promotion will be available and that the specific angle and positioning of Usyk promotional company would be more documented. Now we know that Usyk works with a high degree ofidealism, identity building, political positioning and so on (and we know he contributes with his businesses to the Ukrainian defence). I hope your question have now gotten an answer. Kaspar-trout (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

arecitet to be read and crosse = are cited to be read and cross (sorry for this) Kaspar-trout (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you using Word's grammar check/rewriting features? Those are Copilot-based now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff, I have grammarly installed Kaspar-trout (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it -- that's what's causing this, since Grammarly is AI-based.

That being said, if Grammarly (or any similar tool) is changing the text enough that someone else can identify the text as AI-assisted, then that's going beyond the "basic copyediting" allowed in WP:NEWLLM. Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff thank you. Good to know, but I don't believe it changes the text so much as i verify it constantly. Even today I reviewed some of these articles that have been "identified" and they still had some syntax issues, awkward grammar and little imperfections that i'm trying to correct. I really do write this material and read my sources. Kaspar-trout (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this might be a misunderstanding of the guidelines. The "basic copyediting" allowed under WP:NEWLLM is stuff like spelling, capitalization, or punctuation, where there is no way anyone would be able to tell whether "beleive" was turned into "believe" by AI, by a spell-checker from 1993, or by a paper dictionary.

Whereas something like These publications have been identified by critics and historians as among the most influential examples of artist-run magazines, reflecting successive shifts from avant-garde experimentation and conceptual art toward postmodern theory, counterculture and alternative editorial infrastructures. is not only identifiable as AI-assisted, but has source-to-text integrity issues, given that it is cited to a blog post that doesn't contain the words "postmodern" or "post-modern," or even just "modern"; doesn't state or imply that these are successive shifts given that many of these magazines seem to have operated more or less at the same time and there's not really a chronological "shifts" argument being made by the post; and is the opinion of one blogger, not multiple "critics and historians." So either this is a change of meaning introduced by AI (since these are the kinds of problems that AI introduces all the time), or you didn't read the source very carefully. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I added post modern because I know what post modernism is and know how to contextualize it, since we also need to be careful to copyright infringements and need to find ways to edit and write encyclopedic information without copying our sources. Kaspar-trout (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Per the verifiability policy: Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it. So if a source doesn't call something postmodern, then you can't use that source as a citation for it being postmodern. The no original research/synthesis policy is also relevant here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but what i've added here it's just sensible literate cultural knowledge, using words that allows me to summerize without infringing copyright and staying truthful. I am happy to rephrase if necessary and stick to the source or find more sources if this will help. Nevertheless, I think this conversation helped understanding the issues initialy addressed. I'll bonify this paragraph. Thank you for your help @Gnomingstuff Kaspar-trout (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I have further concerns regarding this editor's potential use of AI.

• First is this edit to 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis, which is cited to this NYT's article despite it never mentioning "global energy transit", the time-span of "decades", "global supply chains", nor any "international debate[s]".

I had initially assumed this was an issue of WP:SYNTH &/or WP:OR, however...

• This edit to Israeli–Palestinian conflict has several citations, however their given page numbers seem completely unrelated to what they're theoretically meant to support

• Rashid Khalidi's The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood doesn't even mention "Arabism", let alone "Pan-Arabism" within any of the given page ranges 18–33, 31–45, 145–154.
• Michael Doran's Pan-Arabism Before Nasser: Egyptian Power Politics and the Palestine Question only uses the term "Palestinian" in one of the four page numbers, but not in a way that supports the article content.
• Rashid Khalidi's book is cited again with no mention of "Zionism" within the pages 145–177.
• The 2nd edition of The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 as edited by Eugene L. Rogan & Avi Shlaim never refers to a "charter" & only refers to the "West Bank" once, but again, not in a way that supports the article content.
• The Avalon Project's documentation of The Palestinian National Charter lists article 24 as "The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them.", not “This Organization (PLO) does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”, with the "West Bank" never mentioned. This is due to Kaspar-trout referring to the 1964 charter, but cited the revised version from 1968.

• The quote is still wrong however as the initial charter from 1964 stated "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area." (Emphasis mine).

I was originally going to bring this up at their talk page, but this seems to be a more appropriate venue - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga Hi, so just for your information here's what I have right here right now, taken from the Iron cage book, and I'm not going to do this work for you for all the citations you just mentioned:

"...American and allied policymakers supported them against such identified enemy forces as Arab nationalism, Pan-Arabism, local communist parties, radical regimes, Palestinian nationalism, and later the Soviets in Afghanistan​" (p17-18)

"In his autobiography, al-‘Isa relates one of the critical moments in Damascus when the balance between his loyalty to Pan-Arabism and his Palestinian identity was most sorely tested." (127)

"Loyal though al-‘Isa was to the ideology of Arabism and to Faysal, his higher loyalty was clearly to Palestine. He resigned immediately after this episode, but Faysal reinstated him after his return from Europe, and he remained chief secretary of the Royal Diwan until the fall of Faysal’s government in July 1920." (p.128)

"Like all matters involving language and ethnicity in this era, this rapidly became a “national” issue, with a heightened awareness of their Arabism among the Orthodox Arabs of Syria and Palestine as one of the primary consequences." (p.130)

"For more details on the Palestinian press see Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity and also “Anti-Zionism, Arabism and Palestinian Identity: ‘Isa al-‘Isa and Filastin,” in Political Identity in the Arab East in the 20th Century, ed. Samir Seikaly (Beirut: American University of Beirut Press, forthcoming)." Bibliography (p.245)

In the index you can even find all the Pan-Arabism notes....

This is for The Iron Cage, which I have and read. Thank you Kaspar-trout (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

To address your concern directly: I have sometimes used ChatGPT as an aid in locating sources, but not as a source and not as a substitute for verification. I review the underlying material myself before adding content, and I am willing to correct citations where edition differences or page-number discrepancies create confusion. As I said before, I usually gather notes from source material, verify it, and summarize it concisely in my own words, while also taking care to avoid close paraphrasing or copyright issues (which isn't always easy). I understand the concern about machine-generated or poorly verified edits. That is not how I am editing. Kaspar-trout (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

also: The Palestinian National Charter Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields. (I have different documents from may 28 1964, with this article mentioning the West Bank - but this is another subject matter) Kaspar-trout (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I am very confused.

ButterscotchBeluga says that the edit cites pages 18-33, 31-45, and 145-154 of The Iron Cage.

In your message just above you say that the material is on pages 17-18, 127, 128, 130, and 245.

These do not match. It cannot be a book version problem: you put those citations into the article, and you wrote the text above. You presumably have a physical copy of the book. ButterscotchBeluga could have been looking at a different version when they made their comments, but that would not explain why the article and your message above don't match.

Why don't they match? Is it because your LLM assisted workflow makes up page numbers?

It is, as you clearly have found, a lot of work to check and verify these citations. That's why the LLM workflow is bad. It's more work to fix inaccurate LLM text than to write human text which is accurate in the first place.

M kuhner (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

First quote (p XXII) - List of those the US identified as enemies in the Middle East. This doesn't support characterizing these movements as "intertwined" with the "Palestinian political identity". Also the source says "mid-1950s until the early 1990s." not the "early 1960s"

Second quote (p 97)

Third quote (p 98)

Fourth quote (p 100)

Fifth quote (p 232) - I hope you understand why you can't cite a note telling you "For more details" read a different document. Especially as that note makes no reference to "a distinct Palestinian state".

We can assume the page discrepancy is due to different versions of the book as your given page numbers are mostly 30 ahead. However even if we dismissed this discrepancy & consider your numbers accurate, the page numbers you've given here still don't corelate with those you initially cited in the article. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the sourcing. I agree that the previous version was confusingly cited, and that some of the wording was broader than the cited page ranges could comfortably support. I have revised the passage accordingly.

The new version removes the causal implication that Nasserism or Pan-Arabism “explained” the absence of a Palestinian state. Instead, it separates the claims more narrowly: first, that no independent Palestinian state was established in the West Bank or Gaza between 1948 and 1967; second, that Khalidi describes the post-1948 period as one in which Palestinians lost control over their fate and were “dispersed, divided, and caught between” Israel and the Arab states, which controlled the territory of former Mandatory Palestine; third, that Jordan and Egypt restricted independent Palestinian political activity in the West Bank and Gaza; and fourth, that Khalidi describes the Arab League’s creation of the PLO in 1964 as partly intended to contain and control growing independent Palestinian nationalism.

I also corrected the charter issue: the Avalon Project gives the revised 1968 charter, not the original 1964 text, so I have separated the 1964 Article 24 statement from the 1968 revised charter and corrected the wording to “territorial sovereignty.” The aim of the revision is to avoid synthesis and make each claim more directly tied to the cited source. Again, thank you for checking this edits and pushing me back into my notes and sources. I hope this addresses the previous issues. Kaspar-trout (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This still doesn't address the concern I & M kuhner raised. If, as you say, you didn't use AI to write this material, then how did you arrive at the initial page ranges (18-33, 31-45, & 145-154)? They neither correspond to the page numbers I cited (XXII, 97, 98, 100, & 232), nor even those you cited in this discussion (17-18, 127, 128, 130, & 245). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga I understand why the discrepancy raises concern and after a more thorough look into my notes and sources, I should answer it directly.

The page-range problem came from my own note-taking and citation-control error. I was working from more than one version of the source: I have a French physical edition of the book, and I also had access to an English PDF. The PDF I was using appeared to use document pagination rather than publication pagination, which did not hit me immediately, and I mistakenly took notes using the PDF/document page positions rather than the published page numbers. When I later answered here, I checked against the physical book / proper pagination, which is why the page numbers I gave in the discussion no longer matched the ranges I had originally placed in the article.

That is not good citation practice, and I fully accept responsibility for it. I treated working notes as if they were ready article citations, and that was the mistake. I am not defending that practice. As I said above, I have used ChatGPT at times as an aid to find material to read, and sometimes to check English syntax or formulation when a sentence becomes confusing, since English is not my native language. But I do not use it as a source, and I should not have allowed any material into an article without a final source-by-source and page-by-page verification.

That is why I revised the passage, removed the broader causal framing, corrected the charter issue, and tried to make each claim more narrowly tied to a directly checked source. Going forward, I will not add material from mixed PDF/book notes unless I have first carefully checked the exact publication pages. My apologies for the confusion and for the extra work this created. Kaspar-trout (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the first article in the list above, Usyk17 Promotions. Subsequently, Ultimate Boxing Night, was held at the WePlay Esports Arena Kyiv in August 2021. The card featured several Ukrainian professional and amateur boxers becoming the first promotion's early efforts to develop domestic boxing events in Ukraine. is sourced to an article about Usyk's career that does not mention any of these things.

The editor has made a series of rapid-fire edits today (July 7): spot-checking found a newly added dead link, some textual AISIGNS, and concerning edit summaries such as Added sourced theoretical discussion of progressive, anti-racist, and anti-Zionist discourse in debates over new antisemitism with academic sources, specifically by Sociologist D. Hirsh, by Robert Fine and Philip Spencer, David Schraub but also Sutcliff for balance. Would like a second opinion before asking for admin action, but I don't think warnings and discussion have been effective here. M kuhner (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. On Usyk17 Promotions, I appear to have confused the date of the event with a later media/source page about the event. The sources I can verify support Ultimate Boxing Night being held at the WePlay Esports Arena Kyiv on 10 April 2021, not in August 2021. There's a second event in August 2020 "Big Boxing Night" but the media coverage comes in 2021 , the media coverage/source trail appears to have contributed to my confusion. Apologies for the confusion on that point.

On the content itself, Usyk's source says: "these fighters will be young promising boxers from Ukraine and we'll help these guys reach their goals. Everything that depends on us, we'll do for the growth of new champions in our country. (...) The promotion will initially focus on the development of Ukrainian fighters, aiming to prepare them to carry forward Usyk's legacy and emerge as the next Ukrainian stars of world boxing." - Usyk17's one supports the cited event : "On April 10, Kyiv hosted the Ultimate Boxing Night, organized by Oleksandr Usyk promotion company USYK-17 PROMOTIONS and the WePlay Esports eSports".

- Regarding the pace of editing, I think @M kuhner's characterization of “rapid-fire edits” is misleading. As i said previously, my usual process is to spend time gathering sources and preparing material (from various sources) before editing, especially where the subject overlaps with research I am already doing outside Wikipedia. Some edits are quicker because they are copyedits or cleanup of awkward phrasing that I notice while working.

For instance, the edit mentioned on “Concern within the political left” was not a rapid or casual edit. It was researched and written with several academic sources, including Hirsh, Fine and Spencer, Schraub, and Sutcliffe, and it was intended to present the discussion in a balanced and sourced way within the context of the article. On the "concerning" edit summaries, my intention was to describe the sources and the subject matter of the additions, not to use Wikipedia to advance a position. I thought, after our previous discussions, that the more detailed the summaries, the best they would support the claim, especially for these kind of subjects. I understand the concern and will keep future summaries shorter and more strictly descriptive. And again, on the "rapid-fire edits", the timestamps also do not support the idea that this was part of a careless rapid sequence: the previous edit was made the day before, and the next edit I made was more than an hour later.

I have tried to take previous warnings and comments very seriously and to improve my editing accordingly. If there are specific sentences, sources, or article sections that remain problematic, they can be dealt with through ordinary editing: copyediting, correction, tagging, or removal if the material is not properly supported or written.

As you can see through our conversations, I am not trying to avoid scrutiny, but I do not understand what "admin action" would be appropriate here, or what conduct issue would justify a sanction; @M kuhner says "I don't think warnings and discussion have been effective here" I don't think this is true, it actually had an effect on my editing. I do not think assumptions about my intentions are a fair or useful basis for assessing these edits. Kaspar-trout (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, the Usyk17 Promotions' edits are dated May 20. Kaspar-trout (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

For more clarity, I also tend to divide edits into smaller chunks so that separate sections or interventions can be reviewed, corrected, reverted, or discussed more easily. When an edit is one larger section or an independent claim, I usually keep it whole so that it can be reviewed separately from other edits I might make on the same page. That may be a wrong assumption on my part, but I had the impression that publishing distinct changes separately was preferable. I try to be consistent with it as much as possible, though of course I can make mistakes. Kaspar-trout (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Kaspar-trout has been warned not to use LLMs and I believe has continued to do so, both in writing and editing articles and in responding to this thread (see two messages immediately above). I request a block to prevent further damage and to enable cleanup to begin. M kuhner (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner I understand that I was warned about this, and I have taken that seriously. I do not think the pace of my editing, by itself, proves anything about a supposed use of LLMs. Editors organize their work in different ways, and I do not draw conclusions about other editors’ methods from pace or from a few mistakes. I would ask that the same standard be applied to my edits.

I am not trying to use Wikipedia to publish unreviewed generated text or unsupported material. I am responsible for my edits, and when a sourcing problem is identified, I correct it and apologize for it.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I do not think the two messages above are evidence of further damage requiring a block. I really don't see how these messages constitute a problem. They respond to the specific issues raised by @M kuhner. When they say “I believe has continued to do so,” that is their personal interpretation, not evidence. I have tried to answer the concerns raised here in detail, apologized for the mistakes I made, and clarified my edits and editing activity. I do not understand why a block would be necessary when the concrete issue identified so far has been acknowledged and corrected. My edits are as neutral and balanced as I can, I do not think they cause damage, and they've been made in good faith. Thanks for reviewing. Kaspar-trout (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't repeat the at-AINB code. It is meant to get an admin's attention and additional ones are not helpful. Other than that, we'll see what the responding admin says. M kuhner (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Have a good day Kaspar-trout (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

user is continuing to add LLM-generated text ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what more I can add at this point. I slowed down my pace, and I have been working mainly on subjects I know well because they overlap with my work outside Wikipedia. I am not generating text and posting it. Even my last edit on New Journalism, I just rewrote over the existing text because I found the paragraph too dense for a lead. The edit was essentially a copyedit and reorganization of information already present on the page. As I mentioned before, I prepare my edits on a word doc and copy them in WP before publishing. Sometimes I correct them directly after if I spot a typo or another kind of problem. At this stage I do not know how to respond anymore. Kaspar-trout (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Kaspar-trout, is there any chance that tools built into Word are modifying your text? I know that recent generations of many tools incorporate LLM and users do not always know this. If you ask for grammar suggestions, reformatting, or rephrasing, you may be getting more than you intended. M kuhner (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @M kuhner. Yes, I do have Grammarly installed in Word and in my browser, and I also use Google Docs to collect sources, quotations, notes and bits of text until they become something I can work with. I had honestly thought of Grammarly as just spelling, grammar, and style check, but now I realize that some of its rephrasing suggestions may go further than that. The same may be true of some suggestions in Google Docs. I will go through the settings, disable anything that rephrases text, and see if I can keep only the basic spelling and grammar checks (or not). Thank you for asking this, it gives me something concrete to look at. Kaspar-trout (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

noting that trout was told that grammarly could cause that (they probably forgot about it, which is fine, i mean, this is a big thread) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have raised a case at ANI: WP:ANI § Kaspar-trout continued LLM use. I suggest further comments be made there. M kuhner (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Rizalninoynapoleon

 Rizalninoynapoleon (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (22 May 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. Use of AI/LLM seems to be ongoing.

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-06-05 Rizalninoynapoleon, 114 pages need review.

• Draft:Philippine House Quad Committee hearings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rizalninoynapoleon (talk · contribs)

Found this page in article space, where it had been created with 6x OAICITEs: Diff/1355552206. I've draftified the article for now. Decided against tagging it for G15 deletion because the user who created it has the WP:AUTOPATROLLED user right, and I think that a closer look on their recent articles is warranted. By my count they have created 15 articles since November 2023, which should probably all be looked at. --gurkubondinn 17:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that for example this edit was generated: Diff/1353594715. An experienced user like this would know to not use markdown syntax for |url= values in citation templates, but existing references were edited in this bizarre manner. --gurkubondinn 17:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

Please note that the article remains a work in progress and is not yet ready for publication. Significant revisions, source verification, and cleanup are still required.

No AI tools were used in the drafting of the article. Its publication and subsequent editing occurred without my authorisation through actions taken by a former assistant who had access to the account. The individual is no longer employed and is no longer involved with the project. I apologise for any confusion or inconvenience that this may have caused. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rizalninoynapoleon, articles that are not yet ready for publication should not be created in mainspace. I will be removing your autopatrolled flag for now. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, @Asilvering

My apologies for the inconvenience caused. The article in question was an unfinished draft and should not have been created in mainspace in its present state. I understand the concern regarding the publication of material that had not yet undergone the necessary cleanup and review.

I have since reviewed and updated access to my Wikipedia account and implemented additional safeguards to ensure that only authorised edits are made going forward. I am also reviewing my draft workflow to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.

I appreciate your action and understanding, and I accept the temporary removal of the autopatrolled flag. Thank you for your continued work in maintaining editorial standards across the project. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The edit Diff/1357524000 added a new reference to an article, but it returned 404 not found and has been reverted. The user has also responded to a PROD notice on their talk page with an AI-generated reply. @Rizalninoynapoleon, could you please stop using AI here on English Wikipedia? --gurkubondinn 09:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they seem to have continued using AI, both for articles and communication:

• Special Assistant to the President for Investment and Economic Affairs: created with trailing markdown-style code block syntax (triple backticks, ```) in December 2023, so AI-use has most likely been going on for a while.
  • Too old for draftification, has been tagged for PROD in revision 1357424489. Has also been tagged as AI-generated.
• Draft:Philippine House Quad Committee hearings: created with 6x OAICITES, in article space. Blamed on a former assistant who had access to the account above.
  • Draftified
• Second impeachment of Sara Duterte: the user has made several edits to this article, but I have not combed through all of them. I've tagged the article as AI-generated, and commented in the merge discussion that is currently ongoing at WP:AfD/2026 Philippine Senate walkout.
  • Revision 1353594715: added references with Markdown-formatted links in the url parameters, and also formatted the url parameter in already-present references as Markdown. The edit inserted fictional/hallucinated references; several "soft 404s" that redirect to (or show) the main page (, , , , , , ) and two return 404 not found (], ).
  • Revision 1353586365: added one hallucinated/fictional reference ()
• Flood control projects scandal in the Philippines: Tagged the § Bureau of Immigration section and refs, have not cleaned up yet, still looking through the rest of their edits to this article.
  • Revision 1357346300: added four hallucinated/fabricated references (404 not found: , , ; returns the main page of the site: ).
• Surrender of Jinggoy Estrada (a BLP): User has made other edits to the article this year, that will need to be checked.
  • Revision 1357524000: added an hallucinated/fabricated reference that returned 404 not found ().
    Reverted in revision 1357556626.
• Tony Meloto (a BLP)
  • Revision 1357247860: added two fictional/hallucinated references that have never saved by archive.org. Both are "soft 404s" that show the main page of the site (, ).
    Reverted in revision 1357881427.
• Manuel Bonoan (BLP)
  • Revision 1357241059: reformats url of an already present reference as Markdown
    Reverted in revision 1357892876.
• Marcos Collection: created with fictional or hallucinated references, with eight in the current revision. Requested G15.

Communication:

• User talk:Rizalninoynapoleon § Proposed deletion of Special Assistant to the President for Investment and Economic Affairs: posts an AI-generated objection to a PROD tag, ignores my question and repeats the PROD objection.
  • § May 2026: ignored my questions, but eventually (and to their credit) replied in what is probably their own words. Claims in revision 1357871051 that articles where fixed with spell check, not AI.
• Talk:Special Assistant to the President for Investment and Economic Affairs § Refuting the proposed deletion: same PROD objection.

--gurkubondinn 06:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

AI aside, it seems concerning that this appears to be a WP:Shared account with an internal process for producing authorised edits? CMD (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep.. I'm working on a tracking page...  and it's a lot. --gurkubondinn 08:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Where's the evidence of a shared account? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

... editing occurred without my authorisation through actions taken by a former assistant who had access to the account.
— User:Rizalninoynapoleon in Diff/1356203228

They didn't say that the account was intentionally shared, but that someone else had access to their account. Which isn't the same thing. --gurkubondinn 09:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

They then said they "updated access to my Wikipedia account and implemented additional safeguards to ensure that only authorised edits are made going forward". A personal account doesn't require an authorisation to approve edits, nor safeguards to make sure others with access don't make edits that are not authorised. CMD (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Could also be a WP:BRO variation. --gurkubondinn 10:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Not saying that this is the case btw, but the part about "ensuring that only authorized edits are made" part sounds odd. I've never had to make sure that my account isn't making unauthorized edits. --gurkubondinn 11:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I've definitely heard that phrasing spit out by AI before in regards to "lying about getting hacked and backpedaling" unblock appeals. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Tracking page created:

• Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-06-05 Rizalninoynapoleon

--gurkubondinn 09:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested G15 for Daytoy ni Bannawag because it consisted almost entirely of hallucinated references, only one reference actually works. The current revision had the same set of references as when it was created (no additions or removals). Some of the same references had also been added to Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality, reverted in revision 1358515157. One of the references was just a low-resolution photograph. ‑‑gurkubondinn 04:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I still want to know what this was supposed to be a reference for: newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2017/09/tetch-photo-caloocan-police-kian-delos-santos-killing.jpg. Not a new article using this photograph, the reference was just to the JPG file itself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I am coming to believe the claim that more than one person had access to the account. There are complex recent edits with 100% clean sourcing. There are also gross LLM edits. It's quite frustrating to work on. I am beginning to think that the small edits are generally okay, but the larger ones are suspect: not sure enough yet to stop checking the small ones, but getting close to it. M kuhner (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Sparks19923

LLMPRODs are done

Sparks19923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-06-29 Sparks19923, 375 pages need review.

See ANI thread for details. Possible AI agent. Cleanup needed. Fermiboson (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Even their earliest edits have lots of AI signs. A full cleanup case may be needed. InfernoHues (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Now they finally admit that they are using AI. Though somehow it feels like AI response. - Ivan530 (Talk) 02:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor is now blocked from article space. Created a tracking page, see header of this case. 640 articles, ouch. M kuhner (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

They've created 60 articles, I’ll start PRODing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

PRODs are done, met Gurkubondinn halfway lol Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

More than halfway, I only got through a handful of them before you caught up with me. :) I've gone through and reverted some of their edits to already-existing articles as well, but there's a bit to go. Will be slightly easier once the LLMPRODs are deleted and disappear from the list of contributions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That was fast! How do you guys do it? I look at history to see if there are massive contributions by others, copy pre-prepared LLMPROD onto article page, copy pre-prepared edit summary, mark list. Don't see much room for speedups but there must be some because you're way quicker than me. M kuhner (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I use the xtools list (at the bottom of Special:Contributions/Sparks19923 click "Articles created") and have another tab for User:Kowal2701/LLMPROD. Click an article at xtools -> while it's loading, copy the PROD code -> click View history -> Scan for big edits, click Edit source (from Preferences you can have separate buttons for source code and visual editor) -> paste PROD code -> copy edit summary and paste that -> publish and close tab when loaded -> onto the next one Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but it feels like my brain is about to turn into mush after a dozen or so times of this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Nah I like doing LLMPRODs as a break from content work (though doing like 150 over an hour does have that effect). Don’t like reverting though, takes more cognitive energy and there’s always endless amounts to do Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Working my way through Michelle904 reverts, and yes, it's exhausting. They are old enough that they seldom can be cleanly undone. Who Wrote That? is a godsend though, about doubled my speed. M kuhner (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: mw:Who Wrote That?

Woah, this looks very useful. Thanks for that! ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll get much faster once LLMPRODs get added to Twinkle. InfernoHues (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

In terms of reverts to already-existing articles, I have worked my way down to:

• 2026-05-22T09:18:52, Telecommunications in Belgium (diff)

‑‑gurkubondinn 20:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jinoos Taghizadeh

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Alisyyh (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 June 2026)
Articles moved to draftspace pending review and cleanup. 

I was reviewing a DYK by a new user (they seem so far to be a WP:SPA in the sense this is their only contribiution) and it seems to me it might have been AI generated, I flagged some suspicious sentences. Since it's my first time tagging an article (aside some more obvious stuff) with AI-generated (IIRC), I wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I have two observations (and no solid conclusions). The lead uses rule of three, an LLM tell, four times; I can sure see why you were suspicious. However, I checked the first 17 sources and they all exist and are really about Jinoos. A pure-LLM article usually can't achieve that. The sources are badly used (the grouped-up in-line citations don't make it clear what claim is to what source) and an awful lot of them are to the artist's own materials, but that doesn't necessarily mean AI. If I had to guess I'd say LLM polished or translated, but not LLM written. M kuhner (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner Yes, I concur the content doesn't seem be hallucinated (much), but much of the lead and some sentences in the body that I cite in my review seem like LLM-semi-meaningless speech. As such, I wouldn't recommend deleting/draftifying it, but queuing it up for a copyedit via the template I added on top (I can go and delete the few problematic red-flag sentences, I guess...). Heck, you can get an AI to write a better lead than what's there with the right prompt :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Btw, what is the "rule of three"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:RO3 for details. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the first diff the text looks like it was directly copy and pasted from an LLM. It has no links, just mostly bare URL references. Looking at the references, most of them seem to be duplicates of other ones: ref 1 is a duplicate of ref 9, 22, 24, 37, 38, 39. Ref 2 is a duplicate of ref 8, 12. This and the section titles not actually being formatted right, and just bold text, e.g. Life and career. All of those are signs of AI. After that diff the user began linking text, and fixing the bare URL references. Fortek67 (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems to just be one article, Jinoos Taghizadeh. Per WP:LLMPRV, should the article be nominated for deletion or draftified to give the user the option to fix up the article? Looking for consensus here. Fortek67 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Tough call. I'd lean draftify because it is their first article and maybe a teachable moment. M kuhner (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree mate. Honestly I've seen worse, the article can just be improved and republished. I'll go ahead with draftification. Fortek67 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Article moved to Draft:Jinoos Taghizadeh. Piotrus, consider voiding the DYK nom. Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Jinoos Taghizadeh declined at AfC on June 15, message LLM-generated article - WP:AIN#Template:Did you know nominations/Jinoos Taghizadeh, issue remains unsolved.. Looking at the history of the article confirms it's hardly been changed. M kuhner (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner Yes, since I reported it here the only action the creator @Alisyyh did was to resubmit it for a review without fixing anything. They replied at User_talk:Alisyyh#Jinoos_Taghizadeh_moved_to_draftspace but with no pings, it is possible they never clicked through here and they don't know how to use the notificiton/alert feature. I will ping @UtherSRG who did some c/e earlier - maybe they want to adopt and rescue this to not waste their effort. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope, I do not. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your comment. As I explained to User: Fortek67, there may have been some misunderstanding regarding this page. It is not AI-generated. I created this article as part of the Rungh Wikipedia Scholarship project. I resubmitted the draft because, during the process of developing the article, I had several discussions with User: SomeoneDreaming regarding the sources and content, and the draft was subsequently accepted. Here is the link to our discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Jinoos_Taghizadeh

I would be very grateful if you could help me understand and resolve the issues you identified. I spent approximately three months researching and creating this article, and I am committed to improving it in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for your understanding and assistance. Alisyyh (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The current rule on Wikipedia is that LLMs must not be used in writing articles except for very basic spellcheck and formatting, and we advise editors not to use them at all. It's clear from the initial draft of this article that it was LLM text at that point (see reasoning above). You've done a lot to improve it, but in the future please use your own words from the start.

Four things I would look at:

(1) Every reference must be checked by hand. You are looking for four things: does the source actually support the claims? Is it repeated too exactly in the article? Is the source actually suitable for the kind of claim being made? Are all elements of the citation correct? Remember that only uncontroversial facts can be sourced to material written by the article subject or sources under her control. Opinions, judgments, etc. must be sourced to people independent of the subject. (If this seems like a lot of work, it is! That's one reason not to use LLM. It is actually more work to fix LLM output than to write your own.)

(2) References are bunched up at the ends of blocks of text: it's not clear what reference belongs to what claims. Please make sure each claim is clearly associated with its source.

(3) On the Talk page of the article you're being asked questions about notability. Please respond to those. You'll want to point out the three best independent, reliable, substantial sources about Jinoos.

(4) There is some pompous and overblown writing in the article that reviewers did not like. As a single example, Several of Taghizadeh's works reinterpret official historical narratives through archival material and symbolic intervention. This does not sound like you wrote it in your own words. "Symbolic intervention," really? If this is you, I recommend trying to tone down the litcrit jargon a lot.

The reason we draftified this article rather than deleting it is that we could see work had been put into it, and hoped it could be improved further. But resubmitting without changing it will not help. Thank you for working with us on this! M kuhner (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. In creating the article, I did my best to meet requirements you mentioned about claims and sourcing. I was very careful to support statements with reliable citations. In fact, the first version of the article contained more than 70 citations, and I was later asked to reduce them so that there would not be too many references attached to a single sentence. I also cited two books with specific page numbers, which you can find in the article.

Regarding the sentence you mentioned, the previous paragraph says: "Through metaphor, irony, and symbolic gestures, she addresses issues such as censorship..."

My understanding is that the use of symbolism in art, particularly in politically closed contexts, like Iran, is a well-established topic in art criticism. However, if that sentence is considered problematic or insufficiently supported by the sources, I am happy to remove or revise it.

I am willing to make any necessary changes to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's standards and resubmit it for review. Thank you again for your time and guidance. Alisyyh (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the long message. In your response to User: Piotrus, you mentioned that "I checked the first 17 sources and they all exist and are really about Jinoos. A pure-LLM article usually can't achieve that."

After reviewing your both comments again, I think one possible issue is that I grouped many references at the ends of paragraphs rather than placing them directly after the specific statements they support. This may have created some confusion about which sources verify which claims. If that is part of the problem, I can reorganize the citations accordingly.

I wrote the article myself. To create it, I used a variety of sources, including books, exhibition reports, interviews, articles about the artist, and sources discussing the social and cultural context in which Jinoos Taghizadeh works. My goal was to create a reliable and well-sourced Wikipedia article.

If I have used or cited any sources improperly, I am more than willing to correct those issues. I would appreciate any guidance on what specifically needs to be improved so that the article can meet Wikipedia's standards. Alisyyh (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I just gave you specific advice. I don't feel like you're really responding to it. If you are asking LLM to summarize my advice and/or respond to it, STOP. This will do you nothing but harm.

One more try.

Have you checked each reference to make sure it supports the claims in the article? I will point out one example: A decade later, Taghizadeh expanded these themes in the scent installation The Smell of Lily and Jasmine, developed for the 40th anniversary of the 1979 Revolution. This is given two citations. The first one does not mention "Lily" anywhere and presumably is for other statements in the paragraph. The second is this: . Can you show me where, specifically, that source talks about how she "expanded these themes"? Can you show me where, specifically, that source mentions that it is a scent installation?

This is not the only example and there is no shortcut, you are going to have to check every single source.

Have you picked out the three sources you believe are most suitable to establish Jinoos' notability, and put them on the Talk page of the draft article? (Hint: no you have not.) M kuhner (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For the last point, I was the person who asked about that and we did have that conversation at User talk:Alisyyh#AfC notification: Draft:Jinoos Taghizadeh has a new comment. I do think that the article meets notability. I am not as familiar with the AI language signs like rule of three (something I now realize need to work on), so I'm glad that Piotr was able to identify that and kick it back to draft. But just wanted to clarify that the editor did respond to my comments, they just responded on their talk page rather than the article talk page (because the comments were initially on the article, before it was first moved to mainspace). SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. User:Alisyyh, I'm sorry, and I withdraw that part of my request. Please do look at the sourcing though.

Personally my biggest concern is that the article may misrepresent its sources. This is, to my mind, the biggest evil of LLM use, and extremely time-consuming to detect. I give an example above: the article exists, it's about Jinoos, but it just doesn't say what it's cited as saying. M kuhner (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @SomeoneDreaming, I clearly missed that fact when I told @Alisyyh they haven't engaged in conversation - sorry about that. I hope Alisyyh can copyedit the article soon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner@Piotrus@Khagendrawiki

Hi all. I have resubmitted the page for your review after making the changes you requested. In this version, I edited some problematic or unclear sentences and removed a few that seemed unnecessary, using your comments as a guide when rewriting parts of the article. I also tried to make the connections between sentences and references clearer, and I reduced cases where more than two references are grouped together at the end of sentences/paragraphs. I hope this version is better and can be accepted for publication. Alisyyh (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Sporwiki

 Sporwiki (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 June 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. (socketpuppet block)

This editor added large amounts of content to existing articles on their first and second editing days (account created June 2, 2026).

Today, they created a massive number of new articles within minutes of each other. I suspect ai-generated content. Start of list: -- Rosiestep (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2026 European Archery Championships – Mixed team recurve
• 2026 European Archery Championships – Women's team recurve
• 2026 European Archery Championships – Men's team compound
• 2026 European Archery Championships – Mixed team compound
• 2026 European Archery Championships – Women's team compound
• 2024 European Archery Championships – Men's individual compound
• Ömer Faruk Yürür
• Hasan Arslan
• Zümra Rezzan İm
• Berkay Uslu
• Nesrin Cavadzade (karateka)
• Ali Tcokaev
• Magdalena Głodek
• Akhmed Magamaev
• Mariia Yefremova
• Nadiia Sokolovska
• Liliia Malanchuk
• Kristina Bratchikova
• Naemi Leistner
• Diego Chkhikvadze
• Stefan Grigorov
• Suren Aghajanyan
• Corneliu Rusu (wrestler)
• Hugo Baff
• Mohsen Siyar
• Farhad Nouri
• Alexandr Gaidarli
• Musa Mekhtikhanov
• Islam Guseinov
• Simone Piroddu
• Eugeniu Mihalcean
• Yusuf Yünaçtı
• Iván García (taekwondo)
• Sergio Amoedo
• Andrea Bokan
• Erika Karabeleva
• Raman Turavinau
• Jairo Agenjo Trigos
• Kristian Storsul Borgen
• Luca Patakfalvy
• Andrea Berišaj
• Fatma Nur Yoldaş
• Patrycja Zewar
• Zehra Orhan
• Adnan Milad
• Hamza Tarhan
• Emre Bulgur
• Adem Arda Özkul
• Osman Ertürk
• Dagmara Haremza
• Magdalini Klakala
• Julia Szpak
• Mah Teninba Fofana
• Liliana Balla
• Artsiom Plonis
• (this is an incomplete list)

Added more to the above list of articles created today. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Added more to the above list of articles created today. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep, thanks for the report, and providing a list. It's very obvious the articles are LLM-generated, 71 were created in one day between 06:55 and 13:06 (UTC). I actually remember seeing Draft:Magdalena Głodek yesterday but not reviewing it. Looks like the user self-published that very AfC submission, Magdalena Głodek by ~2026-32339-81. Fortek67 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Turns up I replied so quickly to your report, that you accidently deleted my comment haha

In that very article ref 5 leads to a 404 page. I'll go ahead with tagging all articles with the AI notice. Fortek67 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Fortek67. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I notified the editor about the use of ai-generated content here and the AI-noticeboard notification here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the articles had already been written. I published them. Some of them are translations from the Turkish Wikipedia, not from Al.They were edited to conform to the English Wikipedia’s standards and then published. Not everything that breathes is ai-generated )) Sporwiki (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting my edits before discussing. You are allowed to translate articles onto the English Wikipedia, but under review. Your articles clearly aren't reviewed, such as Magdalena Głodek, in which ref 5 leads to a 404 page. Fortek67 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Sporwiki, I came across your edits during New Page Patrol of this article: Nikola Spajić. If it is a translation from Turkish Wikipedia, the required Edit Summary attribution is missing; see Wikipedia:Translation#Translation from another language to English, specifically Wikipedia:Translation#Attribution requirements. If you didn't know this (apparently you didn't), don't worry, you can fix the attribution issue by following these instructions. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Full list of articles created by Sporwiki Fortek67 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sporwiki, your edits on this talkpage are coming across like an EDIT WAR. You must stop doing that, including stop deleting what others have written. What is supposed to happen here is a courteous discussion. P.S. If it isn't clear, the articles you created aren't being deleted. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

For information: as far as I can tell, all of these drafts are in AFC by "another editor", or rather two of them. I was doing the review of Draft:Naemi Leistner, had spent some time checking the details, did due diligence on translations and hey presto, I ended up on this noticeboard. In my view this is an abuse of process. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but another one? So two temporary accounts. Fortek67 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Well not exactly: there is an overlap with Pehlivanmeydani, the archery ones are not in that TA's name. Obviously this is a totally different editor since they are banned from article space, and are required to create articles via AFC, and I am plodding through them at a rate of one per day. Is this a coincidence? ChrysGalley (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Well looks like the user has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Was going to go ahead with draftification, but mass deletion may be better now? Looking for consensus here. Fortek67 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

They can't really be draftified given that most/all of them have a draft already. I have raised a query about this on the AFC Talk page:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Mass draft creation, in terms of what to do about all the drafts sitting in the AFC queue, so that may inform what happens here. ChrysGalley (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fortek67 and @Rosiestep and anyone else - there doesn't seem to be much traction about this issue at AFC Talk, so it may be up to this area to reach consensus. My suggestion is that the mainspace items get deleted as LLM and block evasion/violation of sanction. Some already are. And I decline all the draft versions as AI on a consensus basis. This leaves the drafts open to a truly independent editor to repair the damage and resubmit. The other option, which seems beyond policy, is for me to reject, rather than decline, these drafts, but that doesn't change the potential for that independent editor to work, it's more performative. Any views or better ideas? ChrysGalley (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

My original idea was the mass deletion of the main space articles, so we'll go with that. Whilst for the AfC submissions, they should all be declined (instead of rejecting) to give the chance for other editors to improve the articles. Though I wouldn't just decline all AfC's for AI, and check for any other problems such as notability.

I'll go ahead with WP:LLMPROD of all main space articles. Fortek67 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Now just the AfCs. Fortek67 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start on the AFC, it's a one by one task. Notability won't be clear cut here: these drafts were originally declined for lacking secondary sources. But then they were all updated with secondary sources, at an update rate of 90 seconds per draft.... ChrysGalley (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll help you out with declining some drafts too. Fortek67 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm rollbacking many of their mass content additions per LLMPRV. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 16:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done for AFC submissions from Pehlivanmeydani ChrysGalley (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done for AFC submissions from ~2026-32604-71 ChrysGalley (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done for AFC submissions from ~2026-32339-81 - and that's the last group as far as I know, but do let me know if there is another TA found ChrysGalley (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sporwiki started another discussion on their page. They tried to ping a lot of you, but I don't think it was received as I didn't receive it. If any of you are interested in the discussion, you may find it here. Fortek67 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sporwiki was apparently blocked as a sock of a user that had been on AINB before: Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#User:Pehlivanmeydani. I've been going through their edits for LLMPROD this morning when I figured that out. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Duh, that's already mentioned here. Nevermind me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Think I've barely made a dent: User:Gurkubondinn/Logs/LLMPROD log § User:Pehlivanmeydani. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Tracking at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Pehlivanmeydani, 1626 article creations (1007 since Nov 2022), any help would be greatly appreciated (if helping, please put a bullet point saying you're ongoing). Can anyone work out at what point they started using AI? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Gosh this is terrible. If I had to guess as to when AI started, I would suggest July 2025. As a general rule multiple submissions within 10-15 minutes of the previous started to ramp up around that point. I've put a theory as to what they are doing on User talk:Sporwiki, which is just a guess. But if something like that was used then it would allow rapid draft collection and rapid submission. I guess the evidential test on this is fairly weak. Still it gets the problem down to 600 or so submissions. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Thinking about this for slightly longer - the original poster was deemed to be using AI in April this year (and forced to use AFC), so we can assume that the evidential test was met at that point, or perhaps a few weeks before. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• I'm going to ping @PhilKnight as they where the one who previously posted a comment on Sporwiki's talk page announcing their block and I also can't find the original SPI.Fortek67 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  An SPI is not always created. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: apologies for my disorganized approach to this. I didn't expect there to be ~1000 articles when I got started (and I also did not check), and I just looked at their contributions page and clicked my way from there (at one point I was filtering for edits that were article creations, from 2023 and sorted by oldest). ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

user:~2026-31853-02 looks like a WP:LOUT sock, only having edited their creations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I have run into a number of possible loutsocks in the page histories; for example ~2026-29569-45 (talk · contribs) geolocates to the same general area, and has only edited articles that Pehlivanmeydani has either edited or created.

You should request WP:TAIV btw, makes this a bit easier. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I have run into User:Bambai several times while tackling these. They have been active since 2017 so they don't seem much like a sock: but their Talk page is littered with complaints about tiny unsourced sports articles, and the pattern looks somewhat familiar. They added a lot of material to Pehlivanmeydani's 2024 Grand Prix of Spain and 2025 Grand Prix of Spain. M kuhner (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a new TA that has shown up and is removing the LLMPROD tags: ~2026-34594-11 (talk · contribs). ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Same as the below report, worth opening an SPI (though idk if making such a block counts as linking to an account?) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

See § Temp account recent edits to Islamic Solidarity Games on my talk page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe some admin should just nuke every article created after 30 Nov 2022? sapphaline (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Or July 2025. sapphaline (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Arguably the 2022 date. This user has done nothing by lie to us and use sockpuppets to try to restore their slop. There's no reason to extend any benefit of the doubt here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Totally agree Fortek67 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for advice: There are several in the massive batch of Pehlivanmeydani articles which were created as empty shells for a future set of events. Some remained empty (I'm PRODing these), but some were subsequently filled in by others. A couple examples are Basketball at the 2025 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival, Swimming at the 2025 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival. I am not sure what to do with these. The LLM content would basically be all shell (making the tables and whatnot) as the articles had no real content until after the events occurred. There is also one article, Cihat Kutluca, which previously survived an AfD. I'm not comfortable PRODing it given that. M kuhner (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m just tagging unprodable ones w {{AI-generated}}, idk what the best way to clean them up is Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

My perception of this (based on my possibly incorrect perception of what is going on here) is that while LLM was used in a way that is well out of step with Policies and Guidelines, the content isn't actually LLM. Data is being sourced out of databases that are inherently accurate, and assembled into these articles. These article have typically only 200 to 400 prose words, the rest is listing. The prose words may say "Rudolf Reindeer won silver at the Lapland Taekwondo championship in 1978" - yes LLM assembled those words from a logical processing of the database, but there isn't another way of putting it manually. So if this unvalidated theory is correct, then there is no obvious repair job that can be done here, apart perhaps from deletion to show we mean business on LLM (and that is outwith P&G).

Tagging AI-generated has a value, since a human can go and check the database to ensure Mr. Reindeer's credentials, but if that's correct then that to my mind is the end of the road. The bigger problem, perhaps, is that where secondary sources are added in, then whatever the Lapland Bugle says of the competition is not going to be summarised, in line with P&G. So the Bugle may have reported a huge drugs bust on the elves' team, but the LLM tool is just going ignore that.

