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-generated content before posting here. The guide consists of advice and resources about AI cleanup in general, and may be useful for editors interested in participating 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.
• {{Userlinks}} can be used to provide informational links for a user, if not using one of the cleanup-specific templates.
• To view all open cases (including those whose reports have been archived), see Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases.

Start a new discussion

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)

• I've made tracking pages for all the cases needing one in these archives, the ones left to potentially make I've listed at the above page (most of them are waiting on the LLMPRODs tbh) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:03, 5 August 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)

made all the tracking pages I could for cases which needed them, have listed ones I couldn't at the subpage Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:33, 8 August 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)

Safeer Zaman (talk · contribs),

Previous AINB thread, they were warned 2 May to no response and were notified of their articles being PRODed and draftified explicitly for LLM use (also in May). (20 July) has chatbot communication. (1 August) has loads of AI signs. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think a mainspace block is needed, they've never edited their user talk Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace, and I reverted the obvious AI authorship on August 1. Cleanup can commence. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(just noting here) Previous AINB thread in May, they received a thorough warning but went inactive, only to return 2 July to make an AI-generated draft Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

What an incredibly ironic article topic to generate. Btw, it was submitted to article space and then draftified. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

tracking pages done for these, only one I wasn't sure on (the others are waiting on LLMPRODs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:14, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

ANI edition

Main page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (ANI edition)

This is a bit of a monster. I've included cases from the ANI archives up to 22 March 2026 (around the time NOLLM was passed) that need cleanup, there's (at time of writing) 50 cases that need more analysis, and an additional list of cases that need LLMPRV applied (most are no-brainers but still use judgement). I might add to this at some point, probably up until early May 2026 when LLMPRV was passed. I am dreading knocking on SPI's door ngl Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

When an active editor like Shaumturducken2020 is blocked and then goes silent immediately with no activity for weeks, it indicates either that the editor gave up and left, or resumed the same activity as a sockpuppet. Knocking on the SPI door is unlikely to yield anything unless you have a suspected sockpuppet candidate, because checkusers aren't allowed to engage in fishing expeditions. Once you do have a candidate, a checkuser often does find related activity, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it was more to see if there were any prolific LLM-using sockmasters or old cases still needing cleanup, and whether we can setup some sort of system (idk). Having gone through the ANI archives, like half of LLM cases turned out to be socks, and while most of their creations were WP:G5'd, obv some were left and not tagged w {{AI-generated}} and normal edits weren't always reverted. AFAIK it's usually up to the CU to do the cleanup, which seems like a pretty terrible system, but idk, will probably message Asilvering about it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

there absolutely are, but a lot of them aren't identified as AI Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it should be up to a CU or any other admin to clean up everything; they should do whatever is needed that normal editors cannot do themselves (block accounts, protect pages, and delete pages), tag AI-generated pages for socks that cannot be publicly disclosed, and the rest of the community can assist in the cleanup. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikiuser829

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-05_Wikiuser829, 211 pages need review.

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)

Chandrapur, Chhattisgarh (Dec 2024) had lots of AI signs, I'm unsure if their articles after that were consistently AI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

the Dec 2024 creation triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325, an edit in July 2025 had utm_source=chatgpt , and later articles are obviously AI. I've left them a message Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracker from 2024-12-01, +/-35 only. It's a lot. Are we ready to start cleanup? M kuhner (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, LLMPRODing now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:01, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

User:NShehan

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-28_NShehan, 125 pages need review.

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

User has been rapidly creating and expanding articles about plants. Their edits contain AI tells for species articles. See for example the speculative "Conservation" sections at Eryngium arenosum and Boltonia caroliniana. Cicada1010 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Those do look like AI articles. Have our guidelines around llms been raised with the user anywhere? I don't see it on their user talk. CMD (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Their first AfC decline mentioned it, but the generic LLM decline still reads as sort of a suggestion to not use LLMs rather than being 100% clear about the prohibition, so I've warned the editor and invited them to discuss here. The AISIGNS are pretty apparent in the two articles linked here (don't have time to look at more right now) ^purring_maggot (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I should've looked into the guidelines more when I was warned previously, but I took a break immediately after that and had forgotten to look into it further.

I would like to run through the process I have been using involving LLMs in order to create pages. When making articles, I would copy and paste the sources and their links into ChatGPT and then ask it to generate each section. I would then put the generated text into the article and cross reference with the original sources to ensure no hallucinations or blatant plagiarism took place, along with altering some wording or linking to other pages. Images were found through appropriately copyrighted INaturalist posts and uploaded with no help of AI, along with listing categories and Wikidata creation. I just assumed this was allowed as it made article generation much more efficient, but I understand if this violates the rules of Wikipedia and needs to be reversed.

I am more than willing to aid with the cleanup, just let me know what needs to be done! Niyan Shehan (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @NShehan (sorry for the late response, this page is really busy), the relevant guideline is WP:NOLLM (also, thank you very much for your honesty). Are you near 100% sure there are no hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures)? That's the biggest concern, though there are other important issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. Normally I'd either draftify the creations for you to review yourself when you get the chance, or WP:LLMPROD them (i.e. delete). Regarding cleanup, usually we recommend that people stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles from scratch since it's often very time-consuming to attempt to preserve such content, but it's up to you. People often underestimate just how problematic LLM-generated content is, we had an editor who had professional expertise in lichen and was creating articles while systematically using AI, they're now blocked because they underestimated this and continued creating after problems were pointed out (see Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 7#Esculenta and GAs). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, using LLM makes generation of things that look like Wikipedia articles very efficient, but generating an informative, verifiable Wikipedia article seems to be pretty difficult with LLM. I haven't had time to do much AI review lately but good examples of problems are in the Conservation sections of the articles in the original report:

Eryngium arenosum has 3 paragraphs of superficial analysis and unsourced speculation. A speculative list of "potential threats" and a checklist of conditions for which "additional field surveys are needed" simply do not belong in the article. That is the LLM making up fluff because it doesn't have any solid facts to incorporate. This doesn't provide any information whatsoever. Also, Its conservation rank reflects its narrow distribution, restriction to specialized South Texas Sand Sheet habitats, and relatively small estimated number of occurrences. What source says its conservation rank "reflects" these things? What does it mean for its conservation rank to "reflect" these things? It's possible that it would be appropriate to describe sourced facts about how the conservation rank for this species is determined, but not just WP:SYNTH together a small collection of information and hint at these things being related to each other somehow.

Boltonia caroliniana has a bit of the same fluff plus aggressively attributing everything to NatureServe as if it's a controversial opinion that we have to be very careful about presenting as fact. The NatureServe conservation ranks are used in loads of Wikipedia articles so I assume we can note once that this is NatureServe's rank (to distinguish it from IUCN) and then allow the citations to speak for themselves as to where the information came from. The section goes on and on about where the species does not have a conservation status. We don't need to include a list of everything the subject is not in its Wikipedia article. If it doesn't have something, we can just not say it (unless not having that thing is remarkable in some way).

Most species articles are stubs for a reason: there simply isn't that much available information about the species. It's much better for a reader to read 3 sentences about a topic and come away with 3 verifiable facts than to read paragraphs upon paragraphs of lorem ipsum and come away with "we don't really know how it looks, we don't really know where it lives, we don't really know what the conservation status is..." etc. Humans have done a lot of weird crap on Wikipedia so I won't say we're always better at determining what goes in an article, but we have the advantage of being readers as well as editors, so when we read a source the information that stands out to us as "that should go in the Wikipedia article" is probably going to also be interesting and useful to other people who then read that article, whereas an LLM has no sense of those concepts and is just indiscriminately scraping data to fill space since it was trained that longer answers are always better. ^purring_maggot (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what to do here. Normally I'd draftify all their creations (93 articles) for them to work on if they wish, but ~70 of them are older than 90 days (WP:DRAFTNO), and some in the community oppose making an exception for LLM-generated articles, so it'd be ballsy to lean on generally avoid or WP:IAR. Draftifying also takes longer than LLMPRODing, though the latter would be a bit bitey and WP:LLMPROD#Requirements isn't met anyway. I've been recommended to do a batch AfD which seems like the best option, despite being a giant headache. For that though there'd need to be analysis on WP:V, otherwise it'd just tiresomely relitigate NOLLM. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Species articles are presumptively notable. I fear AfD will just tell you to fix them. Because of the presumptive notability, they could fairly readily be stubbed down to one source, infobox from database, and minimal text. I'd be willing to help. M kuhner (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I have made a tracker excluding edits less than +/- 500 bytes, which should get all the article creations (and a few other edits) but exclude a lot of gnoming. I am going to take a stab at stubbifying the creations. M kuhner (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Slowly stubbing my way through these, and just wanted to say--the vacuity of the LLM text is real, but also there are source/text issues everywhere. The sources exist but often do not say what they're cited as saying. M kuhner (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, I have stubified a handful of these, and I have two conclusions. They can't remain as they are, because not only do they have vacuous LLM sections on conservation, but they have source/text issues in just about every single case. And I can't stubify a hundred of them in any reasonable amount of time. User:NShehan, is there any chance you can help here? I am going to start with LLMPROD pretty quickly, otherwise. M kuhner (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

(idm doing them in case you wanna save some bandwidth) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please. M kuhner (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Done, there were a couple I could only tag. Haven't got loads of spare bandwidth, but are there any more daunting cases I can pitch in with? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

With new tools we are doing halfway decently once a tracker is made. The most painful thing is actually start dates. I need to do a run of tracker creation and start dates are a big problem. I jump for joy when I hit a case where they're obvious.

You might look at Guywelch and Thiagovscoelho, too big, what to do?

I keep an offline tracking page with notes for myself. Would it be helpful if I converted it to a userspace one? M kuhner (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds useful, for start dates I usually just look through edit filter logs and then XTools for creations w signs (plus check for editing breaks, patterns etc.), I really struggle when it's ordinary edits (partly because diffs are so difficult to parse at a glance in the Source Editor, a Visual Editor version would be lovely), creations that aren't one-shot such as when the LLM is 'just copyediting', and translations. Which banishes the two cases you've mentioned above to the backlog lol. We do need another editor who specialises in analysis and getting their hands dirty while determining start dates, worth keeping an eye out for people w potential for that Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

PanoptikEU

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

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

The user has good intentions and probably created all their articles before WP:LLM was prohibited but still we need to do a lot of cleanup. Most of their articles were created rapidly without any human review. Maybe convert notable Estonian articles into one-line stubs. ~2026-41256-48 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

129 creations in 233 edits Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Their latest creations are obviously LLM-generated. Looking at their early articles, they seem decent quality compared to what we normally see and there aren't really enough meat on them for AISIGNS, but: at Sirje Olesk ref #1 doesn't support She is a recognized authority on the Finnish-Estonian writer Aino Kallas and the poet Lydia Koidula., Konrad Duden Prize has WP:AIREDCAT, and in Sven-Erik Soosaar ref #3 appears hallucinated Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Tbh I'm not 100% sure these are all AI, would appreciate a second opinion Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, don't think these three are AI - Sirje Olesk source kinda supports it thru "She has mainly dealt with various aspects of Estonian poetry, Estonian-Finnish literary relations, the life and work of Aino Kallas and Lydia Koidula, studied the history of the Estonian Writers’ Union and literary life in Soviet Estonia". Soosaar's ref #3 did in fact exist but the page went down - see https://web.archive.org/web/20190915191335/https://www.ut.ee/et/uritused/sven-erik-soosaar-eesti-keele-kultuursonavara-arengujooni-eesti-keel-piirikeel, an archived copy from 2019 (display is broken, but if you scroll down a bit you find the article).

And as for the red category, i know (especially before I got HotCat) I've occasionally put in categories assuming they were functional categories and then checked, noticed they weren't, and deleted - i find it harder to believe this is AI than that this is a user forgetting to check whether a reasonable category they inputted actually exists. Jishara (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I've put a few into Pangram and they're consistently coming back as AI-assisted, I think this meets the threshold for LLMPROD but does anyone object? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

No objections from me, I support using LLMPRV for cleanup. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked at Avo Keerend and support LLMPRV. WP:AIATTR and typical shifting of facts among sources. M kuhner (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Right. I’m in favour. LLMPRV it is. WorldClassChampion (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry guys, this one's too strange, don't feel comfortable doing LLMPRODs at this point. Some articles were created within 2 minutes of each other, which seems quick even for chatbots, yet they're not the obvious slop we'd expect and Pangram gives them as AI-assisted. The editor's first edits include changing a deprecated infobox parameter , and their edit summaries appear AI-generated (Create article on Karl Pajusalu and add sourced biography, academic career, research, works and honors., Reflecting marriage name change and birth of children.), but there aren't many AI signs, and the articles I checked for WP:V (the first two IIRC) checked out. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

it would be great to hear something from you, @PanoptikEU. could you tell us if you used AI for these articles? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, and sorry for the delayed response.

I used AI assistance to translate material from Estonian Wikipedia into English. I personally reviewed the articles and checked their sources before publication. My aim was to make information about Estonian scholars, artists and cultural figures more accessible to English-language readers.

I would like to correct the statement that these articles were published without human review. That does not describe my process. I cannot reconstruct every individual drafting step now, so I am not claiming that every passage was solely a translation, but I do remember reviewing the work and checking the sources. If a factual or citation error survived that review, I take responsibility for correcting it.

I would ask that the translated material be assessed under WP:LLM-assisted translation, with any other additions considered separately. Thank you to Jishara for finding the archived Soosaar reference, and to Kowal2701 for checking some of the articles and reporting that those source checks passed. I appreciate those checks as well as the concerns other editors have raised.

M kuhner, could you identify the particular passages and source mismatches you found in Avo Keerend? I would like to respond to those examples directly and correct any problems, including missing translation attribution where applicable.

I would prefer to preserve properly sourced, compliant material and make targeted corrections where needed, rather than reduce all the articles to one-line stubs. PanoptikEU (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @PanoptikEU for the response. Really I should've thought to check whether these were translations, apologies. Translations from another Wikipedia need to be attributed (see WP:TFOLWP), can you please do that for your creations now? Another issue I'm seeing is how Avo Keerend has content that wasn't in the Estonian article, as does Jaan Elken (Estonian article) and likely others. Can you please make sure that wherever this is the case, the content adheres to WP:V and WP:WTW/WP:NPOV? Otherwise it'd have to be removed as it doesn't fall under the exception in WP:NOLLM for translation Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:27, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I did not take notes, unfortunately. Here are a few issues.

The lead is sourced to (1) and (2). Here is the key sentence: He was known in post-war Estonian graphic art especially for his linocuts, book illustration, ex libris work, and later geometric-abstractionist prints.

(2) is a list of exhibitions. It mentions three joint exhibitions that had bookplates ("ex libris work") and book illustrations, but I don't think we can go from that to "was known especially for".

(1) does not mention book illustrations, bookplates, or abstractionism. I also can't get the timeline implied above out of this source.

The paragraph starting "During World War II" has a lot of very close paraphrase of (1). However, In 1943 he studied at a drawing studio for war correspondents in Berlin. is sourced to (1) and (3) but (1) has nothing about this at all and should not be cited here.

"Art-historical scholarship places" and "has been connected by museum curators" are WP:AIATTR.

The paragraph starting "The Art Museum of Estonia" is a too close paraphrase of (1). I stopped here as I think the pattern is clear.

I would describe these as typical issues for recent LLMs: the claims are often more or less true, but not supported by the given source, and there is a lot of too-close paraphrase. M kuhner (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I think converting into one-line stubs is much better. ~2026-46891-52 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Re000searchist

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-31 Re000searchist, 257 pages need review.

Re000searchist: reporting for undisclosed LLM usage. It's especially concerning that they've appeared to use LLM-generated content to WP:GAME the edit count requirements for extended confirmation, allowing them to dump this LLM content into the Arab-Israeli conflict CTOP, among others.

Their edits do not have a single smoking-gun giveaway like an unremoved LLM instruction or a ChatGPT utm source. (Update: I missed it, they actually do; see below discussion). What they do have, on the other hand, is an edit history over 1000+ edits that is almost exclusively of the format produced by Claude.

Major tell, citation clustering and synthesized paragraphs with machine-written edit summaries. LLMs love to write a 2-5 sentences paragraph, in a style of "X source said Y" (because it thinks it needs attribution when a human would just be direct) describing reports about something that happened, rather than the thing itself; then cite the entire paragraph at once with an ambiguous reference at the end, and an overly descriptive edit summary. Selected examples:

• This edit to Tariffs in the second Trump administration added a five-sentence paragraph concerning a lawsuit by two small businesses. The paragraph combines the identities of the plaintiffs, the court, several legal arguments, and the litigation history of the plaintiffs' lawyers. Two fully formed citations, to The Guardian and The New York Times, are placed together only at the end of the paragraph rather than against the particular statements each supports. The edit summary was:

  Added information about the lawsuit filed by two U.S. small businesses against the July 2026 tariffs, citing The New York Times and The Guardian sources.

• Again done here: This edit to the same article.
• This May edit to Military applications of artificial intelligence included the following indirect attribution:

  Some reports stated that AI-assisted systems were used to assist in identifying and tracking senior Iranian officials during Israeli military operations in the 2026 Iran conflict.

  . This is how LLMs write an attributed statement, not how humans do. Again,

  Researchers and human rights organizations described Israeli AI-assisted targeting systems as relying on large-scale analysis of surveillance footage, drones, mobile devices, and communications metadata...

  -- a human would indicate which researchers or human rights organizations, and quote the description directly. LLMs try to broadly genericize from a specific example in exactly this manner. The edit summary was:

  Added sourced information on reported AI-assisted targeting systems and related human rights concerns regarding potential misidentification risks.

• This 19 June 2026 edit summary was:

  Added 2026 reporting on the use of Anthropic’s Claude in the Iran–US conflict, including its role in military intelligence and targeting support.

  Again, humans wouldn't be writing about "2026 reporting" in 2026. That's an indication that the LLM was told to search for reporting from a certain date. A human would have named the sources (notwithstanding this, the sources included unreliable sources like "Cryptobriefing" that would never have passed human review.)

More examples of indirect attribution rather than directly stating:

• Some reports stated that...: diff
• Researchers and human rights organizations described...: diff
• critics questioned the justification..., without identifying the critics in the prose diff
• based on Western media reports in an edit summary diff -- implying that this is *not* a Westerner writing this. A human, and a Westerner in particular, would not need to specify "Western media".
• According to official statements... and similar generalized framing in additions to Special Headquarters for the Development of Nanotechnology.

This one was so egregious, I reverted it and warned them about LLM usage. The response was as predictable as you'd expect: an LLM-generated reply that denies that they were an LLM, in overly official language that no human would actually use. Thank you for your message. The content was based on reliable published sources, and my intention was to summarise those sources in a neutral way. If the wording resembled AI-generated text or did not meet Wikipedia's standards, I appreciate the feedback and will revise my editing approach accordingly.

It appears obvious to me that this is a non-English speaker using LLM to bulk translate articles.

• Verse of the Mustad'afin was created as a 330-byte translated article in revision 1364948893. After several small edits, revision 1364951195 added 6,750 bytes in one edit. The resulting material had a complete section structure, uniformly composed prose, indirect formulations such as According to some reports, and multiple paragraphs in which references were grouped at paragraph endings.

• Special Headquarters for the Development of Nanotechnology was created by translation in revision 1336005599. Revision 1336549587 added 3,561 bytes to Key Events in the Development of Nanotechnology in Iran in one edit. Revision 1336552285 added another 1,702 bytes to Key Figures in the Development of Nanotechnology in Iran. The additions use the same tells as above: a uniform section-by-section structure, generalized attribution, and paragraph-ending citation clusters. But additionally, they also show that the user is somehow technically proficient and familiar with Arabic to be able to paste complex foreign language citations in -- but somehow not familiar enough to realize that WP:TASNIM is a deprecated source, or that most of the sources would never pass a reliable source review.

Seeking a consensus here that the user is, despite their denial, in fact using LLMs. I'm concerned this may be a hefty amount of cleanup. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Their edits do not have a single smoking-gun giveaway like an unremoved LLM instruction or a ChatGPT utm source – courtesy of Special:AbuseFilter/1346. Trump’s social media use has been credited with transforming how political figures communicate, emphasizing direct access to millions of followers and bypassing traditional editorial filters. His outspoken style and rapid posting rhythms on Truth Social have drawn attention ... , yeah that's an LLM user. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Lol well there you go, thanks! I probably should have qualified what I wrote above as being "that I found in my sampling".⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I must have looked into this user at some point, because one of the links to the filter logs was purple for me. Don't remember why I was looking into the user though. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This is an LLM user, and has been making substantial use of LLM for at least the last six months, in my view. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

See for their edits which have triggered relevant edit filters Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

They're articles created in August appear human-written, I'll draftify ones before then Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

They're all translations from Farsi Wikipedia (Special Headquarters for the Development of Nanotechnology, Fatima in the Quran and Hadiths, Verse of the Mustad'afin) so we need to scrutinise them against WP:LLMTRANSLATE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This user is also active on fawiki, so I agree with @Swatjester that this is probably a non-English speaker using LLM to bulk translate articles and I think that these are therefore most likely are unattributed machine-translations of the Persian articles.

They're still going strong, and recently added c. 16 kB to 2026 Sirik wedding airstrike in Diff/1372829080 just a few minutes after their previous edit (to a different, but related, article). There are more large and rapid edits in History/Bibliography of Ali ibn Abi Talib and History/Ja'far Murtaza Al-Ameli, both are recent and from after this thread started. Since we haven't heard from Re000searchist yet, I've gone ahead and notified them of this thread and asked them to join this discussion. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:29, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the 16 kb edit linked above:

• “When we got there, there was an explosion. It was very strong. Bricks, stones and cement hit my face and head, and many others were injured.” is misquoted to which actually says "When we arrived there, an explosion occurred. It was very intense. Bricks, stones, and cement hit me in the face and head, and many others were injured"
• "Tonight, a residential house in Kohstak, Sirik, was brutally attacked while families were celebrating a wedding." is misquoted to which says "a residential home in Kuhestak, Sirik, was brutally attacked tonight while families were celebrating a wedding."

They carried on editing past the above notice and nominated the article for DYK (I've tagged it). @Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think a mainspace block is needed, at the very least to force communication Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Were they notified of this discussion? I'm not seeing anything on their talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

oh lol, Gurku must've forgot. They were warned in July and responded with what appears to an AI-generated comment, and had an article G15'd in April. Can wait for more edits if necessary though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

oops, yep. never edited their talk page at all. thanks. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Notified. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I just realized today that this discussion is about me and I'm worried and I want to participate in the discussion. I'm not a native English speaker and sometimes I have trouble translating some words or sentences. That's why I use AI tools, but I search all the sources myself, check them myself, and prepare the content myself. My priority has always been to not enter incorrect information. Re000searchist (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in @Re000searchist. The issue here is that LLM can't be used in the way you have described. The only translation that is permitted via LLM is when it's from Wiki to another and you are fully competent in both languages. Generally LLM is banned. I don't know where this idea about formal or even correct language comes from, you merely need to be understood since copyediting specialists can sort out minor glitches. So if choosing LLM to avoid not-so-good English then that's the wrong choice. Just avoiding incorrect information is not enough.

How would you like to proceed? Do you think you can rewrite the articles just on your own? There are a lot of changes you made, though some were quite small. Did you use LLM for all of them?

Again thank you for getting in touch, it is appreciated. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain. No, I didn't use LA for all my editing.but , I really used LA in 3 articles, once when I created an article and twice when editing two articles. All 3 were deleted and I realized that LA had a lot of mistakes, both in the text and in the sources. So I didn't use LA to create another article, I only used it for translation. Since I had experience and knew that LA makes mistakes in sources, I never use it, I search for sources myself. And because I knew that if LA wants to create a text, it will add analysis itself, so I don't use LA to create content, and the content is my own work according to the sources. I have the ability to translate into English myself and I can do it myself from now on. I used LA only because the translation is very clean and tidy. And of course, I also have to say that I didn't know that using LA in translation is not allowed. So I can say that from now on I won't use it for translation either. Re000searchist (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

That's good to hear @Re000searchist. It may be a little difficult to begin with, but once you start doing articles purely under your own steam then it will get easier and certainly more rewarding. It also does something that LLM is bad at - summarising to the key points rather than elaborate flights of literary fancy, sometimes less is more. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

As for the fact that my editing volume was high in the two articles, the reason is that I searched for sources and prepared the content and put it in Word. In fact, I prepared the content and sources in Word and then placed it on the Wiki page. I spent a lot of time preparing the content, but I had already prepared everything in Word and then only placed it on the Wiki page. All this time, I thought that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I should write very formally. Re000searchist (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Orokbest1

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-30_Orokbest1, 22 pages need review.

Orokbest1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same old story: rapidfire AI edits, warned for AI, ignored it, continued rapidfire AI edits. Also, another case from this editathon. Very cool how people are getting paid to contribute AI slop here Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a good idea or not but I'm going to try to contact the organizers on Metawiki. Since we now have 2 unambiguous examples of AI use from this editathon... ^purring_maggot (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Made a post for whatever it accomplishes... ^purring_maggot (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reaching out to us. Although participants received training on how to edit Wikipedia effectively, we observed that some challenges still remain. We have also reached out to the individuals concerned and issued warnings to them individually regarding the issues identified. As a result, we have decided to conclude the edit-a-thon and organise additional training for the community, with a particular focus on Wikipedia's policies regarding the use of AI. We believe that continuous training and guidance will better equip participants to navigate Wikipedia editing and contribute in line with community standards. Pinging @Purring maggot and @Gnomingstuff. Idoghor Melody (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the quick response. ^purring_maggot (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

College of Nursing Sciences, University of Abuja Teaching Hospital and College of Nursing Sciences, Amachara (both 3 Jan 2026) have obvious AI signs, I expect their Nov 2025 creations used AI too but they're messy so it's hard to tell Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The early edits are hashtagged #Wiki4health, probably another editathon. Trying to establish a reliable start date. M kuhner (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1324757095 (29 Nov 2025) seems to be the first (and Pangram gives 100%), though they seem to have been using a chatbot to research before that, Special:Diff/1323034275 (19 Nov 2025) appears to fit that. Prior edits have lots of spelling and punctuation errors and are pretty much all minor. I'd start at 19 Nov 2025 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

vandalism never really changes, does it?

I mean, it does, but not much.

though paid is a wild accusation, it is AI slop, and should be cleaned nonetheless.

strange activity for an "editathon" whatever that might be. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:06, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not a wild accusation: lays out the structure of the editathon, including cash prizes.

It is not the usual kind of bias-inducing WP:PAID activity but we have had at least two cases that trace back to editathon-incentivized LLM use. M kuhner (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

editathons are for money? | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

This one was--see the link I provided.

I think at the very least, editathons should copy what was done for the recent AfC backlog drive. Points were given for checking other editors' work, and work found to be bad did not count toward scoring. (To my embarrassment, I got dinged for letting an LLM article through.) Just rewarding volume without quality checks is bound to lead to trouble. Adding money makes it worse. M kuhner (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Tracker made, omitting +/- 35 or less. M kuhner (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Thiagovscoelho

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-06_Thiagovscoelho, 264 pages need review.

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

The editor admits to regular use of AI-generated text to make major changes to many articles over years, see the explanation at User_talk:Thiagovscoelho#Query. Some of those wide-sweeping changes were made in rapid succession, mislabeling lengthy expansions or full rewrites of articles as copyedits in the edit summaries.

Regarding cleanup so far, I went through their most recent 500 edits, going back to 4 November 2025 and focusing on big changes. For articles where there were no major changes after their edits, I reverted back to the version before the edits. For articles with major changes afterwards and for articles that they created, I added the maintenance tag "AI-generated". I didn't do anything to their translations from PT wiki.

My experience with AI cleanup is limited, so it might be good if someone with more experience could take a look and assess what the best response is. I presume that there is more to do in dealing with their edits to articles before 4 November 2025. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

55 creations, the first was JBS plea bargain in Operation Car Wash (May 2023) which has loads of AI signs including WP:AIREDCAT, red-linked See alsos, a maintenance tag, and has markdown for the refs (I think?). The most recent is Fundação Cacique Cobra Coral (August 2026) which similarly has a red-linked category and See also, Coverage of the foundation has varied between ... is WP:AIATTR, among other typical chatbot output, these are clearly AI-generated. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

These were translations. (That is, the two articles you named, not all creations.) They are identified as such in the edit summary or talk page. The redcats were categories from the original Portuguese which I neglected to remove; similarly with redlinks in translations. (Sometimes I left a redlink in intentionally, because I intended to create the missing page/redirect and make the link blue, but I did not always get around to this.) Thiagovscoelho (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

LLM translations need to follow WP:LLMTRANSLATE. Fundação Cacique Cobra Coral is clearly not a translation since it has lots of sections the Portuguese article doesn't have. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I speak Portuguese natively and I speak English at level C2, and the articles have no fabricated sources or unsupported assertions. There's nothing in the guideline about keeping the number of sections unchanged in a translation. Regardless what you think about the FCCC article, the redcats in the JBS plea bargain article were clearly from the Portuguese like I said, so that's the explanation. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

the additional sections in Fundação Cacique Cobra Coral are clearly AI-generated, but I've just put it through Pangram to make sure. Also, The foundation's claims of direct supernatural control over atmospheric phenomena have not been demonstrated by the coincidence of favourable weather with its interventions; mainstream meteorology explains weather through measurable atmospheric processes and does not recognize mediumistic intervention as a mechanism of weather modification. is still completely uncited. I haven't even started checking whether content is supported by the sources yet Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did we really need a citation for that? I thought not having something like this would risk making the article WP:FRINGE, what with all the alleged meteorological changes from mystical intervention. If the article were translated literally without this addition and similar changes, it would be way too fringe. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the key question is whether the translations also include newly AI-generated text in addition to translations. In that case, we would have to treat the translations like other AI-generated additions/changes. For example, the edit summary of the translation of Fundação Cacique Cobra Coral says "Translated from pt:Fundação Cacique Cobra Coral". However, the section structure of the translated article is very different from the original. The translated article also includes new information, like the part about Ronald Reagan, who is not mentioned in the original. If there have been no big changes from other editors after the translation, should the translated articles be draftified or kept but with the maintenance tag "Ai-generated"? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

also see Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The editor has admitted that they have been using AI tools but was unable to say when they started this practice. If their first creation in 2023 already shows AI signs, then we probably have to assume that all their article creations and all major changes to existing articles incorporate AI-generated text. This could mean a lot of cleanup work, given that they have over 5000 edits and many are major changes to existing articles. Most of those edits are from the period where LLMs were publicly avialable. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup

I was hoping to get some feedback on whether the cleanup process I sketched above (either revert if there were no major changes after AI generated text was added or add the maintenance tag "AI generated" if there were major changes afterwards) is sound.

Also, are there any volunteers to take care of the cleanup? It concerns many edits, so it might make sense for several editors to work together. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

There are, but it's only like 5 people and there're 114 threads here and 140 open cases in Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases (most of whose reports were archived). You can make a tracking page with User:DVRTed/AINB-helper if you have a rough start date for when they began using LLMs, but LLMTRANSLATE is a pain for cleanup. For the edits with large ones after them you can use WP:WWT and copy-paste any text they replaced from the revision before. Just remember to link this thread in the edit sum Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'll wait to see if there are some volunteers. Otherwise, the cleanup might not happen. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Can we try to get a start date here? I'll make a tracker, but I don't want 5K edits on it if that isn't necessary. M kuhner (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi M kuhner and thanks for helping! Unfortunately, we don't have a clear date. I asked the user this question at User_talk:Thiagovscoelho#Query: their answer was vague but suggested that they have always worked this way. If you want a more specific date, you could use May 2023, since the article they created then shows clear AI signs, as explained above by Kowal2701. Instead of (or in addition to) going through Thiagovscoelho's edit history, you could also look at their user page, where they list their most important contributions by period. Focusing on the articles listed there might be faster, but I haven't checked how accurate or comprehensive this list is. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I tried to fix their changes to existing articles (i.e. excluding article creations) from August 2026 going back to 4 November 2025. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

They had several large rapid edits to Man, Economy, and State revdelled (idk why, probably copyvio?) in Feb 2023, edits had poor sourcing as well. They had a break from Nov 2022 to Feb 2023, when they start doing giant edits like Special:Diff/1140976055. I think this includes everything unfortunately Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracker; only edits greater than +/-65, to try to get it down to a feasible level. M kuhner (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

User:474D6F756C617264

 474D6F756C617264 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. Needs to be steered away from pasting LLM output and towards constructive contributions.

Has created LLM-generated articles, some of which may be unattributed machine translations. Some of the smoking guns are AbuseLog/44862535 and AbuseLog/44862596.

Seems to be someone that wants to contribute constructively, they just need to do it themselves instead of pasting LLM output into the project. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I have taken note of the issue; I have created the necessary pages in my drafts and will rework their format. I will go through the "submission for review" process before publishing anything new.

My apologies for the wasted effort. 474D6F756C617264 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what the best solution to this problem is, but this revert by @Zackmann08: at Tetraclass Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) changes the subject of the article from Tetraclass Model to a duplicate of Melk concentration camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also created by 474D6F756C617264). The obvious solution would be to make Tetraclass Model about Tetraclass Model again, but I'm wary of restoring anything questionable. So draftify? FDW777 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem with draftification is that the article is over 90 days old at this point. But this might be different if it's done in cooperation with the user that created it?

I have two questions though. Why did the page history contain an article on a different subject, and was any of those article AI-generated? I'm encouraging a good faith answer and reply from @474D6F756C617264 here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I apologize for complicating your work. Some time ago, I published an article about the Melk concentration camp based on my draft.

Later, using that same draft, I created the article on the tétraclasse model. @Zackmann08 restored information regarding the Melk camp, where my grandfather was deported. I am not quite sure of the proper procedure, and I certainly do not want to commit any act of vandalism. I received a comment on my talk page about this from @Quadrupletime. What should be done? Should the "tétraclasse" page be deleted? I could recreate it in the future to include the information on the "tétraclasse" model. As it stands, the situation cannot continue; the page title bears no relation to its content. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience caused by this review, and thank you in advance for your understanding.

474D6F756C617264 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn it's been in mainspace for less than two days, you have misread the history. FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777, fair point and an entirely correct diagnosis. I've indeed misread the page history. Draftification seems both appropriate and correct then! It can always be moved back after it has rewritten with without using AI and this has been fixed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@User:Gurkubondinn I would suggest you edit the above comment. There's an unintended second meaning which implies that you want 47D6 to fix their article with AI, and then move it back to mainspace. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 22:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Yikes, thats an unfortunate typo! Thanks for pointing that out, Somepinkdude, I have fixed and clarified it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

For my part, I mentally corrected it while reading. I have to say, it made him smile. 474D6F756C617264 (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The 90 day limit doesn't apply in all cases. Countless articles are created every day, more than new page reviewers can keep up with. If anything meeting speedy-deletion criteria (unambiguous promotion, attack pages, hoaxes, patent nonsense, AI hallucinations, AI communication to the user, AI markdown indicators, etc.) manages to survive more than 90 days, it's fair game to delete when discovered, regardless of age. Draftification is a milder alternative, and something I do instead of speedy-delete if it looks like the topic could be notable but not currently up to mainspace standards. That's why so much AI slop gets draftified rather than outright deleted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

noting User talk:474D6F756C617264#Your submission at Articles for creation: Tetraclass Model (August 23) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft still looks like LLM. The editor did a rewrite of one section and resubmitted, but the LLM text remains. I will give a warning. M kuhner (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

User:CountO-14

 CountO-14 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (16 September 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-18_CountO-14, 27 pages need review.

CountO-14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creations Many creations and expansions to Brazil election articles. First article creation is 4 November 2022, so there's a good base from which to see the differences in writing style: . At some point they suddenly became a big fan of using emdashes with spaces before and after (Claude does this) but this is probably not the first AI sign in their history. Early article creations were relatively short articles containing simple but competent prose with minor errors in the first draft; over time the creations and expansions have ballooned up with analysis and overattribution.

gurkubondinn earlier found this diff Special:Diff/1339729893 which has a markdown codeblock. This draft was declined for LLM by a reviewer for LLM-generated text but the editor blanked and replaced Presidential campaigns of Keiko Fujimori with the same text. The edit that personally caught my eye as AI is to 2026 Bahia general election, diff: . The Background section is a totally inappropriate amount of historical context for 1 year's elections, and it cites several book sources without page numbers. On the rare occasion they use an edit summary, it's AI-written.

User is active and I think sometime in 2025 is the start of their AI creations/expansions but need assistance narrowing it down. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

They were warned in Nov 2025 and have had a draft declined for LLM use as recently as July, I'll leave a final warning (using uw-ai3, I don't uw-ai4 is any good) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

This editor has returned to editing within the past few days, I haven't determined whether LLM is currently being used but didn't want this thread to get archived with so much clear evidence of past LLM usage and no acknowledgment from the editor on the previous warnings. ^purring_maggot (talk) ^purring_maggot (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The Sept 15 edit to Joaquin Balaguer misrepresents its Guardian source (I can't access the other one) and is in my opinion LLM. It is also mostly unsourced, something they have had multiple complaints about in the past.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Requesting a block from mainspace to stop LLM edits/creations and to try to get some communication. They have been getting warnings and declines due to LLM since 2025 and have never responded, nor have they responded here. M kuhner (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space by Anachronist for LLM misuse. — Newslinger talk 10:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Cícero Lucena, created Jan 4 2025, was tagged as LLM sometime later and I think correctly so. I haven't found anything clearcut before that, I'm far from certain, but I'm making a tracker from Jan 1 2025. Older edits will be hard to remedy anyway. M kuhner (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I am treating Albanoprates as the same editor for LLMPROD purposes; can't prove they are, but they are also blocked for LLM, and they co-occur constantly. M kuhner (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

AjayDas

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-06_AjayDas, 22 pages need review.

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

AjayDas (talk · contribs), XTools

They've received lots of warnings for LLM use (particularly ) to no response as far as I can see, and have had several pages deleted for LLM use. They took a break re creations from July 2024 to Jan 2025, when they made Assam State School Education Board (prior creations have typos, bad prose etc.), which means there's ~50 LLMPRODs. Consensus is needed because they last edited 8 August Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

recently editing so gave a final warning (only previous warning was in April) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Support consensus for LLMPROD. M kuhner (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Made tracker from Jan 1 2025, +/-35 only. M kuhner (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Took several to AfD as they had been PROD (not LLMPROD) and editor challenged them. In no case did the new information added seem to settle the notability issues for which they were PROD. M kuhner (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Matthewmurdock

 Matthewmurdock (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (16 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-06_Matthewmurdock, 38 pages need review.

Matthewmurdock (talk · contribs), XTools

They were blocked for sockpuppetry but later unblocked after 6 months , and have received loads of warnings (amazingly none explicitly for LLM use, but lots related to it). Their first creation was (March 2025, three others created that month) (look at the "Cultural Significance" section), and the only other one was (Jan 2026) which was tagged for AI in May . Consensus needed for LLMPRODs because they're recently editing. I'll give them a final warning since they're on minimal WP:ROPE. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:40, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Support immediate cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Made tracker from March 1 2025, +/-35 only. M kuhner (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

User:DJ71park

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-16_DJ71park, 114 pages need review.

DJ71park (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe DJ71park has been using AI quite a bit. Beyond the accusations on their talk page, including discussions of AI art usage, their writing style feels quite consistent with LLMs, and the way they source a lot of their long stretches of writing exclusively with articles from newspaper.com in some places feels particularly odd with how the information within the newspaper articles has been expanded upon for the information in the articles. I noticed these oddities while going through the page for L.W. de Laurence, where I believe it is somewhat clear that AI was used. I am making this submission because I am somewhat new to Wikipedia editing, so I am not fully confident in my ability to label this as AI myself, and I am not entirely sure from the Wikipedia resources I have read how exactly to make the necessary changes if others concur that problematic AI use is in play here.

TThorn1 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the report! (May 2025) had utm_source=chatgpt Operation Fitzwilliam (Feb 2025) has loads of WP:AISIGNS. I have no idea what was going on with their latest creation Henry Clay Hodges (industrialist) (June 2026). Have given them a final warning (cleanup will still be needed) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for checking! I'm probably going to try to clean up the L. W. de Laurence page. I couldn't find a guide to cleaning up AI text, so if you have one please let me know. I don't know if common practice is to simply rewrite things, destroy everything and start anew, or what else, so I'd appreciate some pointers if that's not inconvenient. I do think I'll for sure have to do some significant reformatting as the problematic sections read to me more like video essays paraphrasing and exaggerating a Wikipedia page rather than a Wikipedia page. TThorn1 (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

There's WP:AICGUIDE, but yeah, basically remove/rewrite or try to keep the basic facts, attempting to preserve LLM-generated is usually very time-consuming. This link is all their significant edits to that page, let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything (and also if there's anything in the guide that's unclear), thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I recommend picking out the three or four best sources, reading them carefully (you cannot trust a word of what LLMs have said about them), and cutting the article down to basics. You want the three solid sources so that it doesn't end up being deleted, but the bulk of the LLM text is best removed. I have fixed these, and I'm currently walking someone through fixing their own, and it's kind of awful--the issues are subtle and pervasive and honestly it's easier to write new text.

If you look at the Syzygy Rebel case on this noticeboard, you'll see what happens when someone is sure they can just tweak things and solve the problem. For some of their articles we've gone three rounds of me calling out source/text mismatches and them rewriting again. I am positive it would have been easier to reduce to a stub and rebuild, but I couldn't convince them of that. M kuhner (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. I reckon I'll start by wiping most of everything from the LLM and research to confirm the essentials (times of birth/death, that kind of stuff) and then redo (or reinstate old) notable information on his plagarism and overall career path, and finish by writing a section or two about a few major incidents I think are still necessary to retain in the article due to their significance to his legacy.

Upon reviewing the article again, I realized without the AI fluff, most of the huge article can be brought down to a few paragraphs probably. There's a lot of detail and superfluous descriptions that work fine enough for a story, but are pretty unrelated to the subject of the article itself, and would make much more sense in an article about the cults he founded or about the police raids on them rather than on his page itself.

I may also go back eventually to use those old newspaper sources and create a new main article on those events, or just write an article somewhere else, because there is some really interesting information taken from the newspapers that is nigh impossible to find any information or a primary source for on the internet without specifically going through old newspaper records. Failing to find any source discussing the Order of the White Willow initially is what drew my attention to the fact that the text may be dubious in the first place (the information is technically correct in the LLM article, it's just not placed next to the proper source currently since DJ71park's later edits shifted the sources over to the incorrect place).

Your advice is going to be immensely helpful, thank you! TThorn1 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It's we who should thank you! We deal with dozens to hundreds of articles a day, and seldom have the resources to do anything more elegant than ripping out the bad text or deleting wholesale. It's really nice to have someone who can give an individual article the care it deserves. M kuhner (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia and played a pivotal role in AbuseLog/40059058, early 2025. Probably ChatGPT, and utm_source=chatgpt.com shows up in some edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

They started editing Jan 2025 and your first log above Feb 2025. I'm just making a tracker for the whole period. They have not edited in mainspace since early August but are building something in user space; at first glance it didn't look bad. M kuhner (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

June creations need some analysis to justify LLMPRODs, they're too unorthodox for me to do rn Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar

Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been creating many articles that imo are almost certainly AI-generated. Was previously warned about it last year but sort of brushed it off. Since then, they've been creating numerous articles fairly rapidly. Concerned and wanted people to look into this.

Tbh I'm a bit busy lately; I want to raise this issue but possibly cannot commit to seeing it through myself. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Cites grokipedia in AbuseLog/44333942, cites Wikipedia in AbuseLog/44333933, and AbuseLog/44357831 sure looks like it was generated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

These edits definitely need cleanup; K-Silk Road Initiative was created with an WP:AIREDCAT. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Looked back and they've already been warned August 2025 by another editor and June this year by myself. Are we at a final warning or mainspace block point? Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Since they haven't stopped (or even acknowledged that they understand that it is a problem), I would say that a pblock is in the best interests of the project. It might also be a good idea to include draft space in the block (since they managed to get a draft through AfC)? I have notified them of this thread, let's see if we hear from them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these concerns. I acknowledge that I have used AI tools as an assistance tool for language, organization, and research support, but I do not intentionally create articles without research. As a geopolitical writer, I research the subjects and use sources to support my citations. I understand that I remain responsible for checking all AI-assisted material, and I will review my recent articles carefully, correct any problems, and follow Wikipedia's policies more closely. Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by checking all AI-assisted material? Can you explain in your own words what WP:NOLLM means for using AI-generated text in your edits? And, if you don't mind me asking, did you use an AI to assist you with this reply to me? ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, Sir. By “Checking all AI-assisted material,” I would like to clear here that I must responsible for verifying any information, claims, citations and writings before including that as a writer to Wikipedia and of course, I should not use an LLM to produce or rewrite Wikipedia article. I will follow this more carefully in future. And yes, I used AI help to formulate my previous reply and I apologize for that. I hereby ensure you that in the future; I will not publish any article directly on Wikipedia without first submitting it for review. Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

they created (31 August) with with a red cat, highlighted, and some AITREND at the end, but the prose seems human at times and Pangram gives 100% human-written Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

My guess is AI written and human prose revision. @Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar is that right? grapesurgeon (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Easiest way to determine that would be by spotchecks for WP:V failures Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:07, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sir. The truth is that, I did use AI support to improve the language and structure of the article, mainly for some technical work. I truly research the subject myelf to collect information from reliable sources and check the sources and citations before adding information to an article. Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar, please be aware that WP:NOLLM is stricter than that and doesn't allow use of AI to "improve language", it's only allowed to be used to make corrections to one's own writing. This is because it frequently 'rewrites' people's writing and sneaks in hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we get a start date for cleanup? M kuhner (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. I am truly willing to start the cleanup, but I am not clear which articles or edits are considered problematic. Could you please identify the articles that require edit? Once they are identified, I will review them carefully and work on the necessary cleanup. Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is better positioned than you to know when you started using AI and which pages and edits are AI-generated, because you submitted them. All AI-generate edits and pages are problematic and will need to be either reverted or deleted. We're asking you which articles you have used AI to edit and when you started making AI-generated edits, because otherwise we will have to revert all of your edits and delete any article that you have created. The English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material, and this is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:56, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You can find your creations at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Mohammed%20Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar/0 Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. Now I understand your message. Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You know better than everyone else what articles involved AI. Please be thorough about the cleanup. If we find that the cleanup is insufficient we may just delete some of your articles entirely grapesurgeon (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Fuzheado (2)

Fuzheado (talk · contribs), XTools

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-18 Fuzheado, 51 pages need review.

As a follow on from the June AINB thread, I've done some digging and I think I've got a clearer picture of what's happened here. The LLM use appears to have started as a good-faith experiment (WP:NOTLAB seems like an oversight), but it seems to have become habitual, and it appears that practically all large edits post-December 2022 were LLM-generated. I'll give chronological evidence below (this thread is only for cleanup btw, sanctions aren't necessary imo, the evasiveness seems to have come from not being enamoured about having 3.5 years of contribs removed). This is in addition to the 13 articles from the previous thread (spanning May 2026 to Dec 2023)

• The North Shore Leader (created 30 Dec 2022) - see User:Fuzheado/ChatGPT (also see )
• Special:Diff/1135088586 (Jan 2023) - edit to 2023 Monterey Park shooting, the editorial notes don't appear at TM:OSM Location map, and one line is | mark1 = Red pog.svg <!-- Red pog is the default so not really needed -->
• Special:Permalink/1147503800 (March 2023) - creation of Nita Mukesh Ambani Cultural Centre, had a red-linked template, WP:AILIST (unsourced), and Official website without a link
• Special:Diff/1153358310 (May 2023) - overwrote redirect Model minority myth, disclosed in edit sum
• Special:PageHistory/William Y. Chang (May 2023) - reported to WP:CP and revdelled
• Special:Permalink/1204722951 (Feb 2024) - creation of Glambot, WP:AIPUFFERY (The GLAMbot is primarily used at events to capture slow-motion footage of celebrities, emphasizing their outfits, makeup, and overall look. These videos are often shared on social media, highlighting the glamour of Hollywood's events. Walliser's creative direction has resulted in widely-shared GLAMbot moments featuring celebrities like Lady Gaga, whom he cites as one of his favorite subjects due to her fashion choices and dynamic presence.), WP:AIVOCAB (highlighting, emphasizing)
• Special:Permalink/1203447451 (Feb 2024) - creation of Ana Luz Porzecanski, disclosed in edit sum
• Special:Permalink/1242732106 (August 2024) - creation of Anticipatory obedience, disclosed in edit sum
• Special:AbuseLog/40869980 (May 2025) - creation of Niallia tiangongensis triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325, WP:SUPERFICIAL (The discovery of N. tiangongensis underscores the importance of monitoring microbial communities in space habitats.)
• Special:Diff/1332690439 (Jan 2026) - edit to Walk for Peace USA (which they created) that cites Instagram
• Special:Diff/1337351454 (Feb 2026) - rewrite of All-American Halftime Show which removed all the sources, there's WP:AICURLY, WP:AIATTR (According to press reports, it is scheduled to stream on various online platforms and broadcast partners...), WP:AIPEACOCK (featuring)
• Special:Diff/1341686145 (March 2026) - rewrite of Port Townsend Film Festival w LLM use disclosed in edit sum
• Special:Diff/1351462465 (April 2026) - rewrite of Poh Si Teng which doesn't have blatant signs but is very plausible

This is far from exhaustive, there are lots more creations that were disclosed in the edit sum, and while some edits to existing articles appear human-written, I'm not confident this is limited to creations (outside of what's listed above). For the tracking page we'll probably want to exclude vandalism patrolling. There was also User:Fuzheado/ChatGPT/Simple (an experiment about SEWP), and User:Fuzheado/ChatGPT Dublin rewrite (an experiment in userspace instead of mainspace, it can be done!) I'll drop them a message Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Fuuuuck. (Not directed at anyone, just a general dismay at the situation.)

Support immediate cleanup. What do you think the best way to exclude vandalism patrolling is? Here's where we could really use "exclude small edits" in the tracker--though I understand the argument made against it, it would sure save a lot of time. M kuhner (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I've been thinking of asking DVRTed for the option to add an end date in, but the vandalism patrolling is basically lots of edits in a row. Maybe if we had an end date option, we could do it in batches while excluding the days spent patrolling (a bit like how you do for socks) (also, Support LLMPRV if that wasn't clear already) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, the quickest way to remove runs is to edit the tracker after the fact. (I've done it a few times when the tracker was made for longer than the duration of LLM use; it doesn't seem to do any harm. I love that the tracker is robust to hand-editing.) I'm going to make a full tracker so we can see what the scope of the problem is, and then look at runs. If we decide there's a better way we can always speedy this one. M kuhner (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

No, no I'm not; it's well over the upper limit of feasibility. I will ask DVRTed for an end date option. M kuhner (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It is possible to filter "semi-automated edits" on XTools, though that doesn't directly help with constructing tracking pages. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If anyone can provide a list of not-yet-deleted/draftified/BLARed articles' most recent revid, I can conduct some mass automated checks as a minimum baseline. Fermiboson (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I cannot provide a list, but I would be interested to hear what the automated checks say about Poh Si Teng. M kuhner (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I have successfully created a tracker by omitting all edits which were less than +/- 35 bytes. While there is some risk that this misses significant edits, it gets us down to around 1000 pages, which might possibly be feasible. Many thanks to DVRTed for adding this filter to the tracker, as well as end dates (not used here but going to be very useful in other cases). M kuhner (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Fuzheado has published a list of articles created with LLM: . I suggest that this could be used as a basis for LLMPRODs. M kuhner (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

There's also another list on User:Fuzheado/LLM experiences/chart. But some pages are missing from the lists (for example User:Fuzheado/Aid Refugee Chinese Intellectuals and User:Fuzheado/Sell America), maybe because they have been moved to userspace. Some other pages that have been moved to userspace (f.ex. User:Fuzheado/He Tingbo and User:Fuzheado/Nancy Armour) are listed, so the list is probably just not yet finished (and Fuzheado seems to be actively working on it) so these lists are not an exhaustive summary for cleanup yet. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I consider the request satisfied with the detailed list of articles since 2022, ...
— User:Fuzheado in Diff/1370043105

Sounds the list may be finished, but I'm not sure, so lets just AGF and ask. User:Fuzheado, some articles seem to be missing, how come? I'm not alleging any bad faith here, an oversight seems like a logical explanation. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, yes those were oversights and was not intentional. Once articles move to User space or are double-moved, they are missed by a number of our utilities and tools. I've been updating the list with any missing items as we discover them. Do let me know if there are more to add. Thanks! - Fuzheado | Talk 02:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Fuzheado, I spot-checked some of the edits marked as "unnecessary," as I do for any editor who attempts to clean up their own edits.

In Rooftop Koreans edit this text In recent years, it has also been the subject of social media memes, contributing to tensions with African American communities especially in the 2014 Ferguson unrest is cited to <ref>{{Cite web |last=Ishak |first=Natasha |date=2020-11-06 |title=When The Police Abandoned Them, These Korean Business Owners Took Up Arms During The LA Riots |url=https://allthatsinteresting.com/roof-koreans |access-date=2023-05-11 |website=All That's Interesting |language=en-US}}</ref>. This source does not mention Ferguson.

In List of -gate scandals and controversies an author named Wuthmann has been merged with the word "Share" nearby to create a false author name WuthmannShare.

I checked a total of two articles and found one error in each. I provide this information as it may help you evaluate your process. M kuhner (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, this is the right source for the claims related to memes and Ferguson, so I've added that. As for "WuthmannShare" - I've had that problem before where when Citoid fails, manually copy/pasting the byline may inadvertently grab the "Share" button text from the web site. Doh. I've now fixed that. Cheers. - Fuzheado | Talk 05:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, just FYI, regarding In List of -gate scandals and controversies an author named Wuthmann has been merged with the word "Share" nearby to create a false author name WuthmannShare., this is a common issue with automated citation tools (e.g. VisualEditor's native citation generator and reFill) and is not specific to AI. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't speak to careful hand review but it is a minor error. I am not judging severity here, just reporting issues. M kuhner (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I have undertaken to spot-check the tracker notations with the following self-imposed rules: only pages created or with a 200+ byte addition by Fuzheado; only articles (not redirects, dabs, etc.); starting with most recent articles and looking at each one, except skipping the two already done above. I will post reports one by one as I complete them, except that I will probably batch articles with no identified issues.

Merlin the Duck is billed (sorry) as a translation of the Spanish article. Initial version is a translation of the first section (not the whole article) with no sources; sources were layered in later. I evaluated the version after layering, and will stick to this going forward.

Source 2 (ABC News) is 404. The Spanish article correctly points at AP, not ABC, with a working link. I have been unable to find an ABC article corresponding to this AP article; there is one of similar title but not bylined and with almost no text. I suspect that the ABC source is a hallucination made by combining the AP and ABC cites, but it is possible the ABC existed on June 29 2026 but does not exist today (August 21 2026). It is puzzling why the working citation in the Spanish article was not transferred to the English article.

Questions for Fuzheado: (1) Was this translation LLM? (2) Do you speak enough Spanish to evaluate its accuracy? (3) How was this citation generated? M kuhner (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Checked Finding Nemo and TwinsthenewTrend: edits were valid (the Finding Nemo ones were exemplary).

Checked Chonkers. First issue: there is a cite of (2), then a para break and the following However [...] he arrived with a juvenile Steller sea lion though the younger one left after a few days. At the end of that paragraph is a cite of (3). The "However" sentence is a very close paraphrase of (2); the information is not in (3). Second issue: there was pre-existing text that wrongly said "Some harbormasters" but was sourced to an article mentioning only one harbormaster. Fuzheado added a second source which mentions only the same harbormaster, leaving "some" still unjustified (and from what I can tell, false; that pier has only one harbormaster). M kuhner (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Checked Poh Si Teng but gave up before reaching the end. Previous version was almost entirely overwritten by this version, which has very serious source/text issues throughout, most of which remain in the current article.

The lead talks about St. Louis Superman, International Documentary Association, Al Jazeera English, and the New York times. The only citation is (1) which mentions none of these. You could argue leads do not need cites but then why is there a cite?

Source (2) author is "last1=POV Magazine."

Article She attended school in Perai and Butterworth where source is She moved to Perai and attended school in Butterworth.

Source (5) is stated to be "Double Exposure Film Festival." While the URL is dxfest.com, the banner on every page says the site is "100REPORTERS." The title in the citation is not the title on the web page. Source has she was the documentary commissioner overseeing the US, Canada and Latin American for Al Jazeera English’s flagship documentary strand, Witness. and article has Teng served as a documentary commissioner for Al Jazeera English, overseeing the Americas for the flagship documentary strand Witness which is very close paraphrase including the weird word choice "strand."

The article text While at Al Jazeera, she produced the documentary short St. Louis Superman, which follows the life of activist and battle rapper Bruce Franks Jr. The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Short Film at the 92nd Academy Awards and won a Critics' Choice Documentary Awards in 2020. is sourced to (5) and (2). (I omit some wikilinks which are breaking my quote.) None of it is in (5) at all. (2) confirms the nomination for St. Louis Superman but none of the other details. So most of this is simply unsourced.

I stopped here due to fatigue. M kuhner (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Another thing that slightly worries me are marking cleanup as completed with notes like statements checked and sourced in Diff/1370461980, because that seems to imply that Fuzheado has left AI-generated text in an article under the (false) assumption that AI-generated text is okay if they are not hallucinations and sources pass verification. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought about this, and my knee-jerk reaction was "How important is that?" But then I thought about my reaction to Poh Si Teng, how lifeless the prose was compared to its sources, how tedious the facts compiled--she deserves better for sure--and I agree with you. M kuhner (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Same, the only reason that I even brought this up was your analysis of the Poh Si Teng article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Definitely a lot of AI text remaining. The very first article I spot checked, Ursula Liang, took me about 20 seconds to go "that's probably from early 2024" based on the nature of the AI text, then I check the edit history and sure enough, the edits were made in early 2024. I feel like it is a low bar to expect AI-generated text to be rewritten to a degree that you cannot tell in 20 seconds when it was generated.

The weird thing is that it doesn't all seem to be AI-generated -- there's a typo in version 1 and various places where the syntax seems to have been massaged a bit -- but we know they were using AI for at least some things at that point because of the Nancy Armour transcript (3 months before the Ursula article). Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Invoke WP:LLMPRV for all articles on this list?

Before I go on, most folks know I'm not a regular at this board, so if this is not correct procedure just close this and give me a trout. Based on this discussion, the current audits being performed by Fuzheado are inadequate, with only a 33% success rate being achieved (based on 4 of 6 articles checked by @M kuhner having issues). Each article requires an hour or so to check and there are 1000 of them. This is a major time sink. Criteria C is already fulfilled as Fuzheado has admitted to using LLM. Criteria D asks for a consensus to be formed, so this would seem to be the correct way to gather one. Is it really worth the trouble of checking 1000 articles to save a few acceptable edits elsewhere? Probably not.

(Any articles not on that list will inevitably be found as we can see Fuzheado's edit history and they haven't used sockpuppets. Those can be audited as and when they crop up. Nuke everything else in my opinion.) 11WB 💬 01:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

At this point I'd support LLMPROD (under D, community consensus) for all articles created during the LLM era.

The edits will be the hard part. Articles which are substantially written by someone else can't be LLMPRODed. Recent edits or edits to little-known articles are easy enough; but a two year old LLM edit to a conspicuous article can generally not be undone, nor can the article be reverted to before that edit without a lot of collateral damage. (For one thing, reverting two years will likely lead to a corrupted infobox due to changes in allowed template parameters. Everyone on AINB knows what happens if you do that. And also, good-faith subsequent editors deserve better.)

It will still be a lot easier to apply LLMPRV to those edits than to check each one by hand. Not easy, but we have occasionally completed 1000-article cases as long as we don't have to hand-justify each deletion.

If Fuzheado would limit himself to marking as "unnecessary" edits which 100% certainly are unnecessary, that would be really helpful. As it is, I can't trust those markings. I should probably make another tracker, maybe only +/- 100 byte and above edits, and using the brand-new functionality to exclude redirects and reversions. M kuhner (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is an auxillary tracker:

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-27 Fuzheado, 340 pages need review.

I took only edits more than +/- 100 bytes, and excluded redirects, Huggle, Twinkle, and rollback edits (on the assumption those are anti-vandalism). This leaves a pretty manageable list, actually. (Many thanks to DVRTed for the new tracker code that allows these exclusions!) If the community decides to apply LLMPRV by consensus I suggest we start with this tracker. Fuzheado, I respectfully request that you do not change the status of any article in this tracker (you may add to the Notes section if you wish). M kuhner (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Should I replace the section header link to that? 11WB 💬 03:13, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't. I'll put a note on the original tracker explaining the origin of the markings, and on this one explaining how it differs. M kuhner (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I meant this header: "Proposal: Invoke WP:LLMPRV for all articles on this list?" 11WB 💬 03:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding! Yes, that would be fine. A bit easier to locate there. M kuhner (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. 11WB 💬 03:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I do want to note here that far more than 1/3 of Fuzheado's annotations are accurate. It's just the 200+ byte, non-redirect, non-revert etc. ones that have shown issues more often than not. I have not checked the other kinds; I expect they're fine. M kuhner (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Getting those pages (dab pages, redirects, etc) out of the list was my intention when I started going through the list and marking pages as unnecessary. Shortly afterwards, I noticed that Fuzheado had starting marking pages as well, and left § Brief explainers on the talk page for Fuzheado. Didn't realise right away that pages with LLM-generated edits had been marked as unnecessary as well. I don't think that this was done in any sort of bad faith, I think it is more emblematic of not fully understanding the reasons for NOLLM and how the community feels about LLM-generated articles and text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Support using LLMPRV via consensus via the (D) requirement. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I've LLMPRODed/tagged ones that were disclosed in the edit sum, it's probably easiest to do it as we go through the tracking page. Also, Support LLMPRV for edits that are plausibly AI at a glance Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Has Fuzheado actually acknowledged that all of the edits listed at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-08-27 Fuzheado were AI-assisted? If so, then I would support using WP:LLMPRV to do a mass-revert in lieu of checking each and every edit and trying to fix them. However, if not all of those edits were actually AI-assisted, then maybe we could cut down the list? (This is my first time participating at this noticeboard, so happy to defer to all of your more experienced judgment here...) Mz7 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

A large proportion are either not LLM, or could never be discovered as such: vandalism reversions, redirects, infobox formating, etc. Normally we go through a tracker and mark these off as unnecessary.

The usual procedure for invoking LLMPRV is to delete every article that doesn't have substantial input from other editors, as well as articles which while not technically creations were overwhelmingly by the editor in question (such as when LLM text has overwritten the prior article). Then for everything else we evaluate whether action is necessary, and if so, what we can do: which can be undoing or hand-reverting, restoring to a previous version, cutting down problem text by hand, stubbifying, tagging as AI-generated (if nothing better can be done), or AfD.

The LLMPRODs are the easy part, and that usually gets done. Whether the smaller edits get done or not varies with caseload. At around 1500-2000 affected articles the tracker breaks....I only know one case where we handled that many, and we did created articles only. That was a hard push by 3-4 different people. Cases with a few hundred sometimes, though not always, are completed. M kuhner (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/2025-12-14_Kofi_Meija is a case with many more articles that still has yet to be even halfway done

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Our biggest ones (IIRC Skyerise's 35,000 edits and Esculenta's 40,000) don't even have tracking pages Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

OMG Esculenta. I have been slowly stubbifying botany articles for a case upthread; I can do about 2-3 a day. I think if we held a stubathon and got a whole bunch of people...we still couldn't do Esculenta.

Doing the botany ones has, alas, convinced me it needs to be done; the hallucinations are pervasive. The human co-author checked for 404 and the like, but not for embroidery beyond what the source says. (Things like going from "grows in burned-over places" in the source to "relies on fire for propagation", or alternatively "is endangered by fires", in the article.) Even this very basic task--take a couple database articles and summarize--is beyond current LLM. M kuhner (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah, we might just have to bite the bullet and do LLMPRODs, but even then that's like 30 hours of non-stop tagging. I made a bot request to tag them all w {{AI-generated}} just as a disclaimer to readers for the timebeing (can't find it now), but it needs broader consensus and I cba Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:56, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

(to be fair Esculenta is like 1-2 year old Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I went through Fuzheado's marked tracker and transferred affirmative LLM markings to the secondary one, and then went through Kowal's list and did the same. Suggests some more LLMPROD/LLMPRV targets. I think my next step is all the edits marked "unnecessary" in Fuzheado's tracker where the explanation is that they were built up from a stub. M kuhner (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

There are quite a few unacknowledged LLM creations and creations-over-redirect in there. Just found another one. I am marking them "recommend LLMPROD"--if no one else does them I'll try DVRTed's new code this weekend. The most recent one just sort of riffs off its sources, adding details merrily. M kuhner (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

(gonna leave them so you get to use DVRTed's excellent script, so easy and convenient) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Coldupnorth

 Coldupnorth (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (18 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. User's autopatrolled permission has been removed.

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-31_Coldupnorth, 168 pages need review.

Note that this is a custom tracker with article creations only, due to size of case. M kuhner (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

This user is autopatrolled, and has just created The Matchbox Girl which seems to be AI-generated. There is a Markdown codeblock in Diff/1370004768. I've notified them of this thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/44207497 (May 2026) had utm_source=chatgpt. This and this triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325 in Feb 2025, idk why. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It was the title of the source (Must-see places in Kerala) that triggered the edit filter. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The Bollo de hornazzo article was created today in Diff/1369966044 with a red category, which was then removed in Diff/1369966205 two minutes later. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

There are UTM parameters showing ChatGPT use in Diff/1354119323 (mentioned by Kowal, Inocea Group), and Coldupnorth removed {{ai-generated}} from an article they've contributed to in Diff/1364494807 without explanation. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Found what I believe are source integrity issues.

• ...,  the Russian government ... initially maintained that it was unable to communicate with the vessels ...
  — Diff/1369972312 to HMS Forte (1893)

This is sourced to pages 98–102 of an article in the Naval War College Review from 1994, which as far as I can tell does not support the statement. The source does say that an admiral in the Russian Navy publicly stated that it would take at least a month for new orders to reach the cruisers (p. 100) but as far as I can tell it does not say anything about the Russian government saying that it was "unable to communicate with the vessel".

The International law as interpreted during the Russo-Japanese war source does say that it became apparent that the Russian Government, ..., was quite incapable of communicating to the commanders of those vessels , which is not the same thing, and the statement is not sourced to it anyway.

• Dundas personally delivered to Captain Skalsky of Petersburg the Russian government's cipher telegram recalling the cruisers, together with a formal British protest requiring them to cease interference with neutral shipping.
  — Diff/1369972312 to HMS Forte (1893)

This is sourced to page 46 of International law as interpreted during the Russo-Japanese war from 1905 (incorrectly referenced as published in 1954), but as far as I can tell that page does not actually say what the telegram from the Russian government said. I didn't read the whole book, just the cited page, so it may very well be correct and explained elsewhere.

Interestingly enough, the Naval War Colelge Review source does reproduce the telegram (in English, p. 101), which does say to CEASE CRUISER OPERATIONS, but it was not sourced to this source.

I'm not sure if this is some form of SYNTH+CLOP or something, but I'm reverting the edit for WP:V problems and possible WP:NOLLM issues. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I am constantly seeing statements in source A claimed as being in source B: I'd say it's one of the two biggest hallmarks of recent LLM (along with inflating the number of instances of something). I think that it results from anti-hallucination "safeguards" which end up with a workflow like "Find sources. Shred them. Build response from shreds." So the proportion of claims that are true has gone up, but the sourcing is frequently wrong. M kuhner (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I've asked @Coldupnorth to join this discussion and address these concerns, but I think that autopatrolled should probably be revoked at this point. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

And Henry Bertram Pelly cites a user-generated source (somewhat extensively). The Dreadnought Project is a "naval history wiki" and is "intended to augment rather than compete with the vast information available on Wikipedia". The article was also created with a (recently) deprecated infobox parameter and a dab link in the infobox image caption.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: in light of everything above, I think that the autopatrolled userright ought to be revoked. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Just as a courtesy, pinging @HJ Mitchell as the granting admin. Not alleging or implying any responsibility, this is purely informational. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Removed Coldupnorth's autopatrolled permission for LLM misuse. — Newslinger talk 12:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Editor has decided to retire, based on the most recent contribution. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Since that also means that they are around, I have asked them to tell us when they started using AI on Wikipedia. The lack of communicate is not reassuring though, so LLMPRV deletions will probably have to go pretty far back. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The Wolf Siren article has some sourcing issues too.

It was selected as one of the 2026 Summer Reading Challenge titles of the The Reading Agency.
— Wolf Siren § Reception

This is sourced to the main page of the Summer Reading Challenge website, which does not mention the book. The page for the 2026 challenge does not list the book either, and neither is in in the list of books for the 2026 challenge on The Reading Agency's website. None of the other sources referenced in the article mention this either.