It is probably best, generally speaking, to find a way of extracting from the editor exactly what they did as part of stick/carrot approach to resolving these cases, (a) because it gets them back on the road to being the sort of editor that we all want and (b) it makes clean up much easier, they may actually do it for us. In this case the key editor wasn't in the mood for that sort of discussion. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

We've now gone back to 19 July, idk if anyone can ascertain whether we ought to continue? I agree asking the editor once the block expires would be worth trying Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

When I do these I check "history" each time. I occasionally see pages where the same editor went back and added more sources, probably as a response to criticism as described above. I haven't stopped seeing those, I don't think, as of 19 July 2025 articles. Those are the worst ones as the secondary sourcing really will be LLM slop. This evening (around 10 hours from now) I will try spot-checking to try to find when this started. M kuhner (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There were a lot of pages created on July 2, 2025, but at decent intervals--around half an hour. On July 3, 2025, it suddenly changes to 3-8 minutes per article. I suggest we delete through July 3 and then re-evaluate. The bad news is that that's to #512, we are now at #360....

I found some second edits to the same article by Pehl, but they don't introduce sources: they tend to fill in scores or add tags. That's not really helping me understand what happened. M kuhner (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've done up to #522, after that the biographies appear to get more spaced out (tournament articles are easy to manually copy a template and do quickly) but I'm unsure whether that's the end Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm highly doubtful that the secondary SIGCOV sourcing will ever exist for these individual European Youth Olympic events, let alone before they even happen. The lists of these non-notable children probably violate BLPNAME on their own. They should just be nuked. JoelleJay (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not very familiar with AI cleanup protocol, but would it be acceptable for me to move certain ones to draftspace so I can cleanup some of them myself later without them getting deleted in three days? It would be a shame to lose articles on all of these subjects. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  My reading of policy is that you can, as long as you accept full responsibility for the content before it gets back into mainspace. The guideline at WP:LLMPRVOBJ doesn't address draftification, but if it's acceptable to retain the article in mainspace, it is surely acceptable to draftify. You'll want to be very careful about sourcing, especially if you pick up some of the articles where secondary sources were crammed in recently. But our impression seems to be that these are mainly database dumps and the database material is probably accurate. It sure would be nice to have articles on less-represented sports. M kuhner (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just to add: I am face-blind so I'm not the one to judge this, but I kind of wonder about the provenance of the images on these articles. Some of them look...odd. You may want to do some checking before republishing those. M kuhner (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  They're database dumps that are unlikely to actually have sufficient secondary SIGCOV anywhere (especially the ones for future events!). The majority should just be deleted outright. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  articles going back to July 2025 have been PRODed, see Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Pehlivanmeydani Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't disagree--we have PRODed over 600 articles at this point--but if an editor in good standing wants to try to salvage a few, they are welcome to try. M kuhner (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi everyone. Sorry for not being involved in the discussion in the last few days, thank you so much to everyone who has been helping out with this case. I just came to say that ~2026-34633-60 has been quietly removing the LLM PROD. Although they do seem to be adding references and somewhat improving the article, extra eyes might be needed knowing Sporwiki. Now I ain't tryna make any accusations here, this user is probably just improving the LLM articles. Still might be worth checking though. Fortek67 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think we need a checkuser, looks similar to ~2026-34594-11 (talk · contribs) that was blocked yesterday as a loutsock (see my talk). ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is starting to get more jarring than it already is... can the person behind all of this just stop already? I've lost count of how many different accounts and IPs have been used Fortek67 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Blocked now, and I think everything has been reverted. Thanks to @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four for taking care of the reverting. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  The TA ~2026-36200-82 (talk · contribs) is making claims about the Johanna Lindborg article that only Pehlivanmeydani/Sporwiki could know (Translated from the Swedish Wikipedia): Diff/1360483521. It's either assumptions stated as fact or more loutsocking. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  And were is this going now? Aren't there still hundreds of these articles? Fortek67 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd feel more comfortable doing more of them if we verified that there are similar issues with articles from late 2022 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Which takes a whole lot of effort to figure out. Personally I think it's just best to get rid of the lot if we can, asymmetric workload and all that. If readers are being deprived of reading any genuine articles then the blame for that falls squarely on the user that used LLMs, lied about it, and refused to tell us which articles were or were not generated.

  As for that TA, I'm leaning more towards assumptions stated as fact. The tags don't seem to have been removed from any other articles waiting for the LMLPRV timer to run out. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Surely we just need to look at some articles created c. late 2022? Also I think it might be best practice to notify relevant wikiprojects like WP:WRESTLING if anyone fancies stubifying and saving any of them, from looking at xtools some people have already been doing that Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes @BeanieFan11, that’d be ideal, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: We are attempting to LLMPROD a set of 600+ article by this editor (under multiple accounts) but new TAs are constantly removing the PRODs. I believe I have consensus to make two requests: (1) Can existing PRODs be implemented immediately? (2) Can we develop a list of improperly DEPRODDed articles and request immediate deletion of those? We are not PRODDing 100% of their articles as a few have been claimed for cleanup by other editors. M kuhner (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Well said, and I totally support the full cleanup. Fortek67 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-33518-93

Disruptively removing LLMPROD tags at a rate which is far too fast for them to have done the required verification. They're insisting they have done so at User talk:~2026-33518-93#Mass LLM deprods but I don't believe them. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pppery, thank you for noticing and reverting the prods. I was actually the one who nominated the deletion, please read WP:AIN#User:Iryna Odessa UA. This user was confirmed to operate under multiple accounts, it now seems that they are doing the same under a temporary account.

Could we enforce a block on this user? Fortek67 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not the sort of block I'm comfortable doing myself - I can't personally rule out that they're some sort of radical inclusionist rather than a sock of Iryna Odessa UA specifically. Maybe another AINB or SPI admin would be willing to do so. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not exactly familiar with reporting accounts that should be blocked? Fortek67 (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

2026 World Taekwondo Grand Prix how can i use ai??? or other tourmanents pages? Sporwiki (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure you're on the right page?@Sporwiki ~2026-33518-93 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not that user. PRODding pages about books with reviews in the NYT, WP, WSJ, Guardian, Kirkus and so on is not constructive. I checked the books. All the ones I DEPRODed are notable. And the sources legit. That's all. You want them deleted because they may have been written by someone who may have used AI? Sure, I don't know. But I did check the way the tag invites users to do so :"To object to proposed deletion, an editor may take responsibility for the content and assume the onus to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Assuming responsibility requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed, and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with polices and guidelines. " Again, see my TP and history of the pages: no major rework was needed in terms of sources and notability or even style. You still disagree, apparently and consider reviews in major English-language media outlets are not enough anymore for Wikipedia:Notability (books). So be it. ~2026-33518-93 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

may take responsibility for the content I take it that you have taken responsibility for the content. So let's see what you, by proxy, have been adding into articlespace.

• Can you tell me where in is PEN America listed Lost in Living among the finalists for the 2025 PEN Award for Poetry in Translation}? (Lost in Living)
• Where does mention "everyday life" (in fact it seems to be about the exact opposite)? (A Crash Course in Molotov Cocktails)
• Where in does it mention that the Krakoan era immediately precedes the time period the comic is set in? (Psylocke (2024 comic book))
• Where does praise anyone's humour, let alone black humour? (The Silver Bone)
• Where mentions Jews even once? (Amadoka)

Since you have been adding so much content that failed verification in mainspace, shall we proceed to ANI for disruptive editing, or will you save us the trouble and self-revert? Fermiboson (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Self-revert what? I didn't ADD any content that failed verification in Main Space....I am not the page creator. My DEPRODINGs were reverted. So what do you want me to self-revert exactly? Amadoka and Lost and Living's DEPRODs? Will do it if you REALLY consider it's necessary. In the meantime, replying to your 5 very detailed (one could even say pointy, bordering cherry-picking) questions:

-Q1=Can you tell me where in [105] is PEN America listed Lost in Living among the finalists for the 2025 PEN Award for Poetry in Translation}? A1-Source 105 does indeed not verify the PEN America listing but only the name translator; and I had verified the shortlisting through : https://pen.org/announcing-the-2025-pen-america-literary-awards-finalists/ I've only just added it to the page and this seems like your only totally fair concern (although not very hard to address in good faith by absolutely anyone, but sure, onus was on me).

Q2-Where does [106] mention "everyday life" (in fact it seems to be about the exact opposite)? (A Crash Course in Molotov Cocktails)....A2. That's a very dubious interpretation of what the article says. "Halyna Kruk writes as she struggles to come to terms with the horror unfolding around her" "a guidebook to the emotional combat in Ukraine" are two sentences that do obviously refer to everyday life in Ukraine in a time of war. Want to change the wording? Go ahead.

Q3 Where in [107] does it mention that the Krakoan era immediately precedes the time period the comic is set in? A3: "X-Fan Cyke7 loved your Doctor Aphra work and was curious to learn if there are previous Kwannon storylines your Psylocke series will draw from. Perhaps the Krakoan era or even earlier?"" What I can tell you is that I’ve been thinking a lot about Kwannon’s past."

Q4Where does [108] praise anyone's humour, let alone black humour? (The Silver Bone)..... A4 Where could that have been hidden? Oh.....I don't know maybe when the journalist calls it a "torrent of enjoyable absurdities"; or when he writes "It was a period of great turmoil, when governments came and went as rapidly “as the English weather”, as one character puts it. " Or when the same review goes: "The tone is consistently droll. Samson, an atheist, finds himself working at a communist police station after telling its sleep-deprived commissar: “I sympathise with you.” This is wrongly understood to mean he supports the new workers’ state as it wrestles with disorder. Samson begins by investigating the stolen goods dumped by the two soldiers in his hallway. Among them are patterns for a striped brown and black suit." Or again when the author indicates: "The novel may be playful...." But maybe YOU haven't read the Guardian article. In which case, I apologise to myself for wasting my own time.

Q5Where [109] mentions Jews even once? A5 Why should it mention "Jews"? if you are looking for the source about the Jewish-Ukrainian prize, it's in source 4. (https://www.hayfestival.com/p-20786-ukrainian-jewish-encounter-prize-ceremony.aspx). If you want (me) to add the note again there, feel free (to ask).

Were these points REALLY an issue ANYWAY? Honestly. That deserves all this? REALLY? I don't think so.

Again, NONE of these pages needed MAJOR rework nor had real sourcing problems.

But maybe you are planning to take the article to GA? FA? with those super-detailed wording questions and referencing improvements wished, it certainly looks like you are .... Good luck. Don't count on me, though, given the threatening tone used here by you and others. Not my cup of tea, to be honest. My apologies but if you want to delete these sourced pages about notable books reviewed in major American and British media and that received notable awards, sure, go ahead. As for the reader, they will be better served, maybe, if they go somewhere else. As will I. Goodbye, ~2026-33518-93 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

..., and and [sic] you clearly have no idea of the time I spent on these pages.[emphasis added]
— User:~2026-33518-93 in User talk:~2026-33518-93 § Mass LLM deprods

Am I reading this wrong, or are they not implying that they already spent time on these articles by creating them? I suppose it can also be understood as them saying they spent time on determining that the articles were not AI-generated, but that wasn't how I understood it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there any deprods which haven't been reverted yet? Fermiboson (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There was one. I just reverted it. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 23:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

No edits since June 7. Do we think we're done here? M kuhner (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope, they've made another obviously improper deprod at Ek Tha Gaon ( and are hallucinated) and 25th IIFA Awards as @~2026-35976-24. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I've restored two more LLMPROD tags they removed so far. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

While I think BLAR can be an acceptable response to an LLMPROD, the target they chose at IIFA Digital Awards really was irrelevant. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

And their other removals of LLMPROD tags has been disruptive, so they are in effect disrupting the cleanup. Besides it's always possible to create the redirect after the pages have been LLMPROD deleted, that way there are no concerns about the LLM junk being restored at a later time.

Thy also copypasted moved Draft:Scam 1770Draft:Scam 1770 back to Scam 1770, not sure what to do about that one. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The original author of Scam 1770 was blocked as a sock of Alakmarsaify. Hm. M kuhner (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User:OathOn

LLMPRODs are done

 OathOn (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (9 June 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-04 OathOn, 377 pages need review.

• OathOn (talk · contribs)

Quite prolific. Looks like AI and the text I sampled came up 100%. Starts articles in a very large single edit. MRSC (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC) They mark almost every edit as minor, even huge additions. They do not seem to respond to talk page messages.

Where exactly do you notice signs of AI? We can't accuse users of using AI just by solely using AI detectors. Starts articles in a very large single edit. – if you're talking about creating articles in single, large edits, I often do that myself, and I don't use AI. Fortek67 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked at their most recent edit, Dartford War Memorial in the user's sandbox. The description of the inscriptions on the base of the memorial--a whole section--is a too-close paraphrase of source 1, with no citation. It has typical LLM overuse of boldface. It seems to hallucinate information about the compass directions of the plaques which is not in source 1 (though it might be somewhere else--this section is not credited to any source so it's hard to know where to look).

There is a putative direct quote from Historic England in the last para, without citation.

Part of "Unveiling" is sourced to 4, which is identical to 1. It is pure hallucination--none of this is in the source. I think this one is conclusive.

I concur with MRSC: this article, at least, is LLM. M kuhner (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I can see it now. We'll wait some time for a response from OathOn, as I've sent a message on their talk page linking this discussion. Fortek67 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I spot-checked a couple recent articles and agree that they are LLM. A consistent tell is that there is an in-line citation mid-paragraph but the text continues, unsourced, after that: I saw that in every article I checked. Also found some source/text issues on a very quick check. There is too-close paraphrase of the source in Dartford War Memorial, in their sandbox. There are claims not supported by source too.

They have created 63 articles. Started in 2024. M kuhner (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

They have responded. MRSC (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay then. Shall we start a cleanup list? M kuhner (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Read over one of the articles:

The new venue will provide improved catering, tiered seating, and safe standing areas, and is designed to be capable of hosting major cultural, music, and community events to generate income for the club.

Yes, this is unreviewed AI. Unfortunately, it's all in userspace, and the editor's retirement precludes the first and third bullet points of WP:LLMPROD. Even U6 doesn't work for this case, as the user has made multiple (unproductive) edits in article space. For the user pages, I would suggest starting a group MfD nomination. I also notice they have copy-pasted their AI content into pages such as Western_Quarry, and a consensus for cleanup would be helpful so we can LLMPRV those. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 15:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The first bullet point could be met either with an argument that retired means inactive, or by consensus at AINB. We have been using the latter a good deal lately. M kuhner (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Support consensus for cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Support the cleanup. SenshiSun (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Large edits with LLM assistance

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Moved from WT:AIC § Large edits with LLM assistance

 – fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I believe Kwasi Rex (talk · contribs) is using a LLM to make large edits to existing Wikipedia articles.

• Their created article Water scarcity in the Horn of Africa was flagged for deletion over LLM usage
• Three large edits to Nile (Special:Diff/prev/1357572558, Special:Diff/prev/1357573597, Special:Diff/prev/1357575072, in the spam of 24 minutes, all reverted.)
• Three large edits to Niger river (Special:Diff/prev/1357577931, Special:Diff/prev/1357732190, Special:Diff/prev/1357734693)
• Five large edits to Volta river (Special:Diff/prev/1357933603, Special:Diff/prev/1357935362, Special:Diff/prev/1357936160, Special:Diff/prev/1357939263, Special:Diff/prev/1357939707)
• One large edit to Lake Chad (Special:Diff/prev/1358561558).
• Three large edits to Akosombo Dam (Special:Diff/prev/1358575672, Special:Diff/prev/1358577446, Special:Diff/prev/1358577873, in the spam of 20 minutes. The last edit introduces a "Enable JavaScript to use search" reference.)

All edits have signs of AI writing (especially WP:AILEGACY and WP:SUPERFICIAL. Sometimes instances of WP:OVERATTRIBUTION). Some of them introduce multiple one-paragraph, needlessly-divided sections all at once. The edits added large paragraphs, most of which lack citations, with the ones that do have citations being mostly or entirely unverifiable. I don't think LLMs are capable of citing anything.

The first edit to Niger river mentions the names of the sources directly inline at the end of paragraphs and without any markup. The last two edits to Volta river make use of cite templates but don't encloes them in a <ref> tag. The Lake Chad edit has WP:AITABLE and WP:AILIST.

These changes are large and numerous and would be a waste of time to fix. I wanted to ask for some confirmation that these are indeed LLM nonsense and should be reverted and the editor warned.

(Also, if someone could please inform me of the correct way to link a sequence of diffs, I would be very thankful). MeowsyCat99 (meow) 00:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Your observations combined with utm_source=chatgpt.com in and as well as recent paste check flags make it clear that this editor has been using ChatGPT to generate content which is then pasted into the project in violation of WP:NOLLM. They were warned of this yesterday and replied Okay it can be deleted , but appear to have continued as seen in their Lake Chad and Akosombo Dam edits. Support removals and presumptive removal.

@Kwasi Rex, as you were informed yesterday, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited per WP:NOLLM. Please stop.

(for the format of diff range links see Help:Diff#Internal links, I use a userscript that makes it easy to copy and paste such links) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

They've created 8 pages in draft and article space, and all are unambiguously AI-generated. I would support a movement to LLMPROD all of them, and immediately block User:Kwasi Rex if they make another AI edit. Making 412 edits without any human review is completely unacceptable. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 02:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPROD. Not sure why we have to wait for another LLM edit as they continued making them after being warned and acknowledging the warning. M kuhner (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I will rectify that Kwasi Rex (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

How? We need an assurance that you will not make another AI-generated edit, and preferably an agreement that your prior AI edits can be removed or deleted. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 15:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kwasi Rex your recent edits to Lake Chad copied content from grokipedia, and so are both LLM-generated and copyright violations. What is the thought process here? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Fuzheado

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fuzheado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit summaries disclose that they're using an LLM-powered tool called "Wiki Bio Helper" to generate articles. See for what the tool does, articles: . These all violated the 'old' WP:NEWLLM at the time of creation, and several have been created since the passing of NOLLM. I've notified them of this discussion Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fuzheado, based on my recollections I'm willing to assume on good faith that you know what you're doing, but I must admit that it's not a very good look for you to do this without consulting or at least notifying anyone else on this noticeboard. Would you be willing to share your exact prompt and workflow here and explain how it abides by NOLLM? Fermiboson (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the assumption of good faith – the edit summary of these articles fully disclosed the use of an LLM helper which I have been testing and using well before any community discussion were taking place. A quick description: it helps with the collection of sources provided by the user to structure a new Wikipedia article, including infoboxes and categories. However, every sentence was checked by human eyeballs and I take responsibility for them as a human editor for the articles. Some articles that may not make the grade are in Draft mode, and some were discarded altogether. Let's understand, however, that the new NOLLM page is a guideline and not firm policy. As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations.

If folks will be at Wikimania, we will be discussing a wide range of ways AI can have beneficial applications in the Wikimedia community that don't entail one-shot LLM article generation or source fabrication. (meta:Artificial intelligence/2026 Wiki AI) These include creating tools for linting, checking, insights, metrics, patrolling, multimedia browsing, and anti-vandal fighting, just to name a few. The state of the art with AI has come a long way, with agentic coding for implementing deterministic workflows (versus the stochastic parroting of LLMs) that can add to our Toolforge capabilities. For those who cannot make it to Wikimania, we will be recording it for later viewing and discussion. To be clear, I am in favor of restricting mass use of LLM tools of the 2023 ChatGPT vintage, as they peppered Wikipedia with low-quality and unchecked contributions from inexperienced users. But we should also not be so pedantic that we leave no room for evolving our perspectives on the rapid refinement of our technological tools. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's understand, however, that the new NOLLM page is a guideline and not firm policy. You should definitely know better that people talk about PAGs for a reason - a guideline is not a suggestion. One is not allowed to use LLMs to directly generate text in articlespace, without carveouts for review, however careful. You will also note that on this noticeboard there used to be some degree of support for an LLM competency userright, which has dwindled as experienced user after experienced user declaring LLM competency has been found to fall flat on their faces as soon as their articles go outside of subject-matter expertise. Therefore, forgive me for being skeptical, but you would quite literally be the first known case since NEWLLM of someone using an LLM in a NEWLLM-violating manner to produce entirely policy-compliant content.

As it stands, I believe that your described use is a NOLLM violation and I would recommend that you stop for now. I will be at the AI preconference, so if you wish we can discuss this further in person. NOLLM was adopted for a range of reasons, including practical and moral reasons, and while it is very possible for reasonable people to have varying opinions on the degree of AI use that is acceptable on enwiki (and indeed such a diversity of opinions is available in AIC itself), it would probably have been better to discuss this at WT:AIC or WT:LLM rather than to go ahead with an experiment which is against the letter of the law. I am well aware of the capabilities and limitations of LLMs and am by no means ideologically opposed to LLM use in Wikipedia; for example I have developed a tool using LLMs to patrol edit summaries and am in the process of developing LLM-assisted AI detection and source verification pipelines.

I'll declare this straight up: partially because I believe you know what you are doing, and partially because I am completely swamped with both real life and wiki work for the foreseeable future, I won't be checking your articles, so I won't be able to make further comment on anything specific content-wise. I think it would be enlightening and productive, however, if you would consider sharing the model and prompt that you are using, statistics on the proportion of articles which are fine/need copyedit/major revisions/discarded, etc.

Fermiboson (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. What Fermiboson said above, I think it would’ve been best if you’d given some notice to the people patrolling for AISIGNs (eg. I can see Gnomingstuff tagged one of the articles a week or so ago), they’re also the sort of people best at assessing the quality of the product. The general rule of thumb w WP:IAR appears to be that if you get challenged and have to justify your invocation, it wasn’t the right thing to do (otherwise there ought to be consensus for it), I don’t really understand why they had to be moved to main space instead of being kept in draft or user space. Also not sure how productive it is to focus on developing something the community appears to be somewhat/mostly against? I would’ve thought experimenting with and improving machine translation would be more productive and a good starting point (at m:Request for comment/Artificial intelligence policy there’s a lot of people from non-English wikis complaining about machine translation into their languages). FWIW I haven’t checked the quality of the articles either Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations. No, we shouldn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for text generation experiments. A "deep track record" (thousands of edits, multiple GA's, whatever) isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for writing undisclosed advertisements for pay or violating copyright; it shouldn't be a factor in applying NEWLLM either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations. Wikipedia is not a laboratory for LLM experiments. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Woah woah woah, is that an AI-generated comment? Not only is it quite wrong (per everyone above), but also quite long. Please don't write an entire essay just for a single comment. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not AI generated, and it's 300 words, not a wall of text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifyng not AI, but i'm not sure about not wall of text. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@OneReaction5890, this is very clearly not an AI-generated comment. Please do not make such accusations on a whim, more certainty is needed Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It is with great regret that I rescind I'm willing to assume on good faith that you know what you're doing, as I was convinced to check more deeply in this case, and the issues do NOT look pretty, aside from bucketloads of WP:AIATTR, WP:AILIST, and other more vague style issues:

• He Tingbo:
  • The citation returns a 404. The actual url is at . No archives found at the first url.
  • Sources 10 and 11 have the same title. Bloomberg is the correct one ; Fortune returns an error page.
  • Sources 1 and 3 are cited to the statement In 2003, Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei placed her in charge of the company's chip development, providing an annual budget of US$400 million and a mandate to reduce dependence on foreign semiconductor suppliers. The numbers are supported by Reuters, but "a mandate to reduce dependence on foreign semiconductor suppliers" is not explicitly found in either source. In fact my read of the Reuters source is that the mandate was not originally that, but eventually became that, with the associated consequences.
  • In the years following the US restrictions, He led HiSilicon's effort to redesign its chip portfolio using alternative approaches that did not depend on restricted manufacturing technologies is sourced to , which mentions neither HiSilicon nor US restrictions, and Nikkei Asia, which does mention both (checked through university subscription), but is mostly on He's role inside Huawei rather than any specific HiSilicon effort to redesign anything.
• Joe Ando:
  • is cited for He later played the recurring role of Rodney in the ninth and tenth seasons of The Walking Dead. but does not mention the ninth and tenth seasons.
• Irati Gorostidi Agirretxe:
  • is cited for Agirretxe being awarded the Fulbright scholarship, which is not in the source, and and I cannot find Agirretxe in the Fulbright scholar directory.
• Steve Sweeney (journalist):
  • Source 2 does not say Sweeney was "the international editor" of the Morning Star. Using the article list page to surmise what he reported on is a bit SYNTH, but is relatively minor.
  • The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed the strike targeted military infrastructure and that explicit warnings had been issued to civilians in the area. is cited to . No Israeli response is mentioned in the article.
• Six AI tigers:
  • (source 2) is a bad domain; there is no "ftp" in front in the real article.
  • cites author Rita Liao; it is not clear where this is found in the article itself.
  • has a publish date of 13 March; 15 May is the update date. Also why is the ref name Reuters2025?
  • All six companies reached "unicorn" status (valuations exceeding US$1 billion) by early 2024 (source 3) only mentioned Zhipu raising a billion in 2025, and does not mention any other company.
• Shawn McCreesh:
  • 's author is Ariana Ortiz, not Malak Kassem.
  • does not say that McCreesh was raised in Hatboro, only that he wrote something about it.
  • does not say that he was involved with The Torch.
  • does not confirm that McCreesh is the WH correspondent of NYT. I cannot in fact find any evidence that McCreesh is a WH correspondent for the NYT.
• Fight Unlawful Conduct and Keep Individuals and Communities Empowered Act:
  • Source 1 has the wrong author field. Source 2 has the wrong title (took the abbreviated URL; real title is NJ panel advances bills to strengthen immigrant protections, target ICE).
  • The legislation was introduced as part of a broader package of bills aimed at increasing state-level protections for immigrants following a series of high-profile enforcement actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Hudson County. for Source 2 - the source does not mention Hudson County.

I have more issues saved from my various automated tools, but that's a long enough post that demonstrates a regular pattern of problematic edits. Any new editor faced with this edit history would receive a swift block followed by equally swift LLMPROD. @Fuzheado, it would be appreciated if you could explain yourself. Fermiboson (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Fuzheado thanks for including clear edit summaries. I do think people working with AI tools for analysis, review, research, or translation sometimes have non-overlapping workflows with those focused on AI cleanup. And while some languages-projects (like ko) have an active community of use around a particular constructive toolkit that allows for the development of positive policies, we don't quite have that here.

For people using LLMs anywhere in their research / planning / review workflows, it is useful to capture the workflow in a public + collaborative space, including prompts and context and workflows. That allows for collaboration, improvements over time, and catching errors or bias as early in the workflow as possible, not just in the final outputs. (A noticeboard for "AI misuse" is probably not the place. But considering the range of LLM tools used in [re]search by on the internet, we do need a place to discuss such things.) Current guidelines may discourage some from doing this, which isn't an ideal equilibrium. – SJ + 03:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Many of these articles disclose failing NOLLM in the edit summaries, for example; Sell America (rev 1334114842), He Tingbo (rev 1356200875), Six AI tigers (rev 1344200401), and Nancy Armour (rev 1188298380, we have the prompts via ShareChat). But there are some others, for example Aid Refugee Chinese Intellectuals that was created with G15-levels of AISIGNS, so we can't rely on the user's disclosures in the edit summaries alone. Given this and the problems pointed out above, I propose gathering consensus for LLMPRV to presumptively revert/delete as appropriate. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think we ought to wait until after Wikimania (next week), hopefully people attending can talk it through and we can get on the same page Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimania is next month, unfortunately, not next week. I'm willing to give @Fuzheado some time to respond, but I would support LLMPROD on condition of non-communication provided there is a reasonable deadline of response. Fermiboson (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

!! my bad, I'll also support LLMPROD in the meantime Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Support immediate cleanup. (moved response to correct section) M kuhner (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I will respectfully defer to what is determined by consensus on reverting or removing any content as well as curtail article creation as per the comment by Fermiboson. I have been off en.wiki for a number of days so I did not want to give the impression the issue was not important. In fact it is quite the opposite, and I welcome discussing any and all issues related to AI use at Wikimania, not just LLMs, both in person and in the virtual sessions. Wikipedia has always been about being bold and moving the platform forward, dating back to 2003 when my 50 college communications students first started editing English Wikipedia that was pioneering, but was accepted as "virtuously disruptive." Getting that balance is important, so I respect the "D" in BRD and have paused and welcome the discussion. Related to that, this recent thread on VP may be interesting to folks. We have very strong sides of this discussion but face challenges to have more convergent discourse around AI. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Recent changes to WP:LLM are too restrictive and actively harm some parts of Wikipedia. – Fuzheado | Talk 12:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the existing guideline, and separately given the problems found by Fermiboson, the articles created with the tool should be deleted. It is particularly concerning that these articles overlap with multiple CTOPs. There may be some value saving the source lists somewhere, although not the ones that 404. CMD (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could explain how these problems arose. Given your position as an administrator and separately as speaker at the Wikimania AI pre-conference, which does have some amount of influence over both public perception of Wikipedia and editors' perception of what the community considers acceptable, I hope we can get a prompt and detailed reply. Fermiboson (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Seconding Fermiboson's comment above, this seems like a lapse in judgement. All I ask is that everything is always put to the community and subject to consensus, I'm sort of worried that such tools will be introduced from the developer side a la WMF (or quietly attempted), causing conflict or rifts (I'm not reassured by Wikimedia Switzerland's board including someone who advisors tech companies on AI). The only way forward is arguing/convincing and listening (I get the impression that people more amenable to AI view those opposed to it as irrational or reactionary, which may be true to a certain extent, but there are valid arguments besides just content quality). There also needs to be more dialogue between AIC and AIT, current thoughts are to merge the two discord servers (link for AIC server, everyone is welcome to join). Re LLM-generated content, a potential comprise may be Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fermiboson @Kowal2701 – I did not even know there was a dedicated Discord server just for AI Cleanup. Is that something you'd be willing to list at meta:Discord as a best practice, so it can be found by more folks? It has always seemed that the distance between AI Cleanup having a lot more energy and activity versus the much more low-key AI Tools community is that AIC clearly 1) has a lot more to address given the influx of content and 2) has a critical mass on English Wikipedia, whereas AI tool makers (and tech dev in general) have their constituents spread across all our projects and may not even be on-wiki that often. My experiments while being much better than 1st generation GPT contributions fell short in being production ready, so for that I take the blame and will delete the articles or resolve them individually. The writing and fact checking done by a combo of a custom Gemini AI LLM and deterministic code (python) shows promise in notability determination but even with my oversight they fall short of being ready for article production. However, I'm interested staying in conversation as the state of AI progresses. Wikimania is one of those opportunities and I want to assure folks that the demos and training is not related to article creation and writing. We will be addressing high impact, low burden solutions (as recommended by the PTAC). The focus will be on agentic coding with tools that help with metrics, dashboards, insights, visualization, research aids, Commons, Wikidata, citation checking, reference archives, among others. In short, we have found relief from having to rely solely on Magnus Manske for a lot of our community tooling. Some of the projects we will demo as AI-supported creations include:

• https://wikitop100.toolforge.org/ - a graph visualizer for the most popular English Wikipedia articles
• https://commons-vibe.toolforge.org/ - a Pinterest-like visual Commons browser
• https://wikipano.toolforge.org/ - a 360 virtual tour for panoramic photospheres on Commons to link to Wikipedia articles
• https://infobox-image-history.toolforge.org/ - a timeline browsing tool for seeing infobox image changes over time

We also welcome requests for ideas on tools we can prototype, even if you're not there at Wikimania. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the server there (it was already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Resources). That sounds good, it's great PTAC is getting involved. AFAIK there is very strong consensus on enwiki for tools that flag issues and make maintenance easier, anything that helps with the backlog at WP:BACKLOG, WP:AFC, WP:NPP (the one here as well) etc. would be amazing. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Were those Python scripts actually written by someone, or are they generated/vibecoded? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Both – a combination of agentic coded scripts and ones written with human hands. But as you can imagine, that balance is shifting pretty quickly if you look at the stats on Github. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

yes, it's a real problem there too. people without expert knowledge are creating spaghetti code they don't understand and can't maintain, and what's worse is that people that have that expert knowledge are doing this too and loosing the knowledge in the process, and the decline of software (usefulness, performance, design and resource requirements) has been accelerated. programmers worth their salt will earn a lot of money when the time comes to clean this mess up, but i don't know if i look forward to the paychecks or dread the spaghetti work. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that this falls under BRD, since these are multiple articles and edits that clearly failed the NOLLM guideline which you were aware of existing. If it had been only 2-3 articles that were created in draft space, put through AfD and all of them were clearly disclosed as failing NOLLM, that would be a different thing. But it wasn't, and not all of them are disclosed to be NOLLM failures. The ones that have been looked at all appear to have source integrity issues. This is stuff that editors are somewhat regularly blocked for.

Since you are very unlikely to be blocked for this, would you be willing to go through all of them yourself, revert/undo any LLM-generated edits, and draftify/LLMPROD as appropriate? After all, you know better than anyone which of these edits are NOLLM failures. The ones that were disclosed are easy for us to to tell, and we have some consensus forming to apply LLMPRV to everything, but it still would be a lot of work that I think most of us would greatly appreciate if you would do yourself. How does that sound? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: how does this suggestion sound to you? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

(just to clarify, as the flagger: ShareChat is an oldish research dataset of LLM conversations that were set to public, in which the drafts of that article happened to appear) Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apologies for extending this past the closure, but I've userified a few more (that we knew about):

• User:Fuzheado/Aid Refugee Chinese Intellectuals: this one was not disclosed as generated
• User:Fuzheado/Sell America: disclosed as failing NOLLM, so it's a complete nonstarter for article space
• User:Fuzheado/Nancy Armour: also disclosed as failing NOLLM, also nonstarter

There might be more that we have missed, a list from the user would be useful since we can't rely on the edit summaries alone. I think that Fermiboson had been looking through some of the articles? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked at their talk Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ReaderOfSciFiNovelsNPhilosophy

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

There is a discussion with the user at User talk:ReaderOfSciFiNovelsNPhilosophy § June 2026.

This is an OKA translator, has twice inserted OAICITE into articles. Has been making large edits that will be difficult to check. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Another OKA translator? Keep seeing them everywhere Fortek67 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Remind me again why we allowed them... did people actually think that anything good could come of the combination of "AI" and "editing for pay"? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

IMO it's not a bad idea but users should be experienced Wikipedia editors. I've previously rejected AfC submissions from these editors, because after heavily reviewing them, these articles are poorly reviewed by the editors. I think OKA editors should be fluent in both English and the translating language, be familiar with the topic, and properly review these articles. Fortek67 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/7804j does not exactly inspire confidence either. Created 19 new articles two days ago, sometimes as little as two minutes apart. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yesterday they created 10 articles in the span of about 1 hour, with as little as 3-4 minutes between articles. They have yet to answer my question of how they propose validating 162 sources added in one paid edit, and have still not identified the OAICITEs inserted with those paid edits. How is this supposed to be sustainable? ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

And yesterday they created five articles, four of those were created a the span of 30 minutes. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

the perverse incentive strikes again Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Tried to point that out in User talk:ReaderOfSciFiNovelsNPhilosophy § Disambiguation link notification for June 16, but no response yet. I think it's a bit much to pay someone to add 162 sources that they (presumably, by looking at the timestamps) haven't read and then expecting other people to read and verify them for free. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't ask me, I agreed with the suggestion that OKA editors would be "prohibited from directly editing articles entirely" (in the capacity of inserting paid machine translations on behalf of OKA). ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I am wondering if this has to be escalated (AN? ANI?) as Gurkubondinn's conversation with the OKA head did not go anywhere useful. This editor seems to have stopped editing, but if the project head cannot accept responsibility for the people they are paying to edit Wikipedia, that's a serious problem. M kuhner (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen the previous community discussion about OKA: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive378 § OKA: problematic paid translation and lead rewrites via LLMs across thousands of articles.

Which lead to these editing restrictions for all OKA volunteers: WP:EDR § OKA

‑‑gurkubondinn 19:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Oliwiasocz

And yet they still bring problems, Oliwiasocz is taking the complete piss after resubmitting Draft:Gryfów Śląski–Świeradów-Zdrój railway despite my decline and comments (you should read it, I explain several errors in their articles). I can't even do anything atm because I've lost my temporary NPP rights (reapplied for them almost two weeks ago, no response sadly). I've been seeing this user ever since I've joined Wikipedia in September last year, (I didn't always know about the policies) don't get me wrong some of the articles aren't that bad compared to other AI slop, but they still contain many errors (which I've only recently noticed). I've never seen this user talk either – all they do is publish and publish articles. They immediately stopped for a whole month after I declined one of their articles and SUPRISINGLY being one of the first people to bring up their AI content, by drafting some. Another thing is that this user has been out here for two years – 3,400+ edits, every article "reviewed" by an AfC reviewer. Not one person has properly looked into this? Now this is also kind of my fault, I have seen them do this for months now, almost my whole time on this site. It was only until a few months ago when I found out about the LLM policies. Then I decided to finally "confront" them by drafting articles, and posting that comment I mentioned before, hoping for a response. No response so I think we really should look into this more. here are many problems here that should be addressed even again – imo OKA editors should at least know what they're writing about. They should actually properly review, proofread their articles, correct ALL mistakes before even submitting. Fortek67 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and declined that draft. But it looks like they have had numerous other drafts accepted at AfC, which are now in article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

There are 899 of their articles in the main space. Fortek67 (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That's an absurd amount, if they joined two years ago that is over one article per day. And xtools says that the average article size is c. 28 kB (presumably that is the current sizes though). That seems a lot more than you could reasonably read and verify. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

And in that time, they have communicated on their own talk page a grand total of five times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and only once on someone else's talk page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Found three edits (all page creations) where reference URLs had utm_source=chatgpt.com parameters:

• Draft:American and Soviet naval ballistic systems: 5x in AbuseLog/40925116 (since deleted under G13)
• American naval ballistic systems: 2x in Diff/1296263390
• Soviet naval ballistic systems: 3x in Diff/1296261432

These all seem to have been translations from plwiki, they could have had the UTM params copied from plwiki (didn't check). ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your comments and I wanted to clarify a few things. About the AI concerns, I stopped using AI for translations after the previous discussion about OKA and AI, since I wanted to make sure there are no mistakes. Nowadays, I only use AI for formatting according to OKA's guidelines (that I also check for mistakes), while I translate the text by myself using online dictionaries, wiki dictionary or other similar articles for reference. I do not know a lot about railways, for example, but I tried my best to look up vocabulary as needed, though I'm only human and mistakes happen and I am definitely not claiming to be a perfect editor. :) I really appreciate people pointing them out so I can fix them as soon as I can. If there are specific errors in my articles, I would genuinely appreciate being shown them so I can fix them and avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future; sometimes when I reread what I wrote, some issues don't appear as such, but when someone points them out, I realize that it may have sounded weird or just incorrect.

As for talk pages, I understand why my lack of discussion there might look strange, but I just tend to be the kind of person that focuses on the editing part rather than talking about every edit, but that doesn't mean I am unwilling to communicate. I am happy to discuss issues and do better, because I really want to keep improving Wikipedia, not the other way around. :)

I also want to clarify that my absence for about a month was not related to avoiding feedback or stopping because of criticism, it was just related to some personal things, which is why I was less active. Oliwiasocz (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I am confused, are you the same person as User:ReaderOfSciFiNovelsNPhilosophy who this case is about? M kuhner (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, brought this up into the same post. No, should probably place it under a new title. Fortek67 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I only use AI for formatting according to OKA's guidelines – can you elaborate on that? It still seems LLM generated, at least AI assisted. Please be very specific. Also, do you speak Polish? If so, at what level (understanding, fluent, native, etc). Knowing Polish for these translations is very important, you can't rely on AI, considering that you focus on Poland-related topics. I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Babel and add the template to your profile. Fortek67 (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

These are the guidelines of OKA, which I follow, except for the text translation (I am a native Polish speaker). So then my process looks like this: I paste the original article's source code into LLM using OKA's prompt (which I modify according to specific articles because AI is not super good at EN-PL formatting/translating and I spend a lot of time fixing the mistakes anyway). Then I basically go sentence by sentence and delete what AI wrote and I translate it myself. After a lot of tries with multiple AIs, I don't think any of them are good enough to use for translating EN-PL texts, that's why I decided to do it by myself. As I go, I also check links, references, pictures and anything else, but like I said, mistakes happen. I really am not sure which part of the text looks like AI (or maybe I just think like a robot :D) but I am happy to change anything that's wrong, like with the wording in the railways article. Some more technical vocabulary is pretty hard to find/verify if it comes to Polish and English so in such a case, I rely on any official works that use it in similar context, or look for other approved Wikipedia articles about the same topic. Sometimes I think the whole process would just be faster without the use of AI whatsover :). I will also look at Wikipedia:Babel, thanks for pointing it out. Oliwiasocz (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Jsinnyj

 Cleanup has been requested.

Continually removing AI tags in rather hostile fashion, claiming they are not using AI. Edits like Special:Diff/1223722511 and Special:Diff/1222630998, I feel, speak for themselves. (Also look at timestamps; for instance, the latter was added 3 minutes after the previous edit.)

I do not think that all of the text is AI-generated; for instance, the last paragraph of Special:Diff/1235942581 not only doesn't sound like AI but has some URL parameters consistent with various Firefox search actions (it looks like this bug) that I'm not familiar with chatbots spoofing. It seems like the AI edits, for some reason, are interspersed in. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And what is going on at User talk:Sherlockian1234 § Managing a conflict of interest? Is Jsinnyj responding to a COI notice for someone else, or am I just missing something? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi jsinnyj here...can you explain to me what the issue is? How am I hostile? Jsinnyj (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Why did you reply to a COI template that was placed on a different user's talk page? Do you have any connection to the Sherlockian1234 user? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

the user is still doing it, a month later? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

They haven't edited since the 8th July and seem to be developing a pattern of taking long periods away from Wikipedia and then coming back just to remove the AI-generated tag and disappear again. I have no idea how we're supposed to pin this one down, since admins don't block inactive users. I wonder if they would consider p-blocking from just the Jason Barr page? ^purring_maggot (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Rinse and repeat until someone catches them not too long after they come back and manages to convince an admin to pull the plug? ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Global Donald

 Global Donald (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (17 June 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. Editor's autopatrolled permission has been revoked.

LLMPRODs are done

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-06-26 Global Donald, 118 pages need review.

As indicated in the bot notifications (e.g. ), Global Donald (talk · contribs · count) has repeatedly created LLM-generated articles with invalid ISBNs (e.g. Rhode Island slave trade, CKTAW, and Exile Bell of Uglich, respectively) that are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G15. Quite a few of his article creations initially include nonexistent categories (e.g. Abortion industry, The Strange Tales of Oscar Zahn, Kalachi sleeping sickness, Exile Bell of Uglich, Duxbury child killings, and Sail250). A number of these article creations link to nonexistent disambiguations of articles with titles that are not disambiguated, e.g. ("Le Temps (Switzerland)" instead of "Le Temps" in Paula Maxa, and "Bild (newspaper)" instead of "Bild" in 2024 Bavarian espionage and sabotage plot).

The pacing of Global Donald's content additions has been too unrealistic to be human-authored, e.g. his creation of N. K. Lanitis, Cyprus Employers and Industrialists Federation, Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lanitis Group, and Cybarco, all within a span of seven minutes. See also his creation of the Abortion industry article, which included the text "Wikipedia and academic standards caution that such claims about organisations or living persons require high-quality, independent sources and neutral presentation per NPOV and BLP policies", an apparent case of an LLM improperly incorporating its reasoning process in its output.

Global Donald is already aware that misusing LLMs to create articles is unacceptable, as evidenced by his insertion of the {{AI-generated}} cleanup tag on an article he did not create in Special:Diff/1359550231, and his 1 September 2025 comment: "Please before publishing anything on Wikipedia, check that the URL for references, and that no hallucinations or gibberish has been made by the AI. Generally speaking, you should never rely only on AI to publish an article on Wikipedia. And its use is generally not well regarded on Wikipedia, and you will lose the trust of other users if you use it carelessly, as has clearly been done in this article." As a result, I am indefinitely blocking Global Donald from article space. An unblock request would be more likely to succeed if Global Donald acknowledges that their LLM use was inappropriate, agrees to refrain from using LLMs for Wikipedia editing in any capacity as an unblock condition, and agrees to clean up all of their LLM-affected edits.

Because Global Donald was autopatrolled and had created a total of 447 pages in article space, the cleanup process would likely be very time-intensive unless the WP:LLMPROD process is used. I have also revoked Global Donald's autopatrolled permission, as his LLM misuse is incompatible with the expectations of that permission, and his articles also fall below standards in ways unrelated to LLMs, e.g. his citing of the user-generated TV Tropes (RSP entry) website 12 times in The Strange Tales of Oscar Zahn, and his revision-deleted creation of the Disappearance of Mamta Kafle Bhatt article under the title "Murder of Mamta Kafle Bhatt" with a named suspect despite there not being a conviction. — Newslinger talk 23:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

We can make a tracking page and LLMPROD the whole lot of them if necessary.