I've marked it as {{failed verification}} in Diff/1371070610 for now and tagged the page. Not sure what to do about this page, I guess LLMPROD will be required. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately Coldupnorth is not forthcoming about when they starting using AI, so I think we will need to LLMPRV everything. The tracking page script throws out 12k+ edits to 3500+ articles. There might be a better script that I'm not aware of. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged a small handful of the most recently created articles for LLMPROD. According to XTools, there are 90 articles that were created after November 2022. Lots of edits to other articles too though. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

With aggressive filtering (+/- 100, removing redirects etc.) it's 2500 pages. I don't think that's going to be feasible. Let's focus on LLMPRODs for now. M kuhner (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a way for the userscript to filter only created articles? There's much more of course, for example the sourcing issues that I pointed out in HMS Forte (1893) above were to an already existing article.

The small handful that I've tagged for LLMPROD are listed on User:gurkubondinn/Logs/LLMPROD log § August 2026. Didn't make a tracking page because it was just too much. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, for created articles we don't need the detail on individual edits, just a tracker listing the pages. I could pull the XTools and write a little Python to do that. We could also pester poor DVRTed again. M kuhner (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

There you go! Creation-only tracker is attached. M kuhner (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Marking the ones that I had already tagged for LLMPROD. It just occurred to that 'pending LLMPROD' should maybe just have it's own status value. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:53, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

No, but edits like the one to HMS Forte (1893) are worrying, because that was a pretty bad sourcing issue in an article that they did not create themselves. Unfortunately this user does not seem interested in helping us, but we could just revert everything that's still the most recent edit (I think this is what the nuke feature that admins have does, so maybe we can pester some admin into doing that), which should at least take care of some of it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

User:BiscuitsBeforeBias

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-16_BiscuitsBeforeBias, 104 pages need review.

BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk · contribs) created Draft:HMS Pentstemon (K61) (originally in mainspace) with the red flag of The subsequent history of Rosa Vlassi is not sufficiently well documented in the sources used for this article to establish her ultimate fate with certainty at the end. FDW777 (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Editor claims here that It was run through a AI polishing route no more, which is somewhat at odds with the sentence I mentioned, as well as the broken reference formatting in the article's initial version. FDW777 (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

edits in July and August 2025 (when their articles were created) had markdown Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Editor claims at User talk:BiscuitsBeforeBias#August 2026 and here, that their AI use was for polishing and denies broader use, which isn't particularly credible given the sentence I mentioned, red-linked category, broken references (which they didn't have at a previous creation) and a couple of additional things. Declined to give a fuller explanation when asked, claiming the sentence I mentioned was added by mistake. FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It looks to me like the issue goes all the way back. Certainly by July 2025 one can see AISIGNS in text and edit summaries very different from article text. I am making a tracker for the whole thing. M kuhner (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

will wait a week for LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:23, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Aregwaerf

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged for all accounts listed at SPI as of 6 Sept 2026 (before Gurku's comment)

 Aregwaerf (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. Indef, sockpuppet investigation and original sockpuppet investigation.

Following tracker contains all accounts mentioned at SPI except for the master, which has already been cleaned up. M kuhner (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-17_2606:5580:30C:7F9E:1503:9B6A:FFBF:39C8, 294 pages need review.

Now-indeffed sockmaster with widespread additions of LLM-generated content across a variety of topics. This includes multiple articles that have made it through AfC (1. 2, 3, 4, 5 today) and expansions of existing articles. I've reverted a lot of it going back to the end of May, but there's a long way to go. Please note the extensive and probably not complete list of temporary accounts that have been used by the same editor. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the report! Do you have any idea when the LLM use may have started? We can make a tracker for easier cleanup, but it helps to have a good start date. M kuhner (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner: Best guess is at least since last March, but other edits around that time show existing knowledge of Wikipedia's processes. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• I've done LLMPRODs for all 30+ accounts at the SPI, there were so many, all by TAs going through AfC. @Gurkubondinn, idk if you're able to find any more TAs belonging to this user? Don't worry if busy, it can go to the backlog Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:56, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yikes, that's a lot of TAs. The older ones in the SPI are expired, but they still show "associated" accounts, one those has recently been active. But I can't work out why it has been paired as associated, so I'm not sure if I can WP:TAIVDISCLOSE it or not. Might have to dump the whole lot into the SPI (though it's not clear to me how that would be any less of a disclosure that way)? ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think since it's publicly linking TAs to other TAs it's okay (since there're no IPs disclosed)? TAIV says if it's reasonably believed to be necessary Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  At what point should we flag the widespread problem here with AfC? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:52, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  probably worth telling them to be on the lookout for a TA geolocating to whatever state/country Aregwaerf is from (TAIV says disclosing general location is okay if "reasonably believed to be necessary"), I guess I'll finally apply for TAIV Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:41, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701: I'm assuming that means you'll make the notification there, but let me know if you'd prefer I do it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:27, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  (sorry, was travelling), I can only see the recent TAs Gurku's listed, were the ones you saw geolocating to Pennsylvania as well? Older ones vary from Washington DC to California, but I assume (hope) the IP's just get reassigned by then? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701: I've seen DC, multiple places in Virginia, and Cleveland in the most recent associated TAs. No full confirmation yet on if they're socks. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:17, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  yeah, seems like they travel for work a lot (?), I'll just say to look out for American TAs lol Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  started WP:AFC#Submissions by US TAs, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ylevental, I don't have time atm to look through all the IPs and document TAs who's edits need cleanup/LLMPRODs unfortunately (nor the knowhow lol, still learning the ropes wrt TAIV) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Aregwaerf themself has no unresolved large edits, but the TAs are a daunting task.... M kuhner (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah, we'll need to go digging and list as many TAs as we can, and then go through them one-by-one. I'm not familiar enough w IPs and sockhunting to do this, but we can leave it to the backlog. It's cases like these that worry me, we can usually catch someone making lots of LLM edits because eventually they'll trip an edit filter or something, but TAs and briefly-active accounts are much harder Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I had done a boatload of reverts from various TAs associated with this editor, I think partly off of this contribs list, but only made it back to May. (Edit: sorry, admins will see contribs from a bunch of TAs, but non-admins will only see one TA.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

IIRC the oldest article I LLMPRODed was early Dec 2025, there's got to be an easier way to find related TAs and trace someone back Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to some quick work by DVRTed, I have made a multi-sock joint tracker. Let me (and DVRTed) know if it works! I have to say, I have never seen such a large collection of different "this edit is suspicious" tags in any tracker I've made. M kuhner (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

These are so hard, because you need a lookup table to recognize the TAs.... M kuhner (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I regenerated the tracker with user links added to |notes= and manually—tediously even—restored the entries that were modified. Hope that helps a little bit. — DVRTed (Talk) 06:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, thank you. I am too old to keep track of TAs in my head. Actually I'm not sure I was ever young enough to do that. M kuhner (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Mellangoose

 Mellangoose (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

They created Thomas Hawkins of Trewithen with a markdown codeblock in Diff/1370165057 today, which has since been G15 deleted (could ask an admin to undelete it if needed). I asked them about their AI use in § August 2026 on their talk page, but they haven't edited since. In the meantime, Ike Lek has raised concerns about the Hawkins Family of Trewithen article which was also created today, so I'm creating this thread before I loose track of this and notifying Mellangoose of it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Mellangoose has replied with Diff/1370310637 in User talk:Mellangoose § August 2026, but not quite committed to stop using LLMs on Wikipedia. I've asked them to reply here on the noticeboard. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Created Treludderow and Walter Borlase within about 10 minutes of each other in Diff/1370140022 and Diff/1370141324, one has AIREDCATS and the other has AIBOLD and messed up citation templates. This was before this thread was created, because the user seems to have stopped editing when confronted about their AI use. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:M.A.LasTroniN910

 Cleanup has been requested.

• M.A.LasTroniN910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

High-volume AI edits/article creations (may be AI translation). Usual slate of AI signs (first time seeing "the sources reviewed" in the wild). Seems to have started August 2026 after an editing break Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What a ferocious rate of article creation. :( I share some interests with this editor—it would be a shame to ‘lose’ the articles they’ve created from enwiki if they are AI-generated (putting lose in quotation marks, since we don’t really have them in that case). If it comes to cleanup, I will try to help out here. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This editor has continued editing without responding here, although M.A.LasTroniN910 did acknowledge the warning on their talk page. @M.A.LasTroniN910 can you please clarify how you used LLMs? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Just want to note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:M.A.LasTroniN910 and copyrighted plot descriptions and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#M.A.LasTroniN910 adding copyrighted material to articles past last warning. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late reply! Regarding LLMs, I only used it to help me find sources. Everything else, including reading and evaluating the sources and gathering the relevant information, I did myself through careful research and reading. Since the sources were in other languages, I only used it to help locate them. I would never use AI-generated material directly in an article.

Also, just to clarify, I’m now an experienced editor when it comes to manga-related articles. I’ve been working on Wikipedia for years. The mistakes that GreenLipstickLesbian pointed out were things I made early on when I was still learning, and I took those criticisms seriously and learned from them. It’s not that I’m still making the same mistakes today.

You can check my newer articles and their sources yourself and see that I’ve done the research and source verification carefully, with the goal of making sure they meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing and GA-quality articles. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 12:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You didn't use LLMs at all to write the text in Chen Dong (writer) (created just over a week ago)? It contains both WP:AIATTR (e.g. Contemporary profiles have described him as a Beijing native and noted his interest in wuxia fiction from childhood) and WP:SUPERFICIAL (He was among ten web novelists recognized that year, reflecting the increasing institutional recognition of online literature within China's literary organizations). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You were right to raise the concern. I went back through the Chen Dong article carefully and reviewed the wording and sourcing more closely. English is not my first language, and I mistakenly thought some of the phrasing was natural and appropriate for Wikipedia when, in retrospect, it was too indirect and at times overly interpretive.

I accept that mistake, and this has been a useful lesson for me. I have been going back through the article and removing or rewriting phrases that sound generic, formulaic, or more interpretive than the sources support. I’m also being more careful to distinguish between what a source actually says and what can reasonably be inferred from it.

Thank you for pointing it out. I appreciate the criticism, and I’ll take more care with the wording and sourcing going forward. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 04:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@M.A.LasTroniN910, do you speak Japanese or Mandarin? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Japanese. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 01:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

several of your creations are based entirely on sources in Mandarin, how are you ensuring that WP:V is met? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It’s true that the sources are in Mandarin, but I manually checked every single source carefully and verified the information before using it. I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing them to make sure the claims in the articles were properly supported.

I did use LLMs to help locate potential sources, and I acknowledge that I initially moved too quickly when creating some of the articles. However, I have since reviewed the sourcing much more carefully, and as far as I’m aware, all of my newer articles now comply with WP:V.

Please feel free to review the sources as well. If you find any unsupported claim or an issue with a source, please let me know and I’ll go back and check it again. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 15:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

If you can't read Mandarin, how did you check the sources verified the information? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

When I open the source, I use a Google Translate browser extension to translate the page and view the English version. Then I carefully check the translated information against the original source to make sure I’ve understood and verified it accurately. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 08:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@M.A.LasTroniN910 You are essentially using LLM to check LLM then? Moreover to use LLM under one of the narrow WP:NOLLM requirements, then you need to know both the source and end language well enough to be sure that the translation is suitable for Wikipedia. Moreover, strictly speaking this is just for inter-language Wiki translations, not general sourcing. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m not using an LLM to verify another LLM. I’m using a Google Translate browser extension to translate the Mandarin page into English so I can read and understand the source. I then carefully check the information in the source and cross-reference it with other references where possible.

I’m aware that this does not replace actual proficiency in Mandarin, and I’m not presenting machine translation as authoritative. It is simply a tool I use to understand the source and verify the relevant information. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 09:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"Translating" from a language you do not know is a violation of the LLM-assisted translation rules, and Google Translate is now LLM-powered. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 10:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Then, based on what you’re saying, I understand that I have violated the relevant rules, and that the affected content should undergo cleanup. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 10:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Also noting that M.A.LasTroniN910 removed an AI tag from Chen Dong (writer) after making very minor changes. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User:LevantineArchivist

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

High-volume and ongoing edits with high density of WP:AISIGNS, both in articlespace and talk pages/AfDs, largely to contentious topics. (Also note marked difference in writing style between this text and certain edit summaries, in case the indicators are not enough). Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello All, I'm the user named here.

As I stated on my talk page and on an article page of Hadash, I don't use AI on Wikipedia. I do however use it seldomly to find news articles and sources of information when I have a hard time to, even though I've only done this a few times, I am not sure if this is considered AI use since I only use it to find an article and then I go over the original article to see it matches what I was looking for, and cite and write on Wikipedia myself. If this is also problematic or considered AI use use please let me know, but I was assuming its not since I don't actually take any writing or information onto Wikipedia, rather using it to scout for sources and then going over them myself, and again this is only in rare cases where I couldn't find the source myself, or needed another source ontop of one I researched myself.

I have been causally editing articles for a while now, focusing on making existing articles more robust, adding quality sources, and adding new information, I enjoy doing this along my other full-time job and other life activities as a hobby. I focus mostly on under written/reported on articles like Jewish and Israeli left wing and communist articles, people etc. I do have to be honest that I wasn't aware of the lengthy guidelines on WP:AISigns, as I do this as a side hobby mostly, I find it hard to follow the fast changing and lengthy rules here sometimes. I skimmed through some of them now, I do see that the way I write does sometimes raise some similarities of the AI signs listed in the guidelines. I do take it upon myself to go over the full guildines page to understand what writing or style decisions to avoid. This been said I do believe all the additions I made to articles are quality ones, with substantial knowledge and research values, with good citations, that I heavily researched myself scanning through less used sources like marxists archive and original primary sources of different Israeli leftist archives. Hope this comment helps in any way. I appreciate your AI cleaning efforts on Wikipedia, I think they honestly help keep the data on here accurate and sourced, which in my opinion is the biggest issue on Wikipedia. LevantineArchivist (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you use tools such as Grammarly, DeepL, Quillbot etc? Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't heard of these tools so much - I had to look them up, but the answer is no. Maybe these are more popular in the US? Where I'm based most AI usage is directly by the provider e.g Google,Anthropic,Microsoft,ChatGPT. But like I've said I only used it in the way I mentioned in the reply, nothing further. Is there any more info I can provided to help with this inquiry? As I also said I will also more closely check the edits I make in the future to avoid this phrasing/wording and be in accordance with the ai guideline.

Thanks LevantineArchivist (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Cytoscape

 Cytoscape (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (21 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-19_Cytoscape, 268 pages need review.

Larger and somewhat rapid edits. There is an chatbot codeblock in Diff/1370565031, which is how I found this user.

They were first warned in § July 2025, then asked about their AI use in § AIs, short descriptions on their talk page in September 2025, but replied to neither message (removed the first warning from their talk page so they can be presumed to have read it). My notice and questions in § August 2026 were also promptly ignored, because they went and pasted more AI-generated text into article space in Diff/1370572260 instead of replying.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I believe that a block from article space is required to force communication. I will notify Cytoscape of this thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

My mistake, read the timestamps wrong. The second edit also came before I wrote on their talk page. Let's see if they communicate. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

so... did they respond? | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

No. They haven't edited since. Asking for consensus for cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Support Cleanup There is no constructive way to edit with AI. It is proven incapable of following our guidelines on notability and copyright. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 11:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Support cleanup. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Support cleanup via LLMPRV. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:20, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Made tracker from July 1 2025 based on warning: if someone has a better date, let me know. M kuhner (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:EchoSeeker

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-17_EchoSeeker, 31 pages need review.

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

The usual yet again: high-volume rapidfire AI edits. (May be translations/revisions with AI, the edit summaries are definitely AI, the speed is... improbable) Reverted all of the AI edits to existing articles, the new articles probably need LLMPROD Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Removed an {{AI-generated}} tag two hours after this thread was created: Diff/1370653015. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

might not just be AI, as per . I am REALLY sure "Expanding" an article doesn't decrease the bytes. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:20, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracker, entire history (the huge edits go back to the start). M kuhner (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:FerIow

 FerIow (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (22 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Small potatoes, but should be dealt with early. FerIow pasted AI-generated text to their sandbox page in Diff/1370670820 with a chatbot block and an AIREDCAT, and then removed the tell-tale signs in Diff/1370671811 shortly afterwards. The sandbox edits are related to the 2026 Fagersta school stabbing page, which they had edited shortly before the sandbox and shortly after it. My notice in User talk:FerIow § August 2026 was quickly removed (and the sandbox page was edited to say yeah sure whatever in Diff/1370673183), so they can be presumed to be aware of WP:NOLLM at this point, but they reinstated their changes in Diff/1370672978 with an edit summary denying AI use. I speak Swedish, and both the sources that were added do support the claims but one of them is the school's own website which isn't ideal. While this particular edit on it's own is not a great concern, I think that it is probably better to try to encourage a course correct sooner rather than later before they have made more AI-generated edits to the project. I'm notifying them of this thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

User:QuietWarrior

 QuietWarrior (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (23 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-17_QuietWarrior, 12 pages need review.

Another user making huge and rapid AI-generated edits to sports articles. Chatbot block and a [cite: in AbuseLog/44945901 and AbuseLog/44945366, so they are using Gemini. Lots of dab notices on their talk page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The page has been deleted. I will start it from scratch. QuietWarrior (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@QuietWarrior: the problem is not (only) about this specific page, the concerns are about your editing in genera. Do you understand what the issue is? ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@QuietWarrior: why did you blank the 2026–27 SpVgg Greuther Fürth season page in Diff/1370922037 (AbuseLog/44946995) and the 2026–27 SV Elversberg season page in Diff/1370922127? ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Gurkubondinn, can you please revert these articles to their pre-LLM state instead of tagging them for speedy deletion? LLM speedy delete is not for articles with non-LLM history. You can request revision deletion if that seems like an appropriate step in these cases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of what G15 is, what it is for, and when it applies. If I have requested G15 for a page, it is because it applied. You could have at least read the request reason first. Please restore the tag on the second page as well. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

And no, I can't "revert these articles to their pre-LLM state" because there is no pre-LLM state. If there was, I would have reverted them. That's why I tagged them. You have effectively restored AI-generated text in article space now, so please reinstate the G15 tags. Again, these articles are wholly AI-generated and both of them meet the G15 criteria. If there was a pre-LLM version to revert to, that's what I would have done. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. Sorry, I thought since it was mark for deletion, that I would simply start over. I get it. QuietWarrior (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Jonesey95: why did you remove the requested G15 from both 2026–27 SpVgg Greuther Fürth season and 2026–27 1. FC Kaiserslautern season? There are no AI-free revisions of those pages, and the G15 requests are valid. The SpVgg page was created with a Gemini variant of WP:OAICITE and a chatbot block: Special:AbuseLog/44945366. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

My mistake on those two. I thought I saw pre-LLM revisions, but I was wrong. There were one or two that I restored that had pre-LLM revision history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Please restore the tag in 2026–27 SpVgg Greuther Fürth season as well, because you incorrectly removed it from there as well. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: you've also removed the tag from one of them. If you want to revert some of the LLM-generated text, please leave the tag intact. And please restore the G15 tag that you incorrectly removed as well. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:05, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Not pages that were tagged by me. Thanks for restoring it on the Kaiserslautern page, could you also restore the G15 request on the SpVgg page? The AISIGNS are even more clearcut on that one. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracker, all dates. M kuhner (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Alfiechidzik denying blatant LLM usage

I just declined Draft:Instro Precision by User:Alfiechidzik, which has numerous instances of both WP:AIATTR (Corporate filings show that ownership of Instro Precision is held by Elbit Systems UK Limited, which controls the company through a majority shareholding) and WP:AITREND (The acquisition formed part of Elbit's wider expansion within the United Kingdom defence sector, These protests formed part of a wider campaign directed at Elbit Systems UK subsidiaries and facilities across the United Kingdom). Their talk page response was to say they didn't use LLMs. Alfiechidzik has also expanded and created several other articles in the WP:A-I topic area, which also show AISIGNS, e.g. "Statements from the Belgian government and media reports identified one of the seized shipments as coming from Moog's Wolverhampton factory and bound for Israel's M-346 program". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have not formed an opinion at the moment on whether the draft is AI, but I note for the record here that this editor has previously admitted to using AI to revise article text and committed to not doing it anymore. ^purring_maggot (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft was submitted a month before the ANI discussion, but the Elbit Systems edit I highlighted was weeks after the discussion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Ahh, I totally missed that the draft was a few months old. Sorry, I got distracted by what looks like a bunch of copyvio images this editor uploaded to Commons. ^purring_maggot (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

(Parts of the Elbit Systems edit appear to be copied+modified from the bottom of Draft:Instro Precision) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You left a couple of comments but then deleted them so not sure if this is the right place to post a reply.

You're absolutely right to call me out on the on the use of AI for wording back in June, as I admitted to it, and have taken the feedback on board and not used it since. The Instro Precision article draft does date from that period, so I can understand why you flagged it, and on reflection it makes sense to delete it so that it can be rewritten from scratch so that any future draft is untainted by AI concerns.

What does concern me though is that the cited instances in this case of problematic wording is actually just not AI usage, e.g. "Statement from the Belgian government and media reports ..." I'm struggling to think how I can express that differently other than directly quoting RTL and RTBF (which runs the risk of over attribution) or quoting directly from Walloon documents (which is primary research). I'm not trying to be difficult here - I'm just genuinely at a loss. Similarly with "Press commentary before the trial ..." - should I be directly quoting the specific sources in this instance?

Anyway, I apologise for my rather hasty reaction - I'm just tired and irritated as I've been working all weekend. Alfiechidzik (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I originally misinterpreted your below comment. Yes, it's more plausible that the Belgian text and later text is not LLM-generated; it seems more like you picked up similar habits just from reading LLM output. Overattribution here is unnecessarily attributing claims to sources when they can typically be omitted, especially vague sources like "media reports" which should at least be made more specific. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:INTEXT for when in-text attribution should be used. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

OK - that's helpful to know. You're right that it's a habit that i've picked up - use the specific citations as footnotes and then refer to them as "press commentary" rather or "media reports" in order to avoid having to either repeat the specific attribution in the text, or assert it as fact.

I've read WP:INTEXT although the examples it gives are rather blatant extremes so not that helpful when dealing with nuanced, middle-ground scenarios. I know what I would write if I was writing an academic paper, but that seems to be putting too much of an authorial voice - and potentially non-neutrality - into the article which is also in contravention of Wiki guidelines.

In any case, I will try to be more thoughtful and more specific when referring to sources inside the text itself going forward. Alfiechidzik (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

"Press reports" or "government statements" just add nothing. You might as well say it in Wikivoice, with citation, because the reader can't use what you're saying to determine degree of uncertainty. In-text attribution is only worth doing when it carries additional information, and "press"/"government" are far too vague to do that. (And to anyone with a nose for LLM, it's a major indicator which you really don't want to copy.)

An example that actually carries information would be "Peruvian press reports said X [1][2][3] while Venuzuelan reports said Y [4][5][6]". This helps provide context for the reader. Be sure there are actually multiple citations in both sets, though, or you're back at WP:AIATTR. (And be careful of WP:SYNTH.) M kuhner (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, Alfiechidzik's more recent creation Moog 4 doesn't have the same numerous AISIGNS. There is WP:AIATTR with Press commentary before the trial raised concerns that... that isn't copied from anywhere. There's also Belgian media reported that the cargo was inspected... but that seems copied from Draft:Instro Precision. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Im struggling to see what the AI signs are with regard to the Belgian text. I literally looked up the RTL and RTBF articles myself having been sent them by a colleague in Belgium, and likewise the Middle East Eye, Declassified and Private Eye reporting - the Private Eye reporting isn't even on the internet and I had to physically go and buy paper copies of the magazine to get the citations for these. I even emailed the Wallonian government press office myself to get their own confirmation of the facts and what they publicly released so that I could confirm this for myself (as there appears to have been some initial confusion about exactly what was seized). Alfiechidzik (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Cristõvão Campos

 Cristõvão Campos (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (25 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Large rapid AI-generated edits, article creations that might be unattributed translations, lots of markdown. Mostly ignores talk page messages or notices, and just keep going instead. Has occasionally replied to the CS1 notices posted by the bot, asked for help (in somewhat broken English) once, and apologised for contributing in the wrong language once. I've draftified one of their more recent creations a reverted large changes on one article, but they just ignored me and carried on like nothing happened.

My guess is that this is someone without a sufficient command of English to understand what people are trying to tell them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

These are 100% unattributed translations. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Still going, created Diogo Valsassina in Special:Diff/1374472988 yesterday. It's already been sent to AfD by JTtheOG: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diogo Valsassina (just missing the WP:DSAIGEN deletion sorting). ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, does Bronco test look human-written to you? JTtheOG (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

yes, see Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Pretty sure that you meant to say "no", as in "yes this is AI-generated". ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Y Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Omnipup1

 Cleanup has been requested.

I noticed this user after a request on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Recent articles contain a lot of WP:AIATTR; Saeed al-Amour's "media coverage and reception" section is an egregious example. Hani al-Hayek (from January) has promotional superficial analysis. e.g. Beyond international outreach, al-Hayek has engaged with local educational and research institutions, such as the Palestine Museum of Natural History, emphasizing collaborative efforts to support research and heritage education. Looking at pages created,A year ago Omnipup mass-created Palestinian village articles that are blatantly LLM-generated (e.g. Bir al-Idd). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Omnipup was previously warned about LLM usage several times in March here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The recent creation Bayt al-Dhakira wal-Turath is another example riddled with over-attribution, e.g. The book has also been cited in linguistic scholarship on Palestinian Arabic and Publications issued by the center have likewise been referenced in peer-reviewed historical and linguistic research. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Helpful Raccoon, the 2025 and March LLM usage concerned specific articles and predates the WP policy chance that forbade the wider use of LLMs. I've recently used LLMs only in translation of articles from Hebrew for manual review and revision, fully noted in the talk pages and edit summaries, as allowed by corrent policy. I am attributing claims in articles because of WP:NPOV and the demand for attribution. If it is too much, please offer constructive feedback. Saeed al-Amour's section, an Israel/Palestine related articles, contains significant materials with lengthy descriptions to establish notability for a figure whose article might be challenged on these grounds. the Bayt al-Dhakira wal-turath attributions are likewise meant to add notability should the article be challenged as Afd on notability grounds. Omnipup1 (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Gurkubondinn who gave the warnings back in March. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems like their replies in the Autopatrolled request can be read as tacit admission that they were at least using AI to generate articles. Username has been changed since I gave those notices in March, so I didn't immediately remember about this user. Keep in mind though that before NOLLM was passed, NEWLLM still prohibited generating new articles. And edits/articles that preceed NOLLM are not "grandfathered" in. That just means that an edit should not be sanctioned for that LLM usage, but it should still absolutely be factored in when requesting permissions like Autopatrolled.

There's an OAICITE in Diff/1343935605 from April 2026 (after NOLLM was passed). There's more of course, but this example incontrovertibly demonstrates the AI use that they are denying AI use. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I need to correct myself here. The edit that I linked is from March (not April). ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank youOmnipup1 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon, I have completed the cleanup and revision of Saeed al-Amour's article for redundancy, conciseness and style, per your comment (diff)_{, cleaning up the last article noted in this thread.} Omnipup1 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Disregarding the suspected LLM usage in recently created articles, at the very least all edits made before April need to be cleaned up. I'm not sure what the starting point is. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I will undertake a cleanup of the older 2025 LLM-assisted pages created accordingly Omnipup1 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-46223-11

~2026-46223-11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

lots of rapid edits to one particular article Mohamed Mooge Liibaan. i put a tag up for probable LLM content and they appear to have removed it daysantdev ^talk 00:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a bunch of different TAs editing that page. They are possibly connected to ~2026-34537-45, which was blocked and has also edited the page. I've restored the tag. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Thomson Walt

 Cleanup has been requested.

Thomson Walt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article that first caught my attention was Pu xie qi yao. The tone of the article and the sourcing seemed irregular, but not a degree I could say with confidence it was AI. Looking at this editor's recent contributions, they have made a lot of large content additions in short spans of time recently, and while sometimes I myself wait to release big edits on similar topics at the same topic to help with page linking, the back-to-back edits this user makes on the same page at times lead me to believe these aren't saved edits being pushed out at once. As this editor reports being a native speaker of Isan, I think it is plausible there is some AI translation going on here; however even then I am skeptical of it being handled responsibly. I have already left a notice on the user's talk page about their marking of every edit as minor. I also thing the peculiar way they cite page numbers could be a human error, but warrants looking into. @Gurkubondinn and @Athanelar both weighed in on this while I was deciding whether to bring this to the noticeboard, so I'm pinging them so they can share their thoughts. – Ike Lek (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts (and Anthanelar's) are on User talk:gurkubondinn § You free to give me a second opinion here?, can't say for sure if this is AI-generated or not, though I'm pretty sure that it is involved one way or another. The rapid large edits are concerning for sure, and this may be someone that isn't aware of the NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

On the fence here, I think translation is the most likely here. The phrasings are a little too idiosyncratic.

Special:PermanentLink/1046670519 is an example of their older writing style, it's different from the comparable 2026 article Special:PermanentLink/1368964775 but not drastically so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/43164411 had utm_source=chatgpt, and they're making large edits at an implausibly fast rate. @Thomson Walt, can you please respond here? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:06, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

still going, some 1000+ byte edits were in less than a minute Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Cyberkiborg

 Cyberkiborg (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (27 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Has created some articles, including the Transparency in the software supply chain article that is currently at AfD: WP:AFD/Transparency in the software supply chain. There's an excellent source analysis in § Verifiability issues on the talk page. The usual rapid editing in f.ex. History/Cyber threat intelligence. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:53, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. No irony intended—thank you. AI-generated hallucinations and the distortion of facts undermine the credibility of Wikipedia articles and, consequently, their purpose. So, as Dreamyshade recommended in the discussion you mentioned, I’ll refrain from using language-checking services and dictionaries (though Deepl, for example, seems to be acceptable as a tool), as well as from searching for sources and editing. I haven’t used LLMs extensively when writing articles; the examples from the analysis you mentioned—the one Dreamyshade did—are more a result of me seeking confirmation of my own conclusions and generalizations. As for “rapid editing”—this is because I compile big edits in Sublime, Google Docs, or Obsidian, and then transfer them to Wikipedia. I also break them down into self-contained sections along the way so that if any comments come up, they can be pinpointed, rather than having to undo my edits to the entire article. Cyberkiborg (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

(though Deepl, for example, seems to be acceptable as a tool)

No it isn't.

I haven’t used LLMs extensively

This isn't about how you haven't used them. How have you used them? Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm completely confused after these discussions and your comment—could you help me figure this out? If I understand WP:AITALK correctly,it states that you can use a translator, for example, but notes that it can make mistakes. I interpreted this to mean that you need to carefully verify the results when using it. Is that not the case? WP:LLMS allows for basic editing as long as the text and suggested sources are thoroughly verified. WP:LLM only mentions basic editing and prohibits the use of LLMs for any other tasks. In WP:LLMRESP, broader editing and source research are again permitted under certain restrictions. In fact, I’ve used tools like Google AI or ChatGPT to condense large amounts of my own text, find sources, and provide critical feedback—always verifying everything suggested. Dreamyshade’s comments on the article “Transparency in the Software Supply Chain” are correct, and I agree with every point. But in terms of LLM, they pertain to my own choice of sources, their placement in the text, and the degree of generalization of the information. I have already concluded that it is necessary to avoid getting carried away when presenting content and to present information exclusively in a neutral, concise manner, without generalizations ```` Cyberkiborg (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The "basic copyediting" carveout in WP:NOLLM basically means things your average spell checker could do, not condensing text or "generalization of information" which are definitely functions that sound like they probably contributed to the source-text issues in Transparency in the software supply chain. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason for WP:AITALK is better explained by WP:LLMCOMM.

‑‑gurkubondinn 13:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Got it. No LLMs when writing articles or participating in discussions. I apologize for relying on the essay where rules clearly forbid it. Honestly, I’m glad my first attempt failed—and not, say, my tenth—at trying to do something beyond a basic search. The rapid editing was a direct result of my process, where I tend to dump and structure everything in Obsidian first. Cyberkiborg (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

User:AuthorAuthor3

 AuthorAuthor3 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (27 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Created the WildBlue Press article, currently listed at AfD: WP:AFD/WildBlue Press. There is user communication in Diff/1371487695 and Diff/1371505099 (Use code with caution, renders as ... college friend Michael Cordova, Use code with caution. whose wife, ...) and then added faux-inline references in Diff/1371540058 after my notice in § August 2026 on their talk page. Actively editing and has not addressed concerns over the AI use. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I did a search on Google when I looked for articles about the publisher. I didn't realize I was searching AI. AuthorAuthor3 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you tell me what tool you were using to generate your citation templates? ^purring_maggot (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I found and read the sources, and I copied the citation format from other Wikipedia articles. I don't remember which ones. At one point I did a Google search asking if a citation was formatted right, and I've since learned that Google may answer questions with AI. AuthorAuthor3 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. When you asked Google about the citations, could you have copied wiki code from there? The message "Use code with caution." wouldn't have come from copying templates from another article.

There are loads of tools to generate citations, including right inside the Visual Editor (Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2). Personally I use Citer for citations.

The WildBlue article isn't the only cause for concern. For example, this diff was reverted by another editor because it constitutes close paraphrasing from the source, which is considered a type of copyright violation. This is also exactly the sort of output a chatbot would produce. If you've copied text from anywhere else in order to make your edits (forget about the citation templates for now, I'm asking about article text), it would be best if you could let us know. ^purring_maggot (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Stardust20

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

 Cleanup has been requested.

Stardust20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A lot of this users edits have been made using WP:LLM and need cleanup. I noticed it on Rothesay (insurer) and trying to cleanup the slop. Thanks, ~2026-46891-52 (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

not triggered any relevant edit filters nor tags and no creations, lots of large edits made implausibly quick, but edits need more analysis. They started editing properly in Oct 2025, at which time they were adding non-existent templates . I'm gonna leave this for someone else (sorry) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Dreune

Dreune (talk · contribs), XTools

Had a draft declined for LLM use 1 August, their creations have some AI signs (typically WP:AITREND/WP:SUPERFICIAL), but I'm not 100% certain. Notifying them now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

You must be referring to a draft:umuada not created by me. The draft was created by someone else accused of using AI which I didn't know about while the draft has a history of contributions by other editors. I only tried to improve on it. And that's the second draft I ever touched when I was barely one month old on Wikipedia. I think that was probably around April. Moreover, the draft was declined after you added an AI suspicion template. The two drafts I created on my own alone were accepted via Afc assessments. And none of the works I created contains hallucinations. All information has cited sources that support what they were used for which I can account for if necessary. The editor Dolpina that came to your talk page to request AI investigation of articles I wrote already has a history of controversy regarding articles related to the cultural group I usually write on and hers with several editors, including deletion nominations across wikimedia based on untrue claims which was declined after the truth was uncovered. I've opened a content dispute which she declined here Diffs can be provided if necessary. But I've requested advice on how to manage the situation. I think you probably know since she has invited you to some of the controversies, including the last article she nominated for deletion where you voted delete in support, although she didn't invite you at the last afd. Dreune (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right sorry, that draft was created by someone else that was blocked for AI use. I've got no interest in ethnic rivalries, I'm just trying to prevent AI-generated content from existing in the encyclopedia; it's often subject to hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures) and other issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO.

I still see signs of AI-generated content in your edits, and Pangram ranges from giving it as partially AI, AI-assisted, and 100% AI . Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. thanks, I do not know how pangram works but do you think it could be inconsistent sometimes? For example the second link you shared is a paragraph from the article named Akwa ocha. I tried testing the whole article on pangram and it gave me a result of 100% human written here The exact page you wwould find that paragraph is in page 250 of this cited source here Please what do I do to resolve it? Should I rework the paragraphs or provide the particular pages where the other two paragraphs are from? I'll be grateful for your assistance. Dreune (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

User:G-Lignum

 G-Lignum (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (29 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Has created 174 pages since 2023, often creating articles within minutes of each other. Took a look at two of the most recent ones and found serious sourcing problems (and requested G15) in both of them;

• In the initial revision; refs nr. 4, nr. 6, nr. 8, nr. 10, nr. 11, nr. 18, nr. 25, nr. 26, nr. 27, nr. 28, nr. 29, and nr. 32 are soft 404 errors (redirect to main page). Refs nr. 9 and nr. 12 return a 404 not found.

  in the current revision; ref nr. 6 is a soft 404 (redirects to main page).
  — Georgina Antonakaki

• In the initial revision; ref nr. 18 returns 404 not found. Refs nr. 9, nr. 6, nr. 11 are soft 404 errors (redirects to main page). Ref nr. 7 is just a blank page.

  In the current revision (AbuseLog/44991706; ref nr. 2 is the blank page and ref nr. 11 is a soft 404 (redirects to main page).
  — Markella Papageorgiou (created four minutes after page Effrosyni Bakodimou)

Has been asked about and warned for AI-use several times, never responded to any of it except for a Thanks when warned by Gnomingstuff in § June 2026. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:12, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Their most recent article creation from just a few hours ago contains CEV records her participation in several youth European Championship cycles and with the senior team at EuroVolley 2021, EuroVolley 2023, the 2025 European Golden League and EuroVolley 2026., an obvious LLM generation. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The user is blocked from svwiki for submitting machine translations without being able to speak or understand Swedish (but I do, so it is somewhat obvious to me that they dont). ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:46, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I do accept the concerns raised about my use of AI in creating new Wikipedia articles. I recognise that this has happened repeatedly. Thus, I apologise for all, and also for not responding properly to the warnings. I stop now. I stop really. I take full responsibility for my actions, and sorry for the problems I have caused. G-Lignum (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

From today, I will work on these Articles, sentence-by-sentence, and source-by-source, so they can be accepted after a full review! Sorry again - G-Lignum (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: they're still creating AI articles: Special:Permalink/1374352947 (11 Sept) , Special:Permalink/1374021512 (9 Sept) . In Special:Permalink/1374039730 (9 Sept), re the passage starting Kerto LVL is manufactured from approximately 3 mm thick, doesn't say "3 mm", "pine", "spruce", nor "phenol-formaldehyde" (the only spotcheck I did). Imo a full indef and potentially a global lock Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I remember noticing the "3 mm" issue too when I first looked into this user, but I don't remember why I didn't bring it up anywhere. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I tagged both Bronco test and Kerto LVL yesterday, but the tags were undone in short order. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Another new article, Carsten Mai created in Permalink/1375004884 with some AIBOLD and AIATTR. Personally, I think that G-Lignum should do good on their promise to take full responsibility for [their] actions and to work on these Articles, sentence-by-sentence, and source-by-source, so they can be accepted before creating any more articles. The running counter that is updated on their user page makes me wonder if this is some form of hat-collecting: Diff/1375004986. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Allow me: I am working (as you can see on the old ones, those that AI generated by me), but I am writing some new ones as well. I can stop working on new, if this is your major point. Fix the old ones FIRST, OK!! (note- the counter is just a counter, to have a personal archive in my file; Do not take this also ... as a problem!) Thanks. G-Lignum (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Right now, I stop creating news articles. I will fix the old problematic ones. Thanks much. G-Lignum (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Consensus for LLMPRV

Support LLMPRV, they said they'd work on previous creations, but are still creating more (Stefano Lavarini), and really it isn't feasible anyway for them to rewrite ~170 articles anyway Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:49, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. Do we know they have stopped using AI or not? ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support has anyone noticed "taking full responsibility" for AI use means your AI edits get to stay in mainspace unchanged forever? ^purring_maggot (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

In terms of "have they stopped using AI" I went through the sources for Stefano Lavarini and not much stood out to me as an issue (other than lack of citations in some areas which is not really OK for BLP articles but isn't itself evidence of LLM use). Ref #2 is this which does not mention Lavarini at all so I'm not sure what it's supposed to be a source for, but ref #1 handles that sentence anyway. Ref #4 you may ask yourself "how does this show he coached the South Korean team" but that is sourced in the body and per CITELEAD technically no citation is needed in the lead for that. So I don't see plain evidence of AI use from this article. ^purring_maggot (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I am reporting the editor, Gurkubondinn

Moved to be a subsection here

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.

---

User talk:Gurkubondinn I am reporting here, in this page, what appears to be a pattern of annoying behaviour (I call it, booling!) by the Wikipedia editor, Gurkubondinn. I have recently acknowledged using AI assistance for approximately 4–5 volleyball-player articles. OK! I made a mistake. I admitted it openly.

However, this editor appears to follow all of my newly created articles and repeatedly puts labels in all of them as AI-assisted. But, AI was not used, see this last example (ca. 2 hours of work), Kerto LVL. I request here an independent review of whether this behaviour constitutes a disruptive behavior by this editor. G-Lignum (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

That'll probably in part be because there's strong evidence you continued to use AI after making that promise . Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The AI noticeboard is for reports of LLM use. If you wish to make a claim of bad behavior against an editor, the appropriate noticeboard is WP:ANI. Please be aware that at any case at ANI, the behavior of both the editor complaining and the editor being complained of will be examined. I am closing this report as misplaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M kuhner (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 September 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.

Anagabt (OKA!)

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Anagabt (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (11 September 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. Also blocked from draft space.

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-17_Anagabt, 157 pages need review.

Anagabt (talk · contribs), XTools

Had a draft declined for LLM use 19 July , edits from 20 to 28 July have markdown and chatbot communication . All 90 creations appear to be translations, WP:LLMTRANSLATE is the relevant guideline. I begrudgingly did some spotchecks of their latest creation, Pinerolo–Torre Pellice Railway:

• I couldn't access a lot of the sources, but doesn't appear to support The service contract signed in 2020 between the Piedmont Mobility Agency and Trenitalia provides for the reopening of the line with 14 daily runs as an extension of the SFM2 Pinerolo–Chivasso line. The reopening is currently suspended and investigations are ongoing by the local authorities of the territory.
• and doesn't support The overhead line remains in place on the Bricherasio–Pinerolo section, as the Bricherasio electrical substation powers the Pinerolo station yard and, together with the Airasca substation, the entire Pinerolo–Bivio Sangone (Turin) line.

These are the only two I checked, which doesn't bode well. Why we tolerate WP:WPOKA idk. Notified them of this Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Anagabt, can you please respond here? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Although we use LLMs in the translation process, as explained on our [https://oka.wiki/our-process/ official pages], all articles are manually reviewed to identify and remove any hallucinations that the LLMs might add. In cases of passages without references, hallucinations may involve adding sources in the wrong places or citing different pages, which is an mistake. I apologize for the situation, and I commit to paying closer attention to future articles to ensure this does not happen again. I will also be reviewing older pages. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention and tagging me. Anagabt (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t use AI to respond to comments here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

We have seen that official page many times. We just don't believe it, so please do not cite that at us as if it was a defence to anything. Having checked your contribs, I fail to understand what your post-reply edits have to do with fixing the issues, and your 29 August edit simply removes everything relying on the source wholesale, which does not inspire confidence in the thoroughness of your checking or indeed understanding of the text. I additionally also don't understand how you can expand rapidly, say here, I cannot seem to find the corresponding text in the itwiki article. I am in the process of going through all of your post-reply creations as I believe based on the tone that there are likely to be issues. (Note: Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence) It would be helpful if you can do that properly before I am finished. Fermiboson (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your attention. We are advised to remove passages without sources, as this is frowned upon by the community and undermines the reliability of the published text. As for the section I removed, I did so because the original text either lacked sources or cited sources that are no longer available online. Even though I added reliable sources to the translation, I thought it was better to remove that material to stay closer to the original. Regarding the ship article, translations are based on existing pages, but translators are free to expand articles with new information related to the topic, provided it is backed by reliable sources. Besides that, no AI was used in the response, it was simply formatted incorrectly. Anagabt (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe this in the slightest. This is based on a list of source-text discreptancies in every single one of your post-reply "translations" that is so long that it might take me until tomorrow to type out, format and fully verify everything. Fermiboson (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Here we go.

• Draft:Bari–Matera Railway
  • Infobox source 1 says closure is 1972-1974 rather than just 1972 and has no section opening detail that I can find.
  • Source 9 cites In 2022, work was completed on the undergrounding of the line between Quartierino and Poggiofranco but 1. the news article says 2023 and 2. is about a pedestrian bypass, not the line itself.
  • Second sentence in lede cited to Source 2, I cannot find where in the video it says anything about it, notwithstanding the issue of citing such a statement to a youtube video, though admittedly I could have missed something with this
  • "Selective doublings... Modugno" cited to the pdf in source 7, which is a "PROGETTO DEFINITIVO" (detailed design), not a construction document; source 8 could maybe count as supporting the fact that work is under way if you squint but definitely doesn't mention double tracking or undergrounding.
  • Purchase of 5 battery trains in "Matera metropolitan railway service" section unsupported; in fact p3 of the MIT decree says "con l’acquisizione di 3 treni a batteria per lo stesso importo e l’aggiunta di ulteriori somme per il completamento dell’infrastruttura della linea Altamura - Matera".
• Draft:Biella–Mongrando Railway
  • The Belgian company obtained in 1882 the concession for two tram lines (Biella–Sagliano Micca and Cossato–Strona) is apparently not in decree 184 but 194 (as far as I could make sense of the text files for either), which says a costruzione e l'esercizio di una strada ferrata, a sezione ridotta, da Cossato a Strona, e di altra da Biella a Sagliano Micca and according to gtrans "strada ferrata a sezione ridotta" means narrow-gauge railway, not tramway.
  • Via an urban connection in Biella, it was linked in 1922 to the narrow-gauge Biella–Oropa Sanctuary tramway. 1922 is found nowhere in the cited source.
  • I am unable to find any evidence of the existence of the L'Eco dell'Industria article aside from the itwiki article (which does, admittedly, mean this comes from the itwiki article). Similarly source 8 is missing from the bibliography.
• Draft:Marengo-Mandrogne Tramway
  • Ministerial authorization for the construction of a mechanically powered tramway was granted in 1881 to cavalier Domenico Bellisomi unsupported by source 1 - the ministerial authorisation can be found on p9 (Con decreto del 27 novembre...), while p12 says Bellisomi obtained the agreement of the Prefect in 1882.
  • In 1913, a connecting track was inaugurated between the line and ... p27 doesn't mention 1913. p25 does mention the inauguration of two tramways, but they do not appear to be referring to the relevant connecting track.
• Calabro–Lucanian Railways
  • Rogliano–Soveria Mannelli (35.484 km), 11 October 1922 opening date - Rogliano not found anywhere in source.
  • approval came only on 4 December 1902 with the law named after Zanardelli - Zanardelli's speech is 29 Sept 1902, and its content is inaccessible; the actual law seems to be TESTO DELLA LEGGE SPECIALE PER LA BASILICATA APPROVATA DALLA CAMERA NELLA TORNATA DEL 23 FEBBRAIO 1904 which is, well, not 1902.
• Draft:Comingsoon.it
  • Every single claim in the content section is unsupported by the source. Only content claim in the source is I contenuti sono curati da una redazione in grado di coprire tutto il mondo dell’entertainment: cinema, tv, digital distribution, serie tv, musica, games, libri e tecnologia. notwithstanding the fact that it is an obvious advertisement.

Some of these do appear in the corresponding itwiki version. No matter the case, however, this amount of mass verification failures (I'm only 1/3 of the way through) is disruptive and unacceptable. As content creation is continuing at a high rate, @Admins willing to patrol AINB: can we please get a mainspace and draftspace pblock for the time being while I type out the rest of this. Fermiboson (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

While I'm working through the rest of this, Draft:Italica (ship) is G15able as Soviet Merchant Ships has an invalid ISBN and source 16 resolves to the wrong article in a different issue of the journal. Fermiboson (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace and draftspace. As part of the cleanup, the reviewers who accepted LLM-generated drafts to mainspace should be notified to be more vigilant in the future. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that a lot of reviewers are still getting acclimatised to the avalance of AI-generated drafts. Especially the ones that have been doing it for a while are often still tuned to every draft having been actually written by someone, and this is a very jarring change. I don't fault them for this, but I do think that we should be making a serious effort of helping them be aware of the problem. The best way in this case is probably to just bring them into this discussion, and hopefully encourage them to lurk around AIN to get used to the common tells and patterns. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:39, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Added a tracker. How are we going to implement Anachronist's request to notify everyone who accepted drafts from this editor? M kuhner (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I can just do it while doing the LLMPRODs, think I'll ping in the edit sum if I see someone's accepted multiple Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:05, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

LLMPRODs done, I didn't notify AfC reviewers as it would've slowed me down, they were all people I've seen be vigilant at other times though. There are a few AfC drafts that need declining Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, I accepted Cepheus OB2 Region, Cepheus OB3 Region, and Cepheus OB4 Region and I remember them being relatively decent translations of itwiki's versions (based on cognates from French, Spanish, and English), which were all made way before the AI Boom. That does not rule out AI usage during translation and I do concede that I do not speak Italian, though. Would you remove the PRODs if you were in my position and why? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Quxyz, the guideline to check against is WP:LLMTRANSLATE which says the onus is on the translator to make sure that any translated content is supported by the sources, regardless of the quality of the original article. This user doesn't appear to have been do that at all, and while it's possible that the odd article is PAG-compliant, we'd need to review all articles for WP:V to find those ones (which is time-consuming). So I'd recommend reviewing these articles for WP:V if you want and editing where necessary (the sources appear to be in English), then removing the tags in line w WP:LLMPRVOBJ (sorry, ik that's probably not what you wanted to hear) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I might take out the PRODs for now because it is not the worst LLM content I have seen on the encyclopedia by a long-shot (speaking as an infrequent AfC reviewer dealing with corposlop) which gives me a bit of hope. It should also give me a bit of time to review the pages since there are three of them and they are somewhat lengthy and astronomical papers are not the easiest reads. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

feel free to userfy or draftify them if doing that, otherwise it might be best to tag w {{AI-generated}} if left in mainspace (I've seen a few times where someone says they'll review but then forget) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Just to correct the misunderstanding, you have to verify that everything is supported by the sources before you can remove the LLMPROD tag. The alternative is to userfy the articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, yes, all good points. I will work on this. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Know what, I got through one section on OB2 and I think I might just let it burn since it seems up to 80% might be WP:OR and the rest may need significant rewording to get it appropriate for the encyclopedia. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I have salvaged multiple LLM articles (Hypocnemis was the one that taught me how), and...I don't do it anymore. It is more work than writing a new article as the issues tend to be pervasive. You can get rid of overt LLM text and bad references but some degree of pointlessness and vagueness tends to remain. I reviewed one a few days ago where the sportsman in question coached his home team until mid-season and was abruptly let go. A human would wonder why, but the LLM was oblivious, despite there being material in the sources to answer this question.

Let it burn; hopefully someone will write a real article eventually. M kuhner (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not think it is fully an LLM issue as the itwiki article legitimately has similar content. However, any LLM usage there is did not ameliorate any issues. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, from my review I would say maybe half of the issues do come from itwiki. But of course we shouldn't be give a pass to bad content just because they come from other wikis. Fermiboson (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:2006mar

 2006mar (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (29 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Created Ahmed Choukri Stadium (Diff/1367158105) and Moulay Rachid Stadium (Casablanca) (Diff/1369115621) recently, both with AIREDCATS. Markdown in AbuseLog/44812363, AbuseLog/44811935, AbuseLog/44811812, AbuseLog/44784948. Attempts to cite Wikipedia in AbuseLog/44805142, AbuseLog/44796124, AbuseLog/44796120, and AbuseLog/44784947.

Has been warned several times, ignored it every time. Was asked about User talk:2006mar § Fake citations by JTtheOG, ignored that too. Asked Problem? in Special:Diff/1365377903 when an AfC draft was declined. Mainly edits Moroccan sports-related articles, so there might be a language barrier at play. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:58, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Still editing, recent edits are smaller. Diff/1374407716 introduced incorrect grammar, but didn't see any AISIGNS in the ones that I spot checked. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User: ScytodesReticulata

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

 ScytodesReticulata (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (2026-08-30)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-17_ScytodesReticulata, 20 pages need review.

hello all, I had just checked the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church to see if it had become more NPOV compliant after a long time from reading it and noticed recent edits and this user. The first thing I noticed was the Sunday Times article used as a reference for the Unchosen section of the article - it doesn't seem to exist, I've tried multiple archive sites and the only snapshot I can find is just the login screen or a white space. There also is some of the usual 'don't tag the page, give examples' thing that I've seen OVER AND OVER without saying whether they used it or not (seriously, wth) along with some... Vibes. I checked further on this user and found their edits to String trimmer while good, also looked like some generated text. The Purdue reference supports the text but the vibes are off.

Can anyone experienced check this out and let me know if I am barking up the wrong tree, and kindly tell me to stop reading so much AI stuff (thanks, work) if I'm mistaken? Hooples (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Their edit filter (linked above) is pretty concerning. I doubt you're barking up the wrong tree. I'll spot-check and send a warning if needed. M kuhner (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/tv-radio/article/unchosen-review-asa-butterfield-netflix-9lpwzzs8x

This is the Sunday times article. Do a google search "Sunday Times" and "Unchosen". Not difficult. ScytodesReticulata (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt. Unfortunately 65% of the Plymouth article is by this user (based on mw:Who Wrote That?) which is a particularly tough range for cleanup: at high percents it's easy to delete, at low percents to revert, this is neither. I have linked this case at the Talk page: maybe local editors will have suggestions. We may have to revert to the pre-LLM state. M kuhner (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I can assure you that EVERY claim made in the parts of the article I contributed has been checked against its source, and that every sentence is relevant, factual, attributed and thoroughly human. The parts of the article written by others are also accurate, although i have not personally checked all the citations that other editors have used. I note a few broken links which I will endeavor to correct by transferring to archive versions.

Note that there is a series of citations from historic UK newspaper articles that do not have a URL based citation. Most of these articles are available on British Newspaper Archive (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.com) which is behind a paywall. I have a personal library of 200+ historic newspaper articles downloaded from BNA about the PBCC/EB. I can supply a scan copy of any of these original articles on request, or a copy of the whole collection. None of these cited news articles are AI sourced. I have personally read every single source I have cited.

I have sometimes asked an LLM for suggestions on how to describe events or facts in neutral language, and have adopted the phrases suggested if I feel they are optimal. This may have led to some of my paragraphs having an AI vibe. As wikipedia:NOLLM says, "The writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs, meaning that the imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications"

I also use LLMs to convert the text I compose into wikicode and to assist in formatting the citations. (I am not very computer literate and I have found rendering citations correctly very challenging - hence resorting to LLMs to help with the correct formatting of the citations to the sources i have selected.) This may lead to some characteristic citation styles and/or formatting errors. In particular, this sometimes leads to incorrect 'titles' for news articles, as the LLM may derive these from the URL, which may not correspond to the actual printed title. I should have picked up these errors, and will try to correct any that I find - however, these errors in the article title do not mean that the article is hallucinated or irrelevant - every source is selected by me personally. I have just corrected the "Sunday Times" citation mentioned. As you will see, the citation is relevant and genuine.

By all means go ahead and painstakingly check every claim against its source, but you will be wasting your time. I probably have the most extensive personal collection of resources about the PBCC on the planet, and am frequently consulted by journalists for information. I do know what I am talking about. I would suggest that before accusing editors of not checking their claims against sources, you should have the courtesy to find at least one example of a false or unattributed claim in their work. Keep in mind that long form and comprehensive articles about secretive, complex and controversial groups such as the PBCC take hundreds of hours of research and thought, and there are few people who have both the patience and specific knowledge of the subject matter to be able to do this work.

While I appreciate the importance of your work in removing AI generated articles from Wikipedia, in this instance you are barking up the wrong tree, as you will see if you would only take the time to test your assumptions. ScytodesReticulata (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@ScytodesReticulata, this edit has markdown, which means you have been using a chatbot. Please be honest with us, people regularly get blocked for persistent LLM use Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, I have used LLM to help to correctly format citations which I have selected. I am not a computer coding expert and I often have difficulty rendering citations. The Wikipedia ban is in LLM generated CONTENT - not on using LLM to help with coding and formatting content which I have created. You really need to read the rules. ScytodesReticulata (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to be a "computer coding expert", and I've written User:gurkubondinn/REFPRIMER to help with this. You can also try using the WP:VISUAL editor, or using the WP:REFTOOLBAR to easily add references. This is not an overly difficult task, and referencing is something that deserves just as much care as writing the encyclopaedic material itself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:09, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

To add: it is very unsafe to allow the LLM to write your citations. I have been cleaning up large numbers of cases where the LLM helpfully filled in ISBNs, DOIs, database accession numbers, etc. Unfortunately they tended to point to different books or articles than the one being cited. Simple, correct human-written citations are vastly preferable to that. M kuhner (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Hooples, I write and edit a number of Christianity-related articles. I would recommend that this article, as well as the Exclusive Brethren article, be restored to their previous versions, being this revision and this revision, respectively. Over time, I will work on adding academic references to both of these articles. At present, both articles are in violation of WP:NPOV. Please let me know your thoughts. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

User:M kuhner made the suggestion and I agree. I have restored the previous revisions for now. AI/LLM is not the only concern here; there are serious concerns of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. I highly suspect that the release of the Unchosen series has influenced the rewriting of these articles. I would recommend that an administrator also review this. Anupam^Talk 23:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

In general, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. If you need input on the NPOV/DUE issues I suggest the steps listed in WP:SEEKHELP. I'm happy to help with LLM diagnosis but I'm neither an admin nor an NPOV expert. However, you may find discussions go better if someone uninvolved "hats" the LLM comments; happy to try that if needed. M kuhner (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I have close to 70,000 edits on English Wikipedia and often edit in religion spaces; the NPOV issues are easy to discern from looking at User:ScytodesReticulata's edits. With regard to pinging you, it was because you had suggested reverting to the pre-AI/LLM revisions, which I have done. I was just pointing out that AI/LLM isn't the only issue here. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 00:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't. The Talk page really made me cringe. Thanks for tackling this; you're in a much better position to make it right than the anti-LLM team would be. If an outside person can be helpful please let me know. M kuhner (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I was shocked to find this article has been decimated by reverting to a much older version. The article has been a very valuable resource to me as there is no other source available that has anything like the amount of up to date information on the PBCC. I have always found it to be reliable and accurate. I work with leavers and survivors of high demand religious groups, including former pbcc members, and it is vital that psychologists and social workers have this detailed information about PBCC practices to hand. If there are any identifiable errors, and I am not aware of any, surely it would be better to address them individually, rather than this heavy-handed mass deletion of valuable and irreplaceable data? Cursive-hieroglyph (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

In order to be valuable, information has to be accurate. The community has rejected use of LLMs on English Wikipedia, codified in WP:NOLLM, in large part because they are not felt to be accurate enough. As someone who has spent many hours source-checking LLM articles I agree with this. They tend to be riddled with small falsehoods and exaggerations--or sometimes big ones.

Whatever was of value there can be built back up with human text and human sourcing. Nothing is irreplaceable.

For psychologists and social workers dealing professionally with these issues, I would strongly recommend not relying on Wikipedia in any case. It is a user-edited site. M kuhner (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScytodesReticulata. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 16:36, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The value and usefulness of Wikipedia lies in the fact that every statement is backed by a citation and can therefore be checked. The article that you have so precipitately decimated was extremely citation rich, and provided a very convenient library with links to all manner of academic papers and news articles from all over the globe that would otherwise be almost impossible to find. Yes, there may have been a few broken links, this is true of almost all articles, but how can this possibly justify such extreme actions on your part?

I shall be speaking to colleagues in academia to address what I can only describe as vandalism.

You seem to have no idea what damage you are doing. Cursive-hieroglyph (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Our experience with LLM is that when the citations are checked in detail, they often are not accurate. That's the consideration that led to WP:NOLLM being passed by consensus of the community in March 2026. Reversions made in support of key Wikipedia guidelines are not considered vandalism.

The broken links are a symptom, not the core problem. The core problem is that due to lack of human insight, LLMs write terrible Wikipedia articles. There are issues with fact-checking, neutral point of view, due emphasis, judging reliable sources (they are terrible at that), organization of material, broken or incoherent citations, exaggeration, puffery, and more.

If you want to make the previous version available, Wikipedia has an extremely permissive license: just click into the pre-reversion version in the history and make a personal copy. You can put it on your web site, print it out, whatever.

If you want to propose a change to WP:NOLLM, see WP:Village pump in the Policies section.

If you'd like to help with cleanup, I can suggest ways to get involved with that. M kuhner (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking to build a consensus for cleanup. I have attached a tracker for easier examination. M kuhner (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support, see Cheryl Bawtinheimer (Feb 2026) for instance, markdown was Oct 2025, Special:Diff/1354802193 (May 2026) triggered Paste Check Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support starting LLMPRV cleanup. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Middleground1

 Cleanup has been requested.

• Middleground1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The usual. AI edits going back at least until 2025. Multiple warnings on talk page and no change in behavior. When will it end. Why does no one listen. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Countless filter log special abuse triggered. Can't go unnoticed for long. ~2026-47519-49 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, loads of AI-sourced citations , creations from 2024 have lots of signs, worth doing a proper analysis (I'll try in a bit if no-one beats me to it) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:54, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/39603430 (Dec 2024) is the first chatgpt-derived link. John Theurer Cancer Center (June 2023) mixes the use of emdash and double hyphen, its "Notable accomplishments" section is very promotional but this appears human-written, similar to Filip Swirski (March 2024) except for His writings reflect translational and fundamental cardiovascular and neurodegenerative science research... (Pangram says no ). There's mass creation and lots more signs in late 2025, looks like that may be where the start date is, but more analysis needed Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

MeloMaster

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-14 MeloMaster, 158 pages need review.

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 MeloMaster (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (2 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Needs reviewOh Eun-seo

Needs reviewList of Doraemon (2005 TV series) episodes (2015–present)

Needs reviewThe Apartment Job

Needs reviewGeneration to Generation

Needs reviewList of Doraemon (2005 TV series) episodes (2025–present)

Needs reviewLove in Disguise

Needs reviewList of years in Chinese television

Needs reviewDear X (webtoon)

Needs reviewGu Man

Needs reviewMy Page in the 90s

Needs reviewAzure Spring (TV series)

Needs reviewSee You at Work Tomorrow!

Needs reviewThe Perfect Lie

Needs reviewLove Doctor (TV series)

Needs reviewLove for You

Needs reviewMake Me Tremble

Needs reviewLove Between Lines

Needs reviewLoving Strangers

Needs reviewLove Has Fireworks

Needs reviewSpeed and Love

Needs reviewThe Early Spring

Needs reviewWhen I Meet the Moon

Needs reviewRoad to Success

Needs reviewExclusive Fairytale

Needs reviewRomance Next Door

Needs reviewShine on Me

Needs reviewOur Generation (Chinese TV series)

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

I ran into this person's articles through seeing The Early Spring on the NPP popular unreviewed list, and it had characteristic AI phrasing and source-text integrity issues. This is a bummer because it's a very popular show, so lots of people are reading the article. I cleaned up some of it, but really it needs more work.

The person also made a bunch of other articles that need review for AI issues and likely reworking - see User:MeloMaster/Articles - including Oh Eun-seo, Generation to Generation, Dear X (webtoon), Love for You, Love Between Lines, and Speed and Love. I left a notice on their talk page a few days ago about LLM use, but it looks like they may not have received a warning before that. They haven't edited for a few weeks. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

LLMPROD needed asap ~2026-47519-49 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I just spot-checked a couple of their articles and spotted AI signs and source-text integreity issues in them all. I'd support an LLMPROD. InfernoHues (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

doing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:31, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Magentic Manifestations

 Cleanup has been requested.

Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Magentic Manifestations has recently created or edited a number of similar pages, and I have noticed several things that seem worth looking into.

Checked some paragraphs of different articles with AI detection tool and each of them flagged as 100% AI-generated. One thing that stands out is that some of the articles were created as a single large edit, with large amount of structured and technical content appearing all at once with a single large first edit. This is also the case with Pyroclastic rocks, Peddapalli. The article contains detailed geological descriptions and explanations from the beginning.

There are also some inconsistencies in the article. Some of the wording appears more detailed than what is supported by the cited sources, and some statements seem to go beyond what the references establish. There are also generic explanations of terms which seem unnecessary for the article and make parts of it read more like a generated summary.

Specialabuse filters have been noticing this since a very long time. Check filter log.

Tagged Pyroclastic rocks, Peddapalli for now ~2026-47519-49 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are making a claim against an editor, then it would be better if you could provide concrete proof of the allegation being leveled so as to address them. New articles are generally created from scratch in one go and nothing is wrong with that. The mentioned article in question (Pyroclastic rocks, Peddapalli) adheres to the MOS and has three clearly sourced paragraphs. You have tagged three other articles as well blindly as AI-generated with no clear reason. So, unless you have something concrete here, I am going to remove the tags and ignore this discussion ever happened. Thanks.

Note: The only edits from the IP address in question seems to have been leveling these allegations. Seems suspect and motivated. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, Pangram says that the report is 100% AI-generated, which does indeed seem likely. Kisseran (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Im not seeing any huge signs of LLM use in that article, but it's hard to tell with such a small text. Everything looks attributed correctly, the notability seems suspect but that's not what I focus on. Hooples (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned by very close paraphrase of source 1. The archiving prevents my copy-vio software from running on this source, but eyeballing shows near-identical passages of considerable length. For example: source has The outcrop is reported as welded agglomerate consisting rounded to angular, large fragments of granite, granite gneiss, basalt and banded ferruginous quartzite set in a matrix of ignimbrite. The acidic fragments are ripped off from the country rocks during violent eruptions. The rock characteristics indicate ignimbritic pyromagma which has contributed to the glowing avalanche type of volcanic eruption.

In contrast, article has Pyroclastic rocks at Peddapalli comprise a welded agglomerate of various igneous rocks such as granite, gneiss, basalt, and banded ferruginous quartzite, set in a matrix of ignimbrite. [...] These rocks were formed when fragments were ripped from the country rocks during violent submarine volcanic eruptions. The rock characteristics indicate ignimbritic magma associated with a glowing-avalanche type of eruption.

The wording "country rocks" is sufficiently odd to attract notice here.

I am also concerned about the last paragraph, which seems to be a random assortment of close paraphrases from various sources with no clear topic. Why are pyroclastic rocks defined here, and not when mentioned above? What is the use of telling us that they are classified by size and abundance, without venturing any statement about the ones at Peddapalli specifically? Why is tephra defined?--it is never discussed anywhere in the article. (It is sourced to 1 and 4 but the sentence is close paraphrase of 1 and does not really agree with 4.)

The article is short and I don't feel 100% sure it is LLM, but these flaws are quite typical of LLM.

M kuhner (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

If you see that please tag it with Template:Close paraphrasing, whether or not it was llm. CMD (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

The phrase "country rocks" refers to the rock type as exactly as mentioned in source #1. The geology section follows the structure as given in the source (initial description of the Pedappalli rocks followed later by the definition of pyroclastic rocks and the definition of tephra (which is also stated in source #4)).

So, the problem here is the dearth of sources and that majority of the content derives from a single source (#1 INTACH). If we still want to go by tools, both GPTZero and Quillbot rate this as 100% human.

However, I do agree with CMD that there might be some close paraphrasing given that it was derived from a single source. However, being geology, I often find it difficult to rephrase them, and I am not sure rewording might serve any purpose. I have addressed the coherence part. Anyways open to comments. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

If there is only one usable source, that's not enough for an article. I do sympathize with the difficulty of rephrasing technical descriptions: biologists hit that too, and there is some leeway for close paraphrase in these situations. But I really don't think there are enough sources here. Is there any possibility of finding more? Otherwise it should probably go to Articles for Deletion. M kuhner (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Indinfokmr

 Indinfokmr (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (1 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Communication from a chatbot in AbuseLog/42213058, doesn't seem to have stopped using AI. One particle is at AfD, I've sent another one to draft. Both were full of AISIGNS, and the article that I draftfied was created with one reference that returned 404 not. Had never been warned for AI use until today. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

looks like language-proficiency issues , I'll leave them a message Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

didn't respond and are currently editing, but they appear to have stopped using AI (eg. ). However, they've submitted the article you drafted (Draft:Kashmiri Coppersmithing) to AfC while it still has the AI tag... Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Went ahead and declined the draft at AfC. They're clearly aware of user talk pages existing because they posted User talk:Qwerfjkl § Question from Indinfokmr on Osvaldoginella gomezi (04:23, 14 September 2026) today.

Indinfokmr, can you please respond to these concerns? ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:12akd

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

12akd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The speed and size of this users page creations is highly suspicious as is the content of them. I am no LLM/AI expert, but WP:DUCK... Requesting a review. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I saw these as well, and the size of the articles combined with the speed at which they were created raised my suspicions as well (though it is always possible they were prepared offline and published together once they were all ready).