I examined the first page on the creation list YggTorrent, which was September 27, 2023 and therefore could have been LLM. It has some concerning qualities. Most of the sources are in French, but their titles have been translated into English. There is sourcing to Twitter. A Web Archive page is called "Screenshot taken by Web Archive". Accessed-on dates go back to 2017 for a 2023 article. Citation 14, used for multiple changes of YggTorrent's address, does not have "ygg" or "torrent" anywhere in its current text. Most, at least, of these anomalies date from article creation. The text doesn't sound like modern LLM--but then, it wouldn't.

The French Wikipedia article (called "Ygg") was not created until May 2025. (Global Donald added substantial material in September 2025; they are apparently active on that Wikipedia as well.) This English Wikipedia article is therefore not a translation of it.

LLMPROD of articles this old will do collateral damage as some of them will have material from innocent editors. I'd like other editors to weigh in on whether it's appropriate, and whether the information about YggTorrent above is a clear enough indication of LLM use in 2023. If not, we need to try to establish when LLM use started. On 2024-07-23 he created 3 articles between 10:22 and 11:57. Article creation ramped up sharply after that and by 2024-07-28 he was creating articles just 5-10 minutes apart. This would not be the first case we've seen where July 2024 seemed to be the inflection point. (That would still leave us with all but 6 of the articles to PROD.) M kuhner (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Using translated titles in references incorrectly like that is very common in LLM generated articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Kinda weird that you can't use the history.

I wasn't the one putting this awful table. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YggTorrent&diff=prev&oldid=1321741040 Global Donald (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You're correct. I apologize for the error and will strike it through above. M kuhner (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And that's where the paranoia against AI is striking the most. The first entry on my created pages list, YggTorrent, was a beginner's mistake that's now being misread as an AI error, which is regrettable. I created it on the French Wikipedia, then translated here, both by hand, based on the T411 article. Everything was clumsy because I didn't know shit about formatting here. I'm not even sure doing anything with AI was possible back then.

But whatever. I'm not really bothered by the decision, or by what happens to the articles. It had become an addiction that was seriously eating into my productivity at work, so honestly it's not a bad thing that it's been put to an end. There was AI use, help with formatting mostly, but I'd call it a reasonable use.

What I'd love is real feedback on any of these three articles, which were mostly written without leaning on a translated article (which I did a lot, and those em'dashes that are everywhere on ru:wp could now put any new contributor at risk being called AI article creator since people rely a lot on it): Intelligence operations using Crypto AG compromised devices (I highly recommend this one, I think it's a good read), Prosecution of Russian hypersonic scientists, and Rhode Island slave trade (chose these because they are dense and rich in references). Feedback that's constructive, not just assumptions like "the categories were red on creation" or "the articles were too close to one another when created" or "look at these disambiguations". Real feedback on where a source was actually misused for example, which shouldn't be hard to find on articles that have hundred of them.

And as for articles created close together, has nobody here ever had a pile of tabs open at once? Like "let's work 30 minutes then head back on wikipedia let's do that and that". Didn't verify but pretty sure you'd look at them, it's either done late on afternoon or early in the morning, articles that were there waiting and got published after a last read.

I won't bother appealing, but please, prove me wrong on these, so I can at least feel the suspicion was justified. To me it isn't. The ban on AI use was about two months ago, so I don't really see why YggTorrent, or articles created around that same period, would make this punishment relevant.

As for The Strange Tales of Oscar Zahn, I was aware of the "bad references". I'd seen the article requested somewhere on WP:RA and figured someone would file for deletion if it were a real problem (and yes the Amazon link as a reference was used because there were so few). WP:GNG is far more flexible here than on the French Wikipedia for that matter and I might have ignored some rules about books or TV Tropes or whatever. But check at my talk history/archive, I don't recall anyone warning me on those.

What's most regrettable in the end is that people no longer know how to tell the difference. If I'd created the YggTorrent article in 2026 the exact same way I did back then, it would have been rejected for "use of AI" even though there was none. (Maybe a bit of DeepL, which wasn't an AI translator back then, and I can't even be sure of that I believe it was really done just like that)
Global Donald (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

No, what actually is regrettable is this:

I now have comprehensive material from the NSA National Security Archive (GWU), the Washington Post investigation, the Brustolin academic paper (Cambridge Review of International Affairs), The Register's reporting on the Maximator/Falklands connection, the Buenos Aires Times, MercoPress, the Seattle Times, Gizmodo, and the declassified CIA and DIA documents. Let me write both sections.
— Removed in revision 1353559107 of Intelligence operations using Crypto AG compromised devices

Because this is a really interesting subject, but now the article has about as much credibility as a crayon. This is the real and actually regrettable thing here; the harm that is being done on the credibility of Wikipedia.

When you started using LLMs to generate text that you then pasted into Wikipedia, you created an exponential asymmetry in workload and effort. One side effect of this asymmetry, which you decided to create, is that some of your edits may be incorrectly assumed to be generated. That is just a side effect of the reality that we deal with here. A full and complete disclosure from your side may help, but I have not been involved with this filing, but it would be appreciated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And also, this is WP:NOTPUNISHMENT and you are not being "punished". You have actually been given very reasonable unblock conditions; basically "clean up your own mess and don't make another mess". There's a very clear path for you to become a constructive editor once again, and I hope that you decide to take it.

It is irrelevant when the NOLLM guideline was passed or when this or that article was generated. Stuff isn't grandfathered in just because you generate it before an RfC passed. The purpose is to protect the integrity and credibility of the project. Text that was generated before the RfC passed and NOLLM became a guideline are as bad for the project as text that is generated after. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that I didn't say YggTorrent was LLM. I found it concerning, especially the translated titles. (If it is a translation from French Wikipedia, where is the required translation notice? Also, what happened to the French version? The current French version was created in 2025.) But I honestly don't know. That's the problem. Once some of the articles are clearly LLM, what do we do? It is difficult to trust the rest.

And: Real feedback on where a source was actually misused for example, which shouldn't be hard to find on articles that have hundred of them. I did a source check of that kind on an article half the length of this one about 2 weeks ago. After 2 hours I was exhausted, and I'd finished...half of it. So this might take me 6-8 hours. (If I go too fast I make mistakes, as you noted above.)

You have written 600-odd articles. If each one took me only 2 hours to check, that's 1200 hours, or a full-time job for two and a half years (corrected to 7 months, sorry). This is the asymmetric cost of LLM. It's not sustainable. That's why WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMPROD exist.

How much would I find? I don't know. Given the pace of creation, I wonder if you know either. If you do, we would really appreciate your help in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Even a start date would be terrific. M kuhner (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at Intelligence operations using Crypto AG compromised devices, which, yes, is a really interesting article.

The third sentence of the lead says: Known successively as Thesaurus (until the late 1980s) and later as Rubicon to the BND and Minerva to the CIA and is sourced to .

The words "Thesaurus" and "Rubicon" appear once each in this source, in this sentence: According to the internal histories cited by the Post and ZDF, the clandestine intelligence gathering operation was initially codenamed “Thesaurus,” and later changed to “Rubicon.” The code-name for Crypto AG was “Minerva.”

The Wikipedia article Operation Rubicon, for what it's worth, says the same: the operation was Thesaurus, then Rubicon/Rubikon, while the company was Minerva. Perhaps sources are contradictory. But what's clear is that you said it was Rubicon to BND and Minerva to the CIA, and the source you chose to cite in support does not say that.

Is this a consequential error? I don't know. But it is the third sentence and the second source. This article has 114 sources. How many more errors are there? How many hours for someone to check all of them to find out if any of them matter? In my past experience, some of them matter. A few days ago I found "ten camps in Cambodia and other countries" sourced to something that said only "multiple camps in Cambodia."

M kuhner (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The Strange Tales of Oscar Zahn shows considerable signs of AI assistance. For example the Reception area relies on reviews scraped off Amazon rather than their underlying origin, which I often see in LLM articles for books. It has a potential wording lifts off the Penguin source, using exact words which could/should have been rephrased. 45.1% on Earwig. The use of user/AI generated TVTropes has already been mentioned, but it was an easy but unnecessary source. I don't have much confidence in this editing stream. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Just want to remind everyone that you have to look at the timestamps, the pattern of edits, and the ways edits differ, you can't just go "well edit X was AI so edit Y from several months back was definitely AI too."

The YggTorrent article was created in fall 2023, and then they went away for several months. AI-generated articles from prior to May 2024 read a specific way (here's a good example), which is very different from how this article reads; and IIRC fall 2023 is also before a lot of the major machine translation/"polishing" software had gone whole hog on LLMs. So I don't think they were using AI at that time.

The first article that seems to be clearly AI-assisted is Dhekelia Airfield on June 5, 2024 (note style choices like markdown and title-case headers, as well as AI prose idiosyncracies consistent with 2024 ("aimed at X", "comprehensive X", "strategic location", "ensure [promotional X]". On June 5 they also posted what appears to be a misplaced AI prompt. AlphaMega (June 1) may also be AI, not so sure about Marie-France Cohen (May 31) as parts of it read very differently with tense errors, etc. more suggestive of "normal" flawed translation. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Did some quick Googling to confirm/refute a hunch: DeepL Write Pro launched in April 2024 and they described it as the "first service powered by its own LLM." So it's possible they were indeed just using DeepL all along like they said they were, and then in the interim DeepL switched over, or that they subscribed to the Pro model and this was the result. (tl;dr: I don't have any reason not to take them at their word as it matches the timeline) Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I had been keeping an eye on this editor for over a year, but I did not say anything because I was unsure any AI was involved (I have little experience in detecting AI). The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Someone also might want to look at his Aeroflot plane crash articles for copyvios. Some articles look like they copied air disaster.ru and other sources almost verbatim. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have set up a tracking page for this case, linked at the top of the section. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes! If anyone knows how to filter out articles whose most recent edit was prior to Gnomingstuff's cutoff of 2024-06-05, please do so (and let me know how you did it): otherwise we can just mark those clean as encountered. M kuhner (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

LLMPRODed a fair number, and it was really striking--I went for the newly created articles for maximum progress, and a whole lot of them had just 1-2 other substantive edits, which were other editors trying to fix the crappy sourcing (and mentioning this in their edit summaries). It was widely noticed: the problems weren't all that subtle. Makes me sad. Thank you to those who already PRODed a fair number: I have marked those as I found them, so we'll have a centralized record. M kuhner (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There are some TAs reverting PRODs: ~2026-36898-68, ~2026-36964-10 and ~2026-37074-71. I'm going through all of these so should catch them all Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

And I just found this, Concern raised privately if this is truly LLM content; take to AfD as needed: Diff/1361231455.

TonyBallioni, can you explain? ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@DraconicDark, I'm not sure you should be LLMPRODing articles by users that haven't been brought to AINB, and you're not including a proper edit summary like what's at WP:LLMPROD#Process Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Noted. Some of these are not LLMPROD but just regular PROD (on account of the fact that fully AI-generated articles that are unsalvageable in their current state are probably uncontroversial deletions per WP:TNT); I can stop/change what I'm doing if this is out of process though. DraconicDark (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's probably best that potential LLMPRODs go through AINB first, just to get more eyes on it. Also it means that you can point to a discussion/consensus that analyses things in-depth. We tend to do cleanup on a per-user basis rather than a per-article basis, just cos if someone's used LLMs to generate content once they're likely to use them habitually, and once it's established that the LLM use is pervasive and problematic, they can be presumptively deleted (ie. without having analyse each one) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Barkeep49 sent me a message after I deleted it saying he wasn’t sure if it was LLM generated. I restored it based on the good faith concern of an uninvolved established user. If you want to delete it still, you can take it to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I kind of struggle to understand why the user (not Barkeep) would have sat down and written this article themselves, and then gone back to generating articles. Can you share why it was believed that this wasn't generated? There are AISIGNS and source-to-text issues in the earliest revision that I can access, just from a quick spot check. It is possible to tag an article for LLMPROD more than once (unlike a regular PROD), so taking up community time at AfD is not the only option here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh and it seems like it was deleted via a regular PROD last time. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I take an approach where if an experienced good faith user raises an objection to any form of PROD, I reverse my action because that means it by definition is not a non-controversial deletion, which is the purpose of even sticky PRODs. I think that’s in line with both the letter and intent of policy. I’m not sure why you object to taking it to AfD if you think it should still be deleted. If it’s actually not controversial, it wlll be deleted. If it’s not, it won’t be. One article isn’t a huge drain of time. I think I’ve explained my actions here, so don’t plan on responding again as I don’t want to get into a back and forth on what was a routine reversal of a deletion and deferral to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that with a regular PROD, but this is part of a cleanup effort. The user has confirmed that they used an LLM to create articles, and pasted a misplaced prompt within a few days of creating this article. We should not leave LLM generated articles in main space. Both you and the other editor are more than welcome to participate in the identification and cleanup. Perhaps someone could share why they believe this article to be different, and why the user did not use an LLM for this one article, otherwise the consensus is that this was generated.

Thanks for explaining, I wasn't sure what had happened. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Always happy to explain. The last thing I’ll say on this: what you’re proposing is more effort than AfDing it and you and I have already spent more time in this discussion than it would have taken for you to nominate it and others to comment. If you truly feel this article should be deleted, your best option here is AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. I just didn't understand the rationale, or rather I wasn't sure why someone thought that this wasn't generated. The purpose of LLMPRV is to not take up too more community time than required, and I'm more thinking about the collective time from everyone that would be involved in the AfD. The purpose here is to just tag the generated articles so that they can be deleted without requiring any extended discussions, because the discussions have already happened here on this noticeboard. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

As I initially read this conversation, this article was being used to justify pulling auto patrolled, which I would naturally support and find fully justified. The information cited in this article is something I had verified and the LLM detector I ran this through (Pangram) did not indicate AI. I was unaware of the self-admission of using LLMs to create articles and agree that changes the situation. I have re-deleted the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Also works by me if there’s no longer an objection to it. Thanks for chiming in. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes total sense and explains what happens. Pangram is probably the best of the "detectors" (at least currently), but it is more prone to giving false negatives (saying AI generated text is not AI generated) than it to giving false positives (incorrectly flagging something as AI when it isn't). Sometimes ZeroGPT will mark stuff as AI (either partially or fully) when Pangram doesn't think it is, and so it is always hard to make a judgement call on a single text like this. But when taken as a whole, I think that looking at LLM use as a behavioural issue rather than isolated content issues makes a lot of sense, and that is often how I approach it, by thinking about it in the context of an editor rather than single articles. I'm not the best at recognising or being sure from lexical indicators, there's many others here that are far better than me at that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The self-admission may also have happened after you checked it, I didn't look at the timestamps and can't see them now. Either way though, this makes complete sense to me and thank you for taking the time to explain. I'm also asking these questions so that I can better understand things for future issues. I'm not here to rag on anybody or anything. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've done down to #205 (The Mother, the Menacer, and Me) on XTools (going backwards, so increasing numbers). There's about 200 left Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious about the link you posted but I can't seem to access it! What is that link? isha ^(talk) 16:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It lists all the articles they created (to get to it just go to a user's contributions, scroll to the bottom, and click "Articles created"), but XTools is down/getting flooded by bots atm Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

A substitute while XTools is flooded is the tracking page linked at the top of this case, which also lists all the editor's edits. Can't match up the numbers that way, though. M kuhner (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• LLMPRODs are done Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just FYI a new user removed the prod from William Orwig (psychologist) a few minutes before your message. I reinstated it to be safe. --Hadal (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Heads up, people have started removing them, mixing it up with the G15 criteria: Diff/1362410232. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The LLMPROD tag was removed from Kecia Steelman after the subject herself started editing it. I'm not sure what is going on in User talk:KeciaSteelman1 § Incorrect Claim, but there might be some COI (apart from the COI of the subject editing their own BLP) going on there. Not sure what is up with that {{paid contributions}} template, or why she's in contact with a volunteer via email. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Can we revisit Blocking of YouTube in Russia? I presume it wasn't LLMPRODed because there was too much input from other editors, but the current text shows as 96% GlobalDonald in Who Wrote That? and I have grave doubts about its validity. Is that 4% really too much? If that's the consensus I'll take it to AfD, but I personally think it could be LLMPROD. M kuhner (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhnerWinston says 28% human, an unusual score (it's usually under 10% or over 90%), but more understandable with multiple editors. GPTZero 0% human, 84% mixed, 16% AI. Winston flagged up the Timeline section, particularly the first paragraph, and that is indeed interesting: the wording is veering to the usual AI phraseology, but ends with this quote: As early as June, Anton Gorelkin publicly stated the possibility of slowing down the video hosting service in Russia, arguing this was necessary to counter the platform's "anti-Russian policy" - whereas the source says State Duma deputy Anton Gorelkin spoke of a possible YouTube slowdown back in June . In July, Alexander Khinshtein, head of the State Duma Committee on Communications and IT, warned of this. He predicted a 70% slowdown due to YouTube's "anti-Russian policies." - in other words the Wikipedia version has (a) given the quote to the wrong person and (b) mangled it up, it was a prediction. Overall that source was not properly summarised. So clear signs that LLM is doing something that damages the project.

Options? (a) delete on the basis of project damage. (b) draftify - I would be willing to fix this but it could take me weeks (c) draftify to stubify, so a quick fix to focus just on the BBC, Meduza and Deutsche Welle sources and not much else. That wouldn't take so long. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't use LLM detectors myself, but I'm told the evaluation can change drastically if you strip out formating and citations: you might try that, if you haven't already. M kuhner (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There are enough flaws with detectors that I would want to avoid arguing on that specific point, but I do strip out citations in GPTZero, Winston ignores them. Direct quotes are another problematic area (e.g. politicians now use AI to write their speeches!). Instead, I'd focus on the next level, such as where there is a clear AI hallucination that any editor could/should have spotted, as in the Timeline section. If this was AFC, that mismatch on the source, a big glaring mismatch, would be a definite decline, and perhaps a rejection because it is clearly not checked. Source says ABC, draft says XYZ. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you think you could go for one of the draft or stub options? In my experience taking LLM articles to AfD is an uphill battle: people do not want to delete an article on a notable topic. M kuhner (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner process wise it would be better to go through AFD, to get better consensus, but it would certainly survive that, the topic is too significant to be lost (and I would have to agree) and we are still left with the LLM. I guess stubify and a partial rebuild would be best since the article history can be mined by experienced editors to add back anything they feel strongly about. I can leave a detailed explanation + hint sheet on the Talk page. That's not a 10 minute job, at least not at my plodding pace, but I will see if I can do this later today. I wonder if there is an explanation template, for the article itself, that cover this scenario? ChrysGalley (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Tbh it can be LLMPRODed, don't think I realised how large it was Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I really would not want that, just one entity would be delighted with that outcome. Doing so would be a red flag as to whether LLM obsession has overtaken our sense of purpose. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

UpdatingUK

 Cleanup has been requested.

A large amount of AI-generated football articles starting around 2025-26. They were warned earlier this year, twice, and brushed it off without addressing the question of whether they used AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Fifty articles of which the first few were much earlier (2023). In 2023 article Morwell Pegasus SC much of their creation material has been deleted as copyvio (if I'm interpreting the diffs correctly). Perhaps copyvio was their initial solution to easy article creation, and then they graduated to LLM?

Their most recent article 1956 Latrobe Valley Soccer League was May 15. It is almost all sourced to an offline book--but it's sourced to pages 21-22 of 110 years of Gippsland Soccer (1912–2022) and contains very detailed crosstables. I'd be very surprised if those crosstables fit on pp. 21-22, and if the book is that detailed, also surprised we got from 1912 to 1956 in 20 pages. Furthermore, Google Books has not heard of this book. M kuhner (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

where are the sports stub police when you need them Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I can find no record of 110 years of Gippsland Soccer existing, and the claimed author Laurie Williams doesn't favor the term soccer either, as evident from their works Encyclopedia of Gippsland Football and Mid Gippsland Football League Grand Finals 1935-2020.

@UpdatingUK please disclose the extent of your large language model use on the project. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bd-VTfrr4gC20SZkv3CkyCfpoe15g2Uy/view?usp=sharing

There's a PDF copy of 110 years of Gippsland Soccer. Laurie Williams himself provided it.

May I also take this opportunity to let you know that the Encyclopaedia of Gippsland Football and Mid Gippsland Football League Grand Finals 1935-2020 pertain to Australian Rules Football, not Association Football.

For the purposes of absolute clarity, these are considered entirely different sports.

Laurie is considered the region's foremost sporting historian and published a number of credentialed works across multiple sports. UpdatingUK (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The question being asked is whether you are using AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The link above is "Access Denied" for me. Has this book been published? What is its ISBN? Who published it? I am having no success finding it. If it is an unpublished manuscript it is not a reliable source. M kuhner (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

That link is inaccessible to me as well. I checked the National Library of Australia , Google Books and WorldCat and found nothing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I can also access the PDF, which was generated via Skia. It seems to me to be the digital equivalent of my grandma's scrapbook, with cuttings from newspapers (some credited, most are not), and social media sourced photos and text. As a document it can't be used under WP:SELFPUBLISH though it may generate leads to other sources. It is the sort of source where LLM is pretty poor at discriminating value and weight. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I can access the Google Drive document, but it does not seem to be a published book: it has no copyright information, no publisher, and the title page just says

110 years of GIPPSLAND SOCCER 1912-2022
Compiled by Laurie Williams 2022

followed immediately by the content. Since this document has no provenance, just sitting on some random Google Drive account, I don't see any evidence that this should be considered a reliable source. CodeTalker (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Guywelch2000

 Cleanup has been requested.

Yet another enormous swath of AI edits going back to 2023. What makes this especially telling is that not only do their edits seem like AI, the way in which they seem like AI tracks the differences in AI model output exactly. Special:Diff/1203341299 reads like 2024 AI, Special:Diff/1288603486 reads like 2025 AI, Special:Diff/1347250351 reads like 2026 AI, etc. This also applies to their edit summaries and talk page comments, e.g. Talk:Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, Talk:Culture of California, etc.

I warned them in February; they did not answer, despite being actively editing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

they responded Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Siege of Silistra (1809)

Came across this article whilst patrolling new pages. The 1887 and 1889 book sources lead to 404 pages. Now, I don't speak Russian, so it will be harder to verify the pages cited in the other sources. The tone of the article also doesn't seem to be neutral in some parts. This is the only article created by Ottomansoldiers (talk · contribs), just less than an hour ago today. Fortek67 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

has « symbols (after shouting), don't think I've seen that before. Warned for AI use anyway w level 1 per the 404s and tone, level 1 is cautious re biting so should be okay Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Article by this name was deleted in Feb. 2025 on WP:R2 grounds (redirect from mainspace)--how that relates I have no idea, but it suggests there's some history here? M kuhner (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Yahya0071

 Cleanup has been requested.

See the recent articles created in rapid succession with AI signs and User talk:Yahya0071#Question. Jfire (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jfire, thank you for reaching out and pointing me toward the policy guidelines. You are completely correct. I have been translating and porting established articles from the Arabic Wikipedia over to the English side to help expand coverage on these topics. To speed up the translation and Wikitext formatting process, I have been using an AI assistant.

I realize now that creating these pages in rapid succession without proper translation attribution or thorough manual sifting is a problem. I sincerely apologize for the oversight. I am going to pause creating new articles immediately, and I will go back through the articles. I appreciate your vigilance in keeping the project clean! Yahya0071 (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty, your understanding of the guidelines regarding LLM use, and pledging to pause. I appreciate that. LLM-aided translation is allowed, but only as outlined in WP:LLMTRANSLATE. In particular only when you have checked the sources in the origin language article and you are sure the translated text reflects them fairly. Given the rate that you were creating new articles and the fact that many of the sources refer to offline texts, it seems unlikely that the articles you created comply with that guideline. Can you confirm? Jfire (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Astharosh

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-20 Astharosh, 190 pages need review.

User:Astharosh blurted out 9 articles in an hour. Some have been tagged for LLM concerns by others, I tagged Andrés Peláez for G15: The article looks hallucinated, for instance a claim about being a lawyer and university professor sourced to an article about another person (Anuar Peláez) that doesn't mention professors. Another hallucination is Léo Flores playing for Panathinaikos. Geschichte (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

They were warned for AI use 5 June . Given they've had an article SD'd for G15, this should probably be a mainspace block Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

user is continuing to add LLM-generated articles ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Editor has been warned repeatedly and had articles deleted for LLM use, but continues to try to add LLM articles to mainspace, see Draft:Chicken P which was moved to mainspace and then draftified by another editor. This article has very high levels of WP:AIATTR, and 2/8 sources are 404. Request a mainspace block to stop ongoing damage and hopefully get them to communicate, as warnings are being ignored. M kuhner (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Nish Aryal

 Cleanup has been requested.

Though they've said otherwise here, Nish Aryal (talk) seems to be using LLMs in some of their contributions, specifically in all of their edits marked with the tag "Edit Check (paste) shown." See this diff at Dal bhat for example: . All their other edits with that tag show similar LLM-like language. InfernoHues (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

They've made a few drafts but I'm not seeing any really blatant evidence, might be one to keep an eye on? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

"Soupy lentil soup" is a weird phrase but I don't see much that's obviously AI. Looks more like stilted non-native English prose, possibly using a thesaurus. Some of the copy and paste warnings are on single phrases. SenshiSun (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Vayro.7

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested.

Vayro.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

yet another enormous, ongoing swath of most likely AI edits; the ones that tipped me off were these (note markdown etc), but there are a lot more and I do not have time to dig through all of this Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

they were previously warned November 2025 (after the markdown diff) , to which they replied

Hi Jlwooda, Thank you for your contributions, you are not mistaking at all, actually I have used AI chatbot to assist me in some parts of the article, I did not knew it is unsuitable to use such a thing. I will make sure to check each citation and remove fictitious references if there are. Thank you for your help! Vayro.7 (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

and

Hi Jlwoodwa,
Thank you for your helpful feedback and for mentioning the sandbox — I actually wasn’t familiar with it before, and I appreciate you pointing it out. I’ve carefully reviewed and updated the Biological intelligence article, verifying all references and improving the structure to align with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability.
I’ll make sure to use my sandbox for future drafts and experimental edits before publishing. Thanks again for your guidance and patience! Vayro.7 (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What a bizarre editing style, the recent edit summaries appear AI-generated at least Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

yup, reverting the obvious ones and i'm seeing ~-10K bytes, which is absurd ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-35622-93, btw your edits got reverted, you may want to link to the report when doing cleanup Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 it was solved! see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procrastination&diff=prev&oldid=1361005691 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-control&diff=prev&oldid=1361005645 ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What a wholesome interaction! Gladdens my heart. M kuhner (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the user's edits to Biological intelligence, which they represented to Jlwoodwa that they had fixed. In one edit summary they claim to have corrected bad references but though they say they validated Friston 2019, it's a dead link. In another edit summary they say they added a DOI, but it goes to a totally different article. I conclude from this that, like the sources themselves, their claims to have improved the article are hallucinations. (IMO they are too stupid to be lies: why go to the trouble of pasting in a new link if it's going to 404?) Given that, we can't assume good faith on subsequent edits: I think some action is needed promptly. M kuhner (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my edits and for raising these concerns. I understand why some of my recent contributions have prompted scrutiny. My intention has always been to improve articles, not to introduce inaccurate information. Looking back, it's clear that some edits did not meet Wikipedia's standards, particularly with regard to source verification. I'll make an effort to revisit previous edits where feasible and fix any issues that are brought to my attention. Going forward, I'll make sure that substantial additions are based directly on reliable sources, that every citation is checked before publication, and I'll use my sandbox for larger drafts where appropriate. I appreciate everyone who took the time to identify problematic edits. Vayro.7 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Calhetan77

LLMPRODs are done

Calhetan77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Lombada dos Marinheiros, Madalena do Mar - the signs are obvious enough that I won't elaborate on them (busy rn). Will come up with a source analysis later if somehow too much noise is made (ping me if required), but note that the first source I clicked on was a dead link, so... also, persistent incivility on talk pages of AI patrollers. Fermiboson (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

possible WP:LOUTSOCKing as well Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm checking the English sources. I've found a clear reference error, an ambiguous reference error, and a reference that passes.

Madalena do Mar includes a reference to the non-RS Madeira Holidays homepage with the claim "The parish is situated in one of the warmest coastal regions of Madeira, receiving nearly 3,000 hours of sunshine annually." The linked page does not match this claim. They may have intended to link to The page for Ponta do Sol. While that does mention having more sun, there's no specific amount listed. My attempt to find this claim anywhere else on the site failed.

• The same page includes a reference which links to the AllTrails homepage. The Rota do Banana de Madalina do Mar listed there is 1.9 km long, not 500m. The description (auto-translated by the site itself) does not mention the banana plantations. The similarly named Rota da Bananas does. Neither mention the irrigation systems. The 500m may have come from a misreading of the estimated 0.5-1.0h completion time.
• The reference Madalena do Mar – Rota da Banana does support the claim "The festival promotes the local banana industry, which forms a core part of the local economy." However, the travel blog contains no byline or indication of editorial oversight. It should be very easy to find another source for this statement.

SenshiSun (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Now looking at Lombada dos Marinheiros. Someone may have removed the 404 link. I can't find it.

Lombada dos Marinheiros Viewpoint was cited three times. The first citation seems to be misplaced on elevation, which is not mentioned on the page. The second partially passed; it says "We should note that this parish still bears a strong historical mark: it was created in the mid-16th century and Gonçalo Ferreira de Carvalho, one of the first settlers of the island, came to own land here," which matches "The parish of Fajã da Ovelha has a rich history, having been settled as early as the mid-16th century." The third citation matches.

AllTrails was cited twice. I cannot find "Lombada dos Marinheiros - Levada Nova Loop Trail". It's actually listed as Lombada dos Marinheiros - Levada Nova - Miradouro . The second trail, listed as "Lagoa do Salão to Lombada dos Marinheiros Trail", appears to be Lagoa do Salão - Miradouro da Lombada dos Marinheiros, which is a slightly different name. SenshiSun (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Account blocked, page semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Mahussain06

 Cleanup has been requested.

Mahussain06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Several large edits, such as this, using an unencyclopedic machine tone. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The Amir Khan edits which were reverted were re-written by myself. Just pasted all the text into https://app.gptzero.me/ and it says 'We are moderately confident this text is entirely human' at 70%.. but then other AI detectors might be lower and some will be higher. Just because I've included some nice adjectives, doesn't mean it's not written by me. Ok, it might not sound unencyclopedic. I'll agree with that. Or is it because I'm posting large amounts at a time? If you want it to sound more boring, then I can do that as well. These edits take a long time, sometimes days to complete, whilst holding on to my full time job.. If this is going to cause hassle, then I'm probably better off quitting. I don't want to do that. Mahussain06 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You wrote here that you use a "summarizing tool". Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I admitted using a summarise tool for articles, but I was told that the tool isn't effective and when I did more research, I found that this was correct. I am capable of reading articles and dissecting them and putting them into my own words. I've been doing this long enough. If evolved as an editor over the years. If you want me to go back to basics, I certainly can do that. Give me time, and I'll re-write anything again without any fancy words or thesaurus. Mahussain06 (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Massacres of Ukrainians by Polish forces in World War II

Could someone take a second look - in this new article I just removed some CIRCULAR references to Wikipedia, and also numerous Wikipedia article links from EL. This kind of error makes me think of AI, it's more common I think in AI generation than human output. PS. My spotchecks on sourcing suggests they are real, not hallucinated, although some are missing URLs (but that's a common human lazy error, no tale, I think). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The external links to Wikipedia were also found in the "see also" section. This feels like a very strange error for an editor to make unassisted. @Yaroself called references "notes", which is non-standard for English Wikipedia but might be a direct translation from Ukranian.

I would understand these issues if they were from a new user, but this user has made over 800 edits to English Wikipedia since 2015. SenshiSun (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia is inconsistent on reference terminology and house style. It's an easy mistake. But this person has a long history to compare that AfD page against. The telltale signs (em dash and so on) are all there. Cedarshadow (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cedarshadow Would you mind elaborating on the telltale signs and/or looking into this a bit more? I am not very familiar with this (which is why I asked for help from experts here :) ). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

To me, the article has clear signs of being written at least in part with the assistance of AI. You can check WP:AISIGNS. Combined with the obvious AI-assisted comment the creator made on the article AfD, I would be pretty confident about this. They might have had an account since 2015 but they have fewer than 900 edits, with fewer than 50 edits since 2023. This is the first "big" article they have created; others are either redirects or originally stubs. And other comments they have made on talk pages do not have the same cadence as their AfD vote. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Apologies for the delay. I'm here to learn the WP:AISIGNS myself. A past sockpuppet took an interest in Mexico-related articles. I ran this edit through ZeroGPT and gave my two cents. I don't envy admins who have to hand out bans based on this stuff. Cedarshadow (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust AI to identify AI. There could be false positives, and I don't know exactly what rationale is being used. The best method, in my opinion, is to rely on WP:AISIGNS and to compare previous outputs of the editor to identify mismatches. Eventually, you will be able to identify patterns on your own. I would say that the majority of editors relying on AI do not make an effort to mask it, which ends up resulting in obvious cases like this one, where a quick scan can tell you AI was involved. Paprikaiser (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

User:LumenArchivorum

 Cleanup has been requested.

LumenArchivorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

More high-volume AI edits. Specifically, they are using Perplexity, and I know this because Special:Diff/1345574273 left in a citation to a Perplexity S3 bucket ("ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com"). And also the usual AI signs everywhere (from that one diff, the edit summary, the it functions not only as a place of worship but also as a major religious, social, and cultural center, enhancing ventilation, etc) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Gnomingstuff and fellow Wikipedians

It has been a bit over a week, and I have now reviewed the correctly reported diff and the article, I then removed the AI content, and I then rewrote what needed fixing in my own words from sources I have read. I have also looked at my edit history wherever AI tools were involved outside of Wikipedia, to make sure no similar problems remain.

From now on, I will not paste AI‑generated things into maonspace or rely on AI tools for facts or summaries. When I use AI at all, it will be restricted strictly to what I do outside Wikipedia. I’m very grateful to @Gnomingstuff that lifted this problem and to all editors that guided me through the cleanup.

I deeply apologise for I entered AI‑generated text and the Perplexity URL got into mainspace. That was a bad mistake I have to own, and I’m so sorry for the extra work and concern it has rightfully caused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LumenArchivorum LumenArchivorum (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gnomingstuff,

Thanks for taking the time to leave me a note and for flagging the diff at the noticeboard. I’ve gone back to look at the edit you pointed out (1345574273) and at the current guidance about large language models.

You’re right that there’s a problem with that edit. My intention was to copy and paste source information that I had been working with, but in the proccess I mistakenly copied over a Perplexity‑generated summary and its file URL instead of the underlying source details. That meant AI‑derived prose and an AI artifact ended up in mainspace, which isn’t okay under the pressent rules.

I’m starting to fixing this by removing the Perplexity citation and either rewriting or cutting the sentences that came from AI output, making sure that what remains is based on solid sources I’ve actually read and written in my own words. I’m also going through my edits in general to review how I ells my have worked in anyway but in accordance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

From here on I’ll be much stricter with myself, if I use tools like that, it’ll only be outside Wikipedia for brainstorming and searching for academic sources.

I appreciate you raising this rather than ignoring it. If you come across other specific diffs where you think AI‑derived text or citations are still lurking, please do point me to them and I’ll sort them out.

LumenArchivorum (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi all,

I’d like to report to my fellow Wikipedians about my edits, and thank Gnomingstuff for taking the time to look at the diff and raise the concerns here.

After reading through the current guidance on large language models, I can see that what I did in the reported edit (1345574273) isn’t in line with the rules. My intention at the time was to copy over source information I’d been working with, but I mistakenly copied a Perplexity‑generated summary and its file URL instead of the actual underlying sources. The result was that AI‑generated prose and an AI artifact were added to the article, which clearly shouldn’t have happened.

I’m now cleaning that up, the AI‑related citation is being removed, and I’m rewriting or removing the sentences that may have came from AI output so that the page only contains text I’ve written myself from reliable sources that I’ve checked. I’m also revewing my recent edits to see where similar problems may exist and correcting them.

Going forward, I’ll treat AI tools strictly as off‑wiki helpers and for ideas searching the web for academic sources, and I definitely won’t paste their output directly into mainspace. My goal is to keep my contributions clearly within the current policies on AI use and sourcing.

If anyone spots other specific diffs that need attention, I’m happy to look at them and fix them. I appreciate the work that’s gone into clarifying these standards; I’ll make sure they’re reflected in how I edit and in how I talk about editing with others. LumenArchivorum (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk page comments should not be written with AI either. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I will drop the wording suggester feature and the obsessiveness in correctness in talkpagespaces because it does come of as rather robotic. I'm so sorry I allowed AI output to enter mainpace with these edits you correctly noted, I am dedicated to ensure I perform a complete cleanup. LumenArchivorum (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @LumenArchivorum, thank you for doing this, but can I ask that you do the same for any other articles you've add LLM-generated text to? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi

@Kowal2701, I am dedicated to carefully review all my edits where any AI tool was part of the research to ensure ethical and responsible use, (maximum one more week, I won't keep editing new articles until I feel confident it is done) and thank you for guiding me through the clean up. Using AI to help me find sources has been a game changer in my ability to research, gives a bigger selection of content to investigate, which has to take its good time, slow and steady wins the race. Don't stress and edit, triple check all sources and text you create yourselves carefully to be sure no AI generated content is copied over from any pre research. Basic editorial integrity is at stake.

In today's world I got to better and more humbly learn when to and how to use AI outside of Wikipedia, definitely not allow AI output to enter Wiki mainspace, and I need to work slower and more carefully not to do this again. I'm so sorry about this, I am dedicated to go through all my edits where I have used AI in anyway outside of Wikipedia in research to make sure no more violations exist. LumenArchivorum (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no AI generated content is copied over from any pre research"? Were you using AI tools to gather a list of potential sources on a topic? SenshiSun (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I should be clearer. I mean that in any case where AI tools are used outside of Wikipedia, as in helping to gather sources, nothing AI create can be allowed to enter Wiki mainspace, I am deeply regretful for this miss of editorial due diligence. LumenArchivorum (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Please be very careful. LLMs can NOT be trusted to summarize a source. In particular, if it "thinks" you are looking for details about something, but no details are present, it will invent some. They are useful to suggest sources, but no more than that. M kuhner (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed, it is so important to keep reminding oneself about that, don't trust AI conclusions on anything. LumenArchivorum (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

They appear to be still using AI... Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah- their comments on Talk:Health in Yemen look human-written, their edit summaries on that article don't. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 22:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Manu.Shareghi

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested.

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Manu.Shareghi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Vandalism. This user is indefed on de-wiki for using AI. I just mass deleted many of his de-wp articles but he also created some here: here he removes answers from the AI which he acceidnetially copied in the article "You can directly copy and paste this into Wikipedia's article editor in source mode to create or edit a page on Lam Leung-tim." He has 13.000 contribs on de-wiki but it seems he only used AI and nothing else. XReport --Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This is tough, Der-Wir-Ing – I'd probably be one of the first to block for that behavior but it's only been prohibited recently here and the user hasn't edited enwiki for over 7 months. I'm afraid Special:Diff/1361149745 is all we can do for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

(That, and cleaning up the articles. Copied to WP:AIN.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"prohibited recently here" You have now a policy against anti-AI stuff? Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

yup @Der-Wir-Ing, see WP:LLM ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

You mean the part about blocking? Well, wouldnt it be more important to delete the AI article? Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The policy at en.wikipedia is that, with very narrow exceptions, LLM use is forbidden. WP:NOLLM. However this has only been true since March, so we can't block someone who used LLMs 7 months ago, unless they start again.

For someone who does rapid-fire LLM edits I think blocking is actually more important than deletion, because if not blocked they can make new articles faster than we can clean them up. We have some 1000+ article cleanup cases ongoing. We'll keep an eye out for this editor and hopefully can nip it in the bud if he restarts here. Thanks for the warning, it's very helpful! M kuhner (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

(btw the general rule is that we can usually only block someone if they're recently editing, WP:PREVENTATIVE) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Tumbuka Arch

Prolific article creator and expander User:Tumbuka Arch appears to be using an LLM in their editing process. Examples include:

Traditional Lamba cultural practices remain present in ceremonies and local identity structures (vague analysis characteristic of LLM usage, from . This content is also unsourced, but that's a separate issue).

Its institutions influenced later political formations, including the Chikulamayembe Kingdom, which replaced it as the dominant Tumbuka state in the region (from , cited to pages 27-38 in this book which does not contain the word "Chikulamayembe" in that page range. Note that this version also contains a red-linked category that never existed.)

The area was associated with early missionary expansion and the development of education and Christianity in northern Malawi (vague analysis from , cited to a storefront site that does not connect missionaries to Phoka and does not mention education. Also contains a redlinked category that never existed.). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, another person I asked multiple times whether they used AI, who completely ignored the question. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I also note that Tumbuka Arch removes some of the worst parts of their additions in later edits, e.g. my first two examples are no longer in their respective articles, but of course that does not excuse the rest of the content being LLM-generated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff, @Helpful Raccoon, Greetings. Thank you for raising this up.

I have used AI-assisted translations as well as language editing in some of my articles and I recognize this may have introduced some words or statements that were not adequately supported by sources cited.

Starting from now on, I have paused creating new articles so that I can review and improve my existing ones. I will also no longer exalt to use AI-assisted translations, or if I do, I will have to double check for AI hallucinations and cited sources before moving it into mainspace.

I have also just realized that alot has changed here since my last visit in late 2024 with major changes.

Thank you. --- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tumbuka Arch Please see WP:LLM-assisted translation for the narrow criteria that must be met to perform AI-assisted translations. In particular, you can only translate from pre-existing Wikipedia articles and all content must be properly sourced. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon I have read Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation and I will keep that in mind. Thank you for pointing me to that, and as stated above, I will go through all my other affected edits, one at a time, and fix anything related to this. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

User:The Blue Rider

 Cleanup has been requested.

The Blue Rider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Note that this user is indeffed for other reasons.)

Came across this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love&diff=1221237680&oldid=1217651182 this series of AI rewrites in 2024 by them, the usual highlights/fosters/underscores/emphasizes slop. Apparently this was not the first time I noticed something in their edits, to which they replied with the usual evasive non-answer.

They have longstanding edits to a lot of articles, some of which are major topics (like, uh, Love). They also did a lot of GA review and that's a whole other can of worms. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Reverted Love to the last version before their edits. sapphaline (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

User_talk:The_Blue_Rider#WP:GRAVEDANCING, FYI. sapphaline (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

yes I am aware of this, thanks to the first thing I saw upon waking up being my email inbox and its fresh batch of angry pings Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

User:AtlanteanAstorian

 Cleanup has been requested.

User:AtlanteanAstorian has created a large amount of LLM edits, see this diff, this talk page edit, and this extremely bizarre edit. ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

also from 2026: . Incredibly they don't appear to have been warned, so I've gone and done that Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

worth noting that i've filed a commons:village pump/copyright issue after seeing that the coats of arms looked like they all have copyright issues ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if this is self-report or report on potential abuse of policy

I wanted to ask you for a couple of minutes of your time. I had a rather uncomfortable, maybe even a bit emotional, editing experience, and before overstepping or reacting too quickly, I wanted to check with all of you whether the problem is really on my side. It is related to my recent edits and conversation on the article Flag carrier. I was accused and basically disqualified from further conversation by @Danners430:, who used (and I really think seriously abused) LLM rules. I do indeed use AI (extremely responsibly and fully in line with responsible usage guidelines), as I explicitly stated when asked. English is not my native language, so I use Grammarly (provided by an academic institution) to improve my writing (I prepare my draft comments in Word). I am quite sure it must be relying on these new technologies, as it helps quite a lot. This led to being warned about factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, and similar ridiculous stuff, as if I do not understand basics. I think no neutral editor would assume that comments I made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#Scope of the Flag carrier article would honestly think they are just some statistical hallucinations. My strong impression at this stage is that the editor in question is preserving the topic's chiefdom by any means necessary. This creates an unwelcoming environment in which our volunteer work is being outright disrespected and discouraged. I think there may even be grounds for an incident report here, but I wanted, first, to see with you whether I am really doing something horrible (I can cut out language editing if it is also banned, but from what I see even wider usage then I do is still permited for example with translation). I know I tend to write long comments because it's sometimes hard for me to sum it all up briefly, but I would really, genuinely, and honestly appreciate your time and advice. I think I had a legitimate and good contribution to that discussion, and I don’t feel it is really cool that I am now kicked out and basically shamed in such a way.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There is precisely one point that is correct here - you admitted that you used an LLM for writing messages on talk pages. As a result, I collapsed your messages as AI generated, which you yourself state they are, and I left a notice on your talk page notifying you of the AI policy. Now perhaps you could be so kind, without using AI, to give diffs to back up your claims that you were warned about factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, and similar ridiculous stuff, as if I do not understand basics?