I'm not good at spotting AI writing, but I tried putting a selection of the pages (as they currently are in mainspace) through (with a disclaimer that it isn't a perfect tool) with the following results

• Illustrierte Geschichte des Kunstgewerbes (Lehnert) - ai score = 1.0
• Der Mensch und die Erde - ai score = 0.639
• Weltall und Menschheit - ai score = 0.204
• Das XIX. Jahrhundert in Wort und Bild - ai score = 1.0
• Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte (Springer) - ai score = 0.439

For the last one I copied the text of the first version into pangram and got 82% of the text being AI generated

Taking their statement at face value it appears that they heavily use LLMs to do their research and the copy large amounts of text directly into their articles, though they do evidently do some editing of the material afterwards.

Disclaimer, I don't typically look monitor AI stuff and I'm not good at detecting AI generated text so would appreciate someone with more experience reviewing my work. Giulio 13:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would like to clarify how I prepared the articles I created, as the speed and number of my recent page creations may give a misleading impression.

Over the past few days, I have mainly been working on older, established book series and their individual volumes, as well as related subjects. These are generally publications from many decades ago, and in a number of cases works dating back around 100 years. I was already familiar with some of these subjects beforehand; I knew several of the works personally, while I had learned about others previously through online sources.

I did use ChatGPT as a research aid, mainly to help gather information, get an overview of a subject, and organize material. I did not simply assume that the information it provided was correct. I checked and corrected the information and, where necessary, compared it with additional sources. I then compiled and edited the final articles myself.

A substantial part of the editing was also done manually. I repeatedly corrected and adjusted the tables by hand, incorporated knowledge and experience I have gained from dealing with books and antiquarian material, and on several occasions separately reviewed and corrected the categories at the bottom of the articles.

I would also like to emphasize that these are not fictional book series, works, or subject areas. The articles are based on real publications and established series, in many cases dating back many decades.

I would therefore actually welcome a review of the articles. In particular, I would be grateful if someone could check that the book series and works mentioned really exist, that the publication and pagination/extent information is accurate, and that the subjects and factual claims are not invented or based on fictional information. If any particular detail or wording is incorrect, I am of course happy to correct it.

I understand that the large number of articles created in a relatively short period, and their similar structure, may have raised concerns about LLM use. That is why I wanted to explain my workflow openly, and I am happy for the articles and their underlying claims to be checked individually.

There may of course be minor errors or inaccuracies in some of the articles, especially given the amount of material covered in a short period of time. However, to the best of my knowledge, the underlying information concerns real publications and real works, rather than invented material. In fact, some of these works appear to be so obscure that, as far as I have been able to determine, they have not previously been described or documented online on a worldwide scale. This is also one of the reasons why I believe these articles can be valuable additions to Wikipedia.

In my view, AI tools can also be useful as research aids: they can help speed up the collection and organization of background material, identify potentially relevant information and websites to investigate, and thereby help a human editor develop valuable, well-researched articles, provided that the information is independently checked and verified. Thank you for reading my position. 12akd (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is another article of mine: Hans Tolten. He was a German author from the interwar period who wrote interesting travel books—some featuring photographs—such as those about South America. He has been completely forgotten; while there is a Wikidata entry for him, there isn't even a German Wikipedia article. 12akd (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

In particular, I would be grateful if someone could check that the book series and works mentioned really exist, that the publication and pagination/extent information is accurate, and that the subjects and factual claims are not invented or based on fictional information. - Why would someone need to check this for you? Shouldn't you have checked it before making the articles/edits? InfernoHues (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues: I apologize; naturally, I did verify the series—they do exist. I simply suggested that anyone who might question the authenticity of the subjects of my articles could verify—even after the fact, with a quick online search (forx example: ) — that I am not writing about made-up things. 12akd (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the description of your editing process. However, I have to say that the following makes it sound as though you didn’t actually do all the writing yourself:

I checked and corrected the information and, where necessary, compared it with additional sources. I then compiled and edited the final articles myself.

A substantial part of the editing was also done manually.

Could you confirm whether all the text in your articles was directly written by you, or whether you compiled and edited text from an LLM? Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I did some preliminary collection work and there were some book series that I have known for years (or their translations). I personally had 1 volume of some of them in my hands. The writing of the articles was preceded by collection work, but in addition to my own online collections, I also involved AI in the search for several materials. The outline and overview of the article structure required preliminary thought, and here too I took AI into account at the proposal level (although I had already modified things). I translated my own Hungarian formulations in several cases, then had them checked by AI, and in some cases I also took its additions into account. In several cases, I also modified the completed texts subsequently, usually adding additions. 12akd (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That really doesn't answer my question. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you check out my latest work: Lehrbuch der Weltgeschichte]. 12akd (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

This also does not answer my question. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@12akd I’m still waiting for an answer to this question. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

This reply in itself reads LLM-generated. Are you using a translator or grammar-correction program at all? InfernoHues (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@12akd: at this point you need to cease creating pages. Every page you have created is quite obviously created using AI/LLM. At the very least you need to stop doing this until this discussion reaches a resolution. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I would respectfully like to ask: what exactly constitutes "prohibited AI-generated, unverified text" in the case of this page? Draft:Lehrbuch der Weltgeschichte Unlike previous instances—where I transferred longer versions of content I had prepared earlier using research, data collection, and AI verification before refining them here—I actually created the article for this work by Johann B. Weiss right here, yesterday, in full view of everyone. I respectfully request an examination of what makes this unlawful, inappropriate, an act of vandalism, a case of a non-existent subject (does the book exist?), or a collection of erroneous data. In my view, this concerns a real book with accurate details, and the article is not unverified AI-generated content. (As with all my other articles—without exception—these deal with genuine, centuries-old literary works; and although I incorporated artificial intelligence into their creation in the ways detailed above, I was already familiar with the works beforehand and verified the data afterward, deeming clarifications necessary in several places. I consider these valuable articles—and not merely minor "drafts"—that cover books which otherwise would not appear on Wikipedia.) 12akd (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@12akd, read WP:AITALK (based on a multitude of signs + ) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: To reiterate: I gathered the main ideas and systematically constructed the argument myself (for the entries, I relied on my own background knowledge, searched online, and verified the additional results suggested by the AI—since it is crucial, after all, that Wikipedia contains factual statements, sourced facts, and accurate data); I also drafted the outline, but ChatGPT polished it into a better form. (The exact same process is happening right now with this very response.) I stand by every statement made. 12akd (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Here are all my articles, you can check them out here: (+ And I haven't written anything new since Zachmann's warning.) ---> "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit Wikipedia using a large language model, which is prohibited. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:27, 3 September 2026" 12akd (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@12akd, that is not allowed by WP:NOLLM and WP:AITALK. Follow the guidelines please or you will be blocked Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

What you are describing is not permitted by the WP:NOLLM guideline, and your replies here are clearly WP:AITALK. Please stop using AI on the English Wikipedia, and you should know that the German Wikipedia does not allow the use of KI either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• chatgpt-derived link in Special:AbuseLog/42528204 (Oct 2025). On 1 Oct 2024 they rapidly created 5 articles within 45 mins, all appearing to be unreviewed machine translations from huwiki with eg. [4] instead of citations (not AI). Museum of Hungarian Agriculture (Dec 2025) was AI tagged, first creation to use emdash instead of hypen, an attempt at a link in markdown after The museum floor plan is available, lots more signs. Consensus needed for LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: If this is the guideline , then Ai will not be allowed from March 2026. This article is from December 2025, the previous one: What is the violation here? 12akd (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

No @12akd, AI-generated text is not "grandfathered" in like that. The date of the guideline just means that users won't be sanctioned for stuff that happened before the guideline was enacted in its current form, it doesn't mean that AI-generated text that was inserted prior to that date is allowed to remain. The guideline in it's current form applies to all text and all articles on the project. I recently wrote a longer explanation in § Clarification on "plenty" in latest tag addition on my talk page that you might find illuminating. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support LLMPRODs. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support cleanup via LLMPROD. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support LLMPROD. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have been trying to clean up some of the more recent articles by User:12akd after their creation. I am unaware of how exactly the LLMPROD process works in enwiki, but in the template it is written that articles may be deleted after 5 days. I believe that at least some of the articles in question can be saved and reworked to comply with the guidelines. I would like to rework at the very least the biography articles and potentially also some of the book series articles, although I'm not too convinced that sufficient reliable sources are available for them. But my ability to edit Wikipedia is very limited in the upcoming weeks, so I will not be able to do anything in the short timeframe of 5 days. I would like it ask if it's possible to draftify the articles instead of deleting them, so I would have more time to rework them. That said, I will definitely not be able to review and rework all the articles, since my time is limited in general and the sheer number of articles is just too high.--CaptainOlimar42 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainOlimar42, that's okay, feel free to draftify them and remove the LLMPROD tag (imo it'd be best to tag the drafts with {{AI-generated}} in case you forget about them and someone else unknowingly moves them back to mainspace, but up to you). Thanks for doing this, feel free to let us know if you have any questions or need help with anything Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I have now draftified all articles with the LLMPROD tag and replaced the tag with Template:AI-generated, as suggested by you. As I said, most likely not all of the articles will reach mainspace-level, but that way the AI-generated content is out of the mainspace, and I can take the time to assess and save some of the articles. And the others will eventually be deleted as abandoned drafts. -- CaptainOlimar42 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Just make sure to watch them until they are G13 deleted, because it happens relatively often that someone finds the draft and moves it back into article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

IamMKO

IamMKO (talk · contribs), XTools

AI-sourced citations , draft declined for AI use , several AI signs in Yoruba Language Center, University of Ibadan (June 2026), seems good-faith, I've left them a message Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

LLM use by User:Mitchell2526

There are definite indications of LLM use by User:Mitchell2526. Some of this is in Draft:Timothy Cover and Neil Osheroff where there were tags showing that the refs were generated using ChatGPT (since removed). For certain Draft:Timothy Cover has several sources which are both incorrectly formatted and do not verify the statements, strongly suggesting AI hallucination. The user has denied any use of LLM at User talk:Mitchell2526.

Courtesy ping of MadelynnSienna and gurkubondinn. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

AI-sourced citations and markdown . After the warning they created Special:Permalink/1373055436 (3 Sept), I'm not seeing any signs, the prose appears human but spotchecks of refs and text-source would make certain. Ofc edits before 2 Sept need cleanup regardless Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:14, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Noboyo

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Noboyo (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (14 September 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. Autopatrolled permission has been removed from editor's account.

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

Another case of high-volume AI editing, this time to musical articles with the usual slate of music article-specific AI indicators. Also, many hits in filter log for ChatGPT params. Not sure how far it goes back, there's no clear breakpoint in the edit history timing, but the earliest filter log hit for AI params is May 2025 so it can be assumed that all of the (many, many, many) edit since then are also ChatGPT Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

yep, Special:AbuseLog/40858164 (May 2025) had utm_source=chatgpt, and they triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325 6 times between Nov 2025 and April 2026 . Creations are cleaner than your average LLM articles and music articles are tough to detect, these probably need spotchecks unfortunately Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

music articles are actually some of the easiest to detect imo, the formula is incredibly rigid and idiosyncratic Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

in what ways are they structured differently from human-written ones? I find SUPERFICIAL doesn't really stick out in stubby artistic topics Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

the album blends whatever and whatever while maintaining blah

lyrically, the album explores themes of whatever

reviewer 1 highlighted blah blah blah, reviewer 2 emphasized whatever

there are other indicators but this stuff shows up over and over in AI articles and almost nowhere else; there is so much of it because at this point our music articles are primarily AI thanks to a handful of individuals Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

have you got the time to determine a start date here? I don't see any pattern changes in creation timing or activity (btw only 0.8% of their edits are to talk pages)

Also, @Admins willing to patrol AINB: can autopatrolled be removed here please? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Autopatrol revoked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Utkarsh Nandan Oreya

 Cleanup has been requested.

Utkarsh Nandan Oreya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User created a number of lengthy articles (between 5,000 bytes and 22,000 bytes) in the last day, all from scratch with no additional edits, sometimes within ~10 minutes of each other. Running a couple of them through GPTZero returned an AI score of 1.0 Giulio 00:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

received a final warning this morning , I'll draftify yesterday's creations and leave them a message explaining things. Worth keeping an eye on Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:39, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

their response was positive but potentially AI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Chiserc

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Came across an article by this user while patrolling, created in a single edit in draftspace with redcats, curly qoutes, and the category Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space. Sourcing with no links to Spanish language journals led me to look at their history.

• An article created in a single edit in draftspace, with redcats and in category Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space. The links to tsarevo.info are currently dead, however at archive.org they are live as of December 2025. . The next edit on the article is by Chiserc with the edit summary "Remove unverified excessive details"
• On August 20, created 3 long articles in single edits in draftspace, again with redcats and the Pending in article space cat. These draw on Lithunian, Italian, and Estonian sources.

There's a whole run of similiar article creation this summer. Same category issues, some unusual bolding, . That one relies on English source, but these all have a pattern of citations to pages in these books and article sources, within 12 hours of writing another article. That one has the most smoking guns: a non-existant template, the pending submissions in article space category, red see also links, and the depreciated cite journal parameter "ref=harv", some of the sources are in Greek and German.—BrechtBro (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I have notified Chiserc of this discussion. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I always follow same pattern: I create articles working offline, and then make the final single edit in draftspace. That's my style, if this is a problem, I won't do that, but I always did that and I don't see the problem here.

Regarding folklore articles, yes, I made similar folklore articles in similar categories, since I had finally time to make them now, after a lot of research in this topic; I didn't write them one after the other, I just had time to upload them together this summer. Also, since these are very major articles, with a lot of text, it is evident that they will be fixing issues, especially in citations and formatting, and I asked help for that, with no response. These are very major articles, and I assume a crystal-clear formatting is not expected. Of course, issues with wrong templates or wrong categories will be here, but again I don't see the problem here. Depreciated parameters or non-existant templates are errors that are everywhere; actually I reversed ref=harv when I saw that is now depreciated in some cases beforehand. My focus was on text, not so much on formatting (like red links, archived that were incorrectly mentioned as lived sites, or bolding that was for importance). Also, I had a very tough time to make links to pages, so in some cases, I didn't add a lot.

I normally verify text very carefully, with their sources, and I don't see issues here, or at least major ones. With formatting and templates, yes I always have difficult time to fix these issues, but there is no help. Lastly, Mario Jaén is a tough try to make an article for an actor, that I thought there is potential, but finally I found few sources as stub-article, and I just left it with the hope someone else will make it better. I don't see why everything is labelled, but in any case you are free to decide. Chiserc (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Let me add some more as additional, last comment. These articles were my effort to finally make some in-depth articles; if you see, I requested a B-class rating in many of these articles (reassess), in order to finally have some good articles as a personal, let's say, trophy after many other articles. So, I pushed a lot to add sources, even much more as needed, to justify a good rating for my drafts; this justifies a lot the excessive citations in 1-2 cases mainly (Kuker is the most evident case). Also, bolding was added in some cases, since I didn't have many links to add, so yes, it may be added incorrectly for emphasis in absence of links. Lastly, other issues, especially quotations, and article space categories are errors that I always make, and especially the article space categories are always here as errors (in my last articles I finally fixed that). So, in general, what you describe is mostly my effort to push the articles to make them very detailed, after collecting and finalizing information for a set of articles in similar categories, to finally make them in B-class or finally good articles; I pushed a lot I think, with many issues (not major though, or AI) but I tried for the best.

As a final note to add, I think that some of the articles should be at draft status, since what I asked almost always as comment was support to improve with no response, and they are just being accepted. The AI label I think is quite misleading, but I won't intervene on that, you can decide on that. I don't have time for this now to make more edits, since the sources of text are mostly here, but any help and support from others is more than appreciated. Thanks again! Chiserc (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

A spotcheck of Chiserc's articles at wikipedia.gptzero.me all give 1.0 AI going back into December until Prishani Naidoo, David Chidester, and Rebecca Jensen-Clem which score part AI part human, but the earlier Hjallastefnan, Luise Klebs and Lee Haring are also rated at 1.0 for AI. Njálurefill which was accepted into mainspace a few days ago has a bunch of sourcing in Icelandic. User's talk is archived, but I don't see a prior AI warning. —BrechtBro (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I don't have any warning at all (once a rejection for a very poorly made indeed draft of Hjallastefnan that looked like AI maybe but I made it better and accepted), and actually almost all my drafts are approved via AfCs, and the most experienced reviewers. I don't use AI in any kind of writing process or formatting the drafts/articles. What I do is only beforehand, when sourcing, I use any possible tool in order to translate the text of sources I find from other languages into English, to understand them on my own, and then I write and submit in total the whole article by myself, from scratch. Yes, I had some fluctuated writing experiences throughout this process, and sometimes I had found that I may have used a style that looked like AI, in earlier stages mostly, but honestly it wasn't (Hjallastefnan was the major example on this). This may explain this score, especially since I am a non-native English speaker, and I use multiple languages as sources, as you said before correctly, to create different articles, and not on same topics for diversity. The folklore articles which are on same topic, even these ones, are from different areas in this rationale. Check for this behavior like this: https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-detectors-biased-against-non-native-english-writers. I hope this explains a little bit (please don't just minimize all my work, this is quite harsh and unfair). For female researchers especially I made significant effort to find under-represented or young ones, like you mentioned Prishani Naidoo, Rebecca Jensen-Clem, Luise Klebs, and many others (7 women scientists so far).

Apart from this, for the current drafts you moved back in draft space, most of your concerns, I guess if not all, are cases of over-detailed efforts, especially White kuker of Strandzha and Cheshire soul-caking play, or even Estonian nature writing which is a more broad topic, to improve the topics with as much depth as possible (mentioned in comments I left before review in each draft). Kalogeros (folk custom) had issues of some excessive citations, especially in introduction, which I improved a lot in subsequent articles, similarly the others in some parts only, but I don't see anything as major issue, apart from that.

I recommend keep drafts probably White kuker of Strandzha and Cheshire soul-caking play, which are the most evident efforts for over-detailed writing (excessive strings of citations, some red links, and all others you mentioned before), while I don't see issues (at least major ones) for others. It's the best I could for this concern as honest explanation. Thanks again! Chiserc (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reponse. I hope you'll understand the difficulty sometimes in determining AI content. Your point about second languages is well taken. However, I'm unconvinced, particularly as to why you would research and write a ~7500 word article and then immediately remove a third of it as unverified rather than adding sources to it. I don't mean this to be rude, but the articles also display a noticably higher level of English proficency than your comments here, which, granted, could at least in part be explained by additional diligence and editing. We'll see what other editors have to say. If I've acted in error the articles will be restored to main and I'll apologize. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding all my latest, mostly folklore, articles, I mention again that I made some big edits in order to make B-class articles finally (explained before in detail hopefully, while you can also see my history for that). The one case you mentioned again, the White kuker of Strandzha, was a massive edit I made after meticulous review of months, and I removed significant parts after a second reading, that this should be ultra-excessive details; I don't mention unverified like it's not supported by sources, but mostly dubious by someone who cannot interpret them correctly will all the details, and some technical knowledge that is necessary. I mention that, because all articles are made within a layperson-level, so unverified means more sources needed to establish extremely detailed information that I removed (I said to myself don't think this is obvious, it may be unverified for others). Actually, the unverified tag is mostly excessive details tag, but I added unverified like there might be a problem of dubious (original) research with all these details. Also, there is the main Kukeri article for more details, but yes it might be an error when I mentioned unverified; most suitable is excessive details (no big problem on this aspect I guess).

Also, regarding English proficiency, of course, when you write an article, you spend a lot of time, in my case around 2 months, to edit it like a small academic article, especially as a non-native speaker. It's obvious that a comment shouldn't be like writing an article, hopefully it's informal; because I had some experience, trying to be in the academic world, I tried to use this knowledge in writing these articles finally. Similar comments I see they are developed within the recent discussion for User:Stupor26, and much more can be said on how faulty AI detectors are, especially for non-native English people and even harder if you have some academic writing exposure on being more strict and formulistic as may need sometimes (see also: https://mitsloanedtech.mit.edu/ai/teach/ai-detectors-dont-work/). You mentioned before errors like wrong templates, but I have made close to 40 articles, and I made one-two errors in total that I copied from the Draft:Kalogeros (folk custom) a few days before. Actually, you also made 2 errors on wrong templates with much fewer articles (see your filter edits as well; you will see two unknown templates, and your first is about AI-assisted sources). My edits are as careful as possible, with formatting issues for sure, but I trigger very rarely filters. I made very big edits and I believe some errors, like all you mentioned before, are obvious and much less than expected actually. I can also say much more (like how I chose these topics, why now, and many many more), but I will wait a little bit in order to avoid over-explanations beforehand. One last for your reference is that I made specifically Draft:White kuker of Strandzha (and probably the Kalogeros draft) a little earlier than expected, and with some obvious errors as said, because 2 days before Burgas was announced as host city of Eurovision, and I rushed to publish it, instead of make it final 2-3 days later as I developed it months before, since it's a local folk custom from Burgas, and I seized the opportunity!

Please just don't minimize all my work so far, because you already labelled many articles quite unfairly and harshly (I believe), and it has been a very tough task to create all these, with no support at all. I understand your concerns for sure, though, and thanks for your care on that! Chiserc (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Just a small note on something, and as general advice: you said initially for Draft:White kuker of Strandzha that the links of a specific website are dead, tsarevo.info, as major AI sign. However, for me, they are still live, I can access them, and I remember correctly they were live a month ago - https://www.tsarevo.info/za-obshtinata/strandzhanski-obichai/obichayat-palikosh-v-strandzha/ and https://www.tsarevo.info/za-obshtinata/strandzhanski-obichai/kukerovden-v-strandzha-i-negovoto-obredno-bogatstvo/. Please just be a little more careful, since these accusations are serious, and more diligence may be necessary to label this and so many other articles beforehand. I hope my comments are helpful finally, thanks again! Chiserc (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. They didn't work at the time of the post. —BrechtBro (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Guraleci

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

I think most of the pages this person has made have been AI generated. At least [[Genc Nimoni]] and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fitore_Pacolli&oldid=1372392304. Masohpotato (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Guraleci (talk · contribs), Genc Nimoni was G15'd, on 31 August they created 4 articles in the space of 20 mins, loads of WP:AIREDCAT. Haven't been warned for AI usage so I'll do that now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I've draftified the creations, will also revert edits after 31 August and leave them a message explaining things Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The user is still at it: Diff/1374029974. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:15, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

final warning Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Only thing remaining is edits to Bekim Sejdiu, cleanup is done otherwise Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Genc Nimoni (9 Sept) was moved to mainspace by someone else, I've draftified it again Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Voicecalls

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-07_Voicecalls, 51 pages need review.

Looks like starting on Aug 27, Voicecalls has made a series of edits (including edit summaries!) that looks AI generated extensive source summaries on contentious BLPs, court cases, allegations with some information reading like a news diary - a lil like the whole news cycle got dropped into the pot! Voicecalls said on their user talk that they used AI "to draft the wording of the edits" and that "I will also slow down. The volume was more than I could check properly." In a talk discussion, @Dekimasu suggested bring this here. NicoR8 (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I am seeing this now. I had replied at the Eye-needed post my reply at the "Eye needed" discussion. I can help you guys to categorize the posts - cosmetic changes versus substantive prose. The start date is August 27 with 200 mainspace edits, 84 pages roughly 81 cosmetic.

Only 2 new pages: one of them Perversion of Justice is a redirect. The article 2026 Maldives speedboat capsizing is a new page. All sources and citations on the new page independently verified again by me. The drafting has stopped. Voicecalls (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation! I have made a tracking page so we can check your work, because most people (including me) underestimate how difficult LLM cleanup is the first time we try. (I got handed an LLM article by Newcomer Tasks; I think it took me a month.) I omitted undos and redirects, and edits less than +/- 35 bytes. It's attached up above. M kuhner (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up the tracking page.

I am here to help to show which edits are the prose vs mechanical. Let me know if you need that list by category.

2026 Maldives speedboat capsizing - all sources are verified and each ones serve what it is cited for. Voicecalls (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

In the tracking page there is a button to the left of each entry. We normally mark "Unnecessary" for edits which are clearly fine (for example small copyedits), and "Ongoing" for articles which are in the process of being cleaned up or deleted. I will ask you to mark "Ongoing" for articles you have cleaned up, and I'll do a check and mark "Completed" if things look good. Thank you again! M kuhner (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Two things to particularly watch for: Recent LLMs often say things that are true and have a source in the article, but then they cite the wrong source. This is hard for a domain expert to spot because the claims look fine. They also often say that many people, sources, critics, etc. said something when really they could only find one. I haven't looked at your articles specifically for these issues but they are extremely common. M kuhner (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey @M kuhner thanks for setting this up - the AI certainly kept busy! And thanks to Voicecalls for responding to this. I think there is another issue to watch for - Wikipedia:WEIGHT and Wikipedia:BALASP. For example, see a few diffs: Tiger, Tate, Castro. These are not simply citation issues, but individual news reports, many with detailed, blow-by-blow details. In Tiger Woods, for example, the edits includes detailed toxicology findings and plea commentary. The same pattern is seen in Tate, Castro (even charges prosecutors were still considering) edits and others. So the edits may be individually verifiable, but may still be undue and disproportionate.

I think might be easier to presumptively revert the AI drafted edits first per Wikipedia:LLMPRV rather than waiting for cleanup editors to review each one and figure out what to keep while the live article remains available for the world to read. NicoR8 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed the BLP issue on Operation Metro Surge - charges prosecutors were considering against a living person - removed at 20:41.

I will trim Tiger Woods and Andrew Tate - procedural detail in Woods and hearing-by-hearing in the Tate case. Woods diff spans nine revisions and only five are mine.

The BLP fixes took under an hour. Voicecalls (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey Voicecalls, Tiger's 9 revisions were included to show your changes collectively. The other 4 were minor edits, unrelated to your section. For Operation Metro Surge, removing that one sentence does not resolve overall issue at hand. NPOV still requires due weight and balance in context of the specific article, not simply that the sentences are sourced. That kind of article level DUE/BALASP judgment is what is missing from these AI drafted edits. They should not remain live while cleanup editors review them one by one and decide what, if anything, can be kept. It may be helpful to read the relevant policies and each article first, then decide what is actually due, and not simply whether there are allegations, court cases, or other developments that can be added because they appear in sources. NicoR8 (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Stupor26

I believe the recent spate of aricle creations and major revisions of articles by Stupor26 are done by LLM. Every check I have done with GPTZero and Pangram confirms it. Indeed, I wrote the original War of the Keys article and so am personally confident that it is 100% human written. The tools confirm it, but the new text is at best a 50/50 mix of AI and human text (i.e., mine). This issue was raised on that talk page and on the user's talk page. S/he denies it. Srnec (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

“Confirmed” using the infinitely credible and unimpeachable AI checker tools. I’m quite confident in my history contributions, every single statement and expansive edit of which is made solidly from respected and reputable sourcing, and I’m equally confident my past history of contribution to previous pages speaks loudly enough for good faith. The only thing that’s ‘confirmed’ here is injured pride of authorship by one user against another over a major edit that demonstrably expands and colors an important article using firm sources every single step of the way. My edit verifiable built on aforementioned user’s foundations, incorporating more nuance and contextualizations from sources and scholarship used. Frankly, distaste and discouragement for this sort of bonafides expansion, especially when (again) every single point of expansion is done concretely buttressed in scholarship and respected voices throughout, makes such an article pointless otherwise. Stupor26 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you using an LLM to write your article edits and discussion comments? Simple answer, please. M kuhner (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Nope. Never have, and won’t. Also never been accused of such in the history of any of my edits on previous pages I’ve contributed too. I explained why I’ve making contributing large edits over the last few days after relative account silence for a while. As mentioned there, and here, I think my bonafides have spoken for a while. I hope that’s simple enough. Stupor26 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I was just about to bring the article here. I think its been generated by LLM. scope_creep^Talk 18:25, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry you think that, but I should have hoped AI would have at least made less of the formatting, grammatical and link errors than I consistently have and have to constantly go back and forth fixing and amending, as is evident in every single one of the pages in question—or frankly any contributory edits I ever make; I have no claim to being a streamlined editor in that regard. Stupor26 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure these are AI. They've been contributing articles since 2023, and this 2026 article and this 2024 article chunk read similarly and use similar phrasing, where if someone was using AI you'd expect them to read very differently. (i.e. the 2024 stuff would sound like 2024 AI, which this doesn't).

Some anti-tells in the prose too -- specifically, running the dataset of post-5/5/26 AI text versus the dataset of pre-2022 articles tagged essay-style, this hits several of the bottom n-grams for 1, 2, 3, and 4-word phrases. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

they've also not triggered any edit filters relevant to AI use. But idk, Special:Permalink/1373032675 (8 kb) was created in 6 minutes, Special:Permalink/1373029994 (8 kb) in 13 mins. All of their 11 creations were over the course of two days. OTOH there were no deprecated parameters in them (assuming Zack would have got to them). It'd be the first false positive I've seen from Pangram IIRC Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:26, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

As I’ve explained when asked on the relatively quite fast submissions, I’ve tend to do the lion share of work and *then* upload as one comprehensive edit or page creation. Also as explained, I tend to constantly go over and reedit because of mistakes or errors from the start. I’m grateful for the understanding, but I’ve explained myself and shown (I hope) the bonafides (and much more importantly why the expansions and new articles matter, and add value) at every single point. Stupor26 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It's just very odd for Pangram to give 100% human-written for your comments here, but 100% AI for every passage from your creations I try (except one AI-assisted) . What software are you using? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the initial created version of Battle of Florence (1248). All ISBNs check out; I can't otherwise source-check due to lack of access. Article is confusing as it uses multiple names for each faction and calls two different people "Frederick", but these can be human-expert errors.

However, the prose does show WP:AISIGNS (note that I am not using detection software). These labels incorporated older familial, political and economic rivalries rather than representing simple obedience to either emperor or pope. is rule of three and negative parallelism, and doesn't quite click in context. Stürner likewise records the January 1248 expulsion of the rebellious papal faction from Florence by Frederick of Antioch, placing the action among the contemporary successes of the imperial party in Italy. has the typical vague connection words and also--why say this again, it was just said? And the entire Aftermath section resembles typical LLM summing-up and straining for greater significance. I would welcome a second opinion, and/or a pointer to an article with online sources--I find it much easier to confirm or deny LLM if I have access to the sources. M kuhner (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

What? So now "the rule of three" and "negative parallelism" are considered signs of AI use? I use both all the time. It seems to me that the AI paranoia here has gotten out of hand. At this rate I expect to be accused of being an AI agent myself. Frederick of Antioch was an illegitimate son of Frederick II, so that is not an error. The text looks fine, and the refs look fine. I've written a bit on this topic, and Stupor26's work looks excellent to me. I just added urls to the three sources cited in "Battle of Florence (1248)", and I've quoted a bit of the German text with a translation. Carlstak (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The Fredericks are obviously not an error, but using plain "Frederick" for one of them, which the creation version does, is unhelpful to the reader when both have just been mentioned.

Most of the WP:AISIGNS are things that humans do too. LLMs just do them more.

I would be grateful if you could point me to an article with sources that are online, so I could do a source check; personally I don't like to rely on AISIGNS for more than screening. M kuhner (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

As I said, I just added urls to the three sources cited in "Battle of Florence (1248)". You can click on them, for starters. Personally, I don't rely on AISIGNS for anything, they cause trouble. I use Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini everyday as tools to find sources and assist my research—they help my WP work immensely. Carlstak (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Stürner, p. 574 is cited for both troops numbers in the infobox (alongside Grillo). I cannot see any troop numbers pertaining to Florence on the cited page. Indeed, I see only a brief sentence, but my German is poor. Srnec (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the Stürner cites given for the battle because they aren't present on p. 574, and as far as I can see, anywhere in the book, with an explanation in the edit summary. As I'm sure you know, not citing specific page numbers in a paginated source is often a red flag that the source doesn't support the WP text. It's possible that the editor just lazily appended that cite to the battle info without checking it, indulging in some editorial hand-waving. Some editors deliberately try to deceive, thinking no one will bother to check, but I wouldn't care to speculate about their motives. It's possible that they used a chatbot to find sources, as I do, but didn't bother to check that everything lines up. I still don't think the whole article was AI-generated, for what it's worth. Carlstak (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Boutboul

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Blocked for LLM use, see arbitration enforcement discussion. I've PRODed his most recent articles.—BrechtBro (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Some more analysis: I see Special:Permalink/1369233808 (13 Aug) had WP:AIREDCATs but Pangram gives human-written (tbf it has high false positives) and there aren't any more obvious AI signs. Special:Permalink/1362516754 (July) also has AIREDCAT and a red-linked See also, as well as WP:AITABLE, WP:AIDASH, but no clear prose signs. Special:Permalink/1354651478 (May) has WP:AITREND (The texts form part of the wider corpus of royal inscriptions from his reign), WP:AIVOCAB/WP:SUPERFICIAL (reflects, emphasizes).

Special:AbuseLog/39536895 (Dec 2024) had a chatgpt-derived link, but idk how far back AI-generated content goes or whether it was used outside of creations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to LLMPROD back to May for now, having difficulty determining a start date. Special:Permalink/1281791888 (March 2025) is potentially an LLM translation Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Artist&Architect

 Cleanup has been requested.

Artist&Architect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User admitted to using LLMs to polish their work but denies using it to "generate." This article on a Philadelphia theater award has WLs to the wrong targets, including one with a parenthetical disambiguator to a game designer in Oregon. This article contains some oddly piped redlinks. User's articles on plays are extremely formulaic and a bit puffed up, particularly with how they introduce (excessive) quotaitons., along with some strange capitalization and headings. What stands out to me about the critical reception sections is that they don't logically follow the production history, they all lack the context of what production is being reviewed when they introduce the qoutes, or the section will have an introductory line about a regional production and then have three qoutes from NYC critics. This one has a blockqoute where half of it is off-topic. Signs of AITALK.

At John Molloy, a brief graf following an unsourced blockqoute is cited to this to an SF Gate obit which only supports a fraction of the claims in that graf. —BrechtBro (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

User has been warning and seems cooperative. I asked them to clarify affected articles or give a start date. M kuhner (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi BrechtBro,

Some clarifying points here:

Well, yes, I absolutely admit to the (conservative) use of LLMs as an editorial aid, primarily to review the syntax and grammar of text I had already written, specifically during some more recent larger-scale revisions. I have never used AI generated text, nor published AI generated claims.

214: AI was not used when creating either the “Barrymore Award for Outstanding Overall Production of a Play” or the “Barrymore Award for Outstanding Direction of a Play” pages. I apologize for the incorrect WLs you identified. I spent many hours researching, writing, and properly sourcing these two pages, and I can assure you that these are human errors.

215: As for the “oddly piped redlinks” on the A. J. Shively page, there were no redlinks when I created that page on July 14, 2026. The linked pages appear to have been subsequently deleted as part of Wikipedia's ongoing efforts to address alleged AI-generated content. I therefore do not see how those redlinks can be attributed to any alleged AI use on my part.

216: I have spent many hours creating pages for noteworthy American, British, and Irish plays that I love and have encountered over the years. The characterization of these pages as “formulaic” is somewhat fair, as I have deliberately tried to model their structure on pre-existing Wikipedia entries that I regarded as good examples of how articles about plays should be organized. If I was in the wrong here, I apologize.

However, the characterization of them as “puffed up” feels both vague and mean-spirited. I'm not sure what specific passages you believe demonstrate this. In regard to the claim that the “critical reception sections don't logically follow the production history,” I was operating under the assumption that “critical reception” referred to the reception of the plays themselves rather than to individual productions. If that is contrary to Wikipedia's preferred practice, I'm more than happy to adjust my approach going forward.

220: For me, this is your most preposterous accusation. The conversations you reference were heated and, admittedly, somewhat emotional for me. It is my opinion that the particular editor involved has exhibited a pattern of hyper-policing and undervaluing the contributions of Black women. There is substantial evidence and discourse concerning racial and gender biases within Wikipedia's editor community and the ways in which those demographics continue to shape the site’s content. These comments were not “AISPEAK.” They were carefully considered responses that I wrote myself, in the context of a disagreement that I found personally quite frustrating. I was particularly diligent in formulating my responses, and discussed some of the more contentious points with trusted friends before posting them.

Frankly, I also find it noteworthy that you began scrutinizing my contributions immediately following this particular dispute with another long-serving Wikipedia editor, despite not having participated in the discussion yourself. I don't want to make any unsubstantiated accusations about your motivations or relationship to said editor, but the timing is sufficiently unusual, and therefore worth addressing.

222: This (once again) appears to be an instance of human error on my part. The biographical details articulated in that section are substantiated across the article's other sources. My use of a single citation from the SFGate was definitely an error on my part, and I take full responsibility for that.

In many ways, I am still finding my footing as an editor on this platform, and I have greatly appreciated the interventions of numerous senior editors who have identified some of my past errors and helped educate me about Wikipedia's best practices. Time and time again, I have tried to take that criticism in good faith and incorporate it into my contributions.

Your intervention, however, does not feel like that to me. It feels punitive, if not vaguely targeted. Respectfully, this feels a bit like a witch hunt. Artist&Architect (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see this given the polite interaction we had at your talk page, particularly in the light of the comment above by the other editor, and I'm sorry you feel hunted. This is routine AI cleanup work, the discussion here is to determine what, if any, cleanup is necessary. I haven't accused you of anything here, you're not being punished, some of these mistakes are certainly within the realm of human error. This wall of LLM text (whether polished or generated), however, does not inspire confidence and I suspect the comment on your talk page was the same. You are correct regarding the redlinks at the Barrymores page, I didn't look closely enough there, that's my bad. Thanks for pointing it out. I have no knowledge or interest in the dispute you mention other than from looking at your edit history. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was very receptive to your initial warning on my talk page. I was genuinely unaware that my editing was in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines, and appreciated you brining this to my attention.

However, you never responded! Next I hear from you is via a post on this thread. Forgive me if I interpreted those actions as an escalation.

Furthermore, my above response is not the work of a LLM! I wrote it myself. What is so alarming to you? Its structure? Length? Attention to detail? Artist&Architect (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Primarily WP:AIADHERE in the comments I linked to, plus the use of em dashes and curly quotaiton marks. I do not find it alarming, but, yes, the way it is structured, both how it's broken down into sections and your sentence structure, word and punctuation choice, WP:RO3, the way AITALK in my comment became AISPEAK in yours. See WP:AITALKSIGNS. —BrechtBro (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

At Special:Diff/1368042903 neither source 9 nor 10 mention awards nor contain the quote (though the quote is sourced down in the body where it's repeated), nor the number 5,000, which is not mentioned again in the body. Besides the WP:AIPUFFERY et al, it's got a pattern where the citations are not in the article in a logical way, and not used in the way you might expect a person to. New sources are brought in rather than reusing other sources, even when some of those sources are better. The best sources, like the NYT article, end up serving no real purpose in the article and isn't mined for content. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Source 9 is also cited as a Ben Brantley review with the headline "Hunger for Love, and Other Forms of Nourishment" but the article linked is by Gwen Orel titled "Theater Festival Presents New Voices From a New Ireland" —BrechtBro (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

User:DUBYA18

User has recently created an article that has been discussed for either draftification, or deletion.

While the article itself does not immediately seem AI, what DOES scream AI is his responses in said discussion as all of his responses appear to be AI generated with excessive detail and the typical LLM writing style Quincy Gordon (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/44842065 (August) has a chatgpt-derived link, they've also reported someone to ANI (WP:ANI#Repeated personal commentary and possible hounding by ChessEric) where they're about to get boomeranged for AI use. Creations need analysis but at a glance I do believe it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Lightbulb Noob, utilizing GPTZero, has found that most, if not all, their major edits and creations have been made using AI. Furthermore, they created those articles with only one edit and, in the case of the 2026 Detroit tornado, believe that the article is "demonstrably notable and well-developed article", only for an established weather editor to find numerous issues with it. WP:DUCK all the way here. ChessEric 22:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

(WP:GPTZERO notwithstanding) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia had their own LLM detection tool but I couldn't find it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Danifel

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

An article by user was G15'd in January (notice, log) In following discussion, user denies errors but appears to admit LLM use. Other creations around this period display AIREDCATs, AI puffery, em dashes.

This article also was created with the parameter "work_institutions" in the infobox, in addition to AILEGACY, Source 2 doesn't say anything that ties the subject to the founding of a genetics center, the claim it purports to support. AILEGACY here and red see also links, while sourcing is in Czech, Portugese, and Slovak. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

earlier creations have clear signs (Special:Permalink/1328795646 in Dec 2025, Special:Permalink/1316878712 in Oct 2025, Special:Permalink/1312662543 in Sept 2025). Before the latter they hadn't made a creation until July 2024. I'l LLMPROD their creations from Sept 2025 onwards Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

one of them is a GA ... 444 East 58th Street Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@BrechtBro and @Kowal2701, if the GA was indeed likely generated using AI, I would suggest opening a GA reassessment as that would mean the article should have failed the GA quickfail criteria. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I've opened a review. Another case where some of the problems indicative of AI use were addressed by other editors, rather than catching the problem. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Callyhannah

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-11_PrettyPony1234, 2 pages need review.

Callyhannah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Renamed User:PrettyPony1234 (talk · contribs)

User:Callyhannah has been rapidly expanding articles in mainspace with an LLM, e.g. , and submitting LLM-generated drafts (which are being declined). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Callyhannah has claimed "all of the edits were done last might off line" but they are filled with obvious AI signs, especially the drafts. For example "The amount of packaging involved has also contributed to discussion about the environmental impact of beauty advent calendars and other elaborate seasonal gift sets." Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Tangential, but Callyhannah is also doing WP:Conflict of interest editing, e.g. "Added Cally Hannah (Class of 1996)". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

They've changed the account name to User:PrettyPony1234. EaglesFan37 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

They have worked on at least three drafts in which they have an obvious COI; there may be more, given the subject areas they edit in. I've posted the standard COI query on their talk, but no response as yet.

As for that "off line" explanation, I'd say it makes it, if anything, more likely that LLM was used. A new user wouldn't know the wiki markup well enough to create not just one but ~20 fully-fledged drafts offline, and although there are some online (but offwiki) tools that will help you do that, this seems to me a somewhat unlikely route. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The user came into #wikipedia-en-help this morning and said i drafted it myself and then asked my word to help with grammar [...] i am a lawyer so no i dont agree i draft for a living but left before I could interrogate further about LLM use. qcne (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

User:PrettyPony1234 has been blocked indefinitely, mostly on UPE/COI grounds, which may be lifted subject to any disclosures they wish to make. That said there is a heap of very obvious LLM updates that they have done today (i.e. after LLM concerns were raised but not answered). I am working through these contributions, reverting mostly. I'm not sure where the AIN notification went in all of this but I will add to their Talk page. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftified Jason Salecic. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 18:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was minded to draftify, but I appreciate another editor also checking this. ChrysGalley (talk) ChrysGalley (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It was moved back to article space in Diff/1374219969, despite being tagged as {{ai-generated}} at the time. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracker. Small, hopefully tractable set of edits. M kuhner (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we're stuck until the ANI case for The-Pope runs its course, and then the last two articles will need another source/text check. M kuhner (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Archiwee

 Archiwee (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Created the current iteration of Jayanta Bose in Diff/1371784644 (as User:Archiwee/sandbox), which doesn't look very AI-generated at that point. Some references are added in Diff/1373208139, and nr. 1 returns a 404 error. On Talk:Jayanta Bose the user has blamed the 404 not found on geo-blocking, bot-mitigation firewalls, or dynamic URL rerouting, despite the URL never having been archived. The level of English stands in contrast to their first talk page messages in Diff/1371674119 and Diff/1371933787, which is perfectly fine but does suggest some use of LLMs to communicate.

They've also created the page as Acharya Jayanta Bose in AbuseLog/45043764, which has UTM parameters showing that it is ChatGPT that is being used. That was likely a copypaste move from draft space, there are AfC headers. This seems to have been a problem because they tried removing a G6 tag in AbuseLog/45043944 and there are multiple notices on their talk page about copypaste moves. In User talk:Archiwee § Please..., they were asked to stop copypaste moving pages and to not LOUTSOCK to remove CSD tags. In Diff/1373339217, a TA was used to remove an {{ai-generated}} tag. There are more UTM parameters from ChatGPT in AbuseLog/45044000, which looks like another copypaste move from draft space. The current iteration of the page was moved to draft space in Diff/1373315025 and then moved back shortly afterwards in Diff/1373337055. After the draftificaton, the user wanted to know which portion of the text seems machine written in § Jayanta Bose moved to draftspace on their talk page. It is a bit hard to trace the full history of this page through the copypaste moves. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gurkubondinn. I see your concerns about me using AI models to write the article.

I would like to be totally transparent; being a new editor, i did take help from AI models. I used the deep-research feature of chatgpt to search for newspaper articles on the subject.I manually opened and verified the source articles before citing them, but when I copied the web links over, I didn't realize they contained ⚠️🕵utm⚠️🕵 tracking tags from the tool. Also, in my earlier drafts, I took help from AIs to polish my language, but i have stopped using AI to write any part of the article, after my article got flagged for being AI written once.

And, i would like to address your concern about the earlier copy-pasting issue. I was actually not familiar with the move function, hence i copy-pasted my draft to the mainspace. I am extremely sorry if i have caused any nuisances or problems. I am still learning, and i only want to contribute to wikipedia. The updated article that is live now was fully written by me. I have refrained from using AIs for polishing my language after the page was flagged due to AI usage. I truly thank you for your constructive criticism. Archiwee (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you copy this response from somewhere? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I did not! And just letting you know, i have cleared up the utm tag from the 1-2 citation urls that had them. Again, thank you for your feedback. Archiwee (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure that you didn't paste in anything? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I really am positive, i did not use any large ai models to write my articles. As i said, i used the deep reseaech feature of chatgpt to fetch me some data and citings, but i assure you, no part of the article is AI written. Archiwee (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

So you are saying that you typed everything in the sentence I didn't realize they contained ⚠️🕵utm⚠️🕵 tracking tags from the tool yourself? It was not copied from anywhere? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Youre asking about the reply? I was actually not sure of what utm meant, so i did search it up, and copied the part, which resulted in the emojis appearing. However, the overall reply was written by me! And about the article, i really did not use any AI language. I did use grammer tools, to fix any obvious verb, preposition or tense error. Archiwee (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

No, those emojis showing up were because of a mistake that I made in Diff/1373697873 (and fixed in Diff/1373699670), so that doesn't make sense. I'm also not sure why you would have gotten confused because I asked if you did copy this response. But regardless, Diff/1373522771 and Diff/1373556030 both triggered a paste check, so something isn't adding up here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, i see, i was also confused by the emojis. Im sorry for any confusion. I would totally avoid pasting anything from now on. I did not know pasting something triggers a paste check. And i am not doing it out of malice, i sometimes do include a sentence or two from what i search online into my responses. However, I did not use any AI model in the latest article that is currently live. I did get flagged for AI usage once in my earlier draft submissions, so i have stopped using anything but my own language, and a tool that checks for any obvious grammatical error. Archiwee (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to address your concern about my usage of the terms “geo blocking”, et cetera. I searched online what might have caused the editors to not being able to access the citations, and i learnt that many links use geo blockers, firewalls, etc. Thats why i used the terms. Thank you! Archiwee (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Aakib.0000

 Aakib.0000 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

New user, but prolific in some sports articles with multiple large and rapid-fire edits. There are markdown code blocks in AbuseLog/45061175 and AbuseLog/45061319 as well as the byte-sequence described in WP:AISIGNS § turn0search0. Created the 2026 Saudi Super Cup article, added a reference with a ... placeholder for the URL in Diff/1371064909 and a reference that leads to a 404 in Diff/1371065296 (produced in one minute). There's possibly more AI-editing in the same article, because a different user showed up and added a red category in Diff/1371190772 (two of them are red now, but one seems to have existed at the time). Also created Al-Ittihad Club (Saudi Arabia)Al-Ittihad Club (Saudi Arabia) in Diff/1371060246 (AbuseLog/44951560), before then doubling it in size in Diff/1371061227. The page was turned into a redirect by @Reconrabbit in Diff/1371262713 the next day. I've looked into this user before, but I don't remember it was that I saw that caused me to do that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any AI was involved in the creation of Al-Ittihad Club, its content was copied from the current redirect target. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

You're right, the text in Diff/1371061227 also seems to be from the redirect target, which Aakib does not seem to have edited. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Kent Wang

 Kent Wang (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 September 2026)
This issue is currently under review. 

Pasted a chatbot block in Diff/1373672821. Says in User talk:Kent Wang § September 2026 on their talk page that they use LLMs to generate the wikitext, and now wants a third opinion on if they are exempt from the NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The block I pasted is all photos and captions. I look forward to other opinions on this. Kent Wang (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOLLM does not make an exception for captions. Have you used LLMs on other articles? M kuhner (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you look at the Diff/1373672821 and tell me if any of the captions are bad? Or any of it is bad?

I personally human-reviewed all captions. This is covered in the WP:NOLLM exception "Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review." Kent Wang (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

No, again, that is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar. I've already told you this, and it plainly says so on the guideline's page. There are no carveouts for captions or to generate wikitext. Have you been using an LLM for anything else? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Would you be happy if I made the change again but without the captions?

> Have you been using an LLM for anything else?

I have replied to that below. Kent Wang (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I used LLM to generate the wikitext and proof my edits on another page Igreja da Madalena Special:Diff/1373712248/1373712902. Please review the diff and tell me what you think. Kent Wang (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

That is an edit I personally would mark "unnecessary" in a tracker as there is no substantive text in it. My concern is that you may have used LLMs, perhaps not deliberately, in cases where they would introduce substantive text. They tend to go beyond the limits of what they are asked for quite frequently; anything that touches a citation is dangerous as they do thinks like "helpfully" add ISBNs, DOIs, etc that are not correct. M kuhner (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that and never use LLM for substantive text. Kent Wang (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

User: FeedMeGrapes

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

User:FeedMeGrapes seems to be an autonomous AI agent, which has edited and rewritten multiple articles: Special:Contributions/FeedMeGrapes. All of the edits seem to be written by AI, because of the distinct style and short periods of time for huge changes

Some examples:

Special:Diff/1373451348 — +9,980 bytes to Atomicity (database systems) in a single edit, described as a comprehensive rewrite covering history, recovery mechanisms, distributed atomicity and implementations.

Special:Diff/1373489889 — +9,462 bytes to Data mapping in a single edit at 06:40 on 6 September.

Special:Diff/1373491390 — only 20 minutes later, at 07:00, creation of Draft:R2RML with +11,827 bytes. This means over 21,000 bytes of substantial technical prose across two different topics in 20 minutes.

The submission R2RML was also independently declined by a reviewer who stated: "This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model" Keschler (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that they are an autonomous bot? This seems quite rare; usually it's a human cutting and pasting text to and from the LLM. (Not that that's better, but next steps are different if we think it's an actual bot.) M kuhner (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't have concrete evidence. For me it was the generic name + These two contributions. I could definitely be wrong. Keschler (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm definatly not an autonomous agent, I don't know how one goes about doing human verification here, although I'm based in USA, so I can always jump on facetime with anyone and prove that lol

Those two edits across 20 minutes were because I make the edits locally up ahead while I have spare time at work (I'm a DBA and data engineer for over 15 years and tend to have a lot of down time) and then I update the articles on wikipedia when I'm at home. You can see my pattern of uploads pretty much falls on weekends, when I'm bored at home.

I've been donating to Wikipedia for years and I read recently that the amount of contributors has gone down in the last year, and I checked and the Database wikiproject is inactive, so I decided I would help out in my own field that I'm passionate about.

I have definatly been using LLMs to help clean up some of my writing, as well as to help find additional sources that I can't find on my own..if that's not allowed I will stop. But even in the cases where I have AI assistance, I'm checking all sources and all the underlying writing is my own and its all double/triple checked. I just wanted to help out in my particular field of expertise.

Anyway, happy to continue this discussion and learn best practices from anyone who is willing to guide me here :) FeedMeGrapes (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm reviewing Atomicity. Review is far from complete, but so far I haven't found the typical LLM source/text inconsistencies or other issues.

I suggest being extremely wary of LLM clean-up of your text. It can easily introduce LLM "smells" and, worse, nasty little inaccuracies like ISBNs, DOIs, or wikilinks that point to the wrong place. Vagueness and puffery are also issues. Your plain English will be just fine.

I don't see any evidence to suppose you are a bot. That's actually very rare. A person with a bot, alas, is behind probably 90% of all big single-edit article creations we see recently, so we have to verify by looking in detail. I'll post back here when done. (In the meantime I'll say, I'm enjoying the article, which is a rare treat in cleanup.) M kuhner (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

"Your plain English will be just fine." - Noted. I'm pretty self-conscious in that regard, but I'll do that going forward.

"In the meantime I'll say, I'm enjoying the article, which is a rare treat in cleanup." - Thank you, I try to make an effort to add as much history, examples and popular implementations as possible to make topics more interesting, as I find that's what helps me when learning or reading up on a topic. FeedMeGrapes (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@FeedMeGrapes, thanks for understanding and adjusting. Dw31415 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I just reverted that article, the previous edit to it (Fabrice31) was also one in a series of AI edits Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

cleanup is done, except for Automatic parallelization, ACID, and Data mapping which are tagged (Prediction by partial matching I've inline-tagged) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

BluePenWiki and Madhiban

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-18_BluePenWiki, 1 pages need review.

 BluePenWiki (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 
This issue is currently under review. 

Needs reviewMadhiban

I'm pretty sure that most of this person's edits to Madhiban are AI-generated (despite removing the existing LLM tag from the article ). Even ignoring the LLM problems, the article is a complete mess at this point (the 2nd section appears to be acting as a second lede for the article, bad subheading names, misuse of description lists, broken references...).

I'm not really sure what to do, nor am I very confident about this. Help? penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 02:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this and bringing few things to my attention. Understand, I'm still actively working on the article, so specific issue raised here is genuinely useful.

Here’s a short list of a few things I could use clarity on so I can fix them:

- Which subheadings are reading off to you? I am happy to rename them to match the heading style guidelines.

- Which references are broken? If you can point to the ref name/number, I'll fix the citation syntax. Again, this article is still a working progress and I am still actively working on it so any tip or suggestions are welcome.

- Where are description lists being misused? I can convert those to standard prose or proper headings.

- Could you point to the section you mean by a "second lede"? If it's duplicating the intro's summary role instead of covering its own subtopic, I'll restructure it into the body.

On the AI question: I haven't used an AI tool to write this content — everything I've added has been checked against the sources cited. If a specific passage reads like it wasn't, point me to it and I'll take a closer look.

I pulled the maintenance tag once I'd worked through the citation issues flagged at the time; if that was premature, I'm open to revisiting it. Appreciate you taking the time to look — send over specifics and I'll get to work.

Thank you, BluePenWiki (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@BluePenWiki:

first: I moved your comment from its own section into the standard reply format used on Wikipedia. See Help:Talk pages, specifically the part about indentation. Since you're on mobile web, there should be a Reply button near the bottom of each message - you can use it to format your replies automatically. (Replies to other users generally do not go in their own section.)

second: I have no doubt that you verified your sources - I checked over some of them and they looked good to me. However, I would like to note that content written or edited by an AI is not permitted on Wikipedia, even if you verified all the citations. (In other words, verifying the information is not an exception to the policy.) Moving on...

In terms of issues with content, I have a few things:

• I recommend you enable the Visual Editor and use that to edit. (Alternatively, you could continue with source editing, but you should read up on wikitext first)
• Almost overzealous use of the em-dash — to the point where some sentences are difficult to read and could easily be split into multiple sentences.
• Regarding sections:
  • Look at the table of contents of the page. Just from the section names, it looks like there are actually two separate articles smashed together into a single page.
  • There is a section named Madhiban (also known as Gaboye or Baidari), which does not provide any useful information since it just restates the article title.
  • Per the Manual of Style, section names should not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (src), not use articles (a, an, or the) as the first word (src), and should ... follow sentence case [...] not title case (src).
    • Compare the section names in a standard article such as, say, Cat. In general, section titles should be brief and broad.
• Regarding references, scroll down to the references section; there is a cite error where a named reference is not defined, and it also appears that some article content got caught in a <ref> tag somewhere. Additionally, quite a few of those references could do with deduplication (by assigning them a name; this isn't critical, though)

penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 05:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

The point is not to iterate with you so you can hide your LLM output better, it is to get you to stop using LLMs. It is clear that you have used LLMs to write this comment as well. Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence. Lying is disruptive, so please be honest: did you use LLMs to edit the articles? Fermiboson (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

edits with markdown: Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:22, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1374091870 (9 Sept) had AIDASH, blatant AIATTR, + whatever this falls into: A 1944 British colonial genealogical survey of the protectorate's tribes illustrates this pattern concretely.... Imo this'd be a block if this weren't a week old and the most recent day they'd edited. Final warning Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose account with no significant other edits. Trawling through the history of Madhiban I am really left wondering if all of the major contributors to this article (who also tend to be SPAs) are in fact the same person. I don't know if an SPI case is worth trying, due to staleness. In any case, establishing a "clean" version to revert to is quite difficult. M kuhner (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Notes

User:AkaneNel

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

This article has AILEGACY, REDCATS, and a AI 1.0 from gptzero. The hip injury is a thing that happened, but it isn't mentioned in the cited source for that, and there's that a legacy claim about the NYT, LAT, and Variety, while only citing two of the three. Extrapolated from a photogragh of the subject is the claim that, His photographic records are held within the New York Public Library's Digital Collections.

Perhaps an AITABLE Special:diff/1356965252 here. AILEGACY, more redcats. AILEGACY and a rather impressive amount of offline sources, almost all of them used only a single time. There's a change in the pattern of edits when creating articles in November 2025, going from multi-step to single edit. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

They've been adding lots of deprecated infobox parameters as well. Haven't been warned for LLM use until now

BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) is potentially another account according to Special:Diff/1303209109, and what d'ya know, they appear to be using AI: Special:AbuseLog/42661223. The EIA seems to be above-board , but courtesy ping @S0091 anyway Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:17, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The reason I left that note was because they were confirmed to each other several years ago and the CU left a sock note but neither responded. BeauSuzanne was mentioned by a filer in a later SPI so I left the note again to see if I could get a response. They both denied having other accounts and as you can see in the EIA, they rarely cross each other. S0091 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I tagged the unreviewed articles in the NPP backlog by AkaneNel with the AI template, with links to this discussion. AkaneNel has begun editing the articles and removing the templates but have yet to respond about LLM usage at their talk page (or here). —BrechtBro (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@AkaneNel, please could you respond here? I see you've been rewriting some of the articles that were tagged, if you want we can make a tracking page (like Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-09-11 PrettyPony1234) to make things easier? Just some advice about AI cleanup: The biggest issue with LLM use is hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures), though there are other important issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. Usually we recommend that people stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles from scratch since it's often very time-consuming to attempt to preserve such content, but it's up to you. Of course deletion is also an option (WP:LLMPROD). Thanks, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kowal2701. I apologize for the late response. I haven’t used AI but only for translations. And it’s alright I will rewrite it. I will be careful not to do LLM. I had seen some articles you like Clark Gable and Bette Davis so I was trying it in that style but I understand and I will stop with the LLM issue. Once again I apologize for it.(AkaneNel (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC))

@AkaneNel, none of the articles discussed above appear to be translations? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kowal2701. I didn't meant the English I mean the French and Korean for it I use translation. I also go on different languages wikipedias find some information. No the articles are not from translations.(AkaneNel (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2026 (UTC))

noting Talk:Mickey Squires#WP:V Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The Sergei

The Sergei (talk · contribs), XTools

Warned for AI use August 2025, copyvio Feb 2026, warned May 2026. Special:AbuseLog/40962963 (June 2025) had a chatgpt-derived link (lots more after this), Special:AbuseLog/43638743 (March 2026) triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325. Special:Permalink/1360752330 (June 2026) had AIREDCAT but it's a list so no other signs (they're mostly lists). Notified them of this thread. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1371653300 was translated from hewiki, not sure they speak Hebrew. Special:Permalink/1365632763 (July 2026) used a non-existent cite template, Special:Diff/1365434113 (same month) was made in 6 minutes on mobile Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:50, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

1) June 2025: If there were links from chatgpt.com at the end, I was told in August User talk:The Sergei#Ways to improve List of international prime ministerial trips made by Kristrún Frostadóttir that they should be removed to make sure that the site is not created by Chatgpt itself.

2) August 2025: About Dick Schoof's trips to the Caribbean parts of the Netherlands, I didn't know that sources might not be permitted, but government sources, for example, might be permitted, I don't remember which sources I used. StevoLaker told me in August 2025 that "You can put just about any information on a Wikipedia page so long as it is anbout the topic and is referenced by a reliable source (almost any news or government source)."

3) February 2026: About text from Petteri Orpo visits, the sources belong to the Finnish government (I might be wrong, and not all of them are like that), and as far as I know, you can use government ones, + their images can be uploaded from Flickr (Not all, but some images uploaded about his trips), although this does not apply to Wikipedia.

4) May 2026: Regarding Japan's attitude toward the ICC arrest warrant against Israel, I can say that I could have asked for AI somewhere. Well, if it does not match the title nor the quote, then I should have checked what was written and copied the existing text.

5) July 2026: About "List of international prime ministerial trips made by Janez Janša," I translated his page from Slovenian to English. If you're talking about the source that explains why there are few visits due to the pandemic, I see that there was no source at first, then I added one, although I don't remember what it was. The Sergei (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You can put just about any information on a Wikipedia page so long as it is anbout the topic and is referenced by a reliable source (almost any news or government source). - Sadly, the advice you received is incorrect (and significantly so). The policies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE dictate what can and cannot be added. You cannot in fact just add anything that's backed up by any news or government source, never mind that some such sources can be considered generally unreliable or marginally reliable. We don't add minutiae just because it was mentioned in the news, for example, per WP:NOTNEWS. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you were actually told in User talk:The Sergei#c-Lova Falk-20250817124500-Thank you and... to use Citer in order to format citations properly, and also to find out whether ChatGPT had invented websites that didn’t exist. Removing the utm_source part of the url doesn’t change whether the url points to a valid page or not. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It remains unclear to me whether your claim is that you have used LLMs or not in the course of your editing. Fermiboson (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I translated pages, some from their language, or from another. This concerns relations between countries and the list of trips made by someone. The Sergei (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you speak all the languages you translated from? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't The Sergei (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@The Sergei, sorry but that isn't allowed, translations have to strictly follow WP:LLMTRANSLATE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:32, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I looked through the editor's prolific history back to 2024. There is admitted LLM use June 4 2025 (only for searching, editor says). There are unacknowledged translations, for example one in October 2025 where infobox parameters are in Spanish. Editor occasionally responds to complaints but always sounds bewildered; there is little sign that they change their very fixed editing style in response. Sourcing is a major issue: I found a claim sourced to a user-supplied caption on a photo marketing site, several to Twitter, and a great many not sourced at all. This is true throughout the entire time period. Copyvio has been a recurring issue. There is also a bad habit of putting articles in mainspace which are clearly not ready, for example one Aug 1 2025 which has "TBA" in most of its table fields.

On the other hand, that edit was presumably not full LLM. I suspect the text is a mixture of LLM and human, and has been since mid-2025 at least.

Early on their edits were challenged more by other editors, but the articles on which they came to focus have few watchers: they are lists of government-head visits to different countries. There was an AfD on one list article where it was clear they felt very strongly about this work, but not necessarily in an encyclopediac way (i.e. "why does the reader need this?" was not in their priority list). They got a fair amount of support on this view--it's the Great List Debate--and the article was not deleted.

I am honestly not sure what to do here. The Talk page does not suggest that warnings and discussion are very helpful. M kuhner (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Davvike

 Cleanup has been requested.

Davvike (talk · contribs), XTools

This user had two rejected attempts at AfC before bypassing that and putting Mayfair House, London straight in mainspace. No Swan So Fine thought the article might have been AI generated and cleaned it up, as have I. For the record I don't support deletion of the article (at least not without an AfD first) as London buildings have a tendency to be extensively documented in book sources, particularly if they're listed.

The user has quite a few other contributions; artefacts such as a <nowiki> tag in source definitions, and a complete absence of any human communication bar a few terse edit summaries, make me suspect there is the potential for AI to be going on here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes! I just assumed they'd been asked to write the article for a property developer. It did throw me as it was the first time I'd really considered that AI would change everything here - and I beat my boat borne back ceaselessly into the past etc. Building is in an unbelievable site but does totter on the edges of notability. Can't believe its not listed. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

edited past the notice and warning to make Special:Diff/1374340749 which triggered Paste Check, final warning ig Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

look at how many accounts at John Stanley (British Army officer) have triggered Paste Check and only edited a few of the same pages. @Ritchie333, thoughts on doing an SPI? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

some more at Portrait of Philip Gell Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear All, I am sorry to disappoint but I am NOT AI. I am very much blood and flesh!😀 I would be most grateful if you could please remove this slight against my good (Userid) name-Thank you! Davvike (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear All, I am sorry to disappoint but I am NOT AI. I am very much blood and flesh!😀 I would be most grateful if you could please remove this slight against my good (Userid) Davvike-Thank you! Davvike (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Wolf july

 Wolf july (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (8 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Newer user, but has created a few articles. The latest article is Titanic (video game), which was created after having been pasted with a chatbot block in AbuseLog/45064544. Despite meeting the G15 criteria, the CSD was declined so I've sent it to AfD instead, where I believe the user has commented with some WP:AITALK in Diff/1373890037 claiming that Wikipedia does not establish a clear, mechanical threshold whereby such formatting elements alone prove that an entire article was AI-generated. I also find it odd to say that sources and content of this article can be independently verified without mentioning that another user has said in User talk:Wolf july § September 2026 that they did verify the sources, because I find that a strange thing for a person to just gloss over and not mention at all. The user has also confirmed some use of AI on Wikipedia, but I think that their edits need to be looked at closer. Haven't seen any other AITALK from them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Pangram classifies the AfD comment as being AI-generated (which should of course be taken with the usual grain of salt). ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:51, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

And Corneliu Drăgan-Târgoviște was created in Diff/1367002209 (AbuseLog/44773422) with a red category (the infobox image was deleted from commons later). ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Here i don t understand what happened. I uploaded the picture of the artist and i forward the email with the required form...but the picture disaperead..it was erased.And it was pretty hard for me to obtain it since the artist is very hard to reach. Maybe you can help me to underastand..thank you..) Wolf july (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I am finding that it is more likely than not that most of this editor's contributions are either partially or totally concieved using AI. I marked one section of Hysteria (video game) as "failed verification" because Crash does not call the gameplay "repetitive" (also, there are 3 named reviewers in the linked article). I'd appreciate if Wolf july was forthcoming about whether they've used AI for anything besides "correcting grammar". Regarding Titanic (video game), I've already said what I have to say about that on the AfD page. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I read the same review and there's one more source verification issue there, only one of the reviewers "praised the graphics", but the article implies that the review as a whole did. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:21, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

i used the crash source for the overall score. it is written down 78%. i can move at the begining of the frase, after the score - but the source is valid . :) Wolf july (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I don t intend to comment too much on this topic...my answer come after 4 minutes... I did not had time to check that was an answer...if you check you ll see are 4 minutes between the comments...The rules adopted in March 2026 as i understood forbides the using of LLM to generate or rewrite the texts! There are exceptions for minor copyedits on the texts without introducing new content! Me - i research and write my articles myself. I already explain my case. I think my editing history and the sources used in my articles can be independently reviewed. Anyway...i must admit, however, that there is a certain irony in suspecting someone of using AI and then using an AI detector as additional evidence for that suspicion. :)...something like...aa..you are using ai...i checked on y with ai...:))...i found it very funny...:)..also on the other hand i am open to any advice! Wolf july (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, your replies here basically confirm the AITALK on their own. The English idiom "take it with a grain of salt" means that something may be incorrect and should be viewed with a degree of skepticism. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

the content in Special:Permalink/1374056558 cited to ref #1 appears human-written and checks out, but appears to be WP:CLOP, I'll leave a comment on their talk Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

How many ways can you write that a game was published by a company in a given year? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

that falls under WP:LIMITED Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Jbaird FEA

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-12 Jbaird FEA, 27 pages need review.

Jbaird FEA (talk · contribs)

Enormous amount of edits with various AI indicators, including at least one Markdown instance in filter log, and marked difference between their general writing style and their grammatically mangled comment of False and unbased acquisition of AI. The bulk of it probably should just be reverted.

Suspect something like Claude here as opposed to ChatGPT Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty blatant. Reverting, will get down to source text discreptancies in an hour or two. Fermiboson (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

jeez, see Special:Permalink/1316013361 (Oct 2025). LLMPRODing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:39, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Aguahrz

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-08 Aguahrz, 95 pages need review.