Here's the plain and simple facts - editors do not want to discuss with an AI. We want to talk to you - another editor. I made the simple statement that I would ignore your AI-generated comments, as I have no intention of interacting with an AI. If you want to discuss something with myself, then use your own words and not an AI. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

English Wikipedia policy changed in March 2026. Under the new policy, available at WP:NOLLM, LLM text must not be added to Wikipedia: not in articles, not in talk page comments, nowhere. There are very narrow exceptions for basic copyediting (spelling, punctuation and capitalization) and for certain uses of machine translation. You're right to think recent Grammarly uses LLM, so it's not suitable for use in making Wikipedia articles or comments.

The policy deliberately doesn't make room for correct use, because that was tried and did not work.

For the dispute with the other editor, you could try one of the methods outlined in WP:Dispute resolution. But you will need to stop using LLMs for Wikipedia. We are interested in hearing your own human words. M kuhner (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It's worth saying, I'm more than happy to continue discussing the matter at hand - just not with an AI. If the editor drops the AI use (there are plenty of non-AI translation tools), the discussion could continue as if nothing happened. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This is still quite fresh, so I am not sure I am 100% cool to continue this discussion with you (@Danners430:) constructively right now. Good that I asked here to learn where I am wrong. And it seems I misunderstood the current policy. I am still quite sure about the other part, about the hearth of the issue, but maybe this is not the place. Thank you @M kuhner: for a prompt reply and apologies if my first uncool reaction to the whole situation is still a bit visible.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's your choice - if you drop AI and discuss with your own words, then the discussion can move forward. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Some cooling off time sounds like a good plan. WP:NODEADLINE surely applies here. M kuhner (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Users shouldn't be using translation tools to communicate either, because that means that they lack the required language WP:COMPETENCE to participate on the English Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Communicating without the crutch of AI copy editing can help users get better at it too. SenshiSun (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies

Hi, I'm requesting that Draft:Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies be moved back to mainspace. The article was draftified by a user based on suspicion of AI generation, but no specific passage or characteristic was identified to support that assessment.

Every claim in the article is sourced to a named primary ethnographic text with specific page numbers Evans-Pritchard (1970), Driberg (1923), Herskovits (1938), Tauxier (1912), Judith Gay (1985), Gill Shepherd (1987), and many more others. Several of these sources are behind paywalls or available only through archive scans. I located and read each one. I spent hours and days , finding good sources, Ai is incapable of doing this, this is extremely unfair. Ai cannot be that specific about stuff that's not widely reported most these books are not widely reported. Each and every line is supported.

From the Mossi section onward I shifted to single book sources per section cause one book already covers everything needed for that society, adding more sources on top of that is useless. Most sources give specific page numbers, when homosexuality in this specific book is mentioned in page 56, JSTOR might have a page citation of only page 123, so it's useless cause that page is not what I want.

If there is something specific in the article that reads as AI-generated, I'm asking that it be identified so I can address it directly . A blanket accusation without evidence does not meet the standard for draftification. I'm bringing this here to request for permission to put my article back in mainspace.Omniking2100 (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I can see nothing obvious indicating LLM generation. I'll ask the contributor responsible to explain how this conclusion was arrived at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Specifically this edit: Diff/1361388058. It isn't wholesale generated by an LLM and pasted in, see the titles for instance. There is lots of markdown in the edit, and the spelling errors in the titles are a strong contrast to the rest of the edit. This editor has been notified about NOLLM multiple times, by multiple people, on multiple pages. I've tried to give them advice myself, and last night I left them a message in User talk:Omniking2100 § June 2026. My guess is that they are using an LLM to "assist" them in some way, probably requesting it to "polish" the text or "format references", and that they believe that this is the same as writing yourself.

Someone other than me requested G4 for Elon Musk and South Africa, which had been recreated after an AfD resulted in deletion, so I can't say anything about those edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about 'markdown'? If it is there, it isn't obvious to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

In Special:PermanentLink/1361388058: *Le Noir du Soudan: Pays Mossi et Gourounsi*, *gor-digen*, *Dahomey: An Ancient West African Kingdom*, *The Konso of Ethiopia*, *"Mummies and Babies" and Friends and Lovers in Lesotho*, *Women, Power and Economic Change: The Nandi of Kenya*, *The Cultural Construction of Sexuality*. Three of those were added in the above linked diff. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

well those are names of things as I previously discussed I think it's appropriate to let the people know these words mean something, not just part of the sentences. Idk how this is an indicator. Omniking2100 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean "markdown" as in the Markdown markup language, and the WP:MARKDOWN sign of LLM use. The chatbots and LLMs use it for formatting generated text responses and replies to the user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah I read that, I get what you mean now. But not sure what relevance is here. Cause where is that here. I think anyone could see if that was the case. **Word**. they also don't seem to work in Wikipedia. The real way to bold here is like this ==.but again in this context not sure what you mean. Omniking2100 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

No, using Markdown does not work here because MediaWiki uses the WP:WIKITEXT markup language. And that is the syntax for ==a heading==, not for '''bolding''', in wikitext. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The polishing theory doesn't really work for this article specifically. The content I described is taken word for word from these primary ethnographic texts, Evans-Pritchard, Driberg, Herskovits, it cannot meaningfully be "polished" by an LLM without introducing some sort of distortion. What would polishing even do to a direct paraphrase of a 1923 anthropological text?. Literally take any random line and check the citation you'll see what I'm taking about. How does Ai do that, Ai can't access these books at all.

Let's say I did use Ai, per Wikipedia's own LLM policy, basic copy editing and markdowns including formatting is explicitly permitted. If markdown residue in an edit is being used as an AI indicator, that directly contradicts the policy which carves out formatting assistance as acceptable use. You can't simultaneously permit formatting assistance and treat formatting artifacts as evidence of prohibited use. Also markdown is good, for names of people. For example I'm Azande section, I say some warrior were called abakumba. It's better when I say, they were called "abakumba" or *abakumba*, than just leave it as part of the sentence. Omniking2100 (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

"Let's say I did use AI" isn't a very helpful comment. You clearly know whether you did or didn't. If you did, and you believe that your use of it is permitted by policy, just say so. We can then discuss whether you are correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

To add to the above, I sincerely hope that article content isn't literally "taken word for word from these primary ethnographic texts". That would constitute an unambiguous copyright violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right. But I didn't use AI here. The context was the Grammarly accusation, I did use AI then, in that limited sense. But not for this article. I was responding to that user, pointing out I once used AI, that's all.On "word for word" — I shouldn't have said that, I know the copyright rules. What I meant is that the sources strongly support every claim being made, just in my own words. I'm describing what these authors observed or said or described Evans-Pritchard said this, Driberg recorded that accurately and faithfully, not copying their text, but in my own words . Omniking2100 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Please clarify for us, yes or no:

1. Have you used AI to edit Wikipedia?
2. Have you used AI to edit Draft:Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies? (Grammarly is AI)

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

From WP:NOLLM: Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own. You seem to be asking whether Omniking2100 was doing something that policy permits? Is that helpful here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It is helpful to know if AI was used on the AI noticeboard, yes. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I've used AI, Grammarly, in the past. I don't use it now. I didn't use AI in this article.

But AI is broad, what do you consider AI in this context? Is using Google's AI to identify which societies in Africa potentially had homosexuality, or using it to find which books cover the the specific societies, say this one talks about Azande that Zulu, then yes I did that. Those are the only two things I used AI for, and both are explicitly allowed under Wikipedia's LLM policy which permits using AI for research. But I can say No AI touched the article text, I did that, I opened the pages and went to the specific sections. Check page numbers Ai will never, is incapable of doing that, Ai can't read a book or know which page talks about this, when no secondary source mentiones that page. Omniking2100 (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, so that means that any *markdown* was added manually. Could you clarify why you added markdown? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

hey can you show me an example of this markdown, I don't wanna pretend I get what you're talking about. Omniking2100 (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Certainly, some markdown is present in this diff in the form of text like *"Mummies and Babies" and Friends and Lovers in Lesotho* or *Women, Power and Economic Change: The Nandi of Kenya*. Alternately see this older edit to a different article which contains markdown like *izibongo*, *ulwaluko* and ---. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The thematic break was added in Diff/1305430184, along with more markdown. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, there are thematic breaks (and markdown) in both edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Markdown pre-dates LLM usage by a couple of decades at least, and thus isn't necessarily evidence of anything beyond unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's specific practice. How about cutting out the inquisition, and getting back to trying to get potentially useful article content back into article space? The draft isn't perfect, for several reasons, but it seems to me there is potential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

So does the English language. It is precisely because of the widespread usage of Markdown in the technology sector that LLMs have been trained to use it for their output. This is not about unfamiliarity either, because some other edits use wikitext and this editor is not unfamiliar with Wikipedia, they have submitted a number of articles.

If the draft has been generated (by an LLM), or contains generated text, then it is not fit for article space and would need to be completely rewritten (not generated) from scratch. It does not have to be perfect, it only has to have been written (by a person). ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of the age of markdown, though it's been made apparent that Omniking2100 is not, which raises a question of "hey wait, how did markdown get into this page if the person who wrote it doesn't know what markdown is and they state that they didn't use an LLM?"

I don't think seeking answers to reasonable questions like that is an "inquisition", and I don't appreciate my actions here being characterized as such. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense now. But those are just italics for book titles and foreign terms to make readers understand this unique. the only difference is I used asterisks instead of 'apostrophes, I did use apostrophes though in some lines, you can see that, describing names of people and all that, same result different syntax.

I understand bringing up my older edits for context but that was months ago and my editing has changed significantly since then. Back then I was relying on web pages and journal articles on fact just last week I was relying on these . Now I'm working exclusively from books, physically locating and reading primary ethnographic sources behind paywalls and archive scans. Pointing to something I did months ago doesn't really speak to what's in this article. The way I cite is different from months ago, the way to write, the way I do everything. So this quite irrelevant in this context. I really appreciate if you can point this markdown in this specific article. Omniking2100 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

But asterisks don't *italicize* text, they didn't in 2025 and they don't now. And since you didn't know what markdown was it's entirely unclear why you'd believe asterisks are used to italicize text in the first place.

A genuine belief that asterisks italicize text also doesn't explain why they would be manually added in one edit, then manually replaced with quotes two edits later.

This compounded with the fact that AI was used to create edits in the past, and that those past AI-assisted edits also contained markdown, doesn't do much to support the assertion that No AI touched the article text. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I took an independent look at this, and my take is that this now-draft article used AI in terms of layout and formatting. I accept that human endeavour forms a significant part of this article too. In addition to the Markdown issues, something that is now very rare in purely human written drafts, there is also the failure to use "ref name". For AI there is no advantage in using ref name but in an article of this length, not using ref name makes a very hard task extra-super-hard. This would be weeks of research and work to write this and any short cuts would be used. Had this been presented at AFC for review, I would have declined the draft. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

This is also my position. It is not wholesale generated, but an LLM has most likely been used. And I would most likely have declined this at AfC as well, hence why I chose to draftify yesterday.

I also find the editing on my talk page concerning. Both how only the section header and signature were added first before the body was added, and how some sections have perfect spelling but then other sections are written in a slightly different tense, with spelling errors, and with contractions without apostrophes. I have nothing against casual apostrophe free messages, but it is the inconsistency that bothers me here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

well it's cause you can't place a large amount of txt in Wikipedia at a time when responding to a comment, in talk pages. Idk how you guys experience it. I first make some space . Then I save, then I go to edit and put my text. Idk how you guys do it. Spelling is a very vague accusation, but I always try the check if my lines sound right before I publish them. Omniking2100 (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

This is very much the point: bad spelling is fine. Poor grammar? That's ok. Apostrophes and apostrophe's? Who cares. There is no requirement to write things correctly, though obviously it helps a bit. But there is a flat out ban on AI for all intents and purposes. I can see your normal vocabulary and writing style here and on your talk page, and that's all fine, nothing wrong with it. But then something happens to your use of English when you composed this draft, and that something is either AI or related. My other concern is that because you are using texts that can be searched by AI (such as Chris Hallpike's 1972 study) then in common with other drafts it reflects what AI can get its clutches on rather than adding due weight to modern scholarship. Now Hallpike is still alive today, but I very much doubt he would now write in the terms that he did in 1972, lumping this topic under a heading marked "deviant behaviour" (p. 138). He wrote according to the standards of 1972, and because AI can see this it gives undue weight to that sort of material. On the upside, your (or the AI version) carefully extracts itself from this rather unfortunately worded section, but I'm not convinced we should have started from there. If you were genuinely familiar with these texts, some of which are hundreds of pages long, this would be an academic year to get through this. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't really do it like that. When AI tells me which book, I go to the table of contents. All these books have one. They tell you where the Azande are mentioned, like Azande marriages. You know that's where they'll talk about homosexuality. You can ignore everything else. These books aren't about homosexuality, they just document these peoples and their practices. Some books have only 2 pages that even touch on. Also it depends cause, I got the homosexuality about Maale people from the book Boy-Wives and Female Husbands. But this book is a secondary source, a collection just like my article, of Homosexuality in Africa, but it quotes real book. That's why I even said it cites this book, also this book easy to nevigate homosexuality in is first few pages.

I can guarantee AI doesn't know this stuff. Ask any AI what page in "Rank, Gender, and Homosexuality: Mombasa as a Key to Understanding Sexual Options" talks about homosexuality among Swahili Muslims in Mombasa. It won't tell you. It doesn't know, because no other source has that specific page number. That's why I used the archive as source and the book directly, on Google books. AI can't do that, it's impossible. Omniking2100 (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

from 11 August 2025 is obviously raw output from an AI chatbot, not just from using a 'spellchecker' like Grammarly. Omniking, can you stop lying to us and have some WP:HONESTY Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah that means nothing, also didn't know Wikipedia didn't like such language cause I was editing it like it's a Fandom and a user told me I should go there instead. Again 2025,very long time ago. Omniking2100 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

You pinged admins, but it is not clear what administrator action is needed here. A mainspace block would allow Omniking2100 continued use of draftspace and discussion pages, but is that warranted? @Omniking2100 would do well to read Wikipedia:Do not lie about AI. There is enough evidence that AI was used as an author or co-author in violation of WP:NOLLM, rather than using an AI as an assistant. Continued denials would suggest that the editor intends to continue using an AI as a co-author, and that may lead to a block. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually came here so I'd get permission to send this to mainspace. By allowing other users to review and see if the claims are true or not. I will continue though to deny what I didn't use. The accusations have had answers, but it's goal posting and there will always be, what about that. For denial to be false, there should be evidence I i used it. So far, I have seen non that I could not explain. I won't admit to using something I didn't use. Omniking2100 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is not the first time that there have been concerns over LLM use with this editor.

• WP:AFD/Elon Musk and South Africa
• WP:AFD/List of common misconceptions about political terminology
• Raw chatbot output: Special:Diff/1305418334
• User talk:Omniking2100 §§ April 2026, Advice, and June 2026

Like I said somewhere else, this is an eager editor that I believe genuinely wants to contribute to the project, but they should do so without using generated text. I have tried to give them advice multiple times, most recently yesterday in § April 2026 on their talk page, but they seem to prefer to double down hope that they won't have to explain what exactly is going on here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the page has been moved back into article space: Diff/1361668593. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701: this noticeboard has gotten so long that I forgot all about § User:Omniking2100 from a few weeks ago. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand this looks like back and forth, but that's coming from the direction of the questions, it's you guys who move the goal posts, I only answer. I've engaged with every single point raised. And another problem will be called.

the misconceptions article was removed over structure, it was not a list, Also the sources were small, not specific it's why I gave up and never fought back. On the Elon Musk article, I never got a chance, my rationale was never considered, people just didn't even respond to me and it was deleted. I've repeatedly engange with all accusation and questions always, and it still never gets resolved.

Every time one concern is addressed, a new one appears. But I never complain and answer and explain my side. I wanna emphasize, it's you guys who keep changing the goal post, not Your fault I understand different users have different concerns, but I shiudkht be accused of moving anything when I answer each anf every of them. Omniking2100 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I can guarantee AI doesn't know this stuff. Ask any AI what page ...

I copied the question in verbatim from your reply and queried Google Gemini:

what page in "Rank, Gender, and Homosexuality: Mombasa as a Key to Understanding Sexual Options" talks about homosexuality among Swahili Muslims in Mombasa?

It generated a reply that told me pages 240 to 270, which are the exact same pages that your draft cites (in nine different references). Gemini even correctly told me that the book is titled The Cultural Construction of Sexuality and that Rank, Gender, and Homosexuality is the title of the chapter, which I could verify in KIT. I haven't checked if Gemini is correct, because I don't have the book. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Well you're right, I mixed up my example, I meant the Maale book, Boy-Wives and Female Husbands, not the Shepherd chapter. I know it's a chapter not a book, I got confused so confused for a moment I almost believed I made some giant error. That was genuinely my mistake.

The trick question was supposed to be about the Maale sourcing Boy-Wives and Female Husbands quotes Donham's original work, so if you asked Ai, to seaech page number AI would send you to the secondary source and give you that page number, not the original. That's the trick I was trying to do. Wrong example on my part.

But the actual point still stands even if AI can find a page number, that's explicitly permitted on Wikipedia. The real question was if AI wrote the article text itself. Knowing a page number was not really part of my real point.

Anyway still Ai can't do this stuff I actually doubted it, but it can't read a book and point it exact lines and pull out a quote.

I made a mistake on the citation example, i own that. Omniking2100 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The information is accurate to the text, though the page range is overly broad and covers the entire chapter including a page of only references. The accuracy can partly be attributed to uncomfortably close parapharasing. Brief snippets for comparison, The Cultural Construction of Sexuality is on the left, Draft:Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies right.

comparisons

−

The Swahili for a male homosexual is shoga, a word also used between women to mean 'friend'. Homosexual relations in Mombasa are almost without exception between a younger, poorer partner and an older, richer one, whether their connection is for a brief act of prostitution or a more lengthy relationship.

+

The Swahili word for a male homosexual is shoga, a word also used between women to mean "friend." Homosexual relations were almost without exception between a younger, poorer partner and an older, wealthier one, whether in brief acts of prostitution or longer relationships

−

some of them lesbians, have achieved positions of real influence in Mombasa. In 1974 one was a city councillor and another campaigning to become one; several were regularly approached at election times by would-be politicians aware of the size of their following and hoping to harness it

+

Some wealthy lesbians achieved real political influence — one was a city councillor in 1974 and another was campaigning for the position; several were regularly approached by politicians seeking to harness their followings.

−

The word in Swahili glossed as 'lesbian' is msagaji (pi. wasagaji) - 'a grinder'. The verb kusaga (to grind) is commonly used for the grinding of grain between millstones ... upper and lower millstones are known as mwana and mama respectively: 'child' and 'mother', strictly speaking, or simply 'young woman' and 'older woman'.

+

The Swahili term for a lesbian woman is msagaji (plural wasagaji), "a grinder," from the verb kusaga, meaning to grind grain between millstones. Shepherd stated that the upper and lower millstones were known as mwana and mama, "child/young woman" and "older woman"

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Found a PDF of Boy-Wives and Female Husbands (email me for a copy). The draft sources the direct quote part of the generativity of maleness in Maale to pages 92, 112–113, but it is actually found on page 23. The sentence doesn't appear anywhere else in the book, and this is the only time that the word generativity appears in the book. There are 10 separate references to this book, six of them don't cite any specific page and four of them cite pages 92 and 112–113. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

exactly. Cause I specifically said I'm citing another book. This one a secondary source as I already said. Look at how I wrote the ref: Murray, Stephen O.; Roscoe, Will (1998). Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies in African Homosexualities. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 92, 112–113 it's Citing Donham, Donald. Work and Power in Maale, Ethiopia Omniking2100 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about. The content is on first few pages of the secondary sources. This is why I said it's a trick. If you ask Ai, it's gonna say it's in those pages too, 92 or 112, but not this one. Omniking2100 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

it's why I was specific in saying "it's Citing..." Omniking2100 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

anyway reason is I couldn't get that specific book, but this one already talks about anyway and this was verified. Omniking2100 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

No. The direct quote part of the generativity of maleness in Maale is sourced to pages 92, 112–113 of Boy-Wives and Female Husbands. But the quoted text actually appears on page 23 of the book. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand you,Look at your own screenshot. You can see "(Maquet 1972: 173–74)" embedded in the text of Boy-Wives and Female Husbands. That's not a page number from Boy-Wives and Female Husbands that's Murray and Roscoe citing Maquet's original 1972 book, pages 173-174, inside their own text. Each line has this.

That's exactly what I did. Pages 92 and 112-113 are where Murray and Roscoe discuss Donham's work in their book. The Donham page number appears embedded inside the text on those pages, the same way Maquet 1972 appears embedded in that paragraph. This is what I mean. Omniking2100 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to say. Each line at end has a 1972,126-789. It's saying this was quoted from this book, this year and these page. This is why used the original pages as sources , not the one in this book 23 Omniking2100 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not what you did. You source this direct quote to pages 92, 112–113 of Boy-Wives and Female Husbands. That means that the quote must appear on pages 92, 112–113 of the book, not some other book that you don't have. The quote does appear on page 23 of the book. If you want to source this quote to this book, you have to source it to page 23, where it actually appears. You can only use books that you actually have as sources. All citations must support the claims that are sourced to them, and all direct quotes that are cited to a source need to actually be in that source. I don't know if this is a human mistake, or an LLM error, so I'm not commenting on that. Also, can you please indent your replies correctly? They are all over the place, which makes it difficult for others to reply to you correctly. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you answer which book you're referring to. The one you're saying, the content of pages 92, 112–113 don't appear but, appear in its page 23. I wanna see something in our misunderstanding. Omniking2100 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know? That is why I have been saying that. That is why the citation for the direct quote fails verification. It is sourced to a page where it does not appear. Four of the references to this book are to those pages, and six have no page numbers at all. I have been very clear about which book I am talking about, there should not be any confusion about that. The reference in the draft gives the correct book, but the wrong page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

so you implying you know this book Boy-Wives and Female Husbands, quotes and references Donham's original page numbers on his original book. Then I think I get your concern. You're saying, I should be telling the users the page numbers of this one, I'm using not the original one like I did. If you're saying this. This is a completely fair critique and would get your direction. Cause I was also conflicted. It is not a mistake, I added that on purpose so people go to actually book, it's why I said it "cites..". But if it's against Wikipedia failed verification, it's a matter of just adding page numbers of this current book, this secondary source, not the original. I can and will fix that. Omniking2100 (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not implying anything. I said that I got a hold of the book Boy-Wives and Female Husbands, and tried to verify the direct quote that you had sourced to it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

yes I noted. And I did fix that error, verification page numbers should be for the specific book used, not the one quoted, but I hope overall you understood what the misunderstanding here was. Omniking2100 (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't. You are quoting the Boy-Wives and Female Husbands book. That is where this quote appears. The specific book used and the one quoted are the same book, and I don't understand why you think these are two different books.

Now this description may have originated in a different work, and this book may be sourcing it to somewhere else, but it wasn't written as a direct quote in this book. But that is maybe what you mean, or at least that's the best explanation that I can come up with. Someone else has pointed out to you (somewhere else in this thread) why that isn't how it works. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. So the source book here is Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies in African Homosexualities by Murray, Stephen O.; Roscoe. This one is the secondary source. Then there is Work and power in Maale, Ethiopia by Donham, Donald. So I was saying, the book I used, says the page number in the original book by Donham is 92. But you pointed out, but it's on 23 in this book I'm using as source and I should use 23, as page number. In which I knew the page number but I thought I should just add the page numbers of the original book because this secondary source says, in the original book this content is on page 92. When you said that's a verification issue I fixed and put 23 instead with the context of 92. But I'm still not sure what you mean. Omniking2100 (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You cited the quote to pages 92 and 112–113 of Boy-Wives and Female Husbands.

I know that you added the non-standard text Citing Donham, Donald. Work and Power in Maale, Ethiopia to the reference tag, but the reference was still to page 91 and 112–113.

You sourced the quote to a page of the book where it did not appear. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Please look at these lines:......concluded, ashtime constituted “part of the generativity of maleness in Maale” (113).

...... maleness from the ritual kings to subchiefs on down (112).

........ Maale considered as/ltime “abnormal” (92).

Those numbers at the back are the pages I'm talking about. This pages are direct citations from the original book, not this book. This is why I used them instead of 23. I thought a better book exists, it was my genuine mistake, I read both books. I shouldn't have left it like that. But this is where the misunderstanding is. This is where I got this page number and of you do go to the original book on these page numbers it says the exact same thing. Omniking2100 (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I still don't understand how you think you can cite pages from one book in a different book. I thought I kind of understood what you had misunderstood, but you kind of refuted that and just restated the same thing again.

You can't cite pages N from book A by referencing pages M from book B, or by citing pages M in book A. You added a direct quote, so you must cite it to a source where it actually appears. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah I see that and definitely fixed it. The page 23 should have been my first Consideration. Omniking2100 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thus, Donham concluded, ashtime constituted "part of the generativity of maleness in Maale" (113).

This exact sentence appears on page 23 of Boy-Wives and Female Husbands.

If you want to add the direct quote part of the generativity of maleness in Maale, you must source it to either page 23 of Boy-Wives and Female Husbands (the WP:SECONDARY source) or (presumably) page 113 of the original book by Maale (the WP:PRIMARY source).

Not pages 91 and 112–113 of Boy-Wives and Female Husbands, because that text does not appear there. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

okay. I fixed that and now the citation points to both books Omniking2100 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

This one actually almost got me ngl. But I also found this in Wikipedia's own close paraphrasing policy:

"Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing, when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms."

"Facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright, but creative expression is protected."

This article is documenting what anthropologists specifically observed, recorded or said. The Swahili word for lesbian is msagaji, it means grinder, the millstones are called mwana and mama. How else do I say that, there's no other way. These are facts, not Shepherd's creative expression, another person doing this research on these people would find exact words. If I distort the terminology or use vague language euphemisms around documented facts, that's actually worse for the article. I don't think this one holds. Most articles do this anyway, how else are you gonna make an article about something found in one book.Omniking2100 (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I wanna talk policy based:

Using Grammarly for auto correct basic copy edits or even grammar is legal allowed.[] using Ai to search for citations and books is allowed as part of research. []. Using markdowns to highlight important names or people, is no example of llm use. Close Paraphrasing is allowed when it's facts, terms and ideas especially when each and every section is attributed to an author in this article.[]. Page numbers can be resolved in any discussion as we did, lack of accessibility because of pay walls is not a issue on Wikipedia, if you ask me I'll always send you the source. []. Ai accusation is not enough for draft when some the issues raised are vagued. Some arguments are good, and almost got me, not cause they are Ai cause they violate policies, those are good. I'm assuming good faith and I always respond to the questions asked and will continue to do so. I will move my article to mainspace, unless a policy violation that has merit is pointed out. But so far, I have not violated any policy other than the baseless Ai accusations. The budern to prove anything will always be on me. I'm just asking for good faith and policy based, no more hypothetical theories. Omniking2100 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The guideline you quote says Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own. Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Note the absence of grammar checking. That wording was carefully chosen: it is not an oversight. Note also the absence of autocorrect: a human must review all suggestions.

Arguments like this one are why the rule was changed (in March 2026) to be simple, blunt, and have almost no exceptions.

It is true that LLMs can suggest sources. But the human must read them. LLM summaries are not trustworthy and should never be relied on. What source B says about source A is also not enough. (The first science paper I wrote, in 1985, I got a severe scolding for doing this. Wasn't allowed then, isn't allowed now.) If you are going to quote source A, you have to read it. M kuhner (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

yes, I understand that, and I have also read the sources, I know everything in each line in the article and where I got it and how. Omniking2100 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Grammarly is explicitly disallowed:

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) [note]such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Claude, DeepSeek, or Grammarly[/note]... Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that. Grammarly is explicitly not allowed. But then again, Ai is allowed for punctuation and Grammar and spelling in which I've been using Grammarly for. That's not my Contradiction, it's in the policy. Also, when they say grammarly is not allowed, they mean for the other reasons, not the ones I just mentioned. Omniking2100 (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Grammarly is a bit notorious about going beyond spelling/punctuation changes (plus other questionable features they have implemented). To be clear, this is mostly Grammarly's fault, they are not very transparent about how they do things.

The general rule of thumb here is that if someone else can tell that AI was used in a piece of writing, and they're not just talking out of their ass, then the editing probably goes beyond basic copyediting. Whereas if I made a bunch of typos in a piece of writing and then caught those typos with Grammarly -- I didn't, just a hypothetical -- there would be no way that anyone could possibly tell. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I really understand that. But how I explained grammarly worked on my phone is bit different. As I previously discussed, it's for auto correct, cause my pc and phone auto correct is useless. The icon popped up on screen as you are writing and you tap it, there your spelling fixed you continue to write. But Also that was in April, I learned from when this concern was raised and never used the Ai application again. Omniking2100 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The policy DOES NOT INCLUDE grammar. I quoted it above. Why do you keep saying it includes grammar? M kuhner (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

you are right. Until now, I thought grammar meant exactly that, punctuations and spelling, so fixing those means fixing grammar. It doesn't, as I just found out. Okay, well still, I meant that grammarly was fixing these which I thought were grammar. If grammar is not spelling I never used it for grammar than. Simple misconception. Omniking2100 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Section break: Move to mainspace?

Omniking2100 has unilaterally moved this back to mainspace without a clear community consensus, making only superficial changes since it was draftified, so I have re-draftified it. Please weigh in on whether you believe the discussion above has addressed the AI concerns, and whether you support or oppose moving the draft to mainspace. Ping participants: @AndyTheGrump: @Gurkubondinn: @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: @ChrysGalley: @Kowal2701: @M kuhner: @Gnomingstuff:. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to ping me, I don't really have any further comments Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• My position has not changed in the time since I draftified the page. If anything, the conversations I've had with this user across multiple talk pages, have only affirmed my decision to move the page out of article space. I also can't see that there is any consensus for moving this page back into article space, so characterising the move as 'unilateral' seems accurate to me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I oppose the move back to article space. Thanks for moving it back. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• The discussion above has only made my concerns more acute. Oppose moving to mainspace. I am not hearing any commitment from editor to stop using LLM: rather the opposite (note repeated assertions that Grammarly grammar-editing is okay, and the claim toward the end that he doesn't know what "grammar" means). M kuhner (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose move from draft to mainspace. There are a heap of concerns about this subject, the editor concerned has been ducking and weaving around what they can justify in terms of AI/Grammarly usage, rather than approaching this from the position of "OK, let's fix this article without using AI". As a draft I would not accept this as ready for article space, but I would not reject the draft since I accept some valid work is in there. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Unilaterally moving a page from draft to article space while it is being discussed, and without consensus, is inadvisable even if it isn't explicitly against policy. And this applies regardless of what the concerns are. I'd strongly advise Omniking2100 to avoid such actions in future, and instead work towards finding a collaborative solution. AS I've already noted, there are issues beyond LLM use that probably need addressing. I think the article has potential, but it isn't going to get far if Omniking2100 is going down the WP:OWN route, which is the impression I'm getting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can you please tell me the concerns then you have about this article that you think violate policy and maybe we can build on that. If it's llm or anything. Please tell me. What indicators in this article are llm or any other policy violations. I'm willing to engange and see where we can take this. Omniking2100 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

hey also I've been doing nothing more than ask for feedback and engange respectfully in in these discussions it's a community thing, that I get. So it's quite an unfair accusation to say I'm heading to a wp:Own route. Omniking2100 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that the article violated policy. I said that there were issues. Some of which probably require more research, and which aren't going to be dealt with by sidetracking this discussion. And no, unilaterally moving the page isn't 'respectful'. If you want to collaborate, you'll need to do it on the basis that there's no hurry, that the article may end up looking very different to your draft, and that collaboration isn't a negotiation between individuals, but a collective process. The article is discussing something that I consider quite a significant topic, and it would probably pay off to seek wider input. There aren't that many Wikipedia contributors with an anthropological background, but there are probably enough people with at least some subject-matter knowledge to make a decent crack at it. A well-written, carefully-sourced article on the topic will be much better placed to resist the inevitable onslaught an article on the topic is going to get from PoV-pushers who don't find it compatible with their agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I can assure you there was no hurry here and I written all this carefully. I mean it depends what you mean hurry. You're working with few sections in a book, in some intenses, it's just a passage or paragraph that mentions homosexuality and I get it from that and convert to my own wordd and try to summarize as I can,this takes like one day per 3 sections once you find the book or source. I would call it easy on this part, the problem is always getting the source first. This is careful sourced. All those lines come from their given books check that and you'll see it. Omniking2100 (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Also oppose, tbh this should probably go to ANI, they've still not admitted to using a chatbot despite the mountains of evidence and are just wasting everyone's time. Btw sorry for using the ping template in slapdash fashion, I’ll try to actually follow the guidance I wrote lol Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose – In the course of this report I discovered a concerning level of close paraphrasing from one source, which when taken into account with Omniking2100's prior claims indicates there may be issues with copyright. Additionally, as stated before I don't find the claim that No AI touched the article text compelling. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, I already discussed this, I'm very aware of your concern, but unfortunately it's a very limited thing in this regard, in this article I'm trying to just say, look this society had homosexuality based on this book or this person said so cause they do this and that. There's really very limited ways to do that without sounding like you're paraphrasing. Omniking2100 (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  • This for me is one of the key problems. These books are what AI can find. Material which is offline or behind AI-exclusion paywalls isn't going to be present in this article. As a result this has a big risk of WP:UNDUE. That book by Hallpike - it was written in 1972 and was not intended as an authoritative text on homosexuality. Yes it mentions the topic, at just over the limit for Significant Coverage, but the robots found it and have ended up elevating it in the absence of anything better. Now if you have a huge background in anthropology or queer studies you may be able to make a realistic judgement such as "this is the best there is", but that's not my reading of the situation.

  What I find, as an AFC reviewer, is that an early red flag of LLM usage, and usually the sort of LLM usage that has to be stopped, is someone relatively new to Wikipedia, writing a huge piece on a big topic which is well greater in scope than a PhD dissertation - this topic would be about 5 dissertations worth. It's simply unrealistic for a less than experienced editor to churn out huge slabs of text based on careful editing of all significant and reliable sources. If you have a background in anthropology or queer studies this is months and months of work, and that is not how this draft is coming across. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hey if you're doubting what's in the sources, always feel free to ask me to provide a source for any random line you quote. I'll give you a screenshot and page number. You are right, these books aren't mainly about homosexual homosexuality is a passing thing maybe mentioned in marriage and rituals of these people or this society. In fact I had this argument with another user, see here []. That is where the Context of this article come from, it's a documentation. Many books, the secondary that I used as sources also talk about homosexuality as a topi, e.g you'll see a book named, lies about homosexuality, but the book pulls historical accounts of Homosexuality from book that don't treat homosexuality as main topic. pulling from the same book that treat homosexuality as a passing topic. This not new to me. Wikipedia does this all the time, it's not like it's news that would violate SYNTH, this one very specific topic. Literally homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies as the books describe or atleast what we consider to be homosexuality. Omniking2100 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  • That answered a question I did not ask. Do you feel you have the knowledge, judgement and competence to judge WP:UNDUE - in terms of the subject and your knowledge of all available significant and reliable sources that pertain to this topic? ChrysGalley (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

    I can't really answer that. I mean I don't have knowledge in many topics I help with on Wikipedia. But if the source say what's being said, I don't think you need to know deeper. But I'm certain these sources are reliable, atleast in the topic of these societies, describing their daily life and all that, but to judge is not my league. For example these books use the n word repeatedly, what does that mean about their credibility. Nothing. Omniking2100 (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

    The n word is indeed a good example of one of the stress points in editing. And to give you credit, you have engaged fully in this dialogue, whereas some less reputable editors have tended to shy away from detailed questioning. But "to judge is not my league" is probably at the heart of this. Let's say you were updating a Wiki page on a World Cup football match with the name of someone who scored a goal. You can know nothing about football, nothing about the player, nothing about the World Cup, and yet make a good and accurate edit. You just need the competence to find a source such as the BBC or Reuters, enough ability to scan the existing article to know that an edit is required and what is needed. That's one extreme. The subject is question here is at the other end: it's a massive and sensitive topic, which has to represent Wikipedia's policies and guideline since it's likely to have a pretty high visibility over time. I doubt I have the competence to write this article because the level of judgement needed here is very high. I could probably take on a few sections of it though. I think that point is something upon which you need to ponder. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, on your WP:UNDUE point. Maybe there could be an issue. But look at how specific it's described, I think it's kinda enough. Even on those passing passages, look at what can be taken from them, so much specific stuff names and terminologies describing this behavior it even has its own pronouns an entire classification of language built around this practice we consider homosexual. I don't think it violates the policy. Omniking2100 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  here, I had made an archive for this one book cause it's free domain from early 1900s per USA law it's free. On the section Mossi of present-day Burkina Faso. This txt has each and everything about it, check it and compare. I didn't upload a pdf though but I'll see to it. Check here: []. And compare with the Mossi section, as an example. Draft:Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies#Mossi of present-day Burkina Faso. Omniking2100 (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  here is the pdf [] also a translation from 571-581 [] Omniking2100 (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  I got age ranges from page 583 Omniking2100 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Rejoy2003

 Cleanup has been requested.

Rejoy2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Blocked for unrelated reasons, but I asked about AI prior to that; the reason I bring this up now is stumbling across yet another article by them independently.)

More AI edits going back to 2023. I asked about this and their response was "don't remember other than copy editing in the past," which I suppose makes sense, as these are older edits.

However, I believe it goes beyond just copyediting. This is somewhat annoying to check since their editing pattern is to make a huge amount of tiny edits to an initial draft, but looking at initial versions of articles, they not only show AI signs but show ones that are consistent with the years they were created: Special:PermanentLink/1172775823 is the 2023 AI output pattern, Special:PermanentLink/1226227624 has the 2024 AI output pattern, etc. (Threw one into Pangram fwiw and it also came back as AI generated) Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Unblocked now, it was just a 24 hour one. @Rejoy2003, can you please respond to the above? I’m unsure if you’re aware, but see WP:NOLLM Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

YosefKT

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

User has been creating a slew of new articles, mostly about local pride festivals, but also some other topics, at a fairly rapid rate, with a level of language proficiency that their talk page edits don't seem to match. These all have the same typical canned style of LLM output. More eyes would be appreciated, thanks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

thank you for ure review i was just editing my previous articles and all the articles are made by me not machine generated and u can check my articles for proper citation . i took me like 3 or four hours to be honest and i think it was flagged because i was editing my articles female husband of igbo and saso people which are not new articles rather edit of already made articles which i already made ... God bless u deacon ! YosefKT (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

See the essay Wikipedia:Do not lie about AI. Your real writing and article writing are so different that it strongly suggests the article prose wasn't written by you. If you continue using LLM chatbots to write for you, your account will be blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I write like that because my comment section is not a Wikipedia section. I don't have to polish my comments too. Second of all, this is the most disrespectful comment you could give to someone who was writing articles for the last month for the Pride Month contest. You didn't even try to see my articles which took more than 4 and 6 hours even to polish the articles I made. I really feel sorry for your discouraging messages. For real any ways ... God bless you ! YosefKT (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your articles, and looked at your comments, and they look clearly like separate authors. And I know that many people lie about using AI on Wikipedia. Whether you regard an honest observation as disrespectful is something I cannot control. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

My own take from looking through the articles they've created here.

The subsections of of their most of their pride article though just mildly seem to be sort of the way AI would try to categorize it. Citation wise I did find some discrepancy between the spacing of their citations. (Amanda Kamanda, Female husbands of the Igbo, Sasso people, Pawan Dhall, Oklahoma City Pride). Although those are just my nitpickings of how to cite sources I guess.

Joel Mordi seems to place all their citations in the reference section, then name them in their respective texts. A damming article seems to be Waria (person) in which many astericks are present when they tried to bold or italicize their words. Just through my own skimming.

PeepeeDino (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I write my articles in Google Docs, which suggests grammar and spelling corrections. That is why my articles are polished. I do all the research myself and cross-check every citation to make sure they are accurate.

Waria, for example, took me more than a day to complete. I read the sources, cross-checked every claim, and wrote the content myself. I was still learning at that time.

The comments have been discouraging because I worked hard for a month for the Pride contest, but I understand the concern.

I will follow the rules going forward. and God bless you! YosefKT (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if you've felt discouraged from this discussion. I do think a little more consensus on your edits, @YosefKT, should be had before anything substantial were to be decided. Just one thing to confirm, have you been using any sort of LLMs for any of your edits? Do look at WP:NOLLM throughly. We'd rather you be honest and upfront with of your experience.

PeepeeDino (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello PeepeeDino,

Thank you for your kindness.

I used AI and Google Docs for punctuation and grammar corrections . I also used AI to help with the categories at the bottom of my articles. That is all. I did not use AI to write content. I do my own research, citations, and writing. I put a lot of effort into my articles and spent hours on each one.

I am discouraged by the accusations because I know how much work I put into my articles. I was not fully aware of the rules when I started. I will stop using AI for categories and grammar going forward. Thank you for your understanding.God bless! YosefKT (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Righty then, glad you've understood!

As you've taken a gander at WP:NOLLM, do note again that any and all creation be it articles, talk pages, the categories and discussions using AI are prohibited.

For the articles you've created, we don't really want future editors to tag your articles as AI-made and repeat this whole discussion again. So it'd be much help if you could revisit all of them and make sure that the contents are really made by you. If that's a lot, please don't hesitate to ask any other editors for help or by placing maintenance tags on the articles.

I'm sure Wikipride is grateful for your help for all those articles you've made. Just drop the bots next time and head to the Teahouse for any help :)

PeepeeDino (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for ure time , will do! YosefKT (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Another AI agent blocked

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-12 IndigoKarasu, 7 pages need review.

LLMPRODs are done

User:IndigoKarasu was blocked by User:Asilvering for being an AI agent. Do we need to get formal consensus for WP:LLMPROD? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

First, I think we'll want to see what the editor (or their AI agent) has to say for themselves. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I fixed the Frank Epperson article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we have now seen that. In my opinion the unblock request is LLM. I'd ask that any cleanup focus on the declined drafts rather than articles the community already accepted. just sounds too much like all the other requests to "focus" on something other than doing a full investigation. In any case it was declined. M kuhner (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think we're going to get anything useful out of this person. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Support immediate cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Freetrashbox

Freetrashbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mostly on Talk:Badhan, Sanaag#AI. Slow-motion sealioning after refusing to get the point regarding NOLLM violations and repeated removal of AI generated tag. Fermiboson (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I made that edit in October 2025. I found the sources myself, used an LLM to help with the translate, and reviewed the text under my own responsibility. At that time, the community rules regarding LLMs were not as strict as they are now. After another user informed me about the current rules, I immediately rewrote the text to comply with them. Although I made further revisions to ensure the quality, Fermiboson refuses to review the current version. Instead, he is retroactively applying current rules to my past edit and ignoring my sincere efforts to fix it. While I understand the concern about LLMs, I believe my current edits follow Wikipedia policies, and I am fully open to constructive feedback on the latest version. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Freetrashbox, can I ask if you used an LLM to write this comment (and those at Talk:Badhan)? If so, please see WP:AITALK. You've now said three different contradictory things re your workflow:

1) the above comment,

2)

I would like to clear up a misunderstanding: I do not let LLMs write most of my articles. The most important part of Wikipedia is researching sources, and current LLMs cannot do this at all. I find and read every single source by myself. For the previous version of this page, I used an LLM to help with phrasing. However, because the LLM-like style was pointed out, I have now rewritten the text. I believe the current version fixes this issue, so please let me know what you think.

3)

I usually create the content in my own language first. The LLM is used for translation, which makes it the first English draft. I then review and rewrite it myself. The ideas and facts come from me, not the LLM.

If the reason you are using an LLM is because you're not fluent enough in English, I strongly recommend not editing the English Wikipedia until you can contribute constructively without an LLM as it becomes a WP:CIR issue (generally-speaking, editors shouldn't edit Wikipedias whose language they aren't proficient in). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not using an LLM to write this comment. I have been participating in discussions on the English Wikipedia before LLMs became widespread, and if you look at those, you'll see that my basic way of thinking and how I develop my arguments haven't changed from what they are now. I sometimes write drafts in my own language, but that's not because I'm not fluent in English. (Of course, I'm not on par with a native speaker.) I frequently contribute articles in my own language Wikipedia as well, and I thought preparing articles in my own language would make the process easier. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If something is generated by AI it can't just be copyedited; it needs to be completely rewritten from scratch. You have not done so and so the v1 AI concerns remain. This is not the first time this has been explained to you.