Aguahrz (talk · contribs), XTools, SPI

Editor who got blocked for several major issues, has an unblock appeal at AN where they've admitted to and apologised for their prior LLM use ( ..the truth is I used an LLM in virtually every single edit I made...), I've supported an unblock but cleanup is still necessary. I'm going to tag a few creations (incl. from socks) rather than LLMPROD and see if they want to rewrite any if unblocked. Might create a tracking page, who knows Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701; just an FYI, as I saw your notice on the Mount Kenya region article... this article, interestingly, was being heavily-edited by one @MTLNORG, who is currently sanctioned for extensive LLM-use. I did re-write some of that article aince Aguahrz was involved with it, but regardless, I'm wondering if these two accounts aren't related? Perhaps we can ask them directly, since they have seemingly admitted to using multiple accounts.  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, MTLNORG was in a heated dispute w one of Aguahrz's socks , so unlikely to be related imo. Some articles get no luck Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I'm on that Talk page (though not that section) and I thought Ag's name looked familiar. Though I also wouldn't put it past someone to argue with their own sock to assure people that they aren't associated... though, in this case, I think they are indeed separate editors. Bizarre that they were picking on that article, though. Indeed, a third editor on that Talk page was sanctioned for socking, as well. Odd.  — MWFwiki (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately 60% of the article comes from that sock: xtools:authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Mount Kenya region/.

That would be WP:DUMBSOCK behaviour, so not out of the question in general. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Hope4movies

 Hope4movies (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (9 September 2026)
This matter has been resolved; no further action is required. 

Hope4movies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User created eight articles, seven of which I detected as being potentially AI-generated after reading through and checking each one, subsequently tagging them all.

DraftifiedThomas Bonaventure Lawler

DraftifiedJeremy M. Rosen

DraftifiedWilliam D. Davis

DraftifiedSpacewoman (2024 film)

DraftifiedThe End of Quiet

DraftifiedBrett Chenoweth

DraftifiedLogical Pictures Group

DraftifiedPigeons (2026 film)

Any thoughts? The exception is Pigeons (2026 film), which I was not as confident about, but have now tagged for good measure. User is now saying on talk pages User talk:Asilvering § Question from Hope4movies (01:21, 9 September 2026) that they use LLMs for copyediting/phrasing while drafting and want a way to "handle it". Ignoring the fact that their explanation itself was AI-generated, I'd appreciate an investigation into their creations. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I am glad this has been brought up here. I believe asking for advice from my designated mentor was not a bad thing. As a new editor, I did not know the proper process to follow and needed guidance on what to do right.

What I noticed is that the editor who added all these AI tags had a period of inactivity, then came back online and tagged six articles in nine minutes intervals, based on the timestamps I checked in their contribution log. I definitely doubt that it is possible they reviewed all the articles and lengthy sources there in within the period they applied the tags. The editor also mentioned a discussion was ongoing about a tag they placed, but it appears they just opened one now, which makes me question the credibility of their judgement.

I am happy for someone else to review the pages and judge whether they deserve the tags that were placed. I stand by having verified everything myself, and I am open to learning, but I do not think any effort was made before the tags were just applied.

Lastly, I maintain that I did use AI in copyediting and drafting. Not only did I mention this to my mentor, but I did so in the talk pages where all tags were applied. I had no idea this was against policy and apologise for that.

Thank you. Hope4movies (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

What I noticed is that the editor who added all these AI tags had a period of inactivity, then came back online and tagged six articles in nine minutes intervals, based on the timestamps I checked in their contribution log. I definitely doubt that it is possible they reviewed all the articles and lengthy sources there in within the period they applied the tags.

Nice try, Columbo. I became aware of your creations after being notified of a link from Logical Pictures Group. Reading that article, I then noticed WP:AISIGNS and decided to peek into your editing history and moved on to your other creations. I spent far more than 9 minutes going through all your articles. But according to you Time stamps prove everything. That's a smoking gun to you. As I said at Talk:Thomas_Bonaventure_Lawler#AI-generated_tag: ah yes, the timestamp that proves what I was doing before the timestamp. Fascinating stuff, Hope4movies.

designated mentor

I'm not sure what you're referring to by calling that user your mentor. I don't see anything suggesting you ever conversed with them before now.

The editor also mentioned a discussion was ongoing about a tag they placed, but it appears they just opened one now, which makes me question the credibility of their judgement.

I'm assuming you are referring to my restoring of an AI maintenance template in which I stated "Do not remove maintenance templates. the case is not closed." "Case"=/="Discussion" The purpose of the template is to elicit review. You don't get to decide when that has been remedied. But heavens, I guess that means my credibility is down the tubes! Welp. Or, maybe, we could just drop the unproductive speculation and focus on the topic at hand? Cool. Οἶδα (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Οἶδα, no comment on the AI case, but just to note that Asilvering is Hope4movies's mentor, so I think you could be a little less prickly and suspicious about that, and maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Mentorship to find out more about it. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I was being prickly about that. I was simply expressing that I could find no context for that, especially because they specifically framed their response around it. Automatic mentorship is news to me. Probably because that program apparently only just rolled out last year and I am not active in that area. I think you got that impression with that part of my message being in the middle of two otherwise prickly comments. I meant it pretty literally. Either way, not at all important. I merely brought the user talk message up in the OP to offer context. I could have mentioned any of the seven article talk pages they posted on where they similarly mentioned using AI tools for copyediting and phrasing but I used the Asilvering's talk page message because it was their most recent posting and included their appeal for a way to "handle" it all. In no way did I ever claim or intend to claim that their message to their Asilvering (or anyone else for that matter) was "a bad thing". Either way this is a lot of text to spend not focusing on their article creations so what are we even doing getting into all this high school stuff. Οἶδα (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

"Nice try, Columbo"? Pretty telling about the human behind the ID in a public forum. I would not engage with you any further. Hope4movies (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about what you said about me. You made a baseless and rather callous inference from the timestamps in my contribution history, asserting that I could not possibly have reviewed the articles and their sources before tagging. That is not what the timestamps show. They show when I applied the tags, not when I began or finished going through all of the articles. So yes, "Nice try, Columbo" because if you're going to accuse someone of acting improperly and back it up with your supposed investigation of my record, you should at least make sure your evidence actually supports the accusation. Οἶδα (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

If it's clear that an article has been written with an LLM, it's not necessary to review its sources. I'm not sure what reviewing the sources would bring in such a case. (NB: I am not commenting on the articles in question, which I have not read, but generally.) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

After thinking a bit more, I wanted to clarify this: source-text disagreement is one strong sign of AI-generated articles, but it's not the only one. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. I did not tag the articles as being unverifiable. I tagged them as AI-generated. Because my spidey senses told me that the primary author of the new articles was AI. Οἶδα (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Hope4movies As you have confirmed that you used AI in drafting the articles, the solution is for you to delete the parts of the articles that were drafted this way and rewrite them in your own words. Someone else could also do that—but it would be better if it's you, as you will know for sure which parts were written using AI and which (if any) were not. If one of the volunteers here edits them to get rid of the LLM text, they'll have to do a lot of guesswork and might end up deleting a lot more text than strictly necessary, to be sure.

This probably sounds discouraging, I'm sorry, but there isn't really another way around it. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Hope4movies - would you like me / us to move those articles over to draft status so that you can repair them at your convenience? Strictly speaking that could happen anyway: They are pretty obviously LLM generated, at least the first three that I checked. Once fixed then they can go back to main space, or if you prefer they can go via the AFC process for a second set of eyes. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Suðurhafsljósæta, hello @ChrysGalley, I appreciate you both weighing in.

According to Help:Maintenance_template_removal, an LLM flags an article as needing extensive examination because it appears (to the editor who tagged it) to have been generated using an AI system without rigorous human scrutiny.

My claim has never been that I did not use AI, but that all entries were scrutinised by me against the sources. The tagging editor relied on their own judgment to believe that I did not scrutinise the entries, which I did. Even when I reviewed one of the pages they tagged and reverted the tag, leaving them a message forthwith, they subsequently reverted the tag with no explanation or reply to my message. I do not believe new editors are supposed to be subservient. It is indeed too discouraging to see such tags on all the articles I spent hours researching and drafting, without sound judgment behind them.

I would have preferred if the articles could be properly checked and edited by another editor. However, I am happy if you both believe they should be moved to the draft section to allow me to delete the AI-drafted parts and rewrite them in my own words. If it is not too much to ask, I would like to check with either or both of you regarding your opinions on my review across all the articles.

Thank you. Hope4movies (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Personally I think putting all of the listed items into draft status is a good idea, and indeed another editor may decide to do it anyway. LLM is banned, there is nothing optional about that, and it really shouldn't be in draft space either. Whether it is scrutinised or not is irrelevant: you must not use LLM. So going to draft status to allow you to resolve the very obvious use of LLM is a pragmatic way to handle it, given the alternatives are somewhat drastic. It would be good if you could confirm you will stick to policies and guidelines in the future, one guideline being WP:NOLLM. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Point duly noted. I have read the suggested article. Thank you. Hope4movies (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hope4movies, WP:NOLLM is quite clear here: The use of large language models (LLMs) to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited except for the uses as outlined below. (Footnotes removed.) The two very narrow exceptions are for WP:Basic copyediting suggestions and for translations; neither applies here. Whether or not you scrutinised the articles against the sources makes no difference.

We don't require you to be subservient, but you do need to follow the WP:Policies and guidelines, including WP:NOLLM.

Thank you for being honest about having used AI for drafting the articles. That's actually rather refreshing. I'm sorry that the policy against it came as a surprise to you after you'd already created several pages. I will draftify your articles so you can rewrite them at your own pace. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

All eight articles have been moved to draft. (Sidenote: if anything looks odd with them, please let me know. This was my first time using the MoveToDraft script to carry out all the steps.) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I just hope a move to draftspace isn't used as a backdoor to more easily bypass the kind of scrutiny AIN brings, especially now that you've marked the matter as resolved and the articles will presumably be left to the draft reviewer community, with which I've had... let's say, not-so-great experiences with in the past to exactly inspire my confidence. Οἶδα (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

We do this as WP:AGF when the editor appears to be cooperating. Sometimes we get burned. But we do look back over AINB cases from time to time and may spot recurring problems. M kuhner (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Just as I expected. Hope4movies moved two of their articles out of draftspace. They should not be the one making that decision, for obvious reasons. Οἶδα (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The articles were rewritten, I haven't checked for WP:V though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The articles were rewritten

And not submitted for review. That was not the expectation underlying the conclusion here, surely. Because, again, they should not be the one making that decision. Οἶδα (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

If there was no sanction prohibiting them from publishing the revised articles back into mainspace, then they are permitted to do so. If you still feel the articles are deficient, you may nominate them for deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

So... nominate for AIN, move everything to draftspace where where AIN's scrutiny effectively ends, then give the AI-generating editor full control over reviewing their articles and moving them back to the mainspace. Marvelous system. Got it. Cheers.

To be clear, the reason I'm incredulous and persistent is that I do not believe for one second this user's claim that the extent to which an LLM touched these articles amounts to "copyediting/phrasing while drafting". As I already alluded to above, I initially tagged them because their text indicated that the primary author of the new articles was AI. That remains my contention. Not that it was mere polishing. LLMs have become scary good at generating full wiki articles, replete with sources, markup and all. But there are still signs. And every single time I find LLM articles, the creators either lie or obfuscate. Every. Single. Time. WP:AGF, but that must not minimize our attention to the text. It speaks for itself. It is not a human being. Οἶδα (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to change the system, start an RFC. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Cheers Οἶδα (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

cases go to the archives, after a couple months I review them again, see if there's any more cleanup, whether someone's returned and continued using LLMs etc. But this thread is still on the noticeboard, which means we're keeping an eye on the editor. If you want to help you can review their rewrites, if you find lots of AI signs or WP:V failures, you can ask for a block w {{@AINBA}} as they'd potentially be out of WP:ROPE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Suðurhafsljósæta, Thank you for graciously pointing this out to me. I have just read the article you and ChrysGalley suggested. I was also catching up on reading the policies and guidelines, but it is quite a lot to take in at once, so I will return to it. Thank you as well for moving all the articles to draft; I will revise them one after another. Hope4movies (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thank you for understanding. Good luck with revising the articles. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks for being so helpful. Take as little or as long time as you need. P&G is a bit of a mountain, I think we can all appreciate that. That said, while it's best to get it right rather than get it rapid, nevertheless some of these articles are quite interesting so I hope it won't take too long! ChrysGalley (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both; this turned out to be rather refreshing. I will take on the articles one day at a time, literally. Hope4movies (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Here are two things to particularly look out for. (1) Claim is true, but it's in a different source than the one given for it. This is absolutely ubiquitous in recent LLM. (2) Article says "many people said" but only cites one, and probably there aren't more. They just love to do this for some reason. "Multiple sources", "Critics said", anything like that needs to be checked and usually removed. M kuhner (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Would advise simply writing directly from the sources, rather than going through a list of different things to look for for every sentence. CMD (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Hadesfly

 Cleanup has been requested.

@Hadesfly

After this LLM comment, found Andhra Pradesh Airports Development Corporation Limited which they edited, especially history, high likely usage of LLM.

APADCL was originally incorporated in 2015 as the Bhogapuram International Airport Corporation Limited (BIACL). It was formed exclusively as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to accelerate the Bhogapuram International Airport Project near Visakhapatnam. It was restructured and rebranded under its current name in November 2017. This administrative shift expanded the corporation's legal and developmental mandate from a single-project entity into a state-wide civil aviation nodal agency..

Their other edits should be looked for possible LLM usage. Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 12:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

not sure, their other large edits were to Amaravati International Airport. Plausibly AI, but they've not tripped relevant edit filters, no strong AI signs, Pangram says no. Looks like it needs spotchecks unfortunately Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:45, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Iamcarbonmatter Can you explain what happened with the Amaravati International Airport article? What is its current status? CMD (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The banned user edit warred and refused to participate in discussion regarding List of airports in Andhra Pradesh. They used Amaravati International Airport edit summary to hurl abuses and what not. Ironically never participated in any discussion, never told what's their exact problem is ANI as well. Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 07:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Garudindflamewing

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-10 Garudindflamewing, 37 pages need review.

 Garudindflamewing (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (10 September 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. Editor's autopatrolled permission has been removed.

User with 20k+ edits and autopatrolled. I noticed Raghuttama Tirtha was full of sentences such as The diverted bridge stands just outside the temple complex to this day as an enduring testament to the saint's living presence. Satyadhyana Tirtha is similar, with sentences such as This period provided him with valuable experience in management, finance, and human relations. His sharp judgment of men and events earned him respect as a capable leader. At the same time, his humour, warmth, and accessibility made him popular among students and scholars. and Through rigorous logic and scriptural authority, he decisively refuted their arguments, a victory that entered the annals of Vedāntic history. Both articles are reckoned to be mixed by GPTZero. They were created before 2022 but were significantly expanded recently with the AI-sounding prose.

Prasanna Venkata Dasa was created recently, and GPTZero judges it to be AI with certainty, with sentences like His life and works exemplify the fusion of scholarship, devotion, and musical creativity in service of spreading Madhva philosophy and devotion to Lord Vishnu. Beside the prose, the editing patterns of large edits, sometimes in rapid succession, mostly on mobile, with conspicuously vague edit summaries like "added sourced content" don't give much confidence.

Compare pre-2023 pages such as Satyanatha Tirtha, which GPTZero confirms to be human. Kisseran (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:GPTZERO, but in this case I think you're right, though it is a weird case. I mean the tone is certainly promotional, but it is too overtly promotional to be typical LLM use (of course these things vary with prompts a lot). Edit pacing is also atypical. Will come back with a more detailed analysis in a bit. Fermiboson (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Blatant AITALK on User talk:Narayan Dikshit. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: can we get an autopatrol pull real quick while we look at this? Fermiboson (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fermiboson: You are correct that AI text is present there (User talk:Narayan Dikshit), but I want to clarify the extent. I only used an AI assistant to help me draft and format the specific section regarding Wikipedia guidelines. The rest of the message and my actual comments were written entirely by me. However, I now understand that pasting any AI generated text onto a talk page is strictly prohibited and undermines community trust. That was a big mistake on my part. I will strictly avoid using AI for drafting articles or talk page messages going forward. - Garudindflamewing ^(talk) 07:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Removed autopatrol, noted that the removal is temporary and can be restored by request. I considered removing the reviewer right also, because reviewers nowadays need to be able to recognize LLM-generated content, but I left that alone. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Filler sfn at . Fermiboson (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Tracker page created. I ticked only the pages with substantial non-restorations, though my gut feeling is that there are significant WP:CT/CASTE violations all the way back past 2023. Fermiboson (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping and for reviewing these articles. I want to be completely transparent about my workflow here, as it differed between the pages mentioned. For Satyadhyana Tirtha page i used GPT to some extant for drafting and copyediting. But I forgot to neutralize the article to meet NPOV. I will fix this article give me some time. Regarding Raghuttama Tirtha article it is entirely based on books, recently I expanded it. This article expansion is based on Kannada book Sri Raghuttama Tirtharu by a prominent Scholar Vyasanakere Prabhanjanacharya. Since I adhered closely to the source material, the Kannada to English translation ended up retaining the author's reverential and devotional tone. Coming to Prasanna Venkata Dasa article as noted this is a very brief article but I will review it as well to ensure the tone remains neutral. I will not use GPT for drafting going forward. Thank you! - Garudindflamewing ^(talk) 05:36, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could indicate all of your previous creations and edits that were AI-generated. (Note: Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence)Regardless, I believe that your autopatrol right is not compatible with the pattern of edits that have been exhibited. Aside from cleanup, it would also be helpful for you to provide the prompt you have used. Note for the future that WP:LLMT is a thing, and also that overly close translations of copyrighted material may itself constitute a copyright issue. Fermiboson (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fermiboson:, thank you for the feedback and for linking to WP:LLMT. I want to firmly clarify the situation regarding Raghuttama Tirtha. I did not do an overly close translation of copyrighted material. I manually researched the Kannada book Sri Raghuttama Tirtharu and wrote everything entirely in my own words. My error was strictly an NPOV one. I was talking about the devotional tone of the original author unintentionally carrying over into my writing. I will go back and neutralize those adjectives, but there is no copyright or close-paraphrasing issue there.

Except for these two instances, I have not used AI for any other articles or edits. For Satyadhyana Tirtha article my prompt was "Expand the article with the text I'm giving" and I provided my own manual inputs. When ChatGPT generated the content, I only took partial content and headings from it. For the User talk:Narayan Dikshit talk page message I provided the AI with my own manual message and asked it to help me add relevant Wikipedia guidelines to draft the reply. I understand the removal of my autopatrol rights during this review. My immediate focus will be manually cleaning up the NPOV tone in the articles mentioned. - Garudindflamewing ^(talk) 12:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I look forward to your cleaning up of the relevant articles. I would be grateful if you could also label the cleaned-up articles in the tracking page appropriately. Fermiboson (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Seemingly LLM-generated section at Innanetape being restored with possibly unencyclopedic motivation

Yesterday, I went to the article Innanetape to add that the album is being released to major music streaming services later this month.

I encountered this section, which to me seemed almost certainly LLM-generated, and had no sources:

== Impact and Legacy ==

Innanetape is widely cited as a foundational pillar of the 2010s Chicago hip-hop renaissance. Released alongside other highly acclaimed independent projects from the city, the mixtape helped solidify a distinct, alternative movement within the local youth culture. While mainstream media heavily focused on Chicago's gritty drill subgenre, Innanetape offered a contrasting perspective—highlighting youthful optimism, social awareness, and the everyday realities of growing up in the city without relying on hyper-violence.

The mixtape had a profound impact on the local community, demonstrating to independent Chicago artists that global reach could be achieved without immediate major-label backing. Tracks like "Orange Soda" and "Tweakin" became anthems for the internet hip-hop era, characterized by eclectic production and deeply personal, rapid-fire lyricism.

Culturally, Innanetape captured the chaotic, hyper-connected reality of coming of age on the internet. Its success transformed Mensa from a local frontman into an international solo act, directly leading to high-profile collaborations with artists like Kanye West, Pharrell Williams, Pusha T, and Gorillaz in the years that followed. For fans discovering the project retrospectively, the mixtape serves as a definitive time capsule of a pivotal era in underground hip-hop, highlighting the initial spark of Mensa's creative and activist pursuits.

Looking at the page history, it turned out that the section had been added earlier that day by a user registered that day, DESPERATEG. I removed the section and headed to the author's talk page to ask them about LLM usage. You can see the full conversation here. They claimed that I utilized an LLM to structure my work into a format that was hopefully recognizable to most Wikipedia pages but can re-write it to sound more natural. I then informed them about Wikipedia's policies on LLMs. I personally don't believe that they only used an LLM for structure, but whatever. They claimed that they would give re-writing the whole thing and sourcing it a try, so I don't think any admin action is needed against them as of right now.

Today, the entire section is added back by a user called Zirthes, along with a maintenance tag for no sources, but no mention about how obviously AI-sounding the whole thing is, that the section very much seems to constitute original research, and that it does not have a neutral tone. I removed the section again.

I reported Zirthes for edit warring in late July 2026, for which they were told that they were in the wrong. Following that, Zirthes started doing things like declining edit requests of mine and appearing in a conversation between me and another user on that user's talk page, telling me not to discuss a specific Wikipedia policy. I reported them for Wikihounding at AN/I; the report ended with me being blocked for a week for battleground behaviour. The day after I return to editing from my block, Zirthes reported me to AN/I for disruptive editing; that report was recently archived as inactive. Throughout the duration of both reports, Zirthes confronted my edits elsewhere on Wikipedia at a rate I believe is not coincidental, which I pointed out in the threads, to which I was continuously met with users telling me that I was casting aspersions, no matter how many more examples kept popping up. A week ago, Zirthes appeared on another user's talk page where I was and admitted to following my edit history. I would like to get a second opinion on this board as to whether my removal of the section, rather than just tagging it, is justified. To me, it's clear as day that the section should be removed. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Considering the lack of sourcing and how POV the text is, I think removal is reasonable. With regards to Zirthes' reversion, I think one could also make an argument for keeping it and fixing the prose, as DESPERATEG has only made one edit. With regards to yall's ongoing disagreement, I think backing off is the best choice for both of you and the encyclopedia. The beauty of this site is that if there's something wrong, the law of large numbers means someone will find it. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 16:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The edit warring, hounding etc accusations has nothing to do with this. You blanked a whole section without saying why in the edit summary or starting a discussion on the article's talk page and then accused the editor who created the section of using AI. I read the section that you removed and to me it did not seem like there was anything particularly wrong with its content, and I believe that it deserved the chance to be given appropriate sources. Because a lot of it was referring to specific events or people rather than just being random POV information that anyone could have made up. So thats why I undid the removal of the section and added the Template:Unreferenced section to give the other editor(s) a chance to find appropriate sources which they said they would do on their talk page. However you removed the section again so you will have to converse with that editor and decide what is the best way to proceed. I also feel like you weren't assuming good faith to begin with. Zirthes (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines are that AI-generated text is not allowed. They are not "AI-generated text is allowed if someone else thinks it deserves a chance." Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I said that AI-generated text is allowed, but okay. Naturally, introducing sources to support the information would result in areas of the text being removed or altered to reflect what is said in the sources. In my opinion, the section seemed quite specific rather than generic POV content, just like it is an opinion that something is AI generated without factual proof. Please don't twist my words just because you didn't get here first. Zirthes (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

to me it did not seem like there was anything particularly wrong with its content, and I believe that it deserved the chance to be given appropriate sources.

"AI-generated text is not allowed" means that, for Wikipedia's purposes, there is in fact something "particularly wrong with its content."

As far as factual proof the person literally said themselves that they used AI, so I don't know what more proof you even need here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

And they also said they would look to reword the section and cite sources, which is why I reverted the section blanking and added the maintenance template to give them a chance to do this. Zirthes (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with keeping the section out of the article. It's a seriously unacceptable degree of WP:PUFFERY, especially with no sources. If the original author intends to rewrite and source it later, that's fine, and if they have need of the original text for some reason it's in the page history. @~2026-41404-95: I just recommend a short explainer in the edit summary whenever you remove content to avoid this, many people will assume vandalism when seeing a substantial content removal (especially from a TA, unfortunately). ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean, the person did state that they used AI - i feel like there's no support that could possibly be stronger than that Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Kagerou47

creations draftified and tagged

Would like to get a second opinion. Looking at Kagerou47 page creation log they are creating drafts within minutes of each other. For example, on August 31st, they created 6 drafts. @Guninvalid declined Draft:Daigaku Tsushin in part due to AI and I declined another but they have several pending review and some have been accepted. I do not want decline more if I am wrong but I did leave them a warning. S0091 (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Unsure about complete AI generation. It's definitely strange for someone to create so amyn drafts at once but it is possible they had been working on them for some time before finally submitting. I also notice that almost all the topics are Japanese, and at least one of them has a translation on Japanese Wikipedia. So it's likely they are translating from Japanese Wikipedia, though I suspect undeclared WP:LLMT. guninvalid (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I left them a reminder about unattributed translations and LLMT - it seems reasonable that these would be translations, but either way we'll hopefully be able to get some information on the editor's workflow. ^purring_maggot (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful. Will keep an eye out to see if they respond, even passively by adding attribution. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. Looks like a lot of things happened all of a sudden since my previous login. I just finished going through on what happened those draft that I have submitted before, and also went through the cases that appears here in this noticeboard.

I must admit that I did use AI tools to help me find references, prepare the draft structure, and adjust things a bit here and there.

I also admit that I am not aware the Wikipedia AI policy before this (and ironically become aware of this when me myself ended up in this noticeboard haha).

Sorry to trouble the contributors here, to undo my previous edits and submissions, and marking most of my submission as AI generated content accordingly. I do appreciate these efforts to keep the integrity of Wikipedia. I hope that similar standard also applied not only to English Wikipedia, but also other languages / versions of Wikipedia as well.

As a safeguard, I don't mind if I ended up permanently blocked from making future submission.

To wrap up, thanks again to the contributors and all these efforts. Cheers. Kagerou47 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Kagerou47 for the response and your honesty, you won't be blocked as such measures are only to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia and never to punish (WP:NOTPUNITIVE). This isn't really your fault, Wikipedia needs to do a better job at informing newcomers of its AI policy. In case you wish to work on your drafts (listed here), some advice I can give: The biggest issue with LLM use is hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures), though there are other important issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. Usually we recommend that people stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles from scratch since it's often very time-consuming to attempt to preserve such content, but it's up to you. Please let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Kowal2701. I think I will step aside from those drafts for a while now (thanks as well for putting them in some sort of a quarantine btw).

Maybe for now, I simply want to see whether other contributors with similar interest will continue working on those as well or not haha.

Those are a bit niche topics I can say, especially the first one I submitted about Yoichi Aoyagi, one of the Japanese photographer from the 1970s. Then the subsequent submission, is kind of branching out from there, which I got carried away to use AI tools again to submit those as well.

About the hallucinations issue, I did try to check the provided links and references and did a bit of editing before the submission. I try my best to assure that the draft did not contain wrong information.

My main challenge for now, I would say is the source material, especially for a figure (such as Yoichi Aoyagi) or reading materials (such as those submission related to Japanese old magazines) that kind of famous at a particular period of time and to a particular group of people, which did not get enough coverage online or even at physical books at the recent times.

Now that you mentioned about stub, maybe in future if I did consider to continue the contribution again, I will consider to stubbify it first.

Thanks a lot for the guidance. Kagerou47 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries, creating articles is often the hardest thing for a newcomer to do, there's some advice at Help:Your first article in case you do decide to return to editing (WP:TEAHOUSE can also help with any problems you may have). There is also Help:Find sources which may be useful. Good luck! Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:50, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1371449374 is very different to the Japanese article, same deal with Special:Permalink/1372263711 and ja:GORO. Draftifying the rest and tagging, will subscribe to the convo as well. Oddly they don't edit jawiki Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

can someone decline their AfC submissions? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

This article Draft:Sunday Mainichi does not have any obvious AI content and most of its refs are real and related to the content cited (there were one or two odd refs but that could be due to the source changing). I would inclined to move this particular article back to mainspace (haven't looked at the others. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

it's very different to the Japanese article, however doesn't really have any AI signs like the others (Pangram also gives it human-written, but has high false negatives). Unfortunately I think it'd still need spotchecks for WP:V before returning to mainspace, as the articles before it have AI signs + Pangram positives. Idk but I expect they are writing these themselves in Japanese, and then using an LLM to translate that (which'd still cause hallucinations and isn't covered by WP:LLMTRANSLATE) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Capankajsmilyo

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 September 2026)
Editor has acknowledged AI/LLM use, committed to stop, and will follow WP:NOLLM. Cleanup may still be needed. Autopatrolled permission has been removed from editor's account.

Autopatrolled user with 47k+ edits. Extremely suspicious editing pattern. e.g. the sequence of revisions starting at Special:Permalink/1373528950 in which 2000 bytes of prose are added in a span of 8 minutes. The sequence of revisions starting at Special:Permalink/1372157922 where nearly 3000 bytes of prose are added in a span of 7 minutes. Two separate unsourced stubs at Special:Permalink/1371558608 and Special:Permalink/1371559265 within 4 minutes of each other. Half an hour later (with continuous edits in between) two more unsourced stubs Special:Permalink/1371564229 and Special:Permalink/1371565136 6 minutes apart. Despite editing since 2015 the user only started tripping edit filters for broken sfns in late 2025. The added content itself is obviously full of AISIGNS as well. Kisseran (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

FWIW I put Special:Diff/1373528950/1373530000 through Pangram as a sanity check: . Notified them, also courtesy ping to @Jishara who's reviewing a GAN Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware of these new guidelines. I used LLM for english drafting and avoiding copyvio. I'll restraint use of LLM now. Thanks for pointing out @Kowal2701 Capankajsmilyo (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, can you let us know when you started using LLM? It would really help with cleanup efforts. M kuhner (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy ping, that explains a lot. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara For what it's worth, you could have quickfailed the GAN on criterion 3 since it needs a LLM cleanup banner. Kisseran (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Good point - I didn't feel I should quickfail though because the GAN's already been going for a bit, so I regular-failed under Criterion 2 instead, since it's at least partially LLM-generated per Capankajsmilyo, many of the sources are unavailable online, and even before a spotcheck some of the facts didn't line up. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Can you revoke autopatrolled here as well? Kisseran (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the autopatrolled permission from Capankajsmilyo's account. Capankajsmilyo is welcome to reapply for the permission at WP:PERM/A after requalifying for the guidelines for granting with 25 valid article creations (in addition to the articles he had previously created). — Newslinger talk 14:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Lukasmeier88

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-18_Lukasmeier88, 14 pages need review.

Lukasmeier88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dann Coakwell was tagged for AI signs by Gnomingstuff, I'd say the biggest tell there is that the NYT article linked does not mention the subject at all, but is a review of the same piece of music performed by a different group (an actual relevant NYT review does exist, saying "clear-voiced and eloquent as well as a vivid storyteller" which is very strangely shortened in the article). I see AIBOLD, AIATTR atSpecial:diff/1361216014. AIDASH in user's first article Special:diff/1297294906, though the AI signs are stronger in more recent articles from at least November 2025 forward. I don't have time to conduct a more thorough investigation atm. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

filter log also full of markdown and ChatGPT params Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

At my talk page, user states they are using chatgpt as a translation tool. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Also at Special:diff/1361216014 is a link, footnote 7, to the apparently non-existant https://www.belvivere.media/amadeus. Bel Vivere went bankrupt and folded a few years back. The magazine referenced, Amadeus, continues to be published though the article doesn't appear to be online, if it exists. Corresponding article in Italian was created on July 8 and shares the same problems. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Creations are from June 2025 to April 2026. Special:AbuseLog/42970441 (Dec 2025) and Special:AbuseLog/43681107 (March 2026) had markdown, Special:AbuseLog/41974581 (Aug 2025) had a chatgpt-derived link. Analysis of creations needed but they've recently edited so no point for now ig Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the large edit to Alberto Conde and it fails source/text rather immediately. Source article is given the wrong title (something elsewhere in the page was grabbed as title) and does not verify any of the 20th century dates for which it is used. Looking for community consensus for cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Baronmilone

creation draftified and drafts tagged

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-12 Baronmilone, 278 pages need review.

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

Markdown block in . Many, many, many content additions to be tracked. Likely AITALK. Fermiboson (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I have responded to the notice on my user talk page and will address any specific concerns raised here. Baronmilone (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

User:RogerYg

 Cleanup has been requested.

7k+ edits. ChatGPT tracking parameters in filter log on talk page messages. Other likely AITALK examples include Special:Diff/1356868700. Markdown in mainspace prose in Special:Diff/1356002131, accompanied by glaring AI prose like Special:Diff/1356096567. Rather conspicuous edit summaries that seem human-written but with typical AI emphasis on adherence to policy. Kisseran (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

final warning as they denied AITALK Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:16, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

they denied it again (not just currently, never ). Markdown mentioned above was in May. I guess we wait for more AI edits and then ask for a block. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to explain and clarify any AI charges. I can assure you that I am not using AI for my Wiki page edits. There may be very few isolated incidents where I searched for some WP policy on Google Search in AI mode or ChatGPT, which I may have used in a TALK page discussion by mistake.

Hi @Kisseran and @Kowal2701 I can assure you that I will not use AI LLMs for Wiki edits in the future. I have been editing long before AI LLMs were invented, and I have a very good record with 7K edits. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Guywelch2000 (2)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-18 Guywelch2000, 156 pages need review.

Previous AIN thread: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 13 § User:Guywelch2000

 Guywelch2000 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (10 September 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Previous AIN guest and somewhat prolific user. Made substantial edits to Wawona Hotel today. The changes were first worked out in the user's sandbox, where there are chatbot blocks in f.ex. Diff/1374144270 and Diff/1374146823 from today. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I have acknowledged the warning. Guywelch2000 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Most of the pages that were draftified the last time have been moved back into article space, and the {{ai-generated}} tags have been removed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I contributed to many articles in 2024 that were moved into draft space in early August. I spent the last few weeks revisiting them, checking the original sources, and revising the articles based on the issues identified, which often came down to clumsy, verbose prose that I was very motivated to fix. Also, I found many issues typical of first draft articles that were a side effect of my research; extraneous detail, over-sectioning, and so forth.

My goal is that these articles move beyond Start class, provide knowledge, and are a foundation for others to improve. I have used AI technology to proof my grammar and target weak spots in my writing, which tends towards the promotional, stating the significance of something instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. I have also found AI technology to be helpful in spotting discrepancies between sources. An example of this is articles that cite federal documents over several decades, where I have corrected errors and updated citations to go with what seems like the best and most authoritative source. This was the case with the Wawona Hotel article.

I love this space and genuine effort in making it better through my contributions. For now, I will both take a pause and revisit the editing guidelines. Thanks for your patience and consideration. Guywelch2000 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Campaigner1942

Campaigner1942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Warned for LLM use in June, but the latest AfC accepts show that they haven't stopped. No time to do comprehensive analysis yet; I have a list of like 40 possible open cases in a text file right now. Please take a look. Fermiboson (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

hasn't edited since June, chatgpt-derived link in Special:AbuseLog/44387834 (June). Creations are very plausibly AI but no major signs at a glance. Pangram says mixed and AI , I suspect this user was more clueful re AI detection than our usual customers.