While we're here can you explain how you cited source 3 in Fadumo Saeed Ibrahim as "Daawo: Reer Wales-ka ka soo jeeda Somaliland oo xusay boqol guurada markii ay degeen Cardiff" when the BBC article appears to be about something completely different published on a different date and I cannot find any evidence of the named article existing? Fermiboson (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It was my mistake to get the source title wrong (I probably copied the title from another page I had open at the same time), but the BBC article clearly states that Fadumo stayed in Newport and Cardiff and returned in 1991. If you think this is a hallucination generated by an LLM, you're mistaken. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It has been extremely rare in Wikipedia’s history to have to rewrite past entries based on newly established rules. However, I chose to interpret the request as “there are many unnatural expressions, so rewrite it”—in a positive light, and I have already completely rewritten the description. What more am I supposed to do? Freetrashbox (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

User:KittyHawk2014

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested.

Since April 2026, this editor has been creating WP:BLP articles at an inhumanly fast rate despite having received many AI use-related warnings, taggings, draftifications, and deletions.

Other WP:AISIGNS include...

• WP:AIREDCAT:
• WP:AIATTR: Contemporary newspaper references from the Courier-Express identify him as at Draft:Charles J. Gaughan
• WP:AIBOLD: Draft:Kevin R. Hardwick

I suggest applying WP:LLMPROD for their post-April 2026 edits, a time which their writing style experienced a significant shift. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment, additionally Daren Dryzmala which was created in this timeframe was deleted via WP:G15 for Unreviewed LLM-generated content (communication intended for the usernon-existent or nonsensical references) , so LLM use is entirely unambiguous.

I think the range may be wider than post-April 2026. In October 2025 they created Bobby Walker (political operative) and Peter Giunta (political operative) within an hour of each other, and the subject matter is the same as seen in this latest creation spree with Matt Poole (political operative). In April 2025 they created Rus Thompson pre-populated with {{pp-pc1}} and maintenance banners dated to 2019. Support LLMPRV either way. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. I'll try to get a better start date and make a tracker. M kuhner (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This user has been blocked from mainspace. The talk page documenting all the problematic article creations is quite damning. I was tempted to use the administrator's "nuke" tool to mass-delete the page creations, but too many of them are now under discussion. Several have been A7-deleted today, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Historical 5776

 Cleanup has been requested.

I ran across Invasions of Kuwait (1793-1808) which itself flags as possibly AI to me. The creation edit summary raised further flags. Looking through their history and speed of page creations too, I highly suspect their to be AI usage, but am not an expert in it. A more thorough review would be appreciated. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I see you’re concerned about my article, but I could assure you that the AI wasn’t used in the article The flags themselves are only taken from another article mentioning Kuwait the [[Battle of Khakeekera]] (1811) I even used AI detector to see myself in the article is written by ai it came out 0%. You could go check yourself and The speed of these articles Creations it’s just simply me I’m a Historian I have access to lots of books in Saudi history I use quotes and references from These books That’s why my Article could made in one day of work Thank you Historical 5776 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

At least some of the references in Invasion of Bahrain (1801) do not support the text and are themselves cited improperly or incorrectly (such as (1), which is not in Arabic, (2) (not those authors) and (5) (which has no mention of the person the text references). I would also draw attention to how one of those references (5), a self-published book, bears the same characteristic punctuation as this particular editor. Also, a strange phrase on the talk page when challenged by another editor on AI use: "I would just like to note that, to the best of my knowledge, the text was not AI-generated." This implies the text was not written by the editor, raising concerns of plagiarism if it is not AI. OsFish (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It could be that the references cited improperly that’s a Easy fix but they are not incorrectly Regarding the content of Invasion of Bahrain (1801), my interpretation is based on multiple independent sources rather than a single reference

Reference (1) Bahrain’s Surviving Dynasty book states “The events of 1801–10 when the Imam of Muscat, then the Wahhabis annexed Bahrain, undermined their authority over the acquired territories. The eight-year period of retrogression…”

This explicitly refers to the Wahhabi annexation of Bahrain and the period from 1801 to 1810.

Reference (2) The Great Arabian Sword of the Saudis likewise states that “ In 1800, Sultan bin Ahmad Al Busaidi of Muscat seized Bahrain and installed his brother Sa’id as governor, forcing the Al Khalifa once again into exile. Seeking to reclaim their lost dominion, the Al Khalifa turned to the First Saudi State. They appealed to Imam Saud bin Abdulaziz for assistance in liberating Bahrain from Omani control. Imam Saud dispatched a military force under Ibrahim ibn Afaysan. In a swift campaign in 1801, the Saudi forces crossed to Bahrain, expelled the Muscat garrison, and declared the island part of the Saudi realm. Yet, rather than restoring Bahrain to the Al Khalifa” Both sources therefore describe the same sequence of events: the campaign began with Saudi military intervention against the Omani garrison, after which Bahrain was incorporated into the First Saudi State rather than restored to the Al Khalifa. This is why I summarized it as a military intervention that resulted in the First Saudi State taking control from the Omani forces and subsequently annexing the territory, followed by an occupation lasting until 1810 In addition reference (5), The History of the First and Second Saudi State by Dr. Khalid Al-Azm, states that:

“The Saudi leadership authorized a military expedition led by the experienced commander Ibrahim ibn Ufaysan. The Saudi forces advanced into Bahrain and succeeded in expelling the garrison aligned with Muscat in 1801.”

My wording in the article

“The Al Khalifa family requested Imam Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Muhammad’s assistance in reclaiming Bahrain from the ruler of Muscat. He promptly dispatched an army under the command of Ibrahim bin Afaysan, who seized Bahrain and expelled the Muscat ruler’s forces in 1801.”

Its a summary of that material and is directly supported by the cited source. The source does mention Ibrahim ibn Ufaysan, the Saudi expedition, and the expulsion of the Muscat-aligned garrison in 1801

Regarding the AI allegation my statement “to the best of my knowledge” was simply cautious wording. It was not an admission that someone else wrote the text or that it was plagiarized I wrote the article myself based on the sources I consulted To clarify, I did not write or publish reference (5). My use of the source is based on the historical information it contains Thank you Historical 5776 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Wiscomiller

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested.

Blocked for AI use here but opening a formal cleanup thread since I keep running across untagged articles by them, seems most have slipped through the cracks Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Noting that their edits are eligible for immediate presumptive removal via 1A in WP:LLMPRV. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMPRODed up to #123 of (Marilyn Barua-Yap) (going forwards in time, so decreasing numbers) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Done Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Anúna page - User:Choral12 and User:Brezairola

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Choral12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Anúna, there was a large amount of content contributed by User:Choral12 between January and March. User:Brezairola, who has also contributed to the same page, recently had much of their content and drafts removed or deleted due to LLM usage. Looking at the type of edit summaries by User:Brezairola, of which there is evidence of being Claude responses , they are very similar to that of User:Choral12. It's possible User:Choral12 is in the same boat as User:Brezairola, or could possibly be the same person. The edit summaries, content amounts and subject matter are very similar. Could User:Choral12's contributions at Anúna also contain LLM edits and should more content be reverted at the Anúna page? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Heeheemalu

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

This user has created lots of articles, many of which are tagged as {{AI-generated}}. One of their articles is currently listed at WP:AFD/Science and technology in Taiwan, where I've pointed out some typical WP:AILEGACY and source-to-text issues. They have been warned for LLM use, most recently I've placed an {{uw-ai3}} notice on their talk page after I draftified Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War with China (which was then submitted to AfC and accepted back into article space).

The have barely used their own talk page, but they did address User talk:Heeheemalu § Promotional prose, saying that they have used AI to [help] source the information but that they have written the article themselves.

This is far more than I can go through myself now and have a proper look at. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Also note Talk:Forbidden Nation, complaining about their AI-generated text being blatantly obviously AI Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for your messages. I am not sure how Wikipedia determines the use of LLMs to "create" articles, as I have only ever used it to help "source information" but have not used it to "write" the said articles. Furthermore, I have always done by best to check the information sourced by LLMs to ensure that they are not hallucinations and are as accurate as possible.

However, if using LLMs to source information is also prohibited by Wikipedia, please note that it is done unintentionally and out of pure ignorance of such regulations. Therefore, I hereby make a pledge to stop using LLMs to source the information and will clean up existing articles where I have used LLMs to source the information.

Nevertheless, I would like to note here that it is totally unfair to delete my old articles prior to 2023 before LLMs were even released for users as well as new articles such as "National Innovation, Creativity and Finance Center", "Dominica–Taiwan relations", "Grenada–Taiwan relations" and "Cactus ice" where I've not even used LLMs to source the information and have literally just translated most of the information from the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia pages. If you care to check, you will see that most of the information was obtained from there, a part from the annual trade information, which is obtained purely from the sites I have indicated.

I would like to remind everyone that there is always an element of false-positives no matter which AI detector you've used and some people naturally have a very similar style and tone to AI when writing academic articles as LLMs are precisely trained to write in an academic style by the information it has been fed. Therefore, if the community is to delete every single "suspected" AI-generated article without clear guidelines of how it is determined and rules of what to do / not to do, eventually, Wikipedia will completely be replaced by AI as people would not continue using it as a source of information since it will never be able to compete with AI in terms of the level of detailedness on certain topics. This defeats the whole purpose of what Wikipedia was initially created for and I am sure is not something that we Wikipedians want to see.

Thank you for reading my long message. I apologise again for any inconvenience caused and I hope you can understand. Heeheemalu (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you take the time to read the WP:USED-AI? essay? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, thank you for pointing to the article to read. After reading it, I confess that I have used ChatGPT to source the information for longer articles with information that I am not too familiar with myself and whilst writing it, I have used Grammarly to help me check my grammar and write more eloquently. I was not aware that Grammarly had been connected to OpenAI, which is probably the reason why some of my more recent articles seem like AI. Again, I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience and I hereby make a pledge to stop using LLMs to source the information and will do my best to clean up existing articles where I have used LLMs to source the information.

For the wider Wikipedian community, I would like to ask for everyone's help to save my articles by helping me rewrite them. As I am an amateur, my efforts and abilities are limited and would not be able to rewrite everything in a short time. And as @Cunard said, I have indeed put a lot of time and effort into writing these articles which are in a "deeply underrepresented topic" and would hate to see them deleted. As I already mentioned, I have done my best to ensure that the information is accurate, thus if it is just about rewriting/paraphrasing it so that it is not in "AI tone", then I am sure there will be people willing and able to help me out.

Thank you in advance for everyone's help! Heeheemalu (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for making these pledges, Heeheemalu (talk · contribs)!

From Wikipedia:Presumptive removal of AI-generated content#Reversing removal of content: "If the PROD timeframe is too short, editors are free to userfy or draftify PRODed articles before removing the tag provided that they do the above before moving them back to mainspace."

The articles can be userfied or draftified to allow for cleanup since there are a large number of PRODed articles and too little time to clean them up before the five-day deadline. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cunard that was a recent addition made to the guideline without consensus, it's been reverted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I have only ever used it to help "source information" – False.

Lunar New Year in Taiwan – 02:42, 8 January 2025

• For example, Taiwan emphasizes religious rituals and temple visits, blending Taoist and Buddhist influences.
• While it shares cultural roots with the Chinese New Year, Taiwanese New Year incorporates distinct customs, traditions, and terminology that reflect the nation’s unique cultural identity.
• Overall, the Taiwanese Lunar New Year is a blend of ancient customs and modern-day celebrations, offering a unique experience that highlights the country's rich cultural heritage.

You've stated that Grammarly is why some of [your] more recent articles seem like AI, but the above example is not recent, and is from a year and a half ago.

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They have ignored the notice and continued creating articles, at least one of which exhibited AISIGNS; I have gone ahead and placed a {{uw-ai4}}. Might be time for LLMPROD. DraconicDark (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Over the years, Heeheemalu has made numerous excellent contributions to Taiwanese topics. I have enjoyed reading the many articles they've written in a deeply underrepresented topic. I think their early contributions did not use LLMs while their recent contributions certainly have. It is unclear when they started using LLMs.

They are likely to be blocked and may have every article they created deleted if they do not pledge to stop using LLMs to write articles. I do not want to see this happen. I've left a personal message on Heeheemalu's talk page asking them to respond here with a pledge that they will stop using LLMs to write articles and that they will clean up existing articles where they have used LLMs. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cunard (talk · contribs) I agree that Heeheemalu (talk · contribs) should not be blocked. His articles should not be deleted but instead be cleaned up. Dash9Z (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Bondwagon

LLMPRODs are done

Yet another serial AI user. The reason I am making a noticeboard thread here is that they have a charming habit of removing the tags on their obvious (and eventually disclosed) AI articles with edit summaries like "typo". Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Bondwagon hasn't edited at all since April and the actions being commented on here mostly occured in 2025. This tag was removed in August 2025 with the edit summary "removed likely to be AI tag". This tag was removed in October 2025 with the edit summary "typo". Gnomingstuff restored it.

I still see signs. SenshiSun (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

April is only 3 months ago. I am opening a noticeboard thread so there is documentation of this and I don't have to wait until the next time I stumble across the same article because the same shit has not gotten fixed and get greeted with the tag being gone with the mocking-ass edit summary "typo". Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I like when in April 2025 they said My additions aren't AI generated. They are a result of careful research , and then the next month they started adding utm_source=chatgpt.com , careful research indeed. Later on they stated that AI only did spelling and grammar check .

These "spelling and grammar checks" resulted in classic generated text like ... an important tourist destination in Rivers State, known for its cultural heritage and historical significance , The vibrant community of Anyama persists in its trading activities, specializing in a diverse array of ... , The ceremony was marked by vibrant displays of color, with guests dressed in matching ... or Kaiama is distinguished by its swampy terrain and lush vegetation. Unlike other ... .

It's clear that this editor has a history of AI use in a generative capacity, and so their edits may be removed via 1B of WP:LLMPRV. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Bondwagon has requested their deleted pages be restored to their userspace at WP:REFUND, ironically with a request that itself appears to be AI-generated. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 19:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Went and tagged all of the restored pages because I'm afraid they'll just find their way back into article space, and we'll just have to start all over. Funny how they admitted to using an LLM in the refund requests. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Soldatipro

Edits by the user have been reverted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) by Gurkubondinn but without actual accountability as to whether they used AI or not, they might just keep using it. More so, their drafts have been declined for being generated by LLMs (Draft:Pando S.A. and Draft:Dos en Uno) PeepeeDino (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Backlog bonanza

Archives 1–6

Main page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 1–6)

Welcome to the first instalment of Backlog Bonanza (click the link above, be prepared to be disappointed). All the LLMPRODs from Archives 1–6 are done (besides what's listed here). I haven't done any normal reverting, there's still loads of that in the archives if anyone fancies systematically going through them. At the linked page are users whose AINB reports got archived to Archives 1–6 or have a page in Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases. They're either recently editing and unresolved re whether to block, or consensus is needed re whether to LLMPROD their articles (and when to start from). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

for the masochistic there's always the list of user talk pages with uw-ai (not for LLMPROD, but for backlog) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Also probably worth going through G15 notices, only ~500 of them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Can we please get a block for Schaumturducken2020 (talk · contribs), they were reported January 2026 and warned many times but ignored it, and are still editing. Their most recent creation was 29 June which has a bunch of AI signs like At least one source states the Principles comprised fifteen articles in editions circulating between 1933 and 1941, expanded to seventeen in the 1942 NDH-era Crljen edition. The combined 1933/1941 publication consulted by Tomasevich gives seventeen principles. Readers should consult Jareb's 2007 study (pp. 124–128) directly to resolve this discrepancy., em dashes, ...though it played an important political and psychological role in Croatian history., WP:AIATTR Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Schaumturducken2020 (talk · contribs) indefinitely from article space, as they have recently misused LLMs to generate article content without acknowledging previous talk page warnings.​ — Newslinger talk 21:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: It appears you are the mentor of Schaumturducken2020, who is apparently using AI to write, and has not acknowledged concerns placed on his user talk page. I don't see any interaction between the two of you since you posted the announcement of mentorship on the user talk page, but I wanted to know if you also support a mainspace block or some other administrative action. This is a collaborative project, communication is a critical element for collaboration, and Schaumturducken2020 is not communicating. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, communication is crucial. If they are unresponsive, I have no problem with going down the block route. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Archive 7

Main page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archive 7)

Done all the LLMPRODs in Archive 7 other than those listed, same story as above. More cases from Archive 7 than there were from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 combined. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Archives 8–9

Main page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 8–9)

Same again. This should be the last big one from the archives since it's the last before WP:LLMPRV was passed. Enjoy Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:FlutterDash344

 Cleanup has been requested.

FlutterDash344 (talk · contribs) Lots of LLM copyedits like , , . Warned earlier today , to which they responded But I don't know how to copyedit without using LLMs, then said they'll be more careful, before Masterhatch explained things and they replied Alright then. About 1600 mainspace edits since Nov 2022 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I promise not to copyedit using LLMs anymore. I'm really sorry about this. I will only do normal copyedits from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlutterDash344 (talk • contribs)

Hey @FlutterDash344:, you should sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~ so we know it's you replying. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not use artificial intelligence or grammar apps to write articles. It was a misunderstanding. FlutterDash344 (talk)

User:Prince-ed-tech

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested.

Warned for AI in 2025. Responded: thank you for your suggestion and support for next time i remeber that think. I guess they forgot, because they're still making AI edits as of this June. (Their username also suggests COI.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you make a guess when they started using LLMs? M kuhner (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

From the beginning. It hasn't even been one year. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

User:LordRapture

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-21 LordRapture, 362 pages need review.

Large swath of AI edits, as recently as May 2026. Claimed in September that I'm using AI only to fix code.; when someone else pointed out that their AI edits "only to fix code" were somehow also doing stuff like rewriting direct quotes, they blew off the comment entirely and soon afterward blanked their user talk page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit summary, October 2025: There are no reliable sources that confirm 30 million sales. Certified sales across all markets amount to around 14.5 million copies, and even industry estimates typically cite about 25 million worldwide, not 30. Therefore, the previous figure was overstated and has been corrected to 15 million to better reflect verifiable data. They have not edited since May, so we won't get a block. Consensus for cleanup? I support. M kuhner (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Support and also noting that requirement 1B (inactive user) is automatically met. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Derek J Moore

 Cleanup has been requested.

Yet another large swath of AI edits. Sort of. I don't think all of their edits are AI; there's a pronounced difference in writing style even between edits that were made basically at the same time, e.g. this from October 2025 (does not seem like AI) and this from September 2025 (is very obviously AI).

Unfortunately, their response to my flagging one of the obvious AI articles was to leave a sarcastic comment on my talk page accusing me of using a bot (which I don't) and implying I deserve to be griped at because of this, and in the process not actually addressing the issue of whether they used AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Howzit! @Gnomingstuff You are absolutely correct. I did use AI on Wits MIND institute (Q138036253) and I did not use it on Springfield College of Education (Q136450274). Now I'm not sure if you are familiar with South Africa (Q258). (I see that you have made two edits to Zu Wikipedia and 1 to Tswana Wikipedia.) The former is a University that is creating AI slop and integrating it into their curriculum. This is where the problem lies. Benji Rossman can also address the matter out if he sees the need too. The latter is a teacher training college concerned with education. I gave them the respect they deserved and tried to write a proper article. The mind institute have just got a taste of their own medicine. You seem angry about AI, which your posting history suggests (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=usercontribs&ucuser=Gnomingstuff&uclimit=500&ucdir=older&ucprop=ids|title|timestamp|comment&format=json&origin=*). I'd suggest that you address the matter with the organisations who are creating the scholock, with the Wikimedia Foundation. Don't look for scapegoats to take your anger out on. Finally, you have been prolific on Wikipedia and I did not give you the respect you deserve. 333 000 contributions is a lot. Keep up the good work, just re-direct your passion. Best Derek J Moore (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Derek J Moore, have you used AI to write any other articles? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Kowal2701 I have used AI occasionally, generally I use it to find a structure. I'm often disappointed by the things its leaves out. I'll use an example. Krugersdorp Police Station was built by Paul Kruger (Q244407). He installed his grandson Sarel Eloff (Q31736472) as station commander. This is a known fact. . An version of this history leaves out this important piece of information about nepotism. I do try to remember to use the template notifying others that was used.

P.S. I was pleased to see your focus on Africa. Thanks you. Are you connecting to local language speakers? ~I can introduce you Best Derek J Moore (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Derek J Moore (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If you truly care about "[giving me] the respect you deserve" then please do not passive-aggressively tell me what I should and should not care about. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

References

User:Thoppy234

LLMPRODs are done

Yet another swath of AI edits. (Should not need too much explanation, the talkpage comments are especially blatant.) I've reverted, reviewed or flagged all of the prose edits, but they have also added dozens-to-hundreds of infoboxes. These are AI too (WP:AIPLACEHOLDER shows up constantly, and I mean also they're using AI for everything else so...) and thus need review. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Kind of non-actionable by an admin, except for cleanup, since that editor hasn't been active for nearly a year. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not asking for admin action, if I was I'd go to ANI; this is just to document the stuff needing cleanup so it doesn't fall through the cracks Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

We now have the capability to make cleanup tracking pages from a specific start date, not just the start of the ChatGPT epoch. Can you venture a guess as to when they started? I'll set up a tracker. M kuhner (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Everything. They have no substantive edits before 2025. I don't mean to be rude, but this is something you could easily have checked yourself to answer your own question instead of making me do it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sorry. I should have looked before asking. You are much better at telling when LLM started than me, but there's no reason to bug you when it's obvious. M kuhner (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries -- in this case it's mostly that they basically have no edits whatsoever before a given point. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They have reappeared and have requested undeletion of at least one prodded article (now Draft:Adetokunbo Omishakin). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m the editor behind User:Thoppy234, and I like to respond to the concerns raised here. My substantial edits begin around 2025 are being taken as evidence of AI use; in reality, that timing reflects when I started contributing more actively, and I have never used AI tools for any of my edits.

The previous article on Draft:Adetokunbo Omishakin was written completely without AI. I will be rewriting the draft again now, also without AI, and making sure that every significant claim is supported by reliable, independent sources so it complies with Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons, neutrality, and verifiability.

I also understand there is concern about my infobox work. I know infobox syntax well and can create infoboxes quickly, the speed of my edits comes from practice, not automation. If specific infoboxes or past edits contain errors or look like AI placeholders, I’m happy to fix or remove them once they’re pointed out.

My goal now is to improve existing content in line with policy and to avoid any future issues with AI‑suspect edits. If editors have concrete suggestions or concerns about particular parts of the article or my earlier edits, I’m willing to address them. Thoppy234 (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

And that was a 100%-probable AI generated response according to AI detection tools. We are not stupid. See Wikipedia:Do not lie about AI. And especially once you are caught at it, don't compound the problem by adding more. We want to talk to you, not your chatbot. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

so you mean anything written is AI generated. We then need to write single sentence. ENGLISH human writing and writter still exists. Some of us are just bless with using words. Thoppy234 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

In this post you haven't produced one single grammatically correct sentence, but you expect us to believe that you wrote four perfectly grammatically correct paragraphs without using AI. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

So now it comes down to a single sentence with a grammar issue. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I’m not here to trade words with a bunch of AI editors. English is not my first language, and I’ve learned my lesson about arguing over things that don’t help me grow. Civility

Reading all the threads here shows me there’s a kind of power I can’t control. Anything outside my control, I prefer to leave to those of you who are in control or to those of you whose power is English. No personal attacks

And just to be clear: saying my grammar is bad doesn’t prove the text is AI generated; read alot of articles daily and AI slop is in most of the content does not mean Human dont write . Human writers still exist, and some of us are simply comfortable playing with words in our own way. Thoppy234 (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Why did your grammar and spelling deteriorate towards the end of this reply? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Because i didnt go to Reykjavik University Thoppy234 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with anything. They don't even have an English Studies program (but University of Iceland does) or even a faculty of languages/linguistics, at least they didn't when I was there more than 15 years ago.

Your reply started with perfect grammar and perfect spelling, but towards the end it completely changed. All of the grammatical errors and spelling mistakes are in the last paragraph, but there are none in the previous paragraphs. How come that happened? It's a genuine question, and I'll take a reasonable answer at face value. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you thinking the above comment was AI-generated? I think it bears a lot of difference from Thoppy234's original comment in this thread, but if they can't or won't acknowledge that we can easily tell the difference between that original comment and the other comments in this thread, this conversation is almost certainly going nowhere. ^purring_maggot (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No idea, honestly. I just wanted to know why the last paragraph was so different from the rest of the reply. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:TheRealTigray

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-19 TheRealTigray, 0 pages need review.

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

Reverted them on Tigray Defense Forces after seeing markdown in Diff/1362465914, but they reinstated the edit. They've also referenced multiple non-existent 404 not found sources in the same article. The first three examples that I picked, all added in Diff/1362466442:

• www.hrw.org/report/2022/04/06/we-will-erase-you-land/ethnic-cleansing-western-tigray
• www.state.gov/secretary-blinkens-determination-on-ethiopia/
• www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/02/ethiopia-eritrean-troops-massacred-hundreds-of-civilians-in-axum/

After warning them on their talk page in User talk:TheRealTigray § July 2026, they (sort of) denied using an LLM for their edits, claimed that WP: NOLLM prohibits unreviewed AI-generated and then incorrectly quoted NOLLM at me:

From what I read in WP: NOLLM, "editors must not add machine-generated content to mainspace articles unless they thoroughly review, verify, and take responsibility for it."; otherwise they will violate the WP: NOLLM policy.
— User:TheRealTigray 15:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

When asked if they have been using an LLM, they have gone on tangents about the conents of the article and their edits and what they think the article should say. There isn't so much to clean up here, as they seem to have mostly self-reverted at Tigray Defense Forces, but they have also edited other articles and it sound like they will want to reinstate their edits later on. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the links you mentioned, the URLs themselves were not incorrect — the pages exist and are accessible. Here are the working versions of each source:

https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/04/06/we-will-erase-you-land/ethnic-cleansing-western-tigray

https://www.state.gov/secretary-blinkens-determination-on-ethiopia/

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/02/ethiopia-eritrean-troops-massacred-hundreds-of-civilians-in-axum/ TheRealTigray (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I swear these links had worked for me not too long ago... Give me a moment, thanks. TheRealTigray (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

None of these URLs have ever been saved by archive.org, meaning that they have most likely never existed. However, this is a very common AI hallucination. Between these URLs, the markdown, incorrectly quoting guidelines saying something completely different, your editing speed, and the prose that you have added; it is pretty clear what is happening here.

Have you been using an LLM? ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr25/5444/2022/en/

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/us-backtracks-on-ethiopia-atrocity-determination/

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/02/ethiopia-eritrean-troops-massacre-of-hundreds-of-axum-civilians-may-amount-to-crime-against-humanity/ TheRealTigray (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• hrw.org: returns 404 not found

Page Not Found

Not able to find the page you were looking for? Sorry for the inconvenience.

• state.gov: returns 404 not found

We apologize for the inconvenience...

Why Am I Seeing This Page?

The page you're looking for is not available on our current site.

• amnesty.org: returns 404 not found

Page Not Found

The page you are looking for does not exist.

Did you check the links first? ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and I provided the proper links underneath. TheRealTigray (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Then where did you get these links from? ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

With respect to WP:NOLLM, my prior text was not a direct quotation of the guideline. I did not create any portion of the content using an LLM; all content was created by me based on credible sources that I found that are easily verifiable. I also noted in the article's Talk Page that I incorrectly quoted the guideline and made the proper correction, with the pertinent cite for your review. I would also be more than willing to discuss any potential additions I may make to the article (Tigray Defense Forces) on the Talk Page before publishing any changes. TheRealTigray (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I believe that a partial block from article space to prevent further disruption is warranted here, given the continued denial of the obvious. TheRealTigray has not adequately explained where these URLs came from, why they added Markdown or where they got the misrepresentation of NOLLM from. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I am currently rewriting all of my work to ensure that nothing resembles LLM to avoid later issues. or confusion. The only form I used an LLM for was grammar and structural cleanup of my own writing. Not for generating article content. It appears that during the process, the tool reformatted or altered URL's I had included, which led to the incorrect versions that were later flagged by @Gurkubondinn. The markdown formatting was also accidental, and I have since corrected that.

I have made substantial improvements in my Word document and in my sandbox, where I am drafting everything manually before proposing changes on the articles' talk pages. If there are any next steps in order to get through this situation, I would be grateful, as I do understand it is a privilege to be able to contribute to these pages, and I don't take that lightly. I noted heavy bias and heavy narrative language used in the previous version of the article, and my goal was to provide accurate, balanced information on these forces, where they come from, their right and wrong doings, with sources and factual explanations to support my changes to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am still fairly new, as I am just now getting back into article contribution. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused, whether on here or the Talk Page TheRealTigray (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn: Because TheRealTigray is a single-purpose account who has edited two articles confined to the Tigray subject area, a sitewide mainspace block would be overkill in my opinion. This article falls under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Horn of Africa and should not be edited by TheRealTigray at all. Increasing page protection to ECP or a topic ban may be in order, but I haven't decided which. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist, you are absolutely correct. I completely forgot about HORN being an ECR topic in the first place, and I would have acted differently if I hadn't. Apologies for the ping, that my bad. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(I am also to blame, I was also unaware of that particular CTOP) Sohom (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

You might consider replacing your block with a topic ban, but that's up to you. TheRealTigray hasn't tried to appeal the block yet. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Putting up a tracker, only for articles this month (July 2026) as previously they hadn't edited since 2022. Have not done a detailed check of the 2022 edits; don't see immediate concern in the edit summaries. (About LLM, I mean. NPOV may be another story.) M kuhner (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The single edit to Tigray Region is borderline for me. It's an infobox addition. Formatting and edit summary suggestive of LLM. Source exists and title is supportive of claim; can't see body due to paywall. I'm unqualified to judge appropriateness in this CTOP and this looks potentially controversial. I don't think I'd remove as LLM, but given editor wasn't allowed to edit on this topic, I'm inclined to revert. Opinions? M kuhner (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that any edit made in violation of WP:ECR is allowed to be reverted regardless of the content, if I've read the policy right. edit: Ahh wait, or maybe that means an admin can enforce it by reverting the edit. I'm not sure. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reverted; if an admin disagrees they're free to restore. Very uneasy about LLM user in CTOP, feels like bull in china shop. M kuhner (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Uzsport

Yet another large swath of AI edits with various people pointing out symptoms of the problem (source-to-text integrity issues/hallucinations, deleted draft notices) but no one identifying the problem.

Is unambiguously using ChatGPT for at least some things, and their articles have the usual slate of other WP:AISIGNS (infobox "add file name here" placeholders, "plays a key role" crap, AI talkpage comments, the whole gamut.

This goes back at least to mid-2025. Not sure about 2023-24; I have not done a full check of all articles. Definitely by 2025. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

the Anthropometry section at Guljahon Turdikulova from April 2023 and from June 2023, there's also « symbols in this from July 2023 but idk if that's markup (at least seems to come from being copied somewhere) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think they're quotation marks on a Cyrillic keyboard or in other languages. I have them because « I write in French ». SenshiSun (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I want to answer honestly. I accept that I used AI sometimes, mostly for translated/paraphrased sentences, and help with references. The article where I used it more was WBC Boxing Grand Prix, mainly because I had difficulty with the brackets and formatting. I didn't understand at the time that using AI in this way could be a problem on Wikipedia. I did not use AI every time or to write full articles from start to finish, but I understand the concern. Could you please guide me on what I should do next and which issues I should focus on first? I want to correct the problems properly. Uzsport (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and clarifying the situation. You're in a better position than anyone else to know which are the AI articles, but those are the ones to start with, unfortunately the only thing to do is go back to the beginning and write them from scratch without AI by reading the sources. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest reply. If you could clarify which articles may contain LLM text, that would really help us out, and would also protect your non-LLM work from mistaken deletion. Even a rough start and end date would be helpful. M kuhner (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Ertuyotuyo

Warned for AI usage by other people; says they're only using it for formatting, but is creating articles at an incredibly fast clip (and removing tags). Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Reference 5 in Almanaque Panayanhon only contains the name in a citation, “Mga Magsusulat sa Panay Cutub sang Tiempo sang Cachila Tubtub Caron.” Almanaque Panayanhon,

1914. Mandurriao, Iloilo City: Imprenta y Libreria Panayana de Casimirio F. Perfecto,

1913. 66. Impreso. SenshiSun (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Good day! Our team already has a lot of articles that we post on our Facebook page, Historia Antikenya. We decided to publish these articles on Wikipedia and have been using a generator tool to format them, as we have no idea how to code. We sincerely apologize if we have caused any issues. We had a lapse in checking whether the bot added any false information or citations. However, to back up our integrity, please know that we research our articles and write the information ourselves. Ertuyotuyo (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Moving forward, we will no longer use the generator tool. I am actively learning how to format using Wikicode myself. Please note that following yesterday's warnings, I have already gone back through our previous uploads to remove any false information and correct the formatting issues. Ertuyotuyo (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This is far more serious than AI cleanup. This is copyvio cleanup, which is difficult in this case due to language translation. The Wikimedia Foundation has not been given permission by the copyright owner to republish content that is already published on Facebook. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It also appears that the account is being shared (note the repeated 'we' above), contrary to policy. And I'd question whether, regardless of copyright issues, the material from this 'team' meets WP:RS criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they are multiple people and deserve multiple blocks, indef in fact. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

See Ertuyotuyo's talk page explanation. I am satisfied the account is a single person. The editor has also agreed to refrain from further contributions until the WP:CONSENT process is finished. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but why is there so much tolerance towards these disruptions? Why is there no admin action? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Because none is needed after communicating with the editor, which some participants should try doing. This is a collaborative project that requires communication. Maybe you should try communicating with newbies who are editing in good faith, not knowing what they're doing wrong. In this case, it's a new user who is acting in good faith, not using AI except for translation of original articles written by that editor and associates, and who was unaware of the AI and copyright issues and wants to do the right thing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The user (or one of them) started in 2024 ! Not new. Again the keyword is: timesink. Collaborative has to be a 2 way street. For the AI addicts it is not. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The start date doesn't matter. The low edit count suggests inexperience. That is the sense in which I used "new". This user responds to comments, and is therefore collaborative. A block is intended to prevent further disruption, and if an editor has stated that they need guidance in doing the right thing, then no reason has been offered by anyone here to issue a block. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Anyway, I am going to stop looking at this board. The AI material is getting into Wikipedia like Marine plastic pollution and the few editors here will eventually be overwhelmed and pollution will sink into the encyclopedia. Sad, but inevitable. C'est la vie. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Loyal luz

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested.

LLM PRODMinistry of Textiles and Jute (Bangladesh)

DeletedBangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami Women's Wing

DeletedBangladesh Chashi Kallyan Samity

LLM PROD2018 Rajshahi City Corporation election

Needs reviewFeroza Bhaban

DeletedDeputy Leader of the Opposition in Jatiya Sangsad

CleanMohammad Abu Sufian (Chittagong politician)

CleanSayeed Al Noman

LLM PRODArgentina national kabaddi team  nominated on 10 July

LLM PRODPrivate Secretary to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh

Needs reviewPrime Minister's Press Secretary (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology

Needs reviewWard No. 21 (Dhaka South City Corporation)

Needs reviewWard No. 19 (Dhaka South City Corporation)

Needs reviewWard No. 13 (Dhaka South City Corporation)

Needs reviewChief of the General Staff (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewSecretary of the Jatiya Sangsad

Needs reviewMinister of Land (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewGovernor of Bangladesh Bank

Needs reviewMinister of Commerce (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Science and Technology (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewAir Chief Marshal (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewBrigadier general (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewPrincipal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh

Needs reviewMinister of Planning (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewDirector General of National Security Intelligence

Needs reviewMinister of Agriculture (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Cultural Affairs, Bangladesh

Needs reviewList of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Turkey

Needs reviewMinister of Health and Family Welfare (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Shipping (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Youth and Sports (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Information and Broadcasting (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Defence (Bangladesh)

DeletedList of high commissioners of Bangladesh to Australia  Deleted via PROD on 2025-04-07

Needs reviewShahadat Hossain (Chittagong politician)

Needs review2023 AFC Annual Awards

Needs reviewSaiful Islam (police officer)

Needs review2024-25 Upazila Council elections

Needs reviewChattogram BGMEA University of Fashion and Technology

Needs reviewNorth Pathantooly Ward

Needs review2024 Comilla City Corporation by-election

Needs reviewTahseen Bahar Shuchona

Needs review2024 Mymensingh City Corporation election

Needs reviewSouth Patenga Ward

Needs reviewNorth Patenga Ward

Needs reviewSouth Middle Halishahar Ward

Needs reviewNorth Middle Halishahar Ward

Needs reviewGosaildanga Ward

Needs reviewBoxirhat Ward

Needs reviewPatharghata Ward

Needs reviewFiringee Bazar Ward

Needs reviewAndarkilla Ward

Needs reviewAlkaran Ward

Needs reviewEast Madarbari Ward

Needs reviewWest Madarbari Ward

Needs reviewPathantooly Ward

Needs reviewEnayet Bazar Ward

Needs reviewDewan Bazar Ward

Needs reviewSouth Bakalia Ward

Needs reviewEast Bakalia Ward

Needs reviewWest Bakalia Ward

Needs reviewWest Sholashahar Ward

Needs reviewEast Sholashahar Ward

Needs reviewSouth Halishahar Ward

Needs reviewMohra Ward

Needs reviewChandgaon Ward

Needs review2022 Narayanganj City Corporation election

Needs reviewPanchlaish Ward

Needs reviewJalalabad Ward

Needs reviewSouth Pahartali Ward

Needs reviewChawkbazar Ward

Needs reviewBagmaniram Ward

Needs reviewSouth Agrabad Ward

DeletedNorth Pathantuli Ward  Deleted via G7 on 2024-05-07

Needs reviewNorth Agrabad Ward

Needs reviewRampur Ward

Needs reviewSholokbahar Ward

Needs reviewJamal Khan Ward

Needs reviewPahartali Ward

Needs reviewSaraipara Ward

Needs reviewNorth Pahartali Ward

Needs reviewNorth Kattali Ward

Needs reviewLalkhan Bazar Ward

Needs reviewNorth Halishahar Ward  Potential start point of AI edits; older articles may need source review

Needs reviewList of high commissioners of Bangladesh to the United Kingdom

Needs reviewList of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Saudi Arabia

DeletedList of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Kingdom of Saudia Arabia  Deleted via G7 on 2023-02-25

Needs reviewMayor of Gazipur  Reference 1 is a 404, others resolve. Potential ref1 link replacement is only in Bangla.

Needs reviewMayor of Rangpur

DeletedDaraz  Deleted via G4 on 2022-12-27

Needs reviewMayor of South Dhaka  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewGazipur Metropolitan Police  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewRajshahi WASA  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Mymensingh  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewList of mayors of Barisal  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Narayanganj  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Rajshahi  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Khulna  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Cumilla  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then. English sources mostly clean. Bangladeshi sources not yet checked.

Clean2016 Men's AHF Cup  Article created before November 2022 - no edits made by them since then

CleanCruz Silva  Article created before November 2022 - no edits made by them since then

Needs reviewMayor of Sylhet  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then. Reference 1 404s. Reference in English, actual law seems to be Bangla. Needs confirmation from an editor who speaks the language

CleanMohammad Akbar (politician)  Article created before November 2022 - no edits made by them since then

Loyal luz (talk · contribs) User with 20k edits who was recently blocked for LLM use and no communication. Looks like a monster Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone able to work out when they started? Struggling to tell Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, good luck trying to figure it out. As I said above I am going to stop looking at this board. Too few experienced editors and too much AI pollution, which like Marine plastic pollution is highly unlikely to be ever cleaned up at this rate. Good bye. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

At the worst, we need to check every main space edit they made since 2022-11-30, the date Chat GPT came out. I would like to avoid that. Their editing became more frequent in January 2024, so that might be a good place to start. Maybe start with pages they created? SenshiSun (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Just added {{AINB article}} for all this user's article creations, noting any deletions and noting any pre-November 2022 creations where they have/haven't edited. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 15:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but are you sure their LLM use goes back to 2022? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that'll be the next step - figuring out the extent of LLM use. I just assembled the list as a starting reference point. Many of the articles are stubs as well. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 15:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

AI detection is exponentially harder since the majority of these articles are microstubs. I've PRODded one post-2025 creation which includes "plays a crucial role" in its first and only sentence, but the others are really hard to tell. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 17:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Mayor of Sylhet's text is clear, but reference 1 404s. It appears the actual law is Bangla, which I can't read. If a Bangladesh speaking editor wants to help, I'd appreciate it! SenshiSun (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Wondering if it might be worth giving WikiProject Bangladesh a ping? Netstars22 (talk to me!) 01:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Asked on their talk page. We'll see how that goes. SenshiSun (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! SenshiSun (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sholokbahar Ward, created by this editor June 5, 2023, was a tiny stub, but from creation it cited facts about the organization of the city to a scholarly paper on water sources which does not mention this ward. Subsequent edits by the same editor made things longer but even worse (there are a lot of "inline" cites which are malformed and just sitting in the article text). As sure as one can be from an article this short, the current version is LLM and it likely has been from birth. M kuhner (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually think it's clear, for the whole articles, where the trouble began. The earliest articles on the list were all created unsourced and then sources added later (and some of those are this editor, and LLM) but the original text sometimes has typos and in general is not LLM-like. This goes up through two "List of" articiles in February 2023.

Then there is a gap, and a flurry of "Ward" articles. I checked three; they have sources from creation, and those sources are bad (irrelevant paper, source/text mismatch). North Halishahar Ward was created June 2, 2023, pre-tagged with a "more citations needed" dated July 2022.

Articles of this kind appear to start June 2, 2023. I propose June 1 2023 as a cutoff date. M kuhner (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Marking North Halishahar Ward as a likely start point. I’ll spot check some of the older article creations that have newer edits for anything untoward. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 03:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like their Mayor of (Location) articles have identical phrasing. They may have been copying basic information between them. That's not an AI issue, but is something to note. SenshiSun (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

None of the ones I have looked at were good articles at creation. But that probably has to be someone else's problem.... we have plenty to do just with clear LLM issues here! M kuhner (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Do we have to worry about the article state when it was created? SenshiSun (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

(it can be useful to look at the first versions of articles because editors sometimes remove the more obvious signs like markup in later edits, XTools is great for this) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to figure out when they started using LLM, so creation state was important--if they made it non-LLM and added LLM later, the creation date isn't evidence. Also there is a big difference between maintenance tags added to an article after creation, and ones that it was born with--the former are perfectly normal, but the latter are red flags. You could tag your own article for maintenance when you write it, but I don't think most humans do that. M kuhner (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk · contribs)

AI slop going back to at least 2024, which I first noticed in their 2024 edits on the article for Palestine (yes, certainly an article you want written with AI); I have not looked at all their edits on grounds of their being a lot of them, but through 2025 they have unambiguously used ChatGPT for at least some purposes, and had a page (User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan/Baghdad) speedied for ChatGPT usage. Also what appears to be an AI userpage.

They were asked about this last summer on their talk page as well as on this ANI thread, which points out the marked difference in their writing style between some of their talk page comments/edits and other ones (see Talk:Palestine for a sampling, apologies to use that as an example again but it's the one I just noticed and I have not gone through their enormous amount of edits to find others)

This isn't a conduct report as going through their recent edits it doesn't seem like they are using ChatGPT for article content anymore. It's mostly to flag the older stuff for cleanup, it is very frustrating to figure out where this stuff starts and ends. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Please take a look at the user talk page. It is a nightmare of rejected drafts, edit wars and earthquakes in general. The user should either clean up the old stuff themselves or be warned and blocked, and have the material deleted. If someone throws trash on the floor, get them to pick it up themselves. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  All those edits were previous one. Now I no more use AI for content writing Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I said in the original post. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Those older stuff is mix of AI and original written and its not that easy to filter out AI written and if that content is deleted entirely, then my entire original written content will also go in vain. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

You know which parts were AI and which were not. I suggest you tackle this right away. If we have to do it, you are right, some of your original writing may be lost.

If nothing else, can you give us a date when you started using AI, and a date when you stopped? M kuhner (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

There is not a proper date I remembered using AI. Just I was new and I used it and now I stopped it. The problem is, AI generated content is totally mixed with originally written ones.

Is it necessary to cleanup AI generated content, because most of them are in sandboxes and drafts, not actual articles, I guess Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't normally clean up anything but published articles and edits to published articles. I can make a cleanup report for you to look at, if you want to see what articles we would be examining. Let me know if you want to see that.

There's no way around it: if you can't tell us which articles or parts of articles are LLM, we're going to have to try to figure it out ourselves, and some of your own writing will probably get deleted. I'm sorry for that. But experience shows that LLMs can get things seriously wrong, so we can't afford to leave LLM text in Wikipedia articles. M kuhner (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

As far I remember, I didn't made any edits to published articles using LLM and whenever I did, then it was already removed. Mostly, I have used them in my draftspace and sandboxes. and also some of those articles which I wrote and published using LLMs have been either deleted, redirected or moved to draftspace. Anyway, if there is a for you to scan and inform before deleting, then I will see to it Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have created a "tracking page" which lists all your edits since LLMs were publicly introduced, grouped by article. Our next step would be to go through this list and try to determine when LLM use started, then go article by article and take appropriate steps. I am not linking this page for immediate action, since you say you will help. Please have a look. If you can use this list to remember when you started using LLMRs or when you stopped, that would be extremely helpful.

Here is the tracking page: M kuhner (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, as I have been busy nowadays. Seeing the list, one thing I am sure that most of the LLM contents were published on articles around overall Middle East topics, like countries (Iraq, Palestine etc.) and I remember, I stopped using LLMs in my India-related articles. and regarding helping, suddenly I can get busy and won't be available. Because it was all of a sudden. And please let me know that content will be removed or entire version. Because if version is not deleted, then I can rewrite those contents originally by myself. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:SyzygyRebel

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-09 SyzygyRebel, 104 pages need review.

SyzygyRebel (talk · contribs)

Sorry for all the topics.

Anyway, another user who was warned a while back (2025) about repeated AI usage, including hallucinated sources, and responded with This is a bit embarrassing as I actually supplied all the information to be constructed while I intended to be neutral. I will go through every other created articles to clean up for anything I might have inadvertently made worse.. However, as recently as a month ago, they're still not only using AI, but doing stuff like not even bothering to remove the chatbot response. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Nominated one of their drafts for speedy deletion under G15 since you pointed out they can't remove the chatbot response. Beta Beta Beta - talk 07:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Support presumptive reverting, they started creating articles again in 2025, this was their first. Latest edit 19 June so need consensus here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Count me on your side for consensus. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Support presumptively reverting and deleting as much of this as possible. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Support as well. Beta Beta Beta - talk 00:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Support prompt start of cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like July 2025 is the start date. Setting up a tracking page. It is a lot. M kuhner (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff,@Beta Beta Beta,@Gurkubondinn, @Kowal2701, @M kuhner and @Yesterday, all my dreams...

Thank you for flagging this, and apologies for the delayed response. I haven't been active on Wikipedia recently due to work and health challenges, and I only saw these messages, including the proposed deletion notices just now.

For context, I have a repetitive strain injury that makes extended typing difficult, so I've been using AI tools to help draft text from my own dictated points, and to help surface sources I might have missed. I understand now that this produced text that reads as unreviewed AI output, and in at least one draft, unremoved chatbot text made it through, which is not acceptable regardless of the reason.

Going forward, I will not use AI to generate or rewrite article prose. I'll switch to dictation software for my own wording instead.

Any source I cite, I will personally verify against the original text before it goes into an article.

I will go through the 104 pages on the tracking list myself, finishing by end of August.

I would ask to be allowed to do this review myself rather than have it fall entirely on other editors, but I understand if presumptive reverting is still the preferred approach for pages I haven't gotten to by end of August. While I thank you for your understanding in this matter, I also want to tender unreserved apologies for all my oversight. SyzygyRebel (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @SyzygyRebel, that sounds like a good plan. The most important thing to review for is whether the cited sources support the content (ie. WP:V), because LLMs have a tendency to hallucinate. Hope your injury gets better soon. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your honesty and cooperation. I'd certainly support you taking responsibility for the cleanup, and like the idea that we'll touch bases again at the end of August.

Please note that LLMPRODs are often done in batches, and only marked on the tracker when someone else notices that they have been done. So there may be LLMPRODs not currently marked on tracking.

I would strongly recommend, if you intend to rescue a created article currently under LLMPROD, removing the LLMPROD tag and immediately draftifying the article. Unreviewed LLM articles should not be in mainspace, and this will give you time to fix them. If not rescued they are likely to be deleted after 5-7 days. You can see instructions at WP:DRAFTIFY or ask here for help. M kuhner (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:USERFY might be better because we've had problems with people draftifying in the past (like someone would draftify an article with the intention to work on it there, then someone else moves it back to mainspace later without it undergoing any changes) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kindness and for your understanding @Kowal2701 and @M kuhner I really appreciate it.

I'll start fixing the flagged issues right away and work through as much as I can, article by article. I'll come back to this thread if I run into anything I'm unsure how to handle. I take Wikipedia's quality standards seriously, and even assuming good faith on my part, I'm genuinely unhappy that this situation arose at all.

For now, I'm going to focus solely on fixing these existing flagged articles and will hold off from creating or curating any new articles until I'm confident I can produce reliable, properly verified work going forward.

Thank you, once again. SyzygyRebel (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Your response is 1000x better than what we usually see, and frankly made my day. M kuhner (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, oh, thanks for acknowledging that. I value this community and I am also learning to do better. SyzygyRebel (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Piece of advice, not related to LLMs, on Caroline Kouassiaman: Source 1 lives on a web site which says it will close down in December 2026. Strongly recommend that you archive it now while it's still alive! M kuhner (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, thank you for flagging this. I had missed it. I have now archived it. Please, if you are not too busy, kindly assist to review the pages I have fixed thus far in case I have missed other important things. Plenty gratitude. SyzygyRebel (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked Caroline Kouassiaman and have put comments on its Talk page. I am sorry to say, but you are underestimating how bad LLM sourcing is, and there are still multiple sourcing issues here including one flat-out hallucination. M kuhner (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner Oh, no! I will go back to it. SyzygyRebel (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, I have been wondering about some of the issues that @Gnomingstuff, and I discovered that a user Special:Contributions/~2026-22682 had copied and pasted an entire mathematical bold Unicode characters paragraph into Satang Nabaneh's article. And I was not notified of this editing and I was never aware of it. Isn't this a kind of garbled formatting from a copy-pasted source vandalism? SyzygyRebel (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

• Caroline Kouassiaman: ✅ Done
• Erica Woodland: ✅ Done
• Romi Crawford: ✅ Done
• Toyin Ajao: ✅ Done
• Ruth Murambadoro: ✅ Done
• Njoki Wamai: ✅ Done
• Eka Ikpe: ✅ Done
• Munira Hussein: ✅ Done
• Siphokazi Magadla: ✅ Done
• Cara Page: ✅ Done
• Godwin Murunga: ✅ Done

This user is now removing their own LLMPRODs with little to no action taken. I've seen it on other articles, too: . I would suggest an indef mainspace block based on this disruption, as the user is clearly not following through with their promise to "focus solely on fixing these existing flagged articles". Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 15:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Despite their apparent cooperation, there have been source/text mismatch issues in both of the "cleaned up" articles I've spot-checked so far (see talk pages for Caroline Kouassiaman and Erica Woodland. I don't think the cleanup is sufficiently rigorous. M kuhner (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Somepinkdude and @M kuhner I am still editing. I didn't just remove them. I am compiling. I asked to finish all the editing in August. I have been taking time from work as busy as I am with my health to edit. I was editing everything as much as I can at the same time. I have no reason to take any of you for granted or not comply with community standards. Please, instead of recommending punitive actions, especially where I am complying, I will appreciate your help in any way possible. I was sleeping at 4am including working all day to get this done. Thanks for your understanding SyzygyRebel (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered draftifying the articles (moving them to Draft) so that there will be no time limits? We certainly don't want you to damage your health.

From experience doing it, LLM cleanup is very difficult. In many cases it might be better to cut down the article to a stub, then rebuild with human text. You can salvage any good references, but will have to read them as what LLM says they contain is not reliable. It's a big project, which is a major reason we're so hardline on LLM use: a problem can be caused very quickly that will be extremely slow to cure other than by deletion.

Please do not write or edit other articles until this is dealt with. Thank you. M kuhner (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, oh no. I do not intend to edit or write any article for a while even after this problem is fixed. I am taking this to heart too much to do that because integrity matters to me. If you look at distance between when I joined Wikipedia, wrote the first set of articles and came back again, it was a loooong time, because I do not have the kind of software skills that many people do here and I do my best as someone who loves to contribute to meaningful project to learn how best to participate, still. For instance, some of the errors you flagged like Early life and education on Erica Woodland's article was my error, not LLM's. And I used LLM because I thought it was accepted but minimally, especially when human contribution is involved, and can help with dictations for people who are neurodivergent, suffering some form of disabilities or have health concerns who want to participate in meaningful things. That said, the reasons I have not moved any article to drafts is; 1. because I thought some of the problems are quick fixes, 2. that even if I dratify, I may not still see all the problems and someone else can approve it as ready while I still get into trouble, after all most of the articles have been reviewed and accepted while having all these issues. 3. I have not received much help in terms of anyone helping to contribute to articles in AFC even when I declared a COI. It felt like I am largely on my own in this community, so I learnt to just do my best otherwise as the Women in Red, and LGBTQ+ Studies projects are meaningful for me. I am not making excuses but being transparent and accountable in this process and appealing that I am not punished for unintentional mistakes but supported to address them. I hope I can have the corporations of everyone who has joined the conversation to help me out like you are doing by assisting to look through all the 16 articles under scrutiny for what else I might have missed so I can go back and fix them. Your pointers on Erica Woodland, and Caroline Kouassiaman have been nothing but helpful, and I hope others kind editors will support me too. @M kuhner, would you kindly educate me on how to revert an article to a stub or build one? I have seen stub articles before and helped to develop them but I have never created one because I thought it was never intentional but an editing decision. Thank you. SyzygyRebel (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

As long as you are genuinely trying to improve the encyclopaedia in good faith, you don't have to worry about being sanctioned. They are WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, so they are not "punitive actions". Sanctions are only restrictions that are enacted to protect the project when needed.

I would think that the best thing to do here is to WP:USERIFY the articles, and move them into your userspace. Then there are no timelimits and no stress. Remember that there are WP:NODEADLINES on Wikipedia, there is no reason for any of this to become a stressful situation for you. If you want to, I can do it for you. Just let me know. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, Thank you so much for your understanding and for this helpful suggestion.

I think the reason I've been so stressed and autoautopiloting is that @Gnomingstuff had recommended a block, twice, and I've been doing my best to make sure that didn't happen. I also noticed that @Kowal2701 suggested moving the articles to my userspace rather than the Draft namespace, but I didn't really understand what that meant until you reiterated it now.

Before I move the articles to my userspace, may I ask whether someone could look over all the editing done and point out what I am still missing so I can see if I can fix them without moving them?

Once I review my options based on how much correction I still have to do on each article, I will come back to you for assistance in either to move or show me how, in case I haven't figured it out myself.

Thank you, and @M kuhner for all the help rendered so far. SyzygyRebel (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, I actually thought there were deadlines because what I know thus far is that unfinished drafted articles would be deleted after 6 months, and that I had 7 days to resolve the issue here or all the articles will be deleted, hence rushing to fix them as I have done. SyzygyRebel (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall bringing up being blocked and don't see anything here that is worth being blocked over. It wasn't here if so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@SyzygyRebel: Drafts that haven't been touched in six months can be deleted if they are in the Draft namespace, or are in the User namespace and have an AFC submision template. If you keep them in your userspace and don't submit them to AfC or move them to mainspace before they're ready, they'll be safe in your userspace and you can take your time.

And thank you for your efforts to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Such important work deserves to be done thoroughly and with care. Representation is important, but there is no deadline. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 11:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I want to echo the last paragraph in Claudine's response. We need more of this here on the English Wikipedia. We have a lot of blind spots that need filling in. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry @Gnomingstuff, I must have misread you. I apologise for that. Thank you @ClaudineChionh, and @Gurkubondinn. I appreciate your support and reassurance. May I take a few days to decompress and return to look through all the articles to see which ones need moving to my userpage and which have been sufficiently salvaged? I have already worked through all 16 articles over the past 5 days, but based on @M kuhner's comments, I still have work to do. I am still hoping one of you might have time to look at the articles for me. Your feedback would be of immense help. Thanks a lot. SyzygyRebel (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No need to apologize, and also just want to echo what everyone else said as well, really really appreciate you doing this Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have put comments on a few more of the articles in the cleaned-up list. I'd suggest going back to Godwin Murunga right away as there are mismatches between text and source in every paragraph. As I said in my comments there, it really is better to rewrite the text based on reading the sources: salvaging the LLM text seems appealing but it turns out to be more trouble than it's worth. (Speaking from experience--for example for New Vision I wish I'd started clean rather than trying to sort out someone else's LLM text, Hypocnemis too. I badly underestimated how hard these would be; wouldn't do it that way now that I have more experience.) M kuhner (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:0xReflektor

 Cleanup has been requested.

0xReflektor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

see here, here. and there

I do not know if they were using LLMs on other edits, but they have a pattern of using LLMs whenever un-redirecting an article ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Forgery and Counterforgery (created Sep 2025) has WP:AIVOCAB and WP:AITREND ("highlighted") ("sets the New Testament writings within that broader landscape"), as well as WP:AITABLE. A lot of ther articles are like this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-speed solar wind was Nov 2025. Some sizeable articles were created very soon after one another. This looks like a rather straightforward LLMPROD run. Will probably do it tomorrow if noone else fancies it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Happy to do it. Your content creation area deserves attention over this. Did you use something fancier than copy-paste to tag Juan Martínez de Medrano? I activated Twinkle not too long ago. Cedarshadow (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Cedarshadow, I use User:Kowal2701/LLMPROD to copy-paste the tags and edit sums, unfortunately it hasn't been added to Twinkle yet Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Jacob6493

LLMPRODs are unnecessary (draftified)

 Cleanup has been requested.

Behavior I cannot explain besides with LLM usage.

• Has been around since pre-2023, so you can see the difference in their writing style, most obviously in their edit summaries.
• Has been performing substantial rewrites of articles with <5 minutes between edits. See this edit, made 4 minutes after the previous one, as representative.
• Behavior like creating articles with notability tags, "accessing" URLs that were dead 404s in the previous version (ref 3), adding DOA 404s (ref 5), adding DOA 404s (ref 5), marking sources as dead that are not dead (live: )

~ A412 ^talk! 04:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I draftified the page creations and left a warning on his talk page. The mainspace edits do need to be cleaned up though. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist, just FYI, imo it's best to userfy articles (or tag drafted ones w {{AI-generated}}), I keep seeing draftified articles get moved back into mainspace much later by someone else whose unaware of the context (eg. ) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If you see that happen, please make the person aware of the context. In the example you linked, the person who moved it to mainspace is an administrator, and should have known why it was draftified in the first place. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:SunriseInBrooklyn

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

SunriseInBrooklyn (talk · contribs), XTools

Was blocked June 2024 for CIR and AITALK at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#GA-banned user violating topic ban. Was unblocked June 2025 where they said Regarding AI: I now understand using such as ChatGPT or any similar tools without through human oversight violates community standards. I regret doing so and will not AI for editing again. I. Received a warning from @Gurkubondinn in 24 June 2026 (they haven't edited since). 9,700 edits (no relevant article creations). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

To any patrolling admins: is this worth a mainspace block? They've had a lot of rope, and I'm concerned that they're just going to return at some point and carry on. (btw courtesy ping to 331dot as the unblocking admin, no need to respond if too busy) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This also reads as probably AI-generated to me:

... has a long and varied history within ..., the street evolved over time ..., reflecting its intended role as a major thoroughfare. ..., hinting at its ambitious design origins.
— Diff/1304419918

There's also an utm_source=chatgpt.com in there, but I don't want to read too much into that alone. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Back in August 2025, they triggered the 702 (log) edit filter ('Warning against clipboard hijacking') twice in row: AbuseLog/41839229 and AbuseLog/41839237, saved as Diff/1304545542. So they must have copied that text from somewhere. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:TheRealBasti

LLMPRODs are done

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-10 TheRealBasti, 1 pages need review.

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

This user is making large LLM-generated edits to articles related to Philippines. I first noticed their edits on the General Tinio article, where they have inserted markdown (even code blocks in Diff/1363445599) and hallucianted reference among other AISIGNS. They have also been disruptively removing the {{AI-generated}} tag, for instance with the edit summary removed the ai reminder.. in Diff/1363146557.

A few examples (despite their low editing count, this is really only touching the surface):

• General Tinio
  • Diff/1363445599: chatbot output, still wrapped in a ```wiki markdown code block.
  • Diff/1354251115: includes sentences like ..., and continues to form part of the municipality’s cultural identity through religious performances, brass band participation, and fiesta celebrations.
  • Diff/1348326028: added a reference with doi:10.7152/bippa.v24i0.11866 that does not exist. Includes sentences like ...  and form part of the broader Pampanga River watershed and ..., reflecting both ecological constraints and adaptation to terrain. Other AISGISN include AILIST, AIBOLD.
• List of Municipal Officials of General Tinio (draftified to Draft:List of Municipal Officials of General Tinio)
  • Diff/1356894701 (AbuseLog/44335037): created a new page with AISIGNS that includes markdown and thematic breaks, avoids basic copulatives, etc. There's a half-baked reference list from the LLM at the botom.
  • Diff/1356897358: removed the bolded title from the lead, don't know why.
• Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija
  • AbuseLog/44238021: attempted to cite Wikipedia, but never saved the edit.
  • Diff/1354287539: few hours later instead, sources Scholarly studies by researchers from Central Luzon State University and other institutions identify Peñaranda as a principal center of the Araquio tradition to , which does not seem to support the statement.
• Araquio (draftified to Draft:Araquio)
  • AbuseLog/44213581: tried to cite The UNESCO-backed Philippine inventory of intangible cultural heritage included Nueva Ecija’s Arakyo tradition, highlighting its cultural significance within Philippine folk theater and devotional performance traditions to Wikipedia when creating the article.
  • Diff/1354250716: created the article without the "... inventory of intangible ..." sentence and CIRCULAR reference. Includes sentences like the tradition dramatizes narratives surrounding the discovery and recovery of, continues to form part of the municipality’s cultural identity through religious performances, brass band participation, and fiesta celebrations and part of the wider devotional complex surrounding the to name a few.

They have not responded to any of my notices on their talk page, and I am trying to get them to communicate. The only time that they have used their own talk page was to reply to a notice from a bot in Diff/1255270440, so they are aware that the page exists. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: can TheRealBasti be blocked from article space to prevent further disruption? They have continued to edit (inserting a giant LLM-generated edit), after having been asked in User talk:TheRealBasti § July 2026 to start communicating. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked. The editor can still communicate here, and is welcome to do so. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Am I good to clean up the General Tinio article? I've already reverted them once today on that article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Go for it, the editor cannot touch mainspace anymore. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to be sure from an edit warring perspective.

 Done, removed c. 100 kB of LLM output: Diff/1363522749.

‑‑gurkubondinn 18:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracking page created, cleaned up most of it. Will do the General Tinio later. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have just started using this page. again, I'm an amateur user of wikipedia. now, I initially edited our town's page but the changes were deleted by ohnoitsjoe (I think) because it was 'too personal' or something similar to that. I also added sources as I have continually got to accumulate them physically like books or reports from freedom of information request or from the government institutions. so those were also taken down because it was not cited correctly. leading me to using llms to help me not be 'too personal' on the style and put the correct citation. if there are incorrect sources, just let me know because most probably it is a typo. so, essentially, I used llms to help me write it more neutrally.. but it turns out, the community is just deleting everything immediately instead of just helping improve the article. as you noticed, there are a lot of edits I made recently as im doing it section per section so I can review the materials first, like a new book or document, before adding it in. if you got to this point, thanks for reading.. in summary, im just trying to use technology to help our town in terms of history and heritage. I got the materials, I try to write it so people who bother to check can also see the link where I got it. then they can start researching themselves. so may I request to return the edit privileges so I can improve again the style of writing - not personal, with correct citations, and following the rules, esp on llms. TheRealBasti (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

As I have explained to you (multiple times by now), this is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. You are not allowed to use LLMs. I have given you some advice in User talk:TheRealBasti § Blocked from mainspace that I think should help you.

I'll also add that you've added fictitious or hallucinated references that don't exist to the General Tinio article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

understood with the llm. I just read your reply. I can check the doi but the references are available and I can improve the citations.. TheRealBasti (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That DOI is just one example of the problems with your LLM edits. Using an LLM is not allowed. Full stop, there is no way to argue your way around the guideline. There are no shortcuts to this. It would not be enough to "fix" the DOI, that is just painting over the symptoms of the problem. I have already reverted all of your edits on that article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

so may I request to return the edit privileges so I can improve again the style of writing - ...

If you were to make an unblock request now, it might be declined. You were made aware of WP:NOLLM several months ago, but you didn't even answer and instead continued pasting LLM output into article space for months. I think that you will need to demonstrate that you understand the problem and can edit without asking a chatbot to generate it for you first, by working in draft space and making WP:EDITREQUESTs. But I am not an admin, and it is not up to me. The other person that replied to you on your talk page is an admin however. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Diff/1354251115: includes sentences like , and continues to form part of the municipality’s cultural identity through religious performances, brass band participation, and fiesta celebrations." - this is true as the bands are still part of our current activities, the town's web page, the Central Luzon State university study confirms this. Im not sure why this is flagged.

"Diff/1348326028: added a reference with doi:10.7152/bippa.v24i0.11866 that does not exist. Includes sentences like ... and form part of the broader Pampanga River watershed and ..., reflecting both ecological constraints and adaptation to terrain." this is also true, the Pampanga river is a major river that comes from smaller rivers like the ones from General Tinio. almost all rivers go to the Pampanga river watershed. im not sure why this is flagged. " ..., reflecting both ecological constraints and adaptation to terrain" I can review this part.

"Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija

AbuseLog/44238021: attempted to cite Wikipedia, but never saved the edit.

Diff/1354287539: few hours later instead, sources Scholarly studies by researchers from Central Luzon State University and other institutions identify Peñaranda as a principal center of the Araquio tradition to [169], which does not seem to support the statement." Araquio is listed as an intangible heritage of Penaranda and General Tinio and can be found in the National list. I also got another research from CLSU to support the claim. if the style is not good, I can change that.

"Araquio (draftified to Draft:Araquio)

AbuseLog/44213581: tried to cite The UNESCO-backed Philippine inventory of intangible cultural heritage included Nueva Ecija’s Arakyo tradition, highlighting its cultural significance within Philippine folk theater and devotional performance traditions to Wikipedia when creating the article.

Diff/1354250716: created the article without the "... inventory of intangible ..." sentence and CIRCULAR reference. Includes sentences like the tradition dramatizes narratives surrounding the discovery and recovery of, continues to form part of the municipality’s cultural identity through religious performances, brass band participation, and fiesta celebrations and part of the wider devotional complex surrounding the to name a few." the government maintains this list. I am explaining here what the tradition is about as this is my heritage and little it is not explained well. if the style is not ok, I can correct it and I can improve the sources citation. TheRealBasti (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Those are signs of the text not having been written by you, this is how we know that you used an LLM or chatbot to generate it. You cannot argue your way out of the WP:NOLLM prohibition. It isn't about what the text says, it is the fact that it is generated. This just isn't allowed. Full stop, end of story. You must write it yourself. There is no way around this, there are no shortcuts to this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

that is exactly the point, as I mentioned, my initial attempts to write it myself was also flagged as too personal. all the work I did was just cancelled immediately. I thought the llm will correct that style and make the article better. it appears it created a different set of problems and is over writing or making these circular logic. so nothing left to do but try again. im not 'arguing myself out of it. I am explaining what happened. as I mentioned in the beginning, I am an amateur in wikipedia and wouldn't know all the functions immediately. I see that there is a way in edit requests to submit changes. so I'll try that too. TheRealBasti (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

A non-encyclopedic tone isn't as hard or time-consuming to fix as LLM-generated content. If someone says it's "too personal" then that is fixable. The primary concerns are:

• Are the cited sources reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage in accordance with WP:Golden Rule?
• Does the prose summarize what those sources say, no more and no less, without introducing any synthesis or non-neutral point of view in Wikipedia's voice?
• Did a human being write it?

If you want to contribute an article, do it through WP:AFC so it can be reviewed. That way you get feedback, and you can learn through that feedback how to write an encyclopedia article. You are not blocked from doing that.

You are also not blocked from proposing changes on the talk pages of existing articles. You can use WP:Edit Request Wizard to guide you through that. Either way, you give the community a chance to give you feedback before making a mess in mainspace that needs cleaning up. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also add that this give you a chance to demonstrate that you are able to communicate in a collaborative project. You were informed of the NOLLM prohibition on using LLMs a couple of months ago; but you ignored it, kept on doing it anyway and didn't respond until after you were blocked. Communicating is not just about talking, it is just as important to show us that you are able to listen to feedback and learn from it. Edit requests and/or AfC are ways that you can do show this to us. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

noted on the info above. I'm an amateur user so I appreciate this. I didn't actively ignore the reminders. I just didn't know I had any warnings..months ago. in any case, ill try again to rewrite as my objective is the same to help build the story of the town using legit sources. TheRealBasti (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

are the sources reliable? of course! there are levels, I know but I try to get primary sources. I ask freedom of information request, ask government offices for data, I go through the different publications, research papers, books.. and buy some of these books. I personally go through it first.. that is why I feel so frustrated about this as there was a lot of time and work spent on digesting the info before writing it.. then rewriting.. since it's easy to get too personal - the initial issue I've been trying to correct. TheRealBasti (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Primary sources. Primary sources or government publications do nothing to establish notability. We need reliable secondary sources. See WP:Golden Rule (it is a quick and easy read) to get an idea of the kind of sources required. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

User:MaduraiSelvam

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-10 MaduraiSelvam, 7 pages need review.

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

Had been trying to get this user to communicate since § February 2026, but never got a meaningful response. They've since caught an indef for disruption and personal attacks, but they were definitely using LLMs.

A handful of examples:

• Dom João da Cruz Vikrama Aditha Pandiyan (since deleted under G15)
  • AbuseLog/44604419: OAICITES, negative parallelisms, AILEGACY, etc.
• Tamil inscriptions
  • Diff/1339879997: inserted CIRCULAR references to Wikipedia
  • Diff/1339776616: a 'Conculsion' section with CIRCULAR refs to Wikipedia, AILEGACY like ... played a central role in ... and ... reflects the linguistic stability and adaptability ....
  • Diff/1339780438: OAICITES
  • Diff/1339766997: markdown-styled circular references to Wikipedia, this time with utm_source=chatgpt.com, inside a markdown-syntax list. Includes ..., providing important evidence of Tamil merchant activity, settlement, and maritime trade networks and Tamil inscriptions discovered outside India demonstrate the extensive reach of Tamil-speaking merchant communities across the Indian Ocean world, as if to justify the text being added.
  • Diff/1339767089: more CIRCULAR refs to Wikipedia with UTM params from ChatGPT, inside a Markdown syntax list. Includes a 'Significance' section, with an AILIST Tamil inscriptions found outside India provide important evidence for: and that the inscriptions demonstrate the extensive reach.
• Tuula Teeri
  • Diff/1363351299: very large edit minutes after their last edit, has AILIST and subsections using boldface instead of section headers. Includes a bunch of promotional AILEGACY stuff like ... has appeared in leading journals  ..., ... regarded as one of the leading researchers in ..., ... one of the most prominent ..., ... has played an influential role ..., ... she has worked to strengthen engineering research, industrial innovation, and sustainable technological development., ... had lasting influence on biotechnology, ..., Many concepts developed through her research have become foundational in ...

There's a lot more (writing up this shortish list took long enough). I've cleaned some of it up, but would appreciate more eyes and some help. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I've created the tracking page, but the script seems to have missed some pages. Maybe I'm using the wrong script? ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I've worked my way down to their edits at the end of February 2026. Don't only look at the tracking page, also check Special:Contributions/MaduraiSelvam or in XTools. The tracking page script seems to have missed some edits/articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked the author of the tracking-page script if they could have a look. M kuhner (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The author says, the script is fine, but you guys got ahead of yourselves and started reverting before you made the tracking page, and reverted edits do not register. See . They also mention that they are revising the script and would appreciate comments. M kuhner (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That's what I thought first, but it picked up other articles that I'd also reverted on. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Billyjeanheheehe

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

The Billyjeanheheehe user is an alternative account of Kyleoahsom, who is a been a previous guest here (courtesy of Fermiboson: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 9#User:Kyleoahso.

Found the Billyjeanheheehe user because they created the Magsaysay Drive (Olongapo) article with a markdown ``` code block left over from their chatbot. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Medelinezezie

This account has existed since 2023, but the vast majority of their 209 edits have come in the past few days. Their first edit after a 2.5 year hiatus was creating a clearly LLM-generated article on a music artist, which was sent to AfD. I also very kindly asked that they refrain from publishing LLM-generated content. The user proceeded to absolutely bludgeon the AfD discussion, acting very offended that their obviously LLM-generated text was identified as such.

Their second article, Yeyo (musician), also appears like it could be LLM-generated, although it is certainly not as obvious. They then started making huge additions to existing articles on music artists, adding thousands of bytes of content. Not only were these posted mere minutes apart, but they also contained the classic long-ass edit summaries, such as Article cleanup: improved neutral wording and organization, removed promotional language, expanded the career chronology through 2026, added sourced releases and chart information, updated the discography, and corrected formatting and citations. I believe that these additions (1, 2, 3, 4) were probably LLM-generated.

The user then moved on to other topic areas, making the same huge additions minutes apart with excessive edit summaries: (1, 2, 3). As of two days ago, they seem to have moved on to space-related articles. I'm not gonna post those diffs cuz they're a lot, but they've started creating articles again, adding and deleting hundreds of thousands of bytes worth of content in the past 48ish hours. Galaxy scaling relations, a 58k+ byte article, was published 6 minutes after publishing a 38k+ bytes article.

When asked again on their talk page how this was possible, they again got offended and denied the accusation, saying they've been working on these articles for months before publishing. I think it's time someone takes a closer look at all this silliness. JTtheOG (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Re-wrote early life with verified sources to not contain no AI generated paragraphs.

at least they're honest Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I looked at Galaxy scaling relations which has a recent-LLM tic of citing the material in the first half of each paragraph and then running on without citations in the second half. It foregrounds a lot of trivial math for no clear reason. Variable names come and go (what is gamma in the evolving zero point equation?) The Historical development section is completely unsourced and is just a jumbled list. Comparison of selected relations just below it is another unsourced list but this time in table format. Also duplicates material between citations and Further reading. The combination of extreme technical polish and intellectual emptiness is what I'd expect from more or less pure LLM.Interesting topic but the article doesn't say much despite 58K text. Super frustrating to read as someone who is actually interested in this sort of thing. M kuhner (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The use of LLM in the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § Gone Thursday is painfully clear: it hits the entry in the list I made yesterday about responding to a different argument than what was made. I think that we should lay out the case and ask for admin intervention immediately. M kuhner (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say wait until the next substantive contribution. We need more articles on topics like this editor is creating, and less pop-culture, autobiography, and COI company articles. We just need the editor to do the writing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you further explain what you mean? JTtheOG (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Meaning I'd like the editor to have a chance at redemption before blocking. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it'd be great if they bothered addressing the concerns. JTtheOG (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The replies from the editor are still there on User talk:Medelinezezie, where she claims she has lengthy research she did himherself already prepared, she uses text to speech tools, and she wasn't happy with what an AI gave himher in the past. It's up to the community to decide whether assuming good faith is warranted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist the user probably uses she/her pronouns (also, please use they/them when unsure of someone's pronouns please) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Woops, you're right. I'll correct my comment. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

User has now cleared most of their talk page and resumed creating articles on galaxies (Kormendy relation and Abell 3667, created 30 minutes apart). It's possible they're no longer using AI, but it's still quite concerning that none of this has been addressed. JTtheOG (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Could we temporarily block User:Medelinezezie from article space as the concerns raised here haven't been addressed and the user is continuing to create articles? thank you ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at Abell 3667. It claims redshift of 0.0553 sourced to 1, which says 0.0550: while this could be a simple typo, source 5 says 0.0553. (struck out because turned out to be an error on my part) 23:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Article says there is a northwestern and a southeastern radio relic, sourced to 5 which consistently says they are northwestern and southern; however source 6 uses northwestern and southeastern.

Sources exist and support claims, except for the two cases above where a claim is cited to source A but actually found in source B. While this is typical of recent LLM, it is also an easy mistake to make if you are familiar with the literature and writing from memory.

There is quite a lot of close paraphrase, though with material this technical it's hard to avoid.

(Disclaimer: I am a biologist and statistician, not an astronomer.) M kuhner (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah, there's also a subtle error in Kormendy_relation where the article says that the kormendy relation is "a scaling relation between the effective radius of a galaxy and its effective surface brightness. It is mainly observed among elliptical galaxies " but most sources i see online agree that the kormendy relation is "a scaling relation observed between the effective radii of elliptical galaxies and their surface brightnesses at the effective radius." which is a subtle difference but seems to change a lot ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Kormendy relation too. The author does say Some studies instead use the surface brightness measured directly at R_e. which I think captures what you're saying. I'm more bothered by the fact that I cannot find anything in source 2 to support what I just quoted: as you say, it's true, but it's not in that paper. I also wonder why (kpc) is in the formula in the article and not in the paper used to source it. The reminder that magnitude has reversed scale isn't in there either, though it's true. I'll keep going. M kuhner (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i reverted my comment and now you're replying to nothing! argh let me do some magic ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't sweat it.

I am not an astronomer but I think the first part of "Interpretation and use" is bogus: specifically The Kormendy relation is a two-dimensional projection of the fundamental plane of early-type galaxies. I can only see an unsearchable image of the cited source 3, but I'm pretty sure it does NOT say this. It says there are two independent axes describing elliptical (not "early-type") galaxies, of which one is Kormendy and the other is based on velocity. I'm not at all sure what a two-dimensional projection of a plane would even be: aren't planes inherently two-dimensional?

M kuhner (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

that probably comes from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/340021/meta which says "Finally, the structural parameters enter the fundamental plane of early-type galaxies, of which the Kormendy relation is a two-dimensional projection." ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

you can search the full-text for source 3 here (yay open access! nay bad user interface) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I can say with moderate confidence that there's a pattern of citing source A for fact found in source B.

I am not sure what so a linear fit derived for bright galaxies cannot automatically be extended to every spheroidal system means. It is cited to 6 which uses the word "spheroidal" only to talk specifically about dwarf spheroidal galaxies. This may be another source A/source B issue.

If it is LLM, though, it's some of the best I've seen; far less vacuous than Galaxy scaling relations. More likely, I think, a human/LLM joint project where the human knows what they are doing. M kuhner (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I have gone as far as I can with these: we need an astronomer. Learned a lot through reading all those papers, though! M kuhner (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i think that we have enough info and i don't think it'd be interesting or necessary to get cool people to review an article which we're moderately sure is either LLM-generated or where something has gone catastrophically wrong ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Source 5 also had an invalid bibcode that lead to an 404 not found. That generation has since been deleted under G15, but now Abell 3667 has been regenerated again. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

seems to be substantially the same article, with the citations leading to the same places ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I guess AfD will be required since they decided to paste in a new generation. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

a user (myself) has made me recently aware that i probably didn't see the original before-june-13-4-UTC article, which, oops ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It's in the filter logs: AbuseLog/44612907. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

oh, interesting (how did you find it? i don't know how to search in the filter logs) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I just remembered that I had previously seen that it got caught in the 'large creations by inexperienced user' filter, so I looked at the filter logs for Abell 3667. Even though a page is deleted ('removed' is a more accurate term), the filter logs will persist. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

oh, awesome! ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't see where the error is regarding the redshift. Abell 3667 says "It has a measured redshift of 0.0553", which matches the source, which says "from this sample, we derive a cluster redshift of z = 0.0553 ± 0.0002". ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the article has been deleted and recreated since I wrote that, and that in the original version the redshift was sourced to source 1 and not source 2. But it is very possible that I made a mistake. M kuhner (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Abell 3667 was a 36k article before you nominated it for G15 deletion, and I deleted it. Now it's a shorter 6K article. In both versions the redshift was sourced to Owers et al, which is source 1 in the deleted version and source 2 in the current version. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you mean to reply to me instead? But yeah, it's not the same article (and has fewer references), hence why I said 'regenerated' somewhere above. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

In that case I must have made a mistake, and will strike out this comment above. M kuhner (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: User has responded to my question on their talk page and claimed that they have only used AI for Gone Thursday. However, edit summaries such as these are concerning:

• Expanded and reorganized company history and operations; updated leadership and 2026 acquisition information; added public-company, Sony ownership, catalogue, digital-video and former film-division coverage; added freely licensed Commons images; removed repetition and outdated update template.
• Expanded and reorganized the article chronologically; updated Farruko’s career through 2026; corrected grammar, dates, album classifications, and repetitive wording; added sourced coverage of his musical style, Carbon Fiber Music, major releases, faith-based period, recent projects, tours, selected awards, and freely licensed images.
• Created an article on IC 4965 covering its identification, morphology, luminosity, role as the brightest galaxy of Abell 3667, peculiar velocity, head-tail radio source, intracluster-light envelope, 400-kiloparsec stellar bridge, discovery, coordinates, equations, images, and astronomical catalog designations.
• Created a comprehensive article on JO171, covering its detached stellar ring, central spheroid, counter-rotation, stellar populations, ionized gas, metallicity, ram-pressure stripping, Abell 3667 environment, formation history, MUSE and ultraviolet observations, equations, tables, and related images. 2months of editing and research. Ready to go live and share knowledge.
• Comprehensive cleanup and reorganization: improved grammar, clarity, consistency, and encyclopedic tone; corrected citation and formatting issues, repaired links, removed repetition, clarified scientific claims, and expanded the article with sourced material on cooling flows, AGN feedback, X-ray cavities, the radio mini-halo, molecular gas, and JWST observations.

Strangely enough, they have abruptly stopped these overwhelmingly exhaustive edit summaries after this discussion was brought up. JTtheOG (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: I had moved all three galaxy to draftspace, So the issue can be solved. Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Afus199620

• Afus199620 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• article count

This user has made 22,000 edits. I don't think all of them are AI, but I do know the most recent ones are. They've made five articles within minutes of each other. All show signs of AI, for instance, the first diff of this article is filled with broken refs. I've already nominated Rutunga for CSD during NPP.
First hoping for a response from the user, however looking for a consensus here on whether they should be drafted or deleted. Fortek67 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The articles where translations from short German articles. The text is not AI. I wont make these translations anymore.--Afus199620 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you from making these translations. It's just that they don't seem to be of the best quality. Are they machine translated? How exactly did you translate them/what did you use? Because once again this seems to have been done very quick. Fortek67 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I used a automatic translation program with editing. You are completely right. It was too fast. I will be more careful. --Afus199620 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You should take your own advice and check more thoroughly next time. Lupe (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

unreviewed/poorly reviewed LLM translations are still subject to the same issues as normal LLM-generated content, hallucinations and WP:V failures are the biggest problem Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I know that you have to review sources of machine translated articles and that that takes maybe a minute or so longer even for these short articles, but that wasn't the accusation (it wasn't even mentioned that the articles are translations). So I stand by my statement for him to work on himself. Lupe (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that Fortek said anything wrong here? The articles were AI-generated and problematic, it's just that we allow AI-generated translations that are reviewed. Though I agree saying that they're translations in the OP would be ideal Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Not just ideal but required. The original source needs to be credited. See WP:Translation. M kuhner (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

(I was referring to Fortek's OP here, but yeah, unattributed translations are a pain) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear: what I was trying to say is that if these are translations, they are unattributed translations, which is also a policy violation. M kuhner (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The Translations where actually not unattributed. The revision history showed that these articles were translations.--Afus199620 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right. I apologize and will strike out my remark. M kuhner (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:1january2000

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-11 1january2000, 0 pages need review.

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-11 KellyKiss, 2 pages need review.

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-11 MaluHaridade, 1 pages need review.

Indeffed in December 2025. The complaint just above, about Yandere Simulator, involves masses of dead links inserted in one go in June 2025. Looking at their 358 edits shows some suspicious article creations and other large edits (as well as masses of reverts and some revdels). I think we should do an immediate cleanup on their surviving edits and articles. M kuhner (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I went through the SPI report. Older socks have mostly been reverted (except for 1january2000 itself) but two more recent socks, KellyKiss and MaluHaridade, have many live edits still and should be checked. M kuhner (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It seemed like a few other socks with edits also existed in the edit history for the Yandere Simulator page. AaronNealLucas (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have IDs I should add to the trackers, please let me know. I have done all the easy ones and am now staring in dismay at a handful of articles with large, old, badly sourced edits. May have to take sapphaline's approach to those. M kuhner (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Requesting help with the last two articles Oliver Tree and Daveigh Chase. They are biographies of notable people who have recently died. The socks contributed a lot of text, but it is heavily overlaid with other editors' text. Biographies are very much not my thing and I'm afraid to touch these. The material is sourced in a typical recent-LLM way, which is to say that the sources exist and are related to the subject, but many things cited to one source are actually close paraphrases of a different source. (Look at the childhood section of Oliver Tree to see what I mean.) M kuhner (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Edfl22

Edfl22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the smoking gun. User has remained active with a varying number of non-obvious signs and very seldom are their edits long enough to tell in isolation but are all individually... weird. The most useful one is which I can only characterise as "compulsively editorialising". Fermiboson (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Another smoking gun: AbuseLog/42097809

‑‑gurkubondinn 11:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I will preface that the manner of editting (deemed as "compulsively) was not to alter the plot but rather to make the plot clear. It wouldn't make sure to condense the article. In addition, I actually watched the film last night so I figured a few details had to be expanded. In addition, the film has a low to zero sources regarding the film's breakdown, other than the film itself. Will the article be reverted to it's original version? Edfl22 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That depends on the degree to which you used an LLM, which it would behoove you to be transparent about. Fermiboson (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Glm1

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Glm1 (talk · contribs)

Account created Feb 2025, ~2000 edits (mostly minor or content removal), no article creations. LLM-generated ANI report where they denied using AI (July 2025), edit with markup (May 2025), last edited 27 June 2026. I've asked them on their talk. Would appreciate if someone could analyse their recent edits. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Larry Gatlin discography June 27 edits.

First they added an Adult Contemporary column in two edits. Most of an hour later, they came back and added two cites to Billboard, but did not know how to make them into inline citations--put then in the reflist, so they are sitting at the bottom of the article detached from what they were meant to support. Citations are rudimentary: you can find the article from that with a search and a lot of clicking, but why not link directly to the PDF? It is possible to work out which two songs are meant and compare with citations. One is entirely correct. In the other, a claim about the Adult Contemporary chart is being sourced to an Easy Listening chart. (Which might be correct, I dunno, maybe those are different historical iterations of the same chart.)

I am trying to imagine how a human would do this using Billboard. You want the top charting, not just any chart where the song happens to appear: so you'd have to click into and search multiple issues. It is agonizing (I just tried it, so I know). I can't really reach a conclusion from these edits but I'm leaving them here because they were so much work! M kuhner (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Same type of chart gnoming in The Statler Brothers discography, same attempt to put the reference in the reflist, no URL despite online source. This time the intended location for the source was the newly added Contemporary column, which was never going to work because a separate cite would be needed for each entry (they are all in different issues of Billboard). I do not see any sign of LLM here, just someone very persistent (no one else could get any good out of those Billboard back issues) but with a poor grasp of referencing. Edit summary also confirms that (the editor believes, at least) Contemporary == Easy Listening.

Editor manages not to have learned how to do an inline citation in 2K edits. I will put a message on their Talk page and see what happens. M kuhner (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at the edits to Buffy Sainte-Marie and they seem concerning. In particular, says in Wikivoice that Sainte-Marie was aware of the upcoming documentary when she retired. This is sourced to something that simply announces the retirement, and to . The latter source does repeat the allegation, but sources it to unnamed people connected with the documentary. I think this is too fragile to support a controversial statement in a BLP. But I don't know if it's a bad LLM paraphrase or something else --probably POV pushing, as seen in the change of the section title. (Someone else just reverted one of their edits on the basis of POV-pushing.) Still have no idea if there is LLM, though the edit summaries are suspicious. M kuhner (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: they denied any LLM usage [1] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

[1] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Article: Possible Jewish Origin of Columbus

Hello all, I am not too experienced with all of wikipedia but I wanted to bring to attention this article as it looks like it has been completely made with an LLM, first on another language wiki and then translated/generated into English? The main thing that stood out to me other than the general vibe of the text is the references.

Not a single one is actually linked to anything and in particular, the report referenced as "Scientists skeptical of new Columbus DNA claims" by The Guardian does not exist and no reports about such a thing can be found before 2024. I invite more experienced editors to look into this, please. In fact, when I look at the user who created that page it looks like they use LLMs profusely. Hooples (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hooples, thank you, this looks like a large case.

Mcapdevila (talk · contribs), XTools, Possible Jewish origin of Columbus

They've created ~60 articles and ~3000 edits since Nov 2022, and had two creations WP:G15'd (both October 2025). Warned October 2025 after adding hallucinations to which they responded They were partialy LLM generated in the beginning, and although I have checked them.. they needed more checking of the "hallucinated references" you've cited.. They had an article at AfD yesterday in which they socked and got a temp block for that, idk what's going on with . Would appreciate if someone could check for WP:V failures in their recent edits Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked on their talk regarding the references for that article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Even it this wasn't LLM-generated (which it clearly is), it wouldn't be acceptable as an article. We already cover the topic in Origin theories of Christopher Columbus#Crypto-Judaism hypothesis in considerably more detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that is a much better and more informative article. Looking at it's references and the whole of the section, it's fairly obvious it's been trained on information along those line. Then what whatever LLM used just condensed it and hallucinated some information and weirdly translated some reports. Hooples (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: , given the background I think a mainspace block would be appropriate (or just an ordinary indef)? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Given previous issues its probably going to be an indef. AI and socking is burning too much good faith editors time.©Geni (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Levixius

massive potential LLM cleanup case, see here and one where they added utm source chatgpt Their user page says "and use neural language services (primarily GPT-4) to reduce labour while editing on Wikipedia." ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor removed ... and use neural language services (primarily GPT-4) to reduce labour while editing on Wikipedia ..."; ergo, I'm adding link here for historical reference. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Levixius (talk · contribs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I manually and painstakingly review all my edits, and frankly my use to neural language is rather sparse, and has more to do with readability/copywriting (which, again, I manually review) then writing entire articles. LΞVIXIUS💬 07:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

could you please explain this edit where the url parameter utm_source=chatgpt.com parameters was added then? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want to note the use of AI for source-searching is not in violation of WP:NOLLM. No comment on actual case, however. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Levixius, i'm also curious, why did you change Kane to a piped link about Kane (wrestler) here? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

must be a typo lmao, I just Ctrl+K'd it, didn't realize it landed on the wrestler instead of historian P.V. Kane(?) LΞVIXIUS💬 01:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah, that's P.V Kane in the source ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

fixed LΞVIXIUS💬 04:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Still a manually verified source. Not quite sure why it matters if there's chatgpt on the URL. LΞVIXIUS💬 01:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

manually and painstakingly review my edits

As of this year ,AI-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia regardless of how much "manual review" is done. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Noted. LΞVIXIUS💬 01:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikiwizardinho

Wikiwizardinho (talk · contribs), XTools

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#Use of unreviewed LLM content by User:Wikiwizardinho, they had two articles AfD for being LLM-generated and were warned but didn't respond, and the report got closed for some reason. Since then they've created 10 more articles for a total of 65. Jhalana Amagarh leopard conservation reserve, Rajasthan Forest Department, Menar Wetland, and Folk dances of Rajasthan were all created April–June 2025 and are tagged as AI (ANI thread was 31 August). Last edited 4 July so I've asked them, but would appreciate someone looking at their edits in other months Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Overwrote a redirect on Surha Tal Bird Sanctuary in Diff/1331096373 with an LLM-generated article fork instead, contained WP:AIREDCAT, WP:AIBOLD, and references to the main pages of websites. The redirect to the existing article Surha Tal has since been restored, but they're still using LLMs as of last month. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think a mainspace block is necessary here given the ongoing (though infrequent) issues and lack of communication? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

This is almost a stale account, with only one non-AI edit in the last six months. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

True, but tbh I'm just worried that such editors who've ignored warnings and even ANI reports and continued to use LLMs, will just come back and create more mess for people to clean up. There's Tbound2, Marcodicaprio, UrusHyby, PeppermintSA, BookOfDisquiet, NiseEdits, Nightsturm, and CoffeeBeanAffair, all of whose more recent edits were preventable, but instead we need to play whackamole where they come back for some edits, and we only notice a few weeks later when they've gone inactive again (rinse and repeat). Imo if someone's ignored a warning/not communicated and continued to use LLMs, a friendly mainspace block where it's only needed for them to commit to not using them in future would be best (regardless of having recently edited), but I get that this contradicts convention re sanctions and I wouldn't be the one liable for making them. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikiuser829

Wikiuser829 (talk · contribs), XTools

Yet another large pile of AI edits going back at least a year (most visible in new articles); no warnings until now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Gamji231

Gamji231 (talk · contribs) XTools

see this edit, it links a paper named "Preferences for Cash vs. Digital Payments" that has nothing to do with a Harley-Davinson advertisement featuring a hijab, says " in place of the brand's traditional leather-clad rider imagery" when the cited source talks about an ad that shows half the face of one woman in a hijab and half of another in leather, has an overwhelmingly exhaustive editing summary, and this textbook WP:AICOMMENT featuring oaicite

had a warning for using LLMs in february ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

BlueTigerBlue00

BlueTigerBlue00 (talk · contribs)

LLM, exhaustive summary, here and there ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The second edit (Diff/1351359381) adds a source with an utm_source=chatgpt.com url parameter. Not necessarily a smoking gun in and of itself, but probably worth looking into. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i was alerted to their edits by mistakenly thinking that they added referrer=grok to the article, it seems that i have to file another AINB for that sockpuppet (eugh) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Nasvetmcbafee

blocked sockpuppet in march, here LLM bolding, there ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

User:MaryTheo2012

• MaryTheo2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was brought to my attention in § "Cleaning" on my talk page by 1000mm, who is an admin on nowiki and has blocked the user there.

The user seems to have been mostly concerned with inserting machine-translated versions of the MCND article to Wikipedia projects in various languages that they don't speak. So if anyone here is active on those wikis or speaks the language, you may want to help out over there (the page m:Artificial intelligence/Policies by project may be helpful to find the various guidelines and policies on LLM-generated content for other wikis). ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

same thing going on at the candy candy article ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a wonderful page and maybe should be linked from the header of this noticeboard. M kuhner (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Not about AI usage, but I've been repeatedly frustrated by this user's editing. They keep circumventing AFC without proving notability and using unreliable sources. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ivanhardybirt

Ivanhardybirt (talk · contribs), XTools

Their first LLM article appears to have been on 12 April 2025 (stark difference to their earlier creations, obvious signs), they've created 26 since with some deleted. Was brought to ANI October 2025 (at which time they were warned for LLM use ) which got archived as unresolved. Their most recent creation was 11 July Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

well, that is upsetting Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Lebu Ayiga

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

More promising than most? Several AI articles throughout early 2026, was told repeatedly about the policy. They didn't respond on their talk page directly (they did post this AI-generated comment elsewhere), but they do seem to have taken the guidelines into consideration as their most recent edits, Draft:Justina Wamae and their edits to 2017 Somali drought, do not seem to be AI-generated either in v1 or in the subsequent revisions. (There's also this comment, not sure what to make of it. I didn't come across these via an AI detector and ZeroGPT sucks in particular.)

So the gist is that this applies to the articles created before May 27, 2026. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding on the talk page but I have taken the guidelines into consideration and will improve on my edits Lebu Ayiga (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that AI generated content is not allowed on wikipedia at all and going forward I am going to follow the WP:LLMS guideline on working to improve and creating articles Lebu Ayiga (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Just to clarify, this section is mostly just for backlog purposes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Varshith.Reddy.90

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested.

Varshith.Reddy.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam) There are way too many pages for me to go through myself. It appears they're using an LLM to rewrite plot sections of articles. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This editor has 35 edits today, some of which are just 6-7 minutes apart despite being extensive rewrites/additions, and they have been (somewhat) warned about LLM usage already on the 10th but have never used their talk page before, so I'm hoping for a block from article space if they don't respond to your warning pretty soon. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Continued to do it. Gave a level 3 now. They're gonna get AIV'd soon from this. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Could we get a partial block so this editor might notice the warnings and agree to stop using LLMs? They have never used their talk page and continue to make apparently LLM-generated rewrites of plot summaries over and over again after 3 warnings. ^purring_maggot (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocking here isn't a slam-dunk. Most edits are about plot summaries, which require no sourcing. I ran one extensive plot summary through GPTzero and it said "human written with AI polishing". In any case I have issued a mainspace block for AI usage and failing to collaborate (user has zero talk page edits). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM use by IyyasTihlah socks

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-16_IyyasTihlah589, 12 pages need review.

An ANI case WP:ANI § AI editing by User:TihlahAbdellah started with LLM concerns and ended with the discovery that they were a sock. All sock edits (three accounts worth) have been reverted, but the master IyyasTihlah589 has a small number of edits and two article creations that should be checked for LLM. M kuhner (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I tagged one article as an obvious G15, but the other one Dar Al-Thaqafa is too short to tell; it's a reasonable stub. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's been significantly rewritten, the original version was pretty unambiguous Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:The Royal Herald

 The Royal Herald (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

Article cleanup list (no articles tracked yet)

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-15_The_Royal_Herald, 0 pages need review.

The Royal Herald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See case at WP:ANI § User:The Royal Herald. Editor has been indeffed. In the closing statement voorts said "I suggest cleanup discussion continue at AIN." The user has been inserting extraneous material into a LOT of articles, and there are AISIGNS especially in their edit summaries; their responses during the case were also painfully clear-cut LLM. I ask for a cleanup consensus; this kind of insertion LLM material is painful to clean up if it sits around. M kuhner (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

examples: ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracking list template can't display: too many edits, I suppose. Xtools may be a better initial choice. M kuhner (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

600KB? dear god

good news: the page is under the category Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If we can find a more recent start date for LLM use we can cut it down. M kuhner (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Trying to fix this right now. sapphaline (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. sapphaline (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps better for elsewhere, but still think its worth flagging. Believe this may have been a Sock Puppet from a previously blocked user, User/Geronimo Virula Medrano El: Special:Contributions/Geronimo Virula Medrano El. Found while reviewing some edit history on the Medrano page . Edits match the same pattern as the user as far as I can tell, and same subject matter. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. We should keep an eye out during cleanup. I think Geronimo is way too stale for the checkusers to be interested, but there may be something fresher. Geronimo was blocked pre-LLM so at least we don't have to vet their edits. M kuhner (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

SPI confirmed by suspicions, for better and for worse Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geronimo Virula Medrano El. Sorry for such a large case being on the table. On the one hand I'm glad to have found and flagged so it can be fixed, on the other it looks like a mess to remediate. Gwyain1 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah good luck with this one, I knew the name sounded familiar and it's because I was on the receiving end of the typical sealioning and stealth removing tags Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Does their LLM use go back to their early edits? (Sep 2023) was created as a GA (presumably they asked the chatbot to write a "good article" lol), but I'm not seeing signs other than WP:AITITLECASE, and there are hyphens in the date ranges which is more of a human thing. (Nov 2023) has WP:AIDASH and WP:AIVOCAB like "reflects" and "recognition of their importance in shaping human existence", throw in title case and a bolded list as well. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

not sure, sorry, haven't gone through this thoroughly because there is so much

would sure be nice if we ever got a straight answer! Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if they're AI or not, but their early edits are entirely unsourced: . Pattern seems to be, write an article, then slow add sources to it, the sources themselves may be part of what's AI generated. Gwyain1 (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like a mix of what the LLM gave them and lack of interest in learning formatting. Things like "Idem id., cajon 12, num 59" and 29-page PDFs with no page number. Best to WP:TNT as part of the WP:LLMPRV process rather than have it in newcomer tasks with a maintenance tag. Some future history buff can make a stub. Cedarshadow (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm gonna LLMPROD from Sep 2023 onwards, though they'll all probably be covered by WP:G5 given the SPI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with WP:LLMPRV. InfernoHues (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Never seen an article with 4400 edits by the same editor before; no wonder it broke the tracker! M kuhner (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Julien Sow 2

 Cleanup has been requested.

• Julien Sow 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has a habit of pasting AI-generated articles into their sandbox, and then moving the sandbox out into article space. Found them pasting chatbot output in Diff/1364169939 (after the page is deleted, the trailing marker can still be seen in AbuseLog/44652125), and looked through three of their pages and found AISIGNS in all of them:

• Marie José Sombo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Elle a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nora Hamdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is extremely rapid editing, with gigantic edits that can't possibly have been read properly in the timeframe (let alone written).

The user has promised to stop using LLMs in § Speedy deletion nomination of User:Julien Sow 2/sandbox on their talk page. I don't know if this can be cleaned up or should be deleted altogether. More eyes on this is appreciated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Add925

LLMPRODs are done

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-16_Add925, 3 pages need review.

 Add925 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (15 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

• Add925 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created a mess of pages, these seem to have redirected to one of the other ones at some point and then been replaced with LLM-generated text

• William "Bill" Swan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• William "Bill" Swann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Robert W Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For some reason both William "Bill" Swann (two n's) and William "Bill" Swan (one n) now exist, each with a separate generated article about the same person? I'm having some trouble following the page histories here, but I'm considering draftifying both of them.

The smoking gun in this case is User:Add925/Sample page, which I have just promptly nominated for G15 because it was wrapped in a markdown code block. But they've created a bunch of different pages, so some more eyes would be appreciated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The William "Bill" Swan (one n) page was created as a redirect to Robert W Johnson, but are separate people? And William "Bill" Swann (two n's) was created as a redirect to William "Bill" Swan. They are the same person, but William "Bill" Swann (two n's) says that his name was Keith Kelley, but William "Bill" Swan (one n) does not mention that name?

There's also some other page move shenanigans going on that I haven't figured out, for example some of this seems to have started out as User:Add925/sandbox, and then the Diff/1363983757 edit to Robert W Johnson was a page move from User:Add925/Sample page? Am I just missing something here, or what is going on? ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, created 11 July has markup Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Has markdown? The whole thing is markdown... Hadn't even gotten around to looking at that page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I draftified Rodman Shutt, they then moved it back to article space in Diff/1364297323, and then re-draftified it in Diff/1364297866 themselves.

Going to go through their recently created articles and send them to draftspace now, unless someone objects. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And now User:Add925/Sample page is a page about a Keith Kelley, and doesn't mention the names William, Swan or Swann anywhere? ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This is someone using grok, a bunch of grok:render card_id tags appeared in Diff/1364291072:

<grok:render card_id="0b300c" card_type="citation_card"></grok:render>

‑‑gurkubondinn 18:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

it really is uncanny how often Grok text reaches for constructions like roadside appeal rather than strict historical accuracy, claiming that things have woke subjective characteristics rather than characteristis of FACTS and LOGIC Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The Diff/1341541298 edit links to a PDF hosted at acrobat.com with an AI-assistant..? And the Diff/1341540702 edit replaces an existing external link with the same PDF and AI-assistant. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

They've ignored my question in User talk:Add925 § LLM use on their talk page, and instead created Talk:Robert W Johnson § New and shown up in User talk:gurkubondinn § Defacing my articles on my talk page to tell me that I had better stop defacing their articles. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: could someone maybe intervene? ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Add925 indefinitely for LLM misuse.​ — Newslinger talk 19:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks.. That seems to have been needed, judging by their reaction to it.. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And I've just figured out that Bill Swan (sculptor)Bill Swan (sculptor) exists as a redirect to Muffler man.. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And Bill Swan (Sculpture artist)Bill Swan (Sculpture artist) as well... ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The page Frank-N-Stein has been NPP patrolled, so I shouldn't draftify that one and I don't have NPP (at least not yet, I've requested it last week). Do we have consensus to apply LLMPRV to this stuff before the typical waiting period? ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I should also add that this is an older account (from way before ChatGPT was released), and it's hard to determine exactly when the LLM stuff began. I've cleaned up most of the recent edits and pages now, except for the Frank-N-Stein one. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll IAR and LLMPROD since they're never going to make an appeal/have one accepted ( is ridiculous, this was the whole article:

Richard Kishel

### Richard F. Kishel

**Born:** November 3, 1923

**Died:** September 8, 2010

**Location:** Muncie, Indiana, USA

#### Early Life and Education

Richard F. Kishel was born on November 3, 1923. He pursued higher education at the Cranbrook Academy of Art in Michigan and the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Kishel later obtained a master's degree in art education from the University of Iowa³.

#### Career

Kishel moved to Muncie, Indiana, in 1951, where he made significant contributions to the local art scene. His work and influence extended beyond Muncie, impacting the broader art community.

#### Personal Life

Richard Kishel was known for his dedication to art and education. He passed away on September 8, 2010, at the age of 86¹².

#### Legacy

Kishel's legacy lives on through his contributions to art and education in Muncie and beyond. His work continues to inspire new generations of artists and educators.

---

Would you like to add more details or focus on a specific aspect of his life?

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 8/25/2024

(1) Willie the Whale has a history you never knew beyond ... - IndyStar. https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2019/08/06/willie-whale-has-history-you-never-knew-beyond-indianapolis-zoo/1504322001/.

(2) Richard Kishel Obituary - Death Notice and Service Information - Legacy.com. https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/richard-kishel-obituary?pid=145240726.

(3) Richard F Kishel (1923 - 2010) - Muncie, IN - AncientFaces. https://www.ancientfaces.com/person/richard-f-kishel-birth-1923-death-2010/71507508.

It's refreshing to see such unsubtle bullshit Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

thanks for taking care of the rest of them. i've collapsed your dump of the article's first revision, hope you didn't mind! ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked all their other edits, reverted a couple large insertions. Just waiting for the LLMPRODs to go through now. M kuhner (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Sila Handsome

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested.

Sila Handsome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sila Handsome (talk · contribs) registered today. Large edits to military/firearm articles. I reverted two of their article changes: Iron sights and Madsen machine gun as not only clearly AI produced but also lacking references, as their edits replaced properly referenced text with unreferenced text. I haven't been actively patrolling AI issues recently so I'm not sure as to how much of the rest of their contributions are problematic, but certainly deserves scrutiny. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

There's huge edits (often multiple kB) being made within minutes or seconds of each other. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

also markdown in Special:Diff/1364288022 Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And now we have pure vandalism coming from the same user. This itself is blockable, in my opinion. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 23:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

They are continuing to make large unsourced, likely LLM-generated expansions to articles. @Rsjaffe seems like a block is warranted. Jfire (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from articles and invited to discuss here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention. I understand that some of my edits were too large and lacked sufficient references. I will review my contributions, restore referenced information where appropriate, and make sure future edits are supported by reliable sources. Sila Handsome (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not just that they were too large and lacked references; it's that they were generated by a large language model, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Many of the LLM generated claims were false. Please commit to not using LLMs to create text for Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is WP:NOLLM. M kuhner (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Girandoni air rifle has source to text issues, making a claim about using the weapon in "demonstrations" for Native tribes when the source knows nothing of this (and only speculates that it was a Girandoni at all). M kuhner (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Teknuccio

Teknuccio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contributor with English as a second langauge. Was asked about AI earlier this year on User talk:Teknuccio#LLM_use, and said I have used AI-based tools quite often as auxiliary tools for English wording, copyediting, structure, and checking neutral phrasing, and apologied for this going "beyond the guideline."

On the one hand, this is more cooperative than most of the responses we get (see above) ...but it doesn't really seem like they've stopped, based on their very rapid editing a few days ago, each rapid edit paired with an AI edit summary. A bit hard to tell from what's here how well this conforms to WP:LLMTRANSLATE; the text doesn't seem like obvious unreviewed AI text but unclear how much verification is being done in 5 minutes per edit. (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I understand the concern. The material I added was based on local and territorial sources that I checked myself, but I see that the speed of some edits may make the verification unclear. Teknuccio (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you use an LLM, like an AI chatbot, for your edits? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I used AI/LLM tools mainly to translate and organize my own Italian research notes and locally sourced material into English prose. I did not use them as sources; the factual material and references were selected and checked by me. Teknuccio (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:AnujMehtani

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-16_AnujMehtani, 2 pages need review.

AnujMehtani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I found this editor while working on a different cleanup case (some articles have no luck). Only active July-September 2025, 25 edits. The edit summaries make the case all by themselves: , . Warned for LLM in 2025. No article creations. As they are inactive, suggest an immediate cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I have done what I can for these articles. Two of them are beyond my ability to fix: edits too large, too long ago, too well mixed. One has edits from both this case and MaduraiSelvam, rather a heavy burden for a single article. I have left tags and talk page messages. An interesting note is that one edit has a typical long, complex, alarming LLM edit summary--and was a perfectly valid small copyedit for which the edit summary was a complete lie. It felt like the LLM was trolling its user. M kuhner (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Tanith.wirihana

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Large swath of AI edits passed off as assisting with the drafting and organisation of material that I had already researched from reliable sources. The factual content, citations and source selection were my own. I reviewed the output against the underlying sources i.e. not allowed per WP:NOLLM. And yet again, someone trying to claim that they're an exception to the guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

“not allowed per WP:NOLLM”. My understanding is that the guidance does not prohibit all AI-assisted editing. I used it to help with the wiki text code or whatever you call it.

It permits certain uses while requiring editors to ensure that the final text is accurate and supported by reliable sources. The material I added was based on cited sources that I reviewed. If there are specific passages that do not accurately reflect those sources or otherwise fail Wikipedia’s content policies,

I’m happy to discuss and correct them. A blanket revert based solely on AI involvement doesn’t identify any specific policy deficiency in the content itself. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

All text that incorporates AI-generated content, which includes "assisting with the drafting," fails Wikipedia's guidelines. Once again, you are not an exception to the rules, and if you are indeed "happy to discuss" then stop trying to wriggle your way out of them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

“I do not instigate arguments. There is almost nothing in the world I like less and dread more than arguing. It is exhausting, depressing, and demotivating.“

Spoken like a person that loves arguing. I love to argue too.

I am a PhD student. Strap in. Because I can spend years formulating arguments.

I only wanted to help in my procrastination by doing something positive. Now… I am prepared like our great rangatira Reta Keiha to defend his memory. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not recommend arguing. You have been informed that your edits do not meet the guidelines. At this point, my advice is that you acknowledge the problem and constructively work with us to clean it up, and then assure us that you won't do it again. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

My intention was to produce well-sourced, accurately referenced content, and I reviewed the material against the cited sources before publishing it. Let's face it - Wikipedia is not user friendly, and I am not a python coder living in somebodies basement. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bringing up Python in this discussion, and that personal attack is uncalled for. Now, can you also keep WP:AITALK in mind before making any further comments? —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 00:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anybody is… it’s a rhetorical statement. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It does not;

..., the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, ...
— WP:NOLLM

‑‑gurkubondinn 22:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

“ Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own. Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what is asked of them and can change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited.”

Which contradicts your assertion. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Nope;

Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.
— WP:NOLLM

‑‑gurkubondinn 07:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I am a professional researcher.

Here is a portion of the material:

MAORI CORPS: RECRUITING BEGUN

https://paperspast.natlib.govt .nz/newspapers/GISH19391011.2.57

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20065, 11 October 1939, Page 6

EARLY ENROLMENTS GISBORNE'S GOOD START LIST GROWING QUICKLY As in the case of general enlistment for the Special New Zealand Military Force, the Gisborne-East Coast district promises to take a leading position with regard to recruiting for the Maori Battalion, which is being raised on terms of equality with the general forces for service in New Zealand or overseas. Though recruiting was begun only yesterday, a number of enrolments were available by the evening, and it is expected that by the end of the week there will be more than sufficient fit men available to fill the Gisborne Maori quota. Already, of course, a large number of Maoris have volunteered for service with the general forces, and some at least of these are seeking to transfer to the Maori Battalion, for which purpose they arc required to sign new enrolment forms. Included in the list of special Maori force recruits from the East Coast is a minister of religion who formerly represented the East Coast at Rugby football, and was noted as a forward of an especially rugged type. The list to date is as under:— Wanoa, Ngatai Tunoa, married, 33 years, Ruatoria, minister of religion. Kewharewha, Kulci, single, 21 years, Wai-o-matatini, labourer. Kopua, Kawi, single, 22 years, Ruatoria, native settlement worker. Tuhoro, Potene, single, 22 years, Rangitukia, labourer. Tuau. Hone To Awarau. single, 22 •years, Rangitukia, labourer. Taumauna, Taurar.ga, single. 21 years, Rangitukia, Native Departmen. employee. Papuni, Eru Kurei, single, 21 years.i Tikitiki, Native Department employee. Karauria, Joseph Tararua. married, 39 years, Tikitiki, clerk. Thompson, Nau, single, 29 years, Ruatoria, shepherd. Atkins, Harry, single, 30 years, Hicks Bay, farmer. Maurirere, Mahu, married, 49 years, Cape Runaway, labourer. Wikiriwihi, Materchua, single, 21 years, Hicks Bay, shepherd. Hauiti, Henry, single, 21 years, Hicks Bay, shepherd. Makoarc, ’ James, single, 26 years, Bartletls, quarryman. Keiha, Kingi Areta, married, 39 years, Gisborne, law clerk and interpreter. Priestley. James Patterson, married, 39 years, Whangara, clerk. Karini, Elector, single, 21 years, Tolaga Bay, fencing contractor. Taingahue, Wi Paku. single, 2< years, Tolaga Bay, blacksmith.

DRAFT EXPANDED

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GISH19400120.2.42

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20150, 20 January 1940, Page 4

DRAFT EXPANDED

FIRST MAORI GROUP 24 NEW NAMES ADDED GISBORNE TOTAL 115 OFFICER NOMINATIONS The first large draft of Maoris from Gisborne and the East Coast, leaving on Friday next for Palmerston North to train as members of the New Zealand Maori Battalion for overseas service, will number 115, a further 24 men having been called for tiie draft in addition to the 91 named earlier this week. The addition of rune men from Wairoa will bring tile draft un to a total of 124. Four of the men who are to travel with the Gisborne-East Coast selection are to proceed to the Army Training School at Trentnam to qualify as officers, these being:— Awatere, Arapeta, married, 29 years, Gisborne, civil servant. keiha, King! Areta, married, 39 years, Gisborne, law clerk.

RETURN TO N.Z.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NEM19440106.2.28

Bibliographic details

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 6 January 1944, Page 2

MEMBERS OF 2nd N.Z.E.F. SlCk, WOUNDED AND OTHERS Wellington, This Day. < The following sick, wounded and other personnel recently returned to j New Zealand from the Middle East: : Robbie, Lieut.-Colonel John Keith, Invercargill; Rayner, Captain John Lionel, Pahia; Beetham, Pte. Leslie ; Margaret, Masterton; Catchpole, Pte. : Audrey D., Auckland; Quin, Pte.Wini-j fred Mary, Hawera; Rose, Pte. Theona : Julia, Palmerston North: Atkinson, : Sister Myra Suton, Temuka; Mason, ; Pte. Ria Evelyn, Wellington; Towns- ; end, Pte. May, Inangahua Junction; ; Walker, Pte. Aileen May, Papatoetoe; ; Hayton, Major Ernest Walter, D. 5.0., Christchurch; Roberts, 2nd Lieut. John, Seacliff; Reid. Lieut.-Colonel Charles E., Chrstchurch; George, George., Lieut.-Col. Clifford Dlfroy Andrew, Wellington; Keiha, Temp.-Lieut.-Colonel Kingi Areta, M.C.,

BACK ON FURLOUGH

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GISH19440110.2.8

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21298, 10 January 1944, Page 2

LIEUT.-COL. RETA KEIHA WELCOME TO GISBORNE Back in New Zealand on furlough. Lieutenant-Colonel Kingi Areta Keiha. 1V1.C.. of the Maori Battalion in the Middle East, arrived at Gisborne on Saturday night, and was given a public welcome on the railway station, after an absence of nearly four years. Lieutenant-Colonel Keiha’s return is welcomed particularly among the Maori people of the district, for his '•"'■ciation with the Maori Battalion throughout all its campaigns, including temporary command for a brief period in battle, has earned recognition in leadership. “He left Gisborne as a private, sailed from New Zealand as a secondlieutenant and has returned with the high rank of lieutenant-colonel," stated the deputy-Mayor. Mr. H. H. DeCosta, when extending an official welcome to Lieutenant-Colonel Keiha or; the railway station on Saturday night. Mr. Dc Costa explained that he was deputising for the Mayor, Mr. N 11. Bull, who was out of town. Also on the station to meet LieutenantColonel Keiha were other prominent 'lenole, and a round of cheers was given. Afterwards Lieutenant-Colonel Keiha was taken to Poho-o-Rawiri for a welcome by the Maori people.

Obituary, MR K. A. KEIHA

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19610601.2.163

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume C, Issue 29528, 1 June 1961, Page 17

(N.2 Press Association) GISBORNE, May 31. A former commanding officer of the Maori Battalion in World War 11. Mr Kingi Areta Keiha. died suddenly at his home in Gisborne on Monday. Mr Keiha was 62. He sailed from New Zealand with the Second Echelon, which included the first Maori group to go overseas with the Army in World War 11. Mr Keiha, who at the time held the rank of second lieutenant, served with the battalion in Greece. Crete, and the Middle East, succeeding Lieutenant-Colonel C. M. Bennett as commanding officer of the battalion when the latter was severely wounded in action. Mr Keiha returned to New Zealand with a furlough draft in February, 1944, and joined the newly-created Rehabilitation Department as Maori Rehabilitation Officer. Later he transferred to the Maori Affairs Department and was district welfare Officer until he left the department in 1951 to enter private practice as a licensed interpreter and Maori agent. Mr Keiha, who as a leading Maori elder in the district. is survived by his wife, one daughter and three sous.

Tanith.wirihana (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Great, but if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you need to write about that research without AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The only thing AI, was the "x name - MC, Because I do not understand droid language, nor do I have the capacity to do so at this specific moment. However, the rest of the article is based on verifiable information.

The history of the Indigenous people of Tūranganui is not extensively documented in readily available published sources. I relied on available online sources (produced). That said, I am mindful of Wikipedia's copyright and plagiarism policies. The article is written in my own words based on the cited sources rather than copied from them. I would refer you to the style of biographies I have previously written by googling my name. My referencing is meticulous - because there is no APA referencing here. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A few hours ago you said you used AI to "assist with the drafting" and "reviewed the output" -- implying there is output from something -- "against the underlying sources". You also, somehow, miraculously, have produced the same edit summaries -- Expanded and revised biography of Wi Pere; improved lead, early life, political career, and legacy sections; added Joseph Anaru Te Kani Pere’s 2010 biography and further contemporary sources; updated external links, succession box, and categories., Expanded biography with new sections on early life, political leadership, Kaiti litigation, community leadership, Te Poho o Materoa and death; added Native Land Court, Papers Past and scholarly sources. -- that AI tools produce again and again in 2026, and that you did not produce before 2026 (when your edit summaries were more like Correction of some minor errors, info stream lining. intending to add additional references in due course). So which is it? Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Wi Pere is my great, great, Grandfather. Is the present version better than the previous version…

Or is it not?

or did you not bother to verify the source material? Tanith.wirihana (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I fail to understand how a positive contribution to an article, that improves a stub, based on factual information… (which I spent a significant time pulling together)…

When some other person can make a few tweaks, misunderstand or misrepresent a subject entirely - and is not a problem. Nobody reverses those changes to some stub for years.

All of a sudden - a blanket deletion of a significant amount of work. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Now … it would seem … we will now spend a significant amount of time (months perhaps) arguing and debating this point. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, you won't last months at the rate you're going. You need to step back. Look at the volume of incidents these folks deal with. Don't personalize it. If you know any Wikipedians outside of this board, talk to them about ways to work within the system. There's still a path here. The changes might be smaller than the single stroke you hoped for, but they'll be a step in the right direction. Cedarshadow (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a helpful point. thank you. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Cedarshadow gives good advice here. You really need to recognise when your position goes against the consensus of many editors who are heavily involved in cleanup and maintenance. You also should not make assumptions about anyone else's profession, living situation, or cultural heritage. How do you know there are no other Māori or Indigenous editors commenting on or watching this noticeboard? Writing about your own whānau is indeed something you will have difficulty doing dispassionately, which is what the principle of Neutral point of view addresses. That does not mean you can't write about under-represented people and topics, though I do not understand why an experienced researcher would use a text prediction engine to "research" or write about their own culture. I see from your talk page that you have received some notices from Wikimedia Aotearoa. Are there perhaps other local editors or groups you could discuss these issues with, as Cedarshadow suggests? (Apologies if I, as a non-Māori, have used Māori terms inappropriately.) —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

> prediction engine to "research" or write about their own culture.

That point there is incorrect.

Formulating references into the syntax for code or whatever it is called - yes. (Because I have never been able to figure out how to use the reference generation tool or whatever properly.

Research - no. I personally went through and verified the sources myself.

Each and every single one of them.

I challenge anybody to prove them wrong.

Which is why - the “gotcha” and “wriggle out” framing by users isn’t doing it for me.

When they did not bother to even check the references provided against the facts…

Deleted maps I uploaded to the page from Wikimedia that supported the articles referenced.

Deleted the service number of a soldier that served in WWII because - “Ha_ha_AI_content.exe” then reverse it to a stub because guilty until proven innocent - delete.

Then quote a policy - that I do not believe was violated in the manner insinuated. A hard no - where the policy itself is not so straightforward.

If they had so much as checked the references first - I wouldn’t be as “passionate”, for at least it would seem fair. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

>“ that AI tools produce again and again in 2026, and that you did not produce before 2026 (when your edit summaries were more like Correction of some minor errors, info stream lining. intending to add additional references in due course”

Oh - I don’t know. Because I was writing things like this?

https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/topics/te-paepae-o-te-ratu-he-whainga-takahanga-waewae-no-tuawhakarere/

>assisting - define assistance from the perspective of a non-biased person…

>drafting - how is this contradictory.

…or is it the perceived bias from somebody that has failed to read the sources of the article… and dismissed it.

Perhaps, I am not dispassionate entirely about the subjects whose biographies I have expanded.

In an effort to ensure something better is in place of the nauseatingly boring, and insufficient content written over twenty years.

Because they belong to my people. their memories mean something to me. Their lives meant something to us. We are connected by whakapapa - your connection is probably by wi-fi, to people whose graves you will never see. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tanith.wirihana, FWIW I wrote that bit of the guideline, the exemption for copyediting is only meant to be for corrections, not rephrasing (I agree this needs to be made clearer, theres a discussion here about it). We all have too much to do to be bickering here. See WP:CITINGSOURCES for help with that, there is also the Visual Editor which is much more user-friendly. The WP:TEAHOUSE can help with any further issues or questions you may have Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I also wrote User:gurkubondinn/REFPRIMER a while ago after helping a different user that also turned to AI (with disastrous results) because of having trouble with citation templates. There's also the WP:REFBEGIN page, which is a bit more in-depth but is still meant for beginners. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

‑gurkubondinn - understood i can see the logic behind that. I did have some issues with syntax that i couldn't quite figure out. I have a fair amount to lean, and am happy to make changes to any of the material I have been through also. The references are accurate - but there may be some minor issues there with the code stuff. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If you need help with reference formatting, you can drop a message on my Talk page, or ask at the Teahouse. LLMs are not as good at it as they think they are (speaking as someone who has cleaned up hundreds of bad LLM citations). We value your perspective, but we really, really want to hear your voice, not the machine's.

If you want to point me at an article where you are having trouble, I can probably help. M kuhner (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It is always good to hear the intent from the drafter of the rules… That is crystal clear, thank you.

It would be best to be explicit on that point.

There are (perhaps) less neuro-spicy people than myself that have probably kicked up a similar fuss. ~2026-39985-08 (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed it at WP:NOLLM, is that clearer? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion about the wording of this, yes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also a Maori Wikipedia that you may be interested in, it's only got 24 active users and 2 admins atm Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ElijahJWrites

I think I need another eye on this user to determine if they have a history of AI edits to clean up. I spotted the LLM use at this diff which added this amusingly vague, almost information-free section: . However, many of the user's other contributions, despite having obviously AI-generated edit summaries, introduce typos and ungrammatical punctuation usage (see where the edit summary ironically states that it corrected spelling errors and artist name inconsistencies while introducing no less than 5 misspellings of the subject's name). I don't know what to make of the distinction between the AI summaries and the, let's say, organically spelled content, and the potential mixing of human and LLM content within a single edit (see which edit summary boasts neutral, concise, and source-based Wikipedia-style wording and adds a recognizably AI-generated Awards & Recognition section but also adds a Television appearances section bizarrely written in the first person).

Anyway, I warned the user for the LLM usage in the first diff and tagged the article (looks like the whole thing was already AI-generated before they got there) ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of stuff like led to several more appearances that involved a close interaction with the host, that is sourced to an episode of Super Dave on Apple TV..? ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

* 1990:The Arsenio Hall Show is already mentioned in the entry, but I did not perform routines. I performed only one routine: my signature Ballon-man act. sounds like some "ask Character AI if the article is accurate" workflow, maybe? I don't know how you'd even get this otherwise, outside some kind of weird larping or "Elijah J" actually being Blumenfeld but not a SPA Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User has now denied LLM use. Personally I find this unconvincing and I've said so; we'll see how this develops. ^purring_maggot (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Now stating LLM was only used for "formatting" and a not-quite-promise to "be very careful with this next time": (the conversation got split up between my talk and theirs) I think it might also be worthwhile to keep an eye on this user Kappalotti who originally made the AI-generated Dwight Cuthbert Revire Gardiner page and has come out of inactivity as of yesterday. Whatever's going on here, I'm at least definitely going to stubify that page whenever I have the time. I'm supposed to be at work! ^purring_maggot (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Karaokelegend

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-19 Karaokelegend, 556 pages need review.

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

Another large, high-volume, and ongoing spree of AI edits. They denied using AI but I think it's pretty unambiguous in this case; the smoking gun here is the [span_1](start_span) formatting in this edit, which upon googling seems to be a Gemini bug. (It also cites Grokipedia. What are we even doing here) Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Deedubaroo

• Deedubaroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:gurkubondinn § Oh darn, you're right of course

Could I get a second opinion on my tagging of the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse page? First a TA removed the tag in Diff/1364598177, and after i restored the tag in Diff/1364609031 it was again removed without consensus in Diff/1364613370 with an edit summary calling it an overbroad AI tag.

The user has confirmed using LLMs in § Oh darn, you're right of course on my talk page, but evidently does not like the tag. There's too much of the usual arguments about NOLLM not really applying and what it all means etc., so I'm asking for a second opinions here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents. I have repeatedly acknowledged the policy after being made aware of it, spent over an hour reviewing the page and the policies, and subsequently reaffirmed a commitment to the policy. The tag was applied blindly and mechanically in a manner that (as documented) clearly violates Wikipedia policies.

Without regard for adopting a more considered approach to tagging, or justifying their edits by reference to one of a list of principles associated with the rule (i.e. acting without effort in a manner that destroys effort), both of which were suggested to the tagger, or commonsense investigation of the quality of the page before or after, they have instead responded with a further counter-productive escalation ala. WP:BUREAU. It is my view this is WP:DE in the context of the particular page, although I continue to reaffirm and support both the LLM policy and the overarching principle on which the tagger is operating. Deedubaroo (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The tag was not "applied blindly". Special:Diff/1364569730 contains signs of probable AI use, such as markdown formatting (which is not present in prior edits so it's not due to unfamiliarity with wiki markup). As it turns out, those signs were correct, which moves it from "probable AI use" to confirmed AI use. Thus, the tag is accurate, and removing it misleads both editors and readers. If you don't like the tag, don't use AI, and then ask yourself why you are using a tool that you are ashamed of people knowing about.

As for the spirit of the underlying policy, both the letter and spirit of the guideline are that the Wikipedia community does not want people to use AI here. The principle is to not use AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, the template applied states: "As is the case for most maintenance tags, this should only be removed once the problems are undetectable or demonstrably non-existent." I have:

• previously included reference to the list of defects associated with the tag.
• already confirmed the page has been reviewed

Can someone please point to detectable signs of AI usage in the current version of the page, i.e. "factual errors", "formatting issues", "fictitious but plausible-seeming references", or prose that is "stilted", "promotional", or "occasionally ludicrous". Deedubaroo (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that I already pointed out formatting issues above, the most detectable sign of AI usage at this point is that you literally said that you used AI. No more detection is needed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You are continuing to engage with a blind and mechanical view of the relevant policy, which clearly states:

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited

It continues:

When evaluating possible LLM use, it is best to consider the full pattern of the editor's recent edits and whether the edits comply with core content policies.

The full pattern of the user's edits is clearly a manual labour poured in across more than a week. This requires a degree of nuance that is absent from the rule itself - the principle that the LLM has not been used here to create a problem of the sort the rule is intended to prevent.

You have offered no substantive reason despite multiple requests to suspect the page in question has quality problems in its current version, have not indicated how it violates content policies, and have not acknowledged commonsense requests to review its quality before and after. Simply acknowledging the use of AI is productive and honest behaviour done for the purposes of returning to editing as soon as possible. Policing without cause as done here however, is not.

Your mandate to police Wikipedia is based on implementing its content policies, not to police for policing's sake. This is pointless counterproductivity. A common sense view of the no-LLM policy is that it is designed to catch flagrant cases where people are generating entire pages filled with hallucinations and interpolated facts without any effort or human review. That ought to be what use of this tag helps correct, not momentary syntax errors in otherwise reviews content (which is plainly obvious by the delay between the flagged diff and the subsequent manual correction of errors). Deedubaroo (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The "substantive reason" is that AI-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia. That is the violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. You can complain about the guidelines until you are blue in the face -- or use AI until you are blue in the face, given that you have suddenly started to refer to yourself in the third person (The full pattern of the user's edits) -- but that doesn't make you an exception to them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited

This behaviour ceased the moment it was originally flagged, i.e. the violation of the prohibition has stopped, not continued, ended, whatever you need.

Ad hominem isn't useful. Of course I'm not using AI to edit these. If I had been, the above comment wouldn't be so full of typos. I'd expect a well trained officer of the law to recognise such things; that you do not explains this whole issue. Also as a reminder, Wikipedia's rules are principles, not civil code or exacting law, in spite of which WP:Wikilawyering is clearly a viable profession around these parts. Deedubaroo (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd expect a well trained officer of the law to recognise such things

Good thing I'm not a "well trained officer of the law," then. The only person wikilawyering here is you.

This behaviour ceased the moment it was originally flagged, i.e. the violation of the prohibition has stopped, not continued, ended, whatever you need.

Which only means that you're no longer violating the guidelines. It doesn't mean that the text generated by AI is somehow grandfathered in. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, and I notice someone else has requested this too, please indicate how the current content of the page violates Wikipedia content guidelines. You are most welcome to compare it to the old link page with respect to WP:NPOV in particular Deedubaroo (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

That's easy. It was generated by an LLM, and that means that it fails NOLLM. This been pointed out umpteen times already. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

And sentences like The proposal allowed a judicial or administrative authority to issue a detection order where mitigations had not ... from Diff/1364569730 still present in the article, meaning that there incontrovertibly is LLM-generated text still in the article and that the problem has not been addressed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The tag is a maintenance tag for calling attention to a possible problem, not a scarlet letter of shame. If you can't identify any issues then it shouldn't be tagged. Is the markdown you're concerned with the additional linebreaks, or is there other markdown I'm missing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The markdown here is the [link text](link url) formatting, which was automatically caught by an edit filter. (Before anyone starts to wikilawyer over this, the edit filter does not do anything to article text.)

As far as the "issues," the issue is that AI-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia. As with copyvios, the guideline isn't "AI-generated text isn't allowed unless someone thinks it's OK," the guideline is that it isn't allowed at all. Thus the two solutions to the issue are to either rewrite it without AI or to remove it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW that was the intent/spirit of NOLLM when it was written, but someone other than the author would need to go through the article (Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse, why on earth would anyone use LLMs on such a sensitive topic) to ensure WP:V is met, which is a massive task (I guess spotchecks may suffice?). I think presumptive tagging is fine until someone does that. Deedubaroo shouldn't use LLMs in future because of this waste of community time; if it turns out they do regularly use LLMs responsibly, other than me eating my hat, they or you can propose user right for LLM use. We don't automatically assume or take someone's word that they use LLMs responsibly for very good reason Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The tagging wouldn't be presumptive though, since we don't need to presume that there is LLM-generated text here. It is an accurate reflection of the state of the article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

True, but this sort of discussion was what I intended to have at a later stage (ie. just get NOLLM passed as focussing on content quality for the time being), with a later RfC to remove For this reason which'd basically make it that LLM-generated content is prohibited on principle. The idea was that we'd have more time to have community discussions and see how things develop, rather than just internecine conflict and limbo. Imo we're not really at the point where such a RfC is necessary since this is so incredibly rare/uncommon, and if the article is otherwise PAG-compliant we should probably focus on lower-hanging fruit re cleanup anyway Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have re-added the tag to the affected section for the sake of more important hills to die on, but I am at a loss as to how to progress on completing the remainder of the section, which was ideally going to be this weekend's project. If I add more text, it increases the size of the future independent review needed.

If you have influence on the course of the related policy (I am a baby Wikipedian), I think an approach similar to modern tech usage is fine: human review of every word (or as it goes in tech, change review by another human). For my purposes, the current state of affairs is not much far off banning typewriters, although I do understand its intent. Deedubaroo (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the big reasons why WP:NOLLM is the way it is today is because anyone can generate hundreds of articles worth of unverifiable, undue, unencyclopedic content every single day. And currently people do do that every single day, and they have been doing it every single day for nearly 4 years, and there are only like five editors total who actually identify, verify, and cleanup LLM-generated content on a day-to-day basis, so the project of catching & reviewing it all is literally insurmountable, even now that editors can be blocked for persistently introducing LLM-generated text (a policy only in place since like March of this year). So if you're wondering why people here get this intense about LLM usage, that's why.

I'm aware this debt exists in tech too, where code reviewers are buckling under the weight of an overwhelming amount of LLM-generated code. I've heard of some open-source projects have responded to this with a policy similar to Wikipedia's, judging that not wasting volunteer time reviewing the 99% of crappy AI-generated security reports & pull requests is worth losing the 1% of good ones. ^purring_maggot (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Working on a case here, I did a detailed source-to-text review of the first half of a medium-long article. It took me a bit over two hours, so about four hours might have done the whole thing. I did not fix it, mind you: just found the discrepancies. And I only did the English language sources, not the other three languages involved, because I don't feel I can do a good source-to-text in a language I don't speak.

We can't afford to spend 4+ hours on one article when the most prolific LLM users can introduce a long article in approximately 4 minutes.

So, backing up purring maggot: we are hard-ass because we have to be. M kuhner (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This user keeps disruptively removing tags with snarky edit summaries. They removed only some of the LLM-generated text that they have added (seemingly only to remove the tag that they reluctantly re-added following this thread), but most of the text that they have inserted still remains in the article. Even text from edits like Diff/1364569730 remains in the article, and attempts to conservatively tag just that section resulted in the tag being disruptively removed in Diff/1364753188 (even though they have realised that AI generated content is exposed to the user). ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The parent commenter is interfering with cleanup and acting without consensus that was established in this conversation. I believe they may be misusing the NOLLM rule to intentionally hinder further development of the content of the page owing to its topic. I'd like to document a progression:

1. They tagged the page originally. I responded with an immediate acknowledgement of the problem, indicated my unawareness of WP:NOLLM, and immediately indicated my willingness to comply with the rule going forward.

2. On requesting help with a procedure to remove the tag, they responded mechanically that all affected sections would require being rewritten, even though this is neither the text nor the spirit of the underlying policy.

3. On pushing back, they immediately escalated the issue, distracting from any cleanup happening yesterday owing to the conversation here, and without willingness to engage with any of the reasoning I offered for the pushback.

4. Following the discussion above, I wrote that I "re-added the tag to the affected section for the sake of more important hills to die on, but I am at a loss as to how to progress on completing the remainder of the section, which was ideally going to be this weekend's project".

5. In the interim, I realised the ideal approach was to inline-tag each affected paragraph, and work to verify, rewrite, and cite them one at a time. This is clear in the edit log: "tag every paragraph with the inline variant tag to facilitate one-at-a-time cleanup", and in line with prior strongly defended comments appearing on this thread, that the necessity of the tag is to reveal the presence of AI-generated text to the user.

6. This morning, less than a minute after submitting an obvious rewrite to the first section following this strategy, they reappeared making 3 edits in quick succession, re-adding the block-level tags in the wrong place, in spite of the fact every affected paragraph had already been tagged.

7. They then opened a talk page entry making a fresh accusation that the lead, an extremely carefully balanced piece of text on a controversial topic, was also AI-generated. It is not mentioned in the edit log, but I have been measuring exact word counts in this section, to ensure the disputed elements of the legislation are fairly represented. There is zero evidence for the accusation, and over a week worth of edit log refuting it. I simply do not understand their justification for claiming the lead itself is somehow AI-generated, absolutely nothing about the structure of the text whatsoever suggests AI use, it is simply too concise.

8. I reverted the block-level tag as it was clearly placed on the wrong section, it should, if it appeared anywhere, be at the top of the Provisions section, but a) every paragraph of that section is already tagged with a duplicate tag, and b) many paragraphs (both before the start of the incident and especially since today) are hand authored. A block-level tag is simply incorrect.

9. They have returned to this talk page to escalate again, telling more stories, and creating more distraction.

I am at a loss to explain the contributor's continual escalatory behaviour in spite of a cooperative author, baseless accusations, or their interest in this particular page. They originally stated they were "glad" to see my acknowledging the LLM issue openly, because such is rare. Yet, they continue to police the page excessively and without any level of ascertainable analytical effort, in a manner that is distracting from cleanup, and that also cannot be explained by my immediate willingness to cooperate with the policy.

None of the edits to this page from this user promote the goal of the encyclopedia or edits content policy, nor can they adequately be explained by a desire to even implement the WP:NOLLM policy, as all the affected content is already tagged, honestly and more broadly than the original tagged diff required for.

I am at a loss to explain continued interference in the progress of this page except out of the belief that as a tech worker, it is possible (or even likely) a political motive may exist. My only interest in editing the page was that it was in such a foul state originally, repeating almost exclusively partisan and often plainly incorrect claims and citations sourced from the Pirate Party, and documenting almost none of the non-controversial aspects of CSAR, that I took up the mantle to work on it as my first ever WP project.

My only request at this point is to leave the page alone if you are not actively intending to document CSAR. Working through the subtleties of this law is hard enough as it is without edit spam interrupting every change. The policing work is done - the policy violation was caught, acknowledged, and a plan to amend the affected sections is already in progress. There is nothing more to do on this page except actually document the subject in line with established policy and mission, which, as I feel it is necessary to remind the reader, is the collaborative authoring of an encyclopedia, not the implementation of a mechanical bureaucracy existing only for the purposes of practising the text of its rules free of any other productive output. Deedubaroo (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't remove maintenance tags until the work is done. Not "a plan is in progress." M kuhner (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The tags weren't removed, they were placed inline to facilitate the work. This must be what it feels like to attend a Wikipedia conference. I've readded the block tag, however utterly pointless that is, as it strictly duplicates the information from the inline tags, which I am actively using to clean up the page, while also suggesting non-AI text is in fact AI text. Thank you for helping improve the clarity and correctness of Wikipedia in this manner. If you'd like, I could also have ChatGPT whip up a fullscreen WebGL presentation on the merits of WP:NOLLM to insert into the lead. Deedubaroo (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:In use is more or less what you're looking for here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The relevant sections have now been gutted and stripped bare. I have removed the maintenance tag as it is no longer relevant. In particular, that means all nuance on the difference between Commission, Parliament, and Council positions has been lost. The idea that this in any way promotes neutrality or the overall mission of the encyclopedia is laughable. I'd like to repeat something said in the earlier talk section:

I appreciate the spirit of the tagging work done here, and the sizeable scope of the problem for any maintainer taking up the mantle, but it's important to notice, and I strongly encourage you not to ignore it, that blanket tagging without reasonable application is entirely equivalent (i.e. just as bad) as blanket LLM use.

I believe this very much encapsulates what has happened here. Blind application of policy is no better a poison than the ill it was meant to cure, i.e. this noticeboard is living, breathing and wholly intentional invocation of Goodhart's Law. That there is even a focal point of discussion for this policy can only act like a magnet of the worst kind. I hope that to at least someone reading this section, the point will ring home and hopefully moderate future applications of the policy.

In the meantime, I have a giant section to rewrite from scratch. Farewell, hope we don't cross paths again. Deedubaroo (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Deedubaroo, you quoted above a sentence and said it was spoken in the talk section above. No such thing was said, where did you get that from? Hooples (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hooples, it seems like it was in § Oh darn, you're right of course on my talk page (where they also said that they believe that tagging articles with LLM-generated text as having LLM-generated text is "without regard for the spirit of the underlying policy"). ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

the seemingly unknowing of what page is being posted on and the frequent policy citing and poor wikilawyering is common on claude models atm. stricken due to it being too close to aspersions for my liking and not wanting to cause any upset Hooples (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI: https://vocaroo.com/1i29z1KStfmT Deedubaroo (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

No clue why this is an audio file (never seen that happen before here), onwiki communication should stay onwiki. Externally hosted replies can disappear, be taken down, remove or otherwise altered. A quick transcription (made by Google Gemini), for others that don't want to listen to it:

I figured it would be easier just to send a voice note. I am, in fact, a real person. It is deeply demeaning and offensive to keep on suggesting that, for whatever reason, I'm using LLMs to write simple comments when the content of the comment should be very clear.

I'm actually really embarrassed that I've even contributed to Wikipedia after I discovered how it works internally. It's—it's absolutely disgraceful. The AI noticeboard, what are you people even doing? Like really, what are you even doing? You've—you know, you know you're worried about like machines taking over writing mechanical text, but meanwhile, every way you're acting is entirely mechanical. I've flagged, from the first post to the first talk page, the fact that the way you're acting doesn't actually sit with Wikipedia policy. You're enacting like machine-generated bloody rules. And every time something is said, it falls back to some ad hominem comment like, 'The seemingly unknowing of what page is being posted on and the frequent policy citing and poor Wiki-lawyering is common on Claude models.'

That's just plainly offensive. There's no other way to put it. I wouldn't like to work with you for any reason. I don't know what you think you're doing to help Wikipedia. Um, it's a really bad look. Um, I've been tempted to blog about it, actually—I'm not going to—but I have been tempted. Um, yeah, it—it's really disheartening to see this on a supposedly collaborative project. You know my account is 19 years old. You can see the edit log for yourself, and this is still the lazy-minder response. There's no place for this. There really isn't. It's just embarrassing.

As I said before, take care. I hope I don't bump into you again.
— User:Deedubaroo's audio file, transcribed by Google Gemini

I've listend to the audio file, and this is more or less accurate. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW I've submitted an account vanishing request, this episode has been thoroughly persuasive regarding the value of further editing efforts, as they will inevitably provoke yet similar manifestations of some other sort while the actual work of documenting some sensitive topic (in this case CSAR) remains undone. My manual labour is better spent elsewhere, and that is an entirely natural consequence of how WP:NOLLM has been enacted here. To be clear, I believe this is an institutional problem manifesting through WP:NOLLM, not a problem of the policy itself. Deedubaroo (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Just be cognisant of WP:VANISHNOT, if your vanishing request is granted. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

renamed to Renamed user 1b81409746c7324294ce6693d0de173a (talk · contribs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

id like to say, I withdraw any aspersions that I might have implied by my comment, as I DO believe you are a real person. This is the first time I've seen a voice memo sent as a wiki reply, made me raise my eyebrows for a moment. I do have one comment though, you're saying basically that people are too hard-lined about these AI rules yeah? It's been explained multiple times in this tall thread how much work it is to fix editors who use LLMs, especially ones who seem to have worse motivations than you. I appreciate you working on that article and I hope you understand that it's not a personal value judgement on you when people ask questions about possible LLM use. Hooples (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it's not even only that. LLMs are simply incapable of producing text that is up to standards, and I offloads the work of verifying sources to other editors (while the user who inserted the references is off generating 5 more articles, requiring 5x more editors to verify those, and so on and so on). And just how using llm-generated text is just fundamentally contrary to what Wikipedia is. There is already at least one llm-generated encyclopaedia, and there's a reason that nobody uses it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The user has now stated their intent to WP:VANISH and not edit Wikipedia again. Then the question is just what to do with the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse article.

It was moved from Chat controlChat control Chat ControlChat Control in revision 1363654197 on 11 July 2026. This was an undiscussed move, but nobody objected either. From a WP:COMMONNAME standpoint, it should maybe be moved back though. In revision 1363793750 from 12 July, the page was very clearly LLM-generated in large parts. Some users, like JSwift49, seem to have done a fair job at trying to fix various issues, but I'm not sure how much of that remains. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against moving it back to Chat control, although I think more discussion would be useful since it is a term primarily used by critics. JSwift49 15:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Minor note, but it was Chat ControlChat Control in title case. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Naseem.farhad

LLMPRODs are done and drafts are tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Naseem.farhad (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

• Naseem.farhad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think there's probably a language barrier here, but the gist is the usual: high-speed, high-volume article creations/expansions, warned for AI, responded in this case on their talk page with Thank you so much for correction and thank you for the appreciation., then went back to the same editing. I think it's Grok specifically; Special:Diff/1364602899 is full of ref names "grok_ref_[text]" when the sources have no connection to Grok. (I haven't checked any other edits yet so can't comment on the earlier ones) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. To clarify, the biographical facts and text were researched and compiled manually, but I used an external tool to help generate the complex Wikipedia reference templates and clean up the citation syntax. I see now that this formatting script injected automated tags (like the ⁠grok_ref⁠ syntax) into the code history. I apologize for the technical mess it left behind. I have since updated the draft to clean up the page markup entirely by hand, and I will format all citation syntax manually going forward to avoid any further Naseem.farhad (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

How are you "researching and compiling manually" when you are taking sometimes only 5 minutes per article? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

At Shahed Kamal, ref #1 doesn't verify anything about Born in Dhaka on 24 July 1940, Kamal grew up in a household involved in the cultural and political life of the region., and ref #3 doesn't verify He was the son of the poet, feminist leader, and civil activist Sufia Kamal and Kamaluddin Ahmed. (it only says his mother was poet Sufia Kamal), nor does it specify he was a reporter and sub-editor at the APP, nor does it specify the Dhaka University Central Mosque premises (just says the campus) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: User continues to make obviously LLM-generated edits. Article space block is needed. Jfire (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Naseem.farhad sitewide for LLM misuse across article and draft namespaces. — Newslinger talk 15:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I mistakenly filed a second case for this user just now, and they got blocked in the mean time... ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that I've gotten most of it, but I would appreciate if someone else looked through their edits too. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I've gone through the edits as well and I think you've got everything - all seem tagged as reverted or else part of a page that's now LLMPROD tagged. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Ogidzatul Azis Sueb

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-18 Ogidzatul Azis Sueb, 39 pages need review.

Ogidzatul Azis Sueb (talk · contribs), XTools

Was brought to ANI for not communicating and LLM use in Jan 2026 which was archived without any comments (thread). Had an article WP:G15'd in May 2026. Created this today, which has your standard WP:AITABLE, some WP:AIBOLD, red-linked category, WP:SUPERFICIAL like Along the way, young jazz singer Natasya Elvira joined and became the lead vocalist, strengthening the group's musical character. No communication. Block please Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracking page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-07-18 Ogidzatul Azis Sueb (I haven't actually done one of these before, tell me if I've messed up/gone too wide). —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 07:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks great, and no, I don't think you went too wide. The first entry is Sept 14 2025, and looks decently suspicious. M kuhner (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

gave them a level 3 warning (only because level 4 is a bit rubbish) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

NorfolkGrounds

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 NorfolkGrounds (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. Blocked for UPE

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

Edit warring to restore LLM-generated content at Watlington, Norfolk. WP:AIBOLD, AI-formatted references, word distribution typical of AI (marking a major transition, reflect the historic interaction). Jfire (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm using GOOGLE WORD/DOCS and the REFERENCES [x] go to the evidence/reference

Unsure where/why you keep making this claim, you also completely ignored my response. NorfolkGrounds (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@NorfolkGrounds: I assume by "GOOGLE WORD/DOCS" (or "Google Words", per your talk page) you mean Google's cloud-based word processor Google Docs? That has a Google Gemini-based feature for proofreading and 'improvements', so if that's what you're using, then you are (perhaps unwittingly) using AI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Why are there 27 citation numbers but only 6 citations showing in the reflist, while the rest are external hotlinks? Why are there citations to Wikipedia? Why multiple references to Geni, a user-generated unreliable site? Why are there large chunks of text with no sources? Why is the citation often in the middle of a paragraph, leaving the rest of the paragraph hanging? M kuhner (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

There's links to Oxford, Local Government Archives, There's links to External Research, there's links to Internal Wikipedia Pages, there's images (scans) for the title of transfer (Its a manorial zone) the documents cover the record of transfer (ownership) as in the Village itself is under the historic Manorial system represented by the Parish district.

I don't know what more information you require, but thats the high court documents of transfer, there is no higher court. NorfolkGrounds (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: the user keeps edit warring to keep their (very obviously) LLM-generated edits in. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm editing manually, hence i keep saving as i edit, you'll have to explain how updating the referencing structure is clearly LLM. NorfolkGrounds (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI have you actually taken the time to read the content, to look at the references, to read the evidence trail? or are you just going on a 'Computer Says No' Approach? NorfolkGrounds (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but... have you?

Like I said on your user talk, your best bet right now is to self-revert the edits that you are edit warring over. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah its obvious AI, the malformatting of refs is something that happens all the time with LLMs also their laughable response at their user talk to claim they have emailed James for "professional help" despite 1 of the most well known things about wikipedia is there is no "professional help" and that the WMF doesn't dictate content. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been wondering who this James is, and if I should maybe point them to WP:NOTSOLOMON. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah they probs mean Jimmy as Jimmy is sometimes used as a nickname for people named James as its a diminutive form of James, just not this time as Jimmy is his real name. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY

that was my guess, but i didnt want to inflame this further either. but i did go to Jimbo Wales because I remember reading somewhere something about him being called 'James' (but that turned out to be on the User:Jimbo Wales user page), but i just found some run-of-the-mill blp vandalism from last week instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

...aand i just accidentally tagged Jimbo for no good reason. not my day, apparently. apologies to Jimbo, ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide clarity as to malinformed refs that are there? i mean i've published court records, contracts, indentures, things that were previously not in public hands. NorfolkGrounds (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User is now blocked for UPE. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Luckily they didn't edit anywhere else. Lavalizard101 has reverted the problem edit and I don't see any further cleanup required. We'll need to keep an eye out for socks, though, as those are common with UPE. M kuhner (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Waltereg

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Extremely rapid editing, turning redirects into LLM-generated articles. The metaphorical smoking gun is in Diff/1364752808 (one of them is even somehow smoking in three different ways).

All of their edits are contained in one subject area. The user's talk page has a litany of DAB notices, draftification notices, complaints about poor or nonexistent sourcing, and various deletion notices, about half of which even predate the public release of ChatGPT. But there is a lot to clean up. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

For examples of large and extremely rapid edits:

• History/2025–26 Real Madrid Baloncesto season
• History/2024–25 Real Madrid Baloncesto season

‑‑gurkubondinn 11:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Then there are others that I'm not entirely convinced about, for example Diff/1361974319 is a 6,4 kB edit made less than 4 minutes after the previous edit to 2026–27 CSM București women's handball season, but it seems to mostly be an empty boilerplate table. I've draftified some other articles in the same 'series' but leaving this one alone for now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Sports articles are the worst. There's so much table and so little text that it's incredibly hard to know how they were written. M kuhner (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

(18 July) appears to have chatbot communication in it, <!-- The regular-season draw is scheduled for 22 July 2026. Add the fixtures after the official schedule is published. --> Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Kned Wiki

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-19 Renamed_user_77899991399dbbe0009e5042335b619b, 240 pages need review.

Renamed user 77899991399dbbe0009e5042335b619b (talk · contribs), XTools

Good-faith editor, but admitted to using AI, and vanished after being informed of NOLLM . 123 creations, the first of which was (Nov 2024) which has WP:SUPERFICIAL and WP:AIVOCAB eg. ...the gardens feature panoramic views over Western Sicily and hold cultural and historical significance. The Balio Gardens are part of the Grandi Giardini Italiani network, which showcases Italy’s prominent historic gardens., and WP:AILIST, WP:AITITLECASE etc. Analysis needed of their later creations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

First warned about LLM use in § May 2025, and then admitted to LLM use in § May 2026 (saying I can 100% vouch for the content) after which they came to my talk page in § Trapani-Berghi to argue about their LLM-generated edit. After I actually relented and reinstated it, I had to then tell them in § Removal of maintence tag to not remove the tag and also told them about NOLLM at the same time. That doesn't seem to have encouraged them to stop, because I seem to have noticed them again and when I asked § Are you still using AI to edit?, after which they promptly blanked their talk page again and vanished.

I think that basically every edit and page created by this user can be presumed to have been LLM generated. They seemed like a very heavy user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:MissBVCC

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

This user was warned for using LLMs on July 2.

I am worried about their participation in AfD discussions; these are some examples of what I consider suspicious: Generative AI pornography, Western Iran clashes (2026–present), 2024 Dhing gang rape case, Alternate ending, Indian influence in Bangladesh, Save the Children Jalalabad attack, Meaning-making (2nd nomination). jhvx talk contribs 18:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The AfD comments are strange: a mix of LLM and human, I guess, given that almost every one has an error of some kind.

The mainspace edit I spotchecked, however, was pure LLM. I'll mark for needing a cleanup case. M kuhner (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Generative AI pornography

This page has one weird edit filter log. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the userpage of the person who created the original (and AISIGNS-full) Generative AI pornography article, you truly cannot make this shit up: Hi, Bobby here. I am an Artificial Intelligence enthusiast. I like what's going on with AI there in the world. I like creating stuff with AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

At the moment I don't think the AfD comments are LLM, within your examples there's some human variance in there such as in the Generative AI pornography comment: it feels like a high-traffic encyclopedic topic which should be deleted instead of saying "it should not be deleted" which is what the user clearly meant to say as they are voting keep. I notice they invoke a lot of policy pages, which is typical at AfD; some signs of LLM use with regards to policies would be invoking fake policies, invoking real policies but quoting statements that don't exist on the page, or invoking policies to argue something that the policies really don't say. No comment on mainspace as I have not looked at their edits there. ^purring_maggot (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Lots of errors like that, around one per comment. Surely not pure LLM.

There's always a risk that a newcomer is copying what they see in other AfD cases, and enough of those are LLM that they may sound "off." I kind of think there's some use here, but the mainspace will be the real test. M kuhner (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

it seems like a topic prone to WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT reasoning which may be causing comments to seem off? Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Still on the fence over the AfD comments, but this seems like a smoking gun to me, given that the edit was made in 3 minutes. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 18:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Maccoutinho

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-19 Maccoutinho, 1 pages need review.

 Maccoutinho (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (18 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

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

Special:Permalink/1364848865 and Special:Permalink/1364848585 created with leading and trailing markup and other clear AISIGNS. All 2026 edits need review. Jfire (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: This user is continuing to move presumed AI-generated drafts to mainspace (Special:Diff/1364851435). I think an article-space block is warranted until they at least respond here. Jfire (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I just rejected one of their drafts after they forgot to remove the markdown code block from the chatbot in Diff/1364847657, claiming in the edit summary that the original article was not AI written. I think that an article space block is needed to prevent further disruption. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Maccoutinho sitewide for LLM misuse across article and draft namespaces. They submitted an LLM-generated unblock request one minute after they were blocked. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

At least it's clear where to start. Hadn't posted in 15 years, then a sudden flow of articles starting July 16 2026. LLM edit summaries. I'll make a tracker. M kuhner (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

My feeling is that Joana Rêgo is probably OK. I can't see any obvious signs, it's a short piece. Sources check OK. May need another set of eyes. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I draftified a few of the articles yesterday, feel free to move any of them back as appropriate. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to say, neither source 1 nor source 2 gives the academic area of Joana Rego's PhD as "Art and Design" (it's in source 3) and none of 1, 2 or 3 seem to confirm "professor at ESAD since 1999" (it is cited to 3 but definitely not there). The 28 solo exhibitions are not in source 3 (which lists 5) and I really dislike "approximately" attached to that claim--how do you approximate that? It's the typical recent LLM where sources have been shredded and thrown together, so most of the information (not all) is correct but not sourced to the right place. M kuhner (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner - sounds like at least LLMPROD if not G15 then, given the machine's history. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's way too subtle for G15 IMO. LLMPROD would be appropriate. I have to drag myself away from Wikipedia and go play a video game, so if you'd like to do it, feel free. M kuhner (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done ChrysGalley (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Just FYI, I usually mark all forms of deletion as "in progress" until they actually go through; it lets me make a follow-up pass to see if the tags got removed. Once the article is red-link I change to "completed." M kuhner (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner - I will do that from now on. My logic was, for what it was worth: For G15 I can see the point of "in progress", since a G15 could easily be denied on various grounds, and we still have an LLM screed to handle. However for LLMPROD then I felt that in practical terms the only two likely outcomes are PROD or adoption, and either way the matter is dealt with. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Alas, LLMPRODs get silently removed by TAs (some of whom are likely socks) on a painfully regular basis; they also get removed by editors who disapprove on principle or who have examined the article and "see no problems." (Occasionally they're right; usually not. Full source/text analysis is hard.) So before I do a close I make sure I know what happened to all of them. M kuhner (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. For Museu Municipal Amadeo de Souza-Cardoso - that's a new article from a respected longserving editor. From what I can recall of the earlier version, the new version is completely different. It did get fully G15'd first. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Happy ending! I've marked it. M kuhner (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

AI at DYK?

Am I going crazy, or am I seeing AI signs at Football manufacturing in Pakistan? I'm seeing some small AI signs across this user's contribs like "X reported on Y", large article creations in one go, verbose headings etc, but no smoking guns. See original football article creation: 1. + some more article creations: 2, 3. Also note a copyvio warning in May- User talk:Umais Bin Sajjad#MAY-17-2026 -and a non-template LLM warning yesterday- User talk:Umais Bin Sajjad#LLM use. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 07:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Nah, that v1 is obviously AI. Fermiboson (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

First paragraph doesn't quite line up with the sources in a very llm way, and that's with the Khaleej Times article feeling a bit LLMy as well. CMD (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I have tagged as AI. Source 10, OUP/World Bank used an aggregator rather than the source OUP host. The source is fuzzily transferred to the article text, e.g. it doesn't go into the SME side. Interesting source, but summarised in the best traditions of AI. Beyond that multiple other AI signs. ChrysGalley (talk) ChrysGalley (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I've used LLM assistance during drafting and then manually revised the prose afterwards. As WP:LLM does not permit broader generation or rewriting of article prose, I follow that restriction carefully. Regarding the large first revisions, I usually prepare substantial drafts in my userspace before moving them. I take responsibility for my edits and am reviewing the affected articles sentence by sentence against their cited sources. I will remove or rewrite anything unsupported, too closely paraphrased, or otherwise noncompliant. Football manufacturing in Pakistan was subsequently reviewed at DYK. I mention this only as evidence of the article's present condition, not as proof of how it was drafted or as an exemption from LLM. If there are specific diffs or source–text integrity concerns, point them out and I will address them. Umais🗣 09:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the candid and helpful reply @Umais Bin Sajjad, though I have to say that reply also looks AI assisted. Nevertheless, under WP:NEWLLM there are only 2 ways you can use LLM (translation, copyedits) and that does not apply here - you simply cannot use LLM to assist drafting, so I can't see how you followed that restriction carefully. Due to the DYK status I don't feel I can G15 this article (though I imagine it is a legitimate next step, given that at least some sources were not checked against the wording). The If there are specific diffs or source–text integrity concerns is standard wording we often see off AI tools when they, the tools, are challenged about AI - in reality as a human you would know where you used AI, so you are the best person to answer that point. In my view? The article needs to be rewritten, based on manual examination of the sources, and that you should resist the temptation to tinker with the existing article. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

English is not my first language, which is why I used LLM assistance while drafting. Nevertheless I checked the article manually against the sources and revised prose with MOS in mind. Now that this concern has been raised, I'll draft directly from the sources myself and use tool within the permitted WP:LLM. Umais🗣 10:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Comparing the two responses from the user in this thread, my guess is that one of the replies was generated by an LLM and not the other one. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

How did you review the draft sentence by sentence for source 2, which is an 11 minute video? CMD (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked accompanying written summary and relevant opening portion of video, where it states that Sialkot makes about 70% of the world's footballs. The citation was intended to support that estimate. I will move them closer to the claims they support and remove anything that is not directly verified. Umais🗣 10:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has been pulled from DYK: Diff/1364927197. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify - I think we can see what has gone on here, and the submitter has owned up to the issue and explained why, to their credit. Rather than further hole digging, I would suggest this article is now sent off to Draft status, which will then provide a good checkpoint if/when it is OK for mainspace. Other options being G15, LLMPROD, PROD, AFD. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify is fine with me, but I won't oppose any other outcomes. Thank you to @Umais Bin Sajjad for being honest and straight forward about this, the second rule of holes must be "don't dig holes for someone else" or something like that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  In order to avoid digging holes, and noting Umais Bin Sajjad stated above that they want to draft directly from the sources, a custom draftify pulling the sources and images but not the prose might be a more efficient way to move forward than bringing together the need to not only draft but also comb through text and videos. CMD (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I draftified it and TNTed the text.--Launchballer 12:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Forward Sports was expanded at the same time. The title of the Al Jazeera source as "The football" is interesting, some automated process (llm or cite generator?) pulled the second h1 tag for the title, dropping the first half ("Story of"). CMD (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I ran GPTZero on a random portion from what appears to be the last edit made as part of the (far more piecemeal) expansion and it came back as likely human written.--Launchballer 12:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The statement Forward Sports operates within the wider Forward Group. The group's related businesses include Forward Gear, a Sialkot-based bag manufacturer established in 2007 is sourced to reference nr. 15 in that revision,which just points to the www.fgear.pk landing page. Not really definitive per se, but pretty typical citing by an LLM. I hope that the user can just improve these articles without using AI tools, as they seem genuinely interested in contributing to the project. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

EVO 2026 has a few AISIGNS like having 3 places where there's AIATTR, and AITABLE ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I just queued Nusuk, whose v1 also came up 100% on GPTZero. Extra eyes appreciated.--Launchballer 10:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer (note:WP:AISIGNS is the thing which most of us at AINB use to check for signs of LLM generated drafts)~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

so far, i'm seeing AIWEASEL, SUPERFICIAL, RO3, AITREND ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Vitaliikliushkinm

Vitaliikliushkinm (talk · contribs)

see this sandbox edit (AIVOCAB, RO3, AIBOLD, AITITLECASE, AILEGACY) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no cleanup to be done here since the newcomer's only work is this draft, which in its current state is quite a bit improved from the sandbox version containing those AISIGNS. Based on their Teahouse post the editor seems to be wrestling with referencing things themselves rather than allowing AI to do it, so I think we should use a soft touch here. I'll notify them of NOLLM. Based on the current state of the draft, I almost want to remove the AI-generated tag - does anyone concur with this, or are there still issues? Given that the draft is still not sourced properly, we can only judge the prose. ^purring_maggot (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Purring maggot i don't believe that's true, several of the references cited at the teahouse appear almost since the beginning of the sandbox draft, the only new information comes from this which was a site already cited in the article, just on the wrong page ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

What I mean is, they don't have any proper inline citations, and usually people just let the AI generate the inline citations for them, so the fact that the editor is asking for help is a good sign. Technically there's nothing wrong with writing an article using sources found by LLMs. I think we should let the AfC process do its job and the draft will get denied if the citations go in and stuff starts failing verification (or, likely enough, the subject fails notability). I've warned the editor, so there's not much more to be done other than keep an eye on the situation. ^purring_maggot (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

oh, yeah, fair enough ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM pages linking to AI Youtube channel

 Cleanup has been requested.

User Yoavd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yoavd) has two pages on their wikipedia profile that link to AI generated content on youtube. A channel called Yoavchess(https://www.youtube.com/@yoavchess) which appears to be the user's own. The two pages in question are Ancient Mathematics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yoavd/Ancient_Mathematics) and History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yoavd/History). All the links contained in these pages link to AI Slop videos from the User's channel.

The user also attempted to create a new wikipedia page about a book titled "Win at Work with Lessons from the Chessboard" by Zeev Zohar. Zeev Zohar's wiki page seems to have a section on this that was added by this user. I am aware that humans are terrible at detecting AI writing but the section under Authoring Chess Books should be looked into. It does not fit with any of the previous text and may be written by a LLM. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeev_Zohar) Weighing of the Words (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)}}

Research has shown that experienced users can detect LLM rather accurately. That research didn't test it, but I immodestly think experienced LLM hunters are also pretty good. IMO the block of text in Zeev Zohar is unquestionably LLM based on presence of signs from WP:AISIGNS. It's also unsourced, which is not an LLM sign but is bad in itself.

The math and history user pages seem eligible for WP:G11 "unambiguous advertising or promotion." The Felix Dothan userpage is a redirect to the same title in mainspace--could someone who understands redirects better than me weigh in on whether that's okay? (None of these, as I understand it, should be on the user page--they should be sandbox--but that's a minor issue.)

My suspicion is we have undisclosed COI or PAID and LLM use; it's not a rare combo. I will look at their other edits. Sad to see a fellow chessplayer stoop to this.

Really appreciate the heads-up: these are so much easier to deal with when caught early. M kuhner (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I left a warning on the user's Talk page and reverted the edits to Zeev Zohar. In the process, though, I discovered that the title of the book is wrong in those edits! (Page says it's "Win at Work with Lessons from the Chessboard"; every other mention I have found says it's "Business Checkmate: Win at Work with Lessons from the Chessboard"; cover art puts Business Checkmate in huge font.) This I find deeply baffling. I wonder if the account is compromised. M kuhner (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

probably not compromised, otherwise i'd see something in either the global block log or global user contribs ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I received an answer from Yoavd in response to a query on their Talk page: User talk:Yoavd#Concerns about promotional material and LLM use. I'll leave it to those with more understanding of English Wikipedia policies to evaluate this. M kuhner (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In response to a second query about Zeev Zohar, editor noted that Hebrew Wikipedia does not have a no-LLM policy at this time (and, I think, tacitly admitted that their edit was LLM). I pointed out that when editing enWiki they need to follow enWiki rules. Hopefully this will be the end of the matter. M kuhner (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Flyingphoenixchips

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-20 Flyingphoenixchips, 689 pages need review.

 Flyingphoenixchips (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

Flyingphoenixchips has been submitting LLM-generated content since their first article creation in 2024, the now-deleted Wesea (Western SouthEast Asia) page. In 2025, they added ChatGPT-generated citations to a number of articles: When Blackbirds Fly, Hannah Lalhlanpuii, Shania Yan (now deleted), Ron Whittaker (musician), Mokokchung Times (now deleted), Prajal Regmi (now deleted), and Anthony Doke. Flyingphoenixchips also used ChatGPT to generate comments in deletion discussions: Arunachal Times and Wesean Times.

Their LLM misuse continued after the WP:LLM guideline was implemented. In March 2026, Flyingphoenixchips created the article Melt Fracture with a number of red links in the See also section, as well as nonexistent categories. It was draftified, and the second time the draft was declined (reviewed version), the reviewer stated: "I randomly selected five references to review, and ALL FIVE either did not exist or linked to papers with completely different titles and topics. Together with the formatting, it's pretty obvious this article was written by an LLM and posted by someone who did not care enough to verify anything."

On 30 March, another editor told Flyingphoenixchips that "articles recently created by you appear AI-generated" and asked, "Did you use AI to create the articles?". Flyingphoenixchips responded with a partial denial: "I used a script to organize bare references, yes. did not use for writing".

A new page patroller flagged four of Flyingphoenixchips's article creations as AI-generated on 9 April: 2026 Manipur bombing, Child exploitation in Arunachal Pradesh, Christian persecution in Manipur, and Rpa Ralte. In the ensuing discussion, Flyingphoenixchips denied using an LLM to write the articles, but claimed that they wrote the articles in Markdown, used "two agents to format the paper and organise the references", used "a python script to organise it all and push edits onto my wikipedia account", and then checked the articles themselves. Flyingphoenixchips was told, "Using a Python script for editing isn't allowed if you haven't gotten approval from the WP:Bot Approvals Group", and responded, "I'll try doing things myself from now on and will try to get it approved."

Without obtaining approval for an LLM-based bot or article creation script, Flyingphoenixchips mass-created 46 articles about Yushania species in 84 minutes on 1 July and 7 July. Another editor pointed out issues with the articles, including "Many of the references you have provided lack accessible URLs with which to ascertain their accuracy" and "In a number of articles, references have been duplicated, and some make no mention of the article subject." Flyingphoenixchips responded that they were "planning to revisit those pages again", but have not done so.

The timing of Flyingphoenixchips's recent article edits shows a pace consistent with submitting LLM-generated edits. For example:

• Traditional beliefs and mythology of the Tani people: Gradually added 18,832 bytes in 10 minutes, including ISBN errors, then removed nonexistent categories
• Arunachal church burnings, 1968–1978: Gradually added 17,048 bytes in 9 minutes, starting with the infobox before the rest of the article, then removed nonexistent categories
• Fetishization of Northeast Indians: Created the 35,230-byte initial revision, then deleted an LLM-generated list of sources in the same minute. Heavily rewrote the article in the next 26 minutes, reducing it to 18,029 bytes. After another editor blanked and redirected the article, Flyingphoenixchips gradually added 8,828 bytes of content in 5 minutes before deleting nonexistent categories.
• Racism against Northeast Indians: Created a 39,435-byte initial revision, which was promptly nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G15 because "Some ISBNs and DOIs go to different subjects than the reference's title". Flyingphoenixchips attempted to remove the speedy deletion tag in violation of WP:CSDCONTEST, but it was reinstated. Flyingphoenixchips then edited continuously for about an hour with a stream of small edits overlapping with three large edits (+4,146; +1,076; and +27,697 bytes) that can only plausibly be explained as LLM-generated, because there is no way those large edits could have been written by hand when Flyingphoenixchips was busy making the numerous small edits. The article was culled instead of speedily deleted.

Per the above evidence, I have indefinitely Blocked Flyingphoenixchips sitewide for repeatedly misusing LLMs, denying the full extent of their LLM misuse when asked, and mass-creating articles with a script in violation of the bot policy. An unblock request would be more likely to succeed if Flyingphoenixchips acknowledges that their LLM misuse was inappropriate, agrees to refrain from using LLMs for Wikipedia editing in any capacity as an unblock condition, and agrees to clean up all of their LLM-affected edits.

The WP:LLMPROD process would be the most efficient way to address the LLM-generated article creations. — Newslinger talk 02:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is incredibly disheartening since they were NPP and AFC. But I can't say I am surprised. He was tackled about this by @Athanelar and I in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 63#Maybe Flyingphoenixchips shouldn't be an AfC reviewer. where he said that he used an AI tool, Wispr Flow, to speed through a lot of AFC reviews, with decidedly mixed outcomes. He undertook not to use that tool again on 26 May 2026, but that was in an AFC context. Separately I think we need to think about the sticks and carrots when it comes to long-serving editors who establish their bona fides via the traditional route and then get subverted by AI's deathly embrace. This won't be the only case. Probably out of scope for this noticeboard though. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm kind of kicking myself for not looking into their contributions after the fiasco with their LLM-powered AfC reviews. Glad to see it's solved now. Athanelar (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Also note that the box on top of their userpage is clearly AI-generated too. ChatGPT still loves those curved corners and emoji headers! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracker created, LLMPRODs started (I started at the top, if someone else is going to join in they might start at the bottom). M kuhner (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've done LLMPRODs from #195 (Makum people) to #100 (Lee Hee-wan) on XTools, they've fortunately got no drafts to tag Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• They've said @Kowal2701 Hey, wanted to ping you here since I am unable to participate in the discussion? Would it perhaps be possible to userify or draftify the articles tagged for prod? I am willing to rework them (before touching anything else) and go through the AfD process. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC), I'll leave that to admins to decide, but if we are to userfy them then we can't track {{AI-generated}} removals with the filter Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  (I'm fine with draftifying and tagging FWIW) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Aaron Rubinstein

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Aaron Rubinstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Selçuk Zvi Cara affair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created Selçuk Zvi Cara affair with a litany of AISIGNS, and then immediately copypaste moved it back into article space after I draftified it. For some reason the user has edited Draft:Selçuk Zvi Cara affair even after the copypaste move. Has also created Draft:Selcuk Cara, which is also full of AISIGNS (where the user removed the AfC templates with the edit summary correction done in Diff/1364080288).

Since this was DRAFTOBJECTED, the page will likely need to go to AfD to be deleted. I have doubts about notability and due weight, when I ducked "Selçuk Zvi affair", the first result was Grokipedia. The de:Selcuk Cara article does mention the musical having been performed in Nurnberg in 2020, but it doesn't mention a "political controversy" (but it's a Wagner musical so it's entirely plausible).

The user is blocked from dewiki for vandalism and copyvios, where they were of course also warned for AI-use. So far, the user has yet to communicate. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The user has (kind of) started to communicate, as I was writing this:

• Draft talk:Selçuk Zvi Cara affair § Edit Request: Clean encyclopedic version to address AI concerns

I'm pretty sure this is also an WP:CIR case. This is on the draftified page. After having copypaste moved it back into article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jerrycandy256

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2026-07-20 Jerrycandy256 for reference.

Jerrycandy256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple LLM warnings on talk page. Communication intended for the user in Special:Diff/1365119955. All edits need inspection. Jfire (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to say that the 2026 edits are all suspect but earlier ones are probably not LLM: they are quite different. M kuhner (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Edits continue today (July 20 2026) and the diff given above clearly shows LLM communication pasted into article. Request a block from mainspace to prevent further damage and hopefully get some communication. M kuhner (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

pblocked from mainspace. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:SilentHalo

 Cleanup has been requested.

Looks like SilentHalo is using AI to generate content, posts in ANI & AFD discussions, and reply's on talk pages. GPTZero comes back at 100% for most of them. They claim to be using Grammarly for copy editing but at the ANI discussion post it looks like there were several hallucinations. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. I replied to the user on their talk page. I'm not sure if using copy-editing tools is prohibited here. Wikipedia:Grammarly doesn't have much useful advice—it just says that it's prohibited for encyclopedia articles. SilentHalo (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMCHAT. LLM use, with extremely narrow exceptions, is not allowed in encyclopedia articles. Noticeboard comments that appear to be LLM can be collapsed and ignored.

The reason Grammarly is prohibited is that recent versions are, in fact, LLM, and can change the meaning of text substantially under cover of "improving" it. It can't be considered a "copy-editing tool" anymore.

Please completely stop use of LLM to generate text on Wikipedia. You might also consider helping with cleanup of your previous articles, which are otherwise likely to be deleted. This is a recoverable mistake--newcomers aren't necessarily aware of our policies and we're willing to work with you here--but only if you commit to stopping LLM use immediately. M kuhner (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know that Grammarly was now an LLM. I'm sure it worked just like Microsoft Editor, but it was much better. I've always made sure that the tool hasn't made any significant changes. However, I'll abide by the policies. I promise never to use it again. SilentHalo (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Not your fault, Grammarly is a little infamous for being misleading and sketchy about how its product works (for instance the whole debacle over a feature claiming to incorporate "expert feedback" by a bunch of writers who weren't involved in the feature or even told about it) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Urug1948

Urug1948 (talk · contribs) seems to use LLMs, i think that it might be the ghost of Calhetan77 ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've moved the SPI page between namespaces for you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

that broke my permlink! ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Serves you right for refusing to create an account for no good reason!^[Humour] ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

it's a really good, compelling reason though! ^[humor] ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

humour (haha) aside, there's urug1948's SPI case (before i saw them as a likely sock of Calhetan77) which might be of good use to clean up ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Wiki writes AP

 Cleanup has been requested.

• Wiki writes AP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rapid expansions of articles without any consistent area of interest. AIBOLD, invalid ISBNs, and other AI signs. Link suggestion changes are probably fine; everything else looks suspect. Jfire (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Never used AI, certainly not for this... Wiki writes AP (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

So how did you write 500 words of text and references in Special:Diff/1365192087 five minutes after your previous edit, and where did the ISBNs you referenced in that edit come from? Why did you reference The Smith: The Traditions and Lore of an Ancient Craft by Jocelyn Bailey (1999), with a nonexistent ISBN, when the actual book is by Frederick W. Robins (2010)? Jfire (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Mangwanani

Same old story: Rapid-fire article creations -- for instance, this article was created only 11 minutes after its predecessor, and this one apparently took 5 minutes -- with clear WP:AISIGNS, across the board. Just to take one example, of which there are many more:

The government and ZANU–PF presented the Amendment as a necessary refinement of the 2013 Constitution to remove practical difficulties and improve governance efficiency. The Herald, Zimbabwe's main state-owned daily newspaper, reported positively on the Bill's progress. It highlighted that the Senate passed the Amendment on 5 May 2021 by 65 votes to 10, noting that some MDC-T senators joined ZANU–PF and traditional leaders in support. State media generally framed the changes as progressive reforms that would enhance stability and align constitutional provisions with practical requirements.

So we've got AIVOCAB all over the damn place right off the bat. The same patterns, locking into place. Did the newspaper really highlight this uncontroversial fact? Good luck finding out, because the link is a 404. (The last sentence, meanwhile, is not cited at all.)

In independent outlets such as ZimLive, commentators described the Amendment as a significant step backwards that concentrated excessive power in the presidency.

Textbook AIATTR, textbook AIWEASEL (no other outlets are cited or mentioned).

Public reaction, as reported in independent media, was predominantly negative among urban populations and opposition supporters. Petitions against the Amendment circulated in May 2021. In Parliament, while the Bill passed comfortably, some opposition MPs voiced strong objections during debates, particularly regarding the implications for judicial independence and democratic accountability.

More AIATTR, cited to the same (one) source as the previous paragraph, except this time very little of this seems to be actually verified by the link. Petitions, for instance, are not mentioned anywhere in the article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)