Spotchecks of Special:Permalink/1353543670

• Working with Friends of the Earth, the Association for the Conservation of Energy and cross-party MPs, Bailey participated in campaigns supporting Diana Maddock's Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which required energy conservation authorities to improve the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in their areas. is sourced to a primary source and is typical AI OR
• Bailey was involved in campaigns for freedom of information and local government transparency during the 1980s. He contributed to discussions surrounding access to local authority information and published work on official secrecy and municipal governance. is completely unsupported by

These were the only two I checked, I've seen enough, LLMPRODing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

LoreGatherer2 (talk · contribs) edited at least two of their creations, was created in July and has triggered Edit Check + filter 1325 . Another potential one is The Lexicographist (talk · contribs) who added an image to Campaigner's creation. Looks like a UPE farm, pinging @NicheSports in case they fancy a crack at this? (I suck at SPI) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is worth an SPI filing, plus I found another. I'll ping you NicheSports (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I am still working on this one. I will have an update in the next day. NicheSports (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Shivaji Mitra

 Cleanup has been requested.

Shivaji Mitra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See recent contribs. Behavior including: edit summaries like "Draft article on Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (Supreme Court accessibility case) with sources; to be moved to mainspace after review" followed by moving to mainspace 1 minute later, oneshot 15k article 13 minutes after last edit, oneshot 27k article 26 minutes after last edit. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1178991287 (Oct 2023) is blatantly AI-generated, 2026 creations are less obvious. Have warned for the first time Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page at User talk:Shivaji Mitra#September 2026. Shivaji Mitra (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Wilfredor

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-19_Wilfredor, 67 pages need review.

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

Blatant AI edit summaries. At a glance the drafts look LLM and edit pacing is weird. Again, have not looked in detail yet. Fermiboson (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/42160183 (Sept 2025) had a chatgpt-derived link, on 31 May 2026 they created 62 articles (about a dozen more were draftified and failed AfC, one got G15'd, all appear to be loose LLM translations from eswiki). Last edited 17 August. I suggest LLMPROD 31 May creations to start with Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

More info about this situation can be found here. I'm not using any LLM anymore ever for translation Wilfredor (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing not to use LLM anymore! If you could give us the dates you started and stopped it would really help with cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Consensus needed to LLMPROD the 31 May creations, I'm not sure about the few previous ones but those are the priority imo Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Support May 31 LLMPRODs. M kuhner (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Made an (approximately) May 31 tracker. Can extend to other dates if found to be needed. M kuhner (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Fabal77

Fabal77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pacing is highly suspicious; user has created 26 articles in a single day, with a gap of just two minutes between a couple of them. Some articles have redlinked categories, but not too many other obvious AISigns have stood out to me, so requesting input from all you experts here. In solidarity, nil ^nz 00:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Dmitri Bogolepov in addition to the REDCATS, was created with three sources, two of which are WP:CIRCULAR (one explicitly, the other discloses on its about page). This isn't an LLMTRANSLATE situation because the Russian article doesn't use said sources, has somewhat different content and there would have either been more red categories or the editor would have checked them and had none. Similar situations with several more of these (this one actually directly cites Russian Wikipedia). I think I'm going to draftify all these. ^purring_maggot (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The one I examined, Iosif Korenevsky, is a translation from Russian Wikipedia. I looked at the original with Google Translate and it appears to be a faithful one. It is cited to ruWiki, not a proper translation notice, but at least this gives means to locate the original.

The redcats don't match, though: the enWiki article had, at creation, redcats People from Zaslawye, Belarusian State University people, Rehabilitated Soviet people; none of these cats is on the Russian article. M kuhner (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Were you possibly thinking of Draft:Alexei Argamakov? This was the only direct translation I noticed - Iosif Korenevsky cites academic.ru, which itself cites Wikipedia, but it doesn't cite the Russian Wikipedia article and the content and structure of it is a little different.

Further analysis:

• Draft:Anzhalika Melnikava contains WP:AIATTR. Some of the attribution may be appropriate given the events described, but it sneaks in "according to colleagues", "some Belarusian commentators", and "Belarusian media".
• The user's only previous creations are Dainius Gaižauskas and Rimas Jonas Jankūnas which are direct (unattributed) translations from dewiki.

All of the 10 September creations are tagged and draftified now, and I will leave a warning for the user. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I was looking at Iosif, but I assumed academic.ru was serving as a mirror of ruWiki due to the citation saying "Academic.ru, citing Wikipedia (Russian edition)". When I machine translated the academic.ru page it looked pretty similar to the article, many sentences nearly verbatim. M kuhner (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. The attribution on academic.ru is dated 2010, so it must have been an earlier version of the wiki article. ^purring_maggot (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah, real suspicious. It's wait it out to see if they do more of this, then warn. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

User has removed AI-generated tags from two of the drafts without acknowledging my post on their talk page. This edit comes off the most suspicious to me - shuffles around every single reference, removes the draft categories and drafts moved to mainspace templates, and for some reason rephrases my reason in the AI-generated tag (which the editor removed in the next edit). ^purring_maggot (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

User:ArzLibnan

 ArzLibnan (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (11 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Created Tel Abbas el Gharby in Diff/1351024284 (AbuseLog/44056016) with AIREDCAT, AIBOLD, AILIST, serves as a testament to and several nonexisting references. I did request G15 at the time, but it was removed by a new user (that has not edited before or since) two minutes after being created in Diff/1351035165 with a nearly incomprehensible edit summary.

Both sources are just links the main pages of the sites. Neither domain (currently) resolves (checked with 1.1.1.1, 1.0.0.1, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4), but both have been saved on archive.org in the past, so these sites have existed before. But neither reference has 'archive-url' parameters, and both of references have access dates from today, and the article was created today, so these sources almost certainly did not work when this was submitted and the sources could not have been read by the editor (unclear which web pages they mean to cite though, since they just link to the front pages of the domains).
— G15 request in Diff/1351029420

Somepinkdude tried a PROD, but this was declined by ArzLibnan in Diff/1365213458 with an edit summary denying AI use and saying that they did not have the permissions assigned to use the native translation tool so they had to create the page from scratch.

Despite a declined G15, the draft is still largely unchanged from its AI-generated creation, and some of the creators' later edits appear unambiguously AI-generated.
— PROD nomination by Somepinkdude in Diff/1365205107

There are several source integrity issues in the current revision Diff/1372046035;

• The village covers an area of approximately 393 hectares.

  This is sourced to the website fallingrain.com that doesn't seem to exist anymore, but it was most recently saved by archive.org in 2015. The website has lots of interesting geographical and meterological information, but it does not support the "393 ha (3.93 km²)" or give any measurement of the area, as far as I can tell.

• The economy of Tel Abbas el Gharby is predominantly agrarian, benefiting from its location in the fertile Akkar plain.

  This is cited to the same fallingrain.com source, which does support that the village is in the Akkar region, but it gives no indication that "the economy is predominantly agrarian" or that it is "benefiting from its location in the fertile Akkar plain".

• The village is a local center for farming, primarily producing potatoes, greenhouse vegetables, and cereals.

  Sourced to Women Economic Empowerment Portal, but with the wrong title. The only mention of the village is Farmers in the towns of ... and Tel Abbas indicated that the total cultivated area of strawberry has recently shrunk ... as greenhouse farmers substituted strawberry with various kinds of herbs and vegetables, potatoes are only mentioned to say that the Head of the Potato Farmers Union was present, "cereals" are not mentioned at all, and nothing suggests that the village is "a local center for farming".

• The village remained under the military administration of the Syrian Arab Army from June 1976 until their withdrawal in 2005.

  This is sourced to a BBC article from 2005. It does say that all of [Syria's] military forces have left Lebanon [in 2005] and that Military intervention [in Lebanon] began in 1976, but the article does not mention "Tel Abbas el Gharby" or "Tel Abbas" at all.

This is just a spot check of three references, but the user has said in Talk:Tel Abbas el Gharby § AI-generated that they have verified all the citations and manually reviewed and audited this entire article multiple times. ArzLibnan has denied any AI use wants to know WP:WHERESTHEAI, and assures me that this is not an unattributed machine translation. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

March 20-22, 1976: As military control of the Akkar plain intensified, a subsequent wave of violence resulted in approximately 20 further casualties among the remaining civilian population is sourced to pages 162-163 of Faces of Lebanon, but the book (which is in the Internet Archive library) does not mention anything about the dates March 20-22 1976, or 20 casualties, on those pages or the page before/after.

...Actually, a word search in this book shows no instances of "Gharby" or "Gharbi". @ArzLibnan: what exactly does "verified all the citations" mean if it doesn't mean "the facts in the text can be found in the cited sources"?

Also, a funny thing I noticed: The incident is documented as a critical prelude to the wider sectarian violence in North Lebanon, signaling a definitive breakdown in the state's ability to maintain security in rural districts. This event is often cited as a manifestation of the identity killings that eventually characterized the regional conflict, forcing a shift in local trust away from state-brokered reconciliations. Don't these two sentences sound like the same (heavily LLM-speak) sentence, rephrased and then mistakenly pasted next to the original sentence rather than replacing it? ^purring_maggot (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@gurkubondinn Thanks for pointing these out. I've gone through the article and cleaned up the sources line by line so everything matches 1 to 1:

Area and altitude: The 393 ha stat was from old translation notes without a direct link, so I deleted it for now per WP:V. The FallingRain citation was only ever intended to cover the 66m altitude rather than the preceding sentence as well, though I see how the placement made it look like it covered both. This is no longer an issue with the latest updates I've made.

Economy & crops: Replaced FallingRain on the economy line with a 2018 UNDP report on Tal Abbas that explicitly mentions farming as the main income source and lists the specific crops grown there.

Syrian military presence: Tweaked the wording to refer to the Akkar region generally so it matches the BBC source.

Everything on the page is now properly sourced to UNDP, BBC, and FallingRain.

Thanks,--ArzLibnan (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks @purringmaggot for the spot-check on the history citations. You're right about those specific formatting points. Harris (pp. 161–164) was cited for the broader regional context of security collapse and displacement across Akkar, but during copy editing a duplicate draft sentence was left behind. In good faith and to ensure the section remains strictly aligned with WP:V, I've updated the live history text to remove the duplicate draft phrasing and streamlined the civil war timeline, retaining Harris (pp. 161–164) strictly for the general Akkar regional context and displacement narrative. Appreciate the review!

--ArzLibnan (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I hope you realize that replying with exactly what your chatbot said when you fed our posts into it is just going to piss people off. ^purring_maggot (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a pretty good catch, @purring maggot. Another thing that I noticed there is that documented as a critical prelude and is often cited (by whom?) are both typical AIATTR over-attribution, and the wider sectarian violence is typical superficial analysis. I also want to know what verified all the citations is supposed to mean if it doesn't mean that the text is supported by the sources, especially since that has been persistently claimed for several months at this point. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

editing in the Android app :0 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:44, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi All, I've spent the best part of the last 3 days reviewing & revising the article, adding citations where lacking, reconciling the content against the citations and ensuring its all paraphrased in my own words. If there is anything further you feel is still necessary please let me know and ill happily address any concerns. Thankyou.--ArzLibnan (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hold on - this individual article is not the whole issue, it's that you created an article with a multitude of AISIGNS and represented to gurkubondinn that you had verified the text against the citations, although the slightest scrutiny revealed that nearly the whole article failed to match up to the citations, in a way that would be obvious had you actually looked at the sources. You were only able to fix the issues when they were spoonfed to you, and you replied individually to our posts (the replies within 1 minute of each other) in the exact tone and style of ChatGPT when it's told it did something wrong, which is a noticeably different tone and style from your comment that I'm replying to just now.

Meanwhile, among what you've introduced to Tel Abbas el Gharby is a PhD dissertation: Ethnic Cleansing as Military Strategy: Lessons From Lebanon, 1975–1990. The URL in the reference leads to a different dissertation, and it fails to support the claim of 24 fatalities as it does not specify that it's talking about the October 9, 1975 assault. This part of the dissertation references the ICTJ report, which is already referenced in the article. ICTJ states: killing at least 15 civilians and kidnapping nine others, which is not 24 fatalities, and since PhD dissertations are typically not considered reliable sources anyway, if the information is contradictory you should go with the ICTJ source. "Summary execution" also has a particular meaning which isn't borne out by the description of the killings in the ICTJ source.

The article also still contains the sentence By 1976, the Christian population had fled the village, seeking refuge across the border in Syria, Beirut, and coastal Christian enclaves. sourced to Faces of Lebanon - which again does not mention Tel Abbas - and ICTJ, which states As a result of this attack, a new wave of Christians from the north left the Akkar and Tripoli and headed toward Syria which does not support that the Christian population of the village had fled by 1976 and does not mention Beirut or coastal enclaves.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities: either you haven't been honest about AI usage, or you lack the ability to understand and convey information from the sources, and I would like to hear from you on those subjects rather than pretending like it hasn't been brought up. ^purring_maggot (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @purringmaggot, to set the record straight on my initial replies to this noticeboard, I did not post two successive replies within minutes of each other. I posted one single reply that addressed both yourself and Gurkubondinn. It only appears as two separate comments because I tagged my signature after addressing each of you individually, and Gurkubondinn subsequently edited the formatting and placed boxes around the sections. You can verify this by checking the page's revision history, as per this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAI_noticeboard&diff=1374310011&oldid=1374308253&variant=en

Re the wrong URL - that was a human error on my part and was fixed immediately as soon as I saw your reply given i had the article still open in my browser after reading it yesterday.

Re the 24 figure - this was the conclusion I drew from adding the 15 killed and 9 abducted from the ICTJ report for the October 9 incident, concluding those 9 abducted were also killed, which is how i understood the 24 fatalities in the Harvard citation. However it also also entirely plausible that Hagerdal was referring to the fatalities from the subsequent events that took place months later (which was actually my initial understanding however as I was reviewing all the content in the article again and re-reading many sources on the subject over the last few days it dawned on me that it could have been referring to the same incident accounting for the 9 abductions as fatalities. This isn't uncommon when 9 people disappear never to be seen again. Hence the 'totaling 24' was added only yesterday with that Harvard citation appended to it). Looking at it again though, I agree that combining 15 and 9 into a single 24 fatalities figure is inconclusive especially given the potential overlap with subsequent events months later, so Im happy to remove that edit from yesterday.

Re the displacement destinations - Tel Abbas el gharby is a village in Akkar. William Harris work on the 1975–1976 Akkar conflict covers the displacement of Akkars Christian population, which includes Tel Abbas el gharby. In Harris work he refers to the Christian residents of the Akkar villages fleeing along the established routes toward Beirut and the coastal enclaves. Now it is true that the majority of the Christians in Tel Abbas el Gharby being Greek Orthodox fled to Syria into the Greek Orthodox communities just over the border from them, however the minority Maronite population in the village fled to Maronite areas in Beirut or the Maronite coastal cities in Lebanon, alongside the other Maronite populations in Akkar from the other Christian villages impacted by the same conflict happening at the time. What I've actually documented in the article by combining both the ICTJ and Harris citations is how it actually played out and reflects the demographic reality of that regional conflict. The displacements also happened in multiple waves, the ICTJ documents the October 1975 displacement however there was subsequent displacements months later in 1976 as the violence & killings in the region intensified.

In any case, I appreciate the review and feedback as it ultimately helps improve the article.--ArzLibnan (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You are still not answering the actual questions that we are asking you. For the record, I am still of the opinion that this article should be deleted because it fails the NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:39, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi again @gurkubondinn as explained above, I've spent the best part of the last three days reviewing and revising the article, adding citations where lacking, reconciling the text against the sources, and ensuring everything is paraphrased in my own words. If there is anything further you feel is necessary, please let me know and I'll happily address it. --ArzLibnan (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you please answer the actual questions that you have been asked? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I've done my best to address all questions and clarifications requested here, if ive missed anything please let me know.--ArzLibnan (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, this all is starting to make a whole lot of sense now that we know one of the sources we were supposed to verify is "the inside of the editor's head" ^purring_maggot (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

For sure, but I still want to get an answer. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

What you've described is a significant level of WP:SYNTH - it is not acceptable to draw conclusions based on a synthesis of multiple sources. ^purring_maggot (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think its fair to say ive synthesised conclusions (and certainly not significant) as the way ive carefully documented it was by using the words "By 1976.." to describe the displacements. This correctly accounts for both sources, and is carefully placed after the subsequent killings that took place months after Oct 1975. The sources aren't actually contradictory, both are correct. However, to make sure there's no confusion or mixing of sources, ill update the article so the two points are completely separate: the flight to Syria tied strictly to the ICTJ source for the Oct 1975 assault, and the movement toward Beirut by 1976 is kept separate as a result of the subsequent assaults in the region months later. That way each source directly backs up its own sentence 1:1. --ArzLibnan (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It is textbook WP:SYNTH - if the reader cannot look at the sources cited inline and directly tie the information to the source - if it is dependent upon the editor's interpretation of what happened - it is SYNTH. You can't say that the village's Christians all fled by 1976 because the limit of what the sources say is that an unspecified number of Christians fled the region. I don't even know which quote from Harris p.162-163 is supposed to support the statements here - these pages involve refugees fleeing from Beirut, not people from Akkar fleeing to Beirut.

During this era, the region was governed by the powerful Al-Merehbi (Miribi) family, who exercised political and military influence over the Akkar hinterland. Pages 65-67 are not about the 19th century and as far as I can tell there is no mention of Al-Merehbi in the book. In late 1974, political instability led to armed clashes, extrajudicial violence, and displacement across the Akkar district. Pages 161-164 aren't about 1974, and Akkar doesn't come up at all between pages 129 and 212. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You’re probably using the search bar on Archive.org. The scan on there is just photos of the pages, so the search misses half the text in the book. If you manually flip to page 115 (apologies for typo), Harris mentions the Mir'ibis as the main landholders in rural Akkar. To make it simpler so nobody has to dig through book scans, I’ve added a secondary online source to support the Ottoman/Mir'ibi context directly. Also, Akkar is covered between pages 129 and 212 in Harris - pages 161-167 cover the northern front in the initial period of the war. As you cant rely on a word search of photos, I’ve gone overhauled the whole history section on the page so every sentence maps 1:1 to sources available online, which will help you with the reconciliation process. Ive also separated the displacements into distinct waves as discussed earlier, each with URL citations that you can click and verify. --ArzLibnan (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question that you were asked. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I've done my best to address all questions and clarifications requested here, if ive missed anything please let me know. I'm committed to ensuring that the rules are followed and that the article meets the Wikipedia standards. If you review the article you'll find that it already does meet thise standards to the best of my knowledge. If there's any other feedback to help improve the article further, im all ears, and will happily work collaboratively with you to further improve the article.--ArzLibnan (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• @ArzLibnan: what exactly does "verified all the citations" mean if it doesn't mean "the facts in the text can be found in the cited sources"?
  — User:purring maggot 03:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• I also want to know what "verified all the citations" is supposed to mean if it doesn't mean that the text is supported by the sources, especially since that has been persistently claimed for several months at this point.
  — User:gurkubondinn 09:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

‑‑gurkubondinn 12:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

except the facts in the text can be found in the cited sources. Go through and read the article and you will see that. In fact the article, which by Wikipedia standards is considered to be a small article, has 23 citations referenced. If you think ive missed a citation somewhere that you feel is necessary then call it out and ill fix it. If you think that any of the live 23 citations dont substantiate the text then call it out and I'll either address it or point out where you missed it in the citation. Ive reviewed the article and checked all the citations already and fail to see where there are any further issues to address. Ofcourse a second set of eyes is always welcome, I am human afterall.--ArzLibnan (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

We are not talking about the current revision of the article. We are talking about revision Diff/1372046035, that you've said that you had verified all citations of. You said in April that you had carefully written and reviewed the content [yourself] in Diff/1351031716 and Diff/1351032818 on the talk page. Then in August you said in Diff/1371861284 that you had reviewed the whole article to ensure all references were correct. Then you said in Diff/1371885011 that you went through and verified all the citations.

All of that is before any of the changes that you made to the article after I started this AIN thread. So what did you mean when you said those things? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The sourced citations in Diff/1372046035 are still in the live article now. What does that tell you? That when i said I had carefully reviewed and written the content I was telling the truth. Did i put a citation next every sentence in the article at time? No I did not, nor did I think it was necessary to. The reason Ive done that now is ro serve as testament to the fact that the article has truly been reviewed because you refused to believe me in good faith. Is it ridiculous having so many citations in such a small article? absolutely it is, but so are the threats to delete an article that I spent weeks researching, reviewing updating, refining. Its like someone telling you they're going to take your baby away from you. Was the article perfect when I advised I had conducted those reviews? No but at the time I thought it was. Is it perfect now? Considering Ive manually reviewed & refined the article over and over again to the point where ive practically memorised it all & considering there's been a full word by word audit by users active on this board, I would say that the live article right now is perfect (until someone identifies other areas for improvement). The other thing to point out is that you were initially complaining about a citation that was a dead link, a citation that I sourced through the translation process and had verified before publishing the article. So why was it a dead link? Its because the link is to a government website and that particular government is on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot afford to maintain the server, there was never an issue with the link or content behind the link, and I distinctly recall verifying the citation before publishing the article. These things happen and are out of my control.--ArzLibnan (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The source "Lebanon Crisis Response Plan 2017–2020" was added in Diff/1372037277, but it just links to the lebanon.un.org main page and not to the actual report itself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thats an old Diff you pulled up. At the time it was published to the article the main page was where the info was. As it's a dynamic link this was already updated days ago to a static link. Please check the live published page for the most up to date edits. --ArzLibnan (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The point isn't that you have changed the link in the reference and that it now points to the actual report. The point is that you made the Diff/1372037277 edit in the first place, and how that happened. That's a link to the lebanon.un.org main page, not a a dynamic link, you can't just say slightly technical words to addressing this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you missed the point I was making. dynamic link meaning that it pointed to the main page which at the time would have had the information published to substantiate the articles text. Because the main page is constantly updated (dynamic), the link needed to be updated to a static link that doesn't get updated, this was already updated days ago before you brought it to my attention as I noticed it when i was undergoing a full review & revision of the article. I hope that clarifies things.--ArzLibnan (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

We are not talking about the current revision of the article If there are no further concerns with the live article then the tag placed on it should be removed.--ArzLibnan (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Electragod77

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-16 Electragod77, 157 pages need review.

2k+ edits. Extremely fast edit pacing e.g. Special:Permalink/1358301594 and Special:Permalink/1358304739 4k in 20 minutes. Prose full of AISIGNS and has even tripped edit filters for plain, obvious AI vocabulary. Kisseran (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

also previously warned for copyvio and deprecated infobox parameters. Just given first AI warning Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

their creations were between 2022 and 2023 and aren't AI-generated, triggered filter 1325 twice in June . They effectively took a break from 2023 until April 2026, after which they made a ton of rapid edits (a lot of files created, I've no clue what to do w those). Most edits are minor (adding files etc.), quotes, or infoboxes. I'll create a tracker excluding small ones Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:BoonDock

 Cleanup has been requested.

Impossibly fast editing pace and triggered AI filters. Text has every AISIGN under the sun. I've G15-nominated South African Army Vision 2020 but there are still many to look at. Kisseran (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

15k edits and account created in 2005, asked when they started using AI (appears to just be Sept?) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

they responded w Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

User:金色黎明

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-19 金色黎明, 45 pages need review.

 金色黎明 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (14 September 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. WikiCleaner1013 (talk · contribs) has also been blocked as a sockpuppet of 金色黎明.

金色黎明 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been blocked for persistent addition of AI slop on Chinese Wikipedia. Just out of curiosity, I roughly checked their contributions, and found they also used a LLM/AI to make edits here.

• 43045940 Blatant ChatGPT track parameter.
• Cytoplasmic-nuclear male sterility (GPTZero AI score = 1.0) It appears that this article contains a total translation of their creations, zh:核质互作雄性不育, from Chinese Wikipedia. The latter is obviously generated by AI and tagged with G15 by an admin (zh:special:diff/94274371). The former has many signs of WP:AITREND. (e.g. The term emphasizes that sterility is not determined by cytoplasm alone, but by disharmonious interaction between cytoplasmic sterility factors and the nuclear genome. and Cytoplasmic-nuclear male sterility is important in plant breeding because male-sterile plants can be used as female parents without manual emasculation. It has been used in hybrid seed production in crops such as rice, maize, sorghum, pearl millet, rapeseed, sunflower, sugar beet, onion and pepper. --椿 (talk🎀) 12:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @椿, several of their zhwiki articles are tagged for speedy deletion, the earliest appears to be 17 Jan 2026. The zhwiki cleanup page is rather long. I see several of their GAs are being reassessed (zh:维基百科:2026年AI调查), they also have 2 GAs here that are potentially AI: 2024 Taiwanese President of Legislative Yuan election (Dec 2025 - June 2026) and 1984 Indiana's 8th congressional district election (Jan - Feb 2026). The chatgpt-derived link was Dec 2025, triggered filter 1325 in Jan 2026, looking at their creations:

• Nova Roma (video game) (Feb 2026) has WP:AIDASH, WP:AIVOCAB ("highlighted", "emphasized"), WP:AICONNECT ("combining"), overeliance on primary sources
• 1984 Indiana's 8th congressional district election (Jan 2026, now a GA) has WP:AIDASH, WP:AITREND ("reflecting"), extrapolated WP:AIATTR re "contemporary reporting", Pangram says AI

I'll WP:LLMPROD back to Jan 2026 for now, need to wait for Pangram credits to go further back lol (just for sanity checks ofc) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

On to the two GAs (analysing early revisions):

• 1984 Indiana's 8th congressional district election (Jan 2026) had AIDASH, AIVOCAB ("emphasizing"), SUPERFICIAL (...reflecting the extent to which national party organizations treated the seat as a proxy battle over the legitimacy of the 1985 House decision) + Pangram positive , I've tagged it, courtesy ping @Thebiguglyalien as reviewer: idk whether this ought to go to GAR or just LLMPRODed, tbf your spotchecks didn't bring up any hallucinations apart from maybe one
• 2024 Taiwanese President of Legislative Yuan election (Dec 2025) had AIDASH, AITABLE + Pangram positive , I've tagged it, courtesy ping to @ZKang123 as the reviewer: same above, similarly your spotchecks didn't turn any major hallucinations

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe the AI-ness might be due to them translating from Chinese sources to English. Much of the coverage is in Chinese and my spot checks generally can tell that they support the prose. Also, I recommend using GPTZero. Disappointed to learn that said user has been using AI to pollute the Chinese Wikipedia.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

They were translating zhwiki pages they created which AFAICT are determined to have been AI-generated (I can't read/detect AI wrt Mandarin). Personally I've found GPTZero to be pretty unreliable, Pangram has high false negatives but a positive from it is usually a strong sign. That very few WP:V failures were found is odd, the articles are pretty short (~1000 words) so maybe they did just review it all for hallucinations before submitting to GAN Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Some more analysis:

• Alexander McIver (Sept 2025) had AIDASH, AIPUFFERY (A noted mathematician...), SUPERFICIAL (His career illustrates the intersections of education, governance, and rural reform in nineteenth-century North Carolina.), some AICURLY, AITREND (Alexander McIver played a central role in reshaping North Carolina's education administration), AITITLECASE, no need to waste Pangram credits on this
• Tom Arceneaux (Feb 2025) was the one before that and had SUPERFICIAL (His considerable engagement in civic activities encompasses participation in various organizations...), AIVOCAB ("emphasized"), but no other signs, Pangram says AI-assisted

Need to wait for more Pangram credits again :/ Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

(I notified zhwiki of this thread at zh:维基百科讨论:2026年AI调查/User:金色黎明#英文维基百科 (English Wikipedia)) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've notified @金色黎明 myself since they didn't join the discussion, although we will get no response from them, I think. 椿 (talk🎀) 10:18, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 @椿 User:金色黎明 is now gone offline in both zhwiki and enwiki to evade this issue, which is a definite nonsense. Please consider giving the user a full indefinite block as that as in zhwiki. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 10:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Neither of us are admins, but I can ping @Anachronist. Usually we don't block someone who goes inactive, but I've seen in cases of WP:ANIFLU where a mainspace block is given to make them address concerns before returning. Will ofc defer to Anachronist Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Now we've got a DUCK @WikiCleaner1013 who has just registered and tried to remove this thread and the LLM tags. Blocks are now very appropriate. Kisseran (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Done. Both blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Quite a lot of (presumably socks) blanking this section.. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah they're socks, feel free to report any you see to m:Steward requests/Global for lock evasion Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Created WP:Sockpuppet investigations/金色黎明. Srapoj (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracker only to Jan 1 2026 covering both accounts. Can extend if deemed necessary. M kuhner (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

University of Sydney course mass AI use across at least two years

Needs reviewSoroban

Needs reviewTokimeki Memorial 4

Needs reviewInca Kola

Needs reviewList of One-Punch Man characters

Needs reviewLingda

Kept1770s  Fermiboson  The original is way too bad to revert to, and the rewrite is at least factually correct by common sense, so might as well.

Needs reviewCage the Elephant

Needs reviewFeature (machine learning)

Needs reviewC. W. Smith (writer)

Needs reviewOverachievement

Needs reviewInternational sanctions against North Korea

Needs reviewJulius Caesar's invasions of Britain

Needs reviewCasper (octopus species)

Needs reviewCivil Lines (magazine)

See Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#University of Sydney undisclosed course with mass AI use for detailed analysis. We have here an unknown number of student accounts, thus far 100% of which have used LLMs, and which are still not all cleaned up from 2025, and this year's course is happening right now. Eyes needed. Fermiboson (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1374354626 isn't good, but it doesn't seem AI, so the 100% figure can be revised a little bit. Not enough, but it's not all AI slop out there. Kisseran (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, The first-hand records at that time showed that this kind of friendship had common hobbies, emotional support and intimate physical interaction is suspect and I am quite confident the summary is AI. Relatively moot in either case. Fermiboson (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Records left over from history record a large number of emotional words in letters and diaries in men's romantic friendships stood out to me as being not AI, but looking at the rest of the edit and the edit summary does indeed not spark any confidence. Kisseran (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

(any updates?) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

There was more discussion at EDUN where Fermiboson reported yesterday I am happy to report that the three latest revisions by students do not read obviously as AI generated. As to the cleanup work that remains I'll report on AINB. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 23:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

thanks, maybe a list of users whose contribs need cleaning? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Check everything in , maybe. Fermiboson (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Forked to cover just this year's course if we want to prioritise: quarry:query/109392. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 00:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I've started a small list of what looks like high priorities for investigation. Don't know why Dr vulpes's script placed the list at the bottom – maybe because there isn't a single user being tracked? Can DVRTed's script handle a situation like tnis? —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 14:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Kind of. There's a fresh new update enabling the creation of a unified tracking table for multiple users. It's very fresh and... "unified" (as in everything is crammed into a single table!). See User talk:DVRTed/AINB-helper § Multiple users (sockfarms). — DVRTed (Talk) 14:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

User:EZPopoluv

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

This is a referral from an arbitration enforcement request (permalink) within WP:CT/A-I that I recently closed. Per my comment in the discussion:

...it appears that EZPopoluv's editing process is:

1. Use an LLM to generate a proposed edit to an article
2. Use a private script to format the LLM-generated edit as a "staging" page and create it under User:EZPopoluv/staging/
3. Use the script User:EZPopoluv/common.js to load the LLM-generated changes from the "staging" page into the wikitext editor for the target article
4. Review the changes
5. Submit the changes

As convoluted as the "staging" process is, this workflow is functionally the same as having an AI chatbot generate an edit, then copying and pasting it into the wikitext editor without creating a "staging" page. EZPopoluv said, "After receiving feedback about making too many quick consecutive edits, I set up a local script to publish directly via the Wikipedia API to streamline my workflow", which indicates that their edits prior to creating the "staging" process were also LLM-generated.

— Newslinger talk 19:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

triggered Paste Check multiple times early on, but their article and draft creations don't really have strong AI signs (ofc they're all very plausibly AI). Needs a closer look Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Historical accounts of homosexuality in African societies

Hi.@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four@Gurkubondinn@ChrysGalley@Kowal2701@Anachronist@M kuhner@AndyTheGrump

I've improved this article in the areas it was lacking in the previous version []. I've fixed paraphrasing problems. Each line is stated in my own words, but still loyal to what the source says. I've restructured how the section should look. I took in the advice of some users to change the title name to better capture the content inside of the article. It's highly attributed. I've fixed the citation number issue and used secondary sources in some sections and primary in others. The new title name resolves the issue of WP:due that was invoked, and the lead section.

There was no llm use here. It was drafted by me. Broadly I did explain I did use llm to ask questions about societies that had homosexuality in Africa. That was it. Its the only use. Llm can't read books. No source online that is reliable exists that can be as specific as this article. Llm needs the direct material to read what's inside. It can't read a book. They are behind paywalls and some are not even recorded in txt. You can see there is no hallucination from any llm. The names, places are all names used in the books. I do not believe Ai can do that, based on my personal experience with Ai, especially on African topics with barely any coverage.

So I'm here to notify the users previously involved in the other discussion and a vote took place I knew I couldn't just send to mainspace. Sending it to mainspace is my goal here, after I've properly requested for the mainspace title unbanned. So I'm curious to hear your thoughts and what you consider to be still problematic on this updated version. Omniking2100 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Rednaxela1962

 Cleanup has been requested.

We in the german AI/Cleanup have a report about this user. According to Pangram, this user is adding ai-generated and ai-translated text to articles and create articles with ai, but not always so we don't know when this user started it to use. I found an edit of this user from March 17th 2025 that according to Pangram (90%) added ai-generated text to the article. The suspicion of ai involvement is there and it could affect even more articles. Skranon (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

There are UTM parameters showing ChatGPT use in Diff/1285617441 (AbuseLog/40517587) and Diff/1285619749 (AbuseLog/40517732). ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1280840675 on 16 March 2025 appears to be AI-assisted . Some creations even as late as 6 September were done with the mw:Content translation tool, but I'm struggling with detecting signs. In the edit you linked above, they use straight quotes, while they usually use curly quotes (including in the edit I've linked). I see you've already asked them , that looks like our best bet unfortunately, idk what to think Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

On the german AI/Cleanup the user said he is using AI for one year. But the article I linked here in my report is from may 2025. Skranon (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not all that bright, their creations were all translations from dewiki. 5 sizeable creations on 23 March 2025, some within 20 mins, which seems implausible without LLMs or machine translation (@Skranon, this might be helpful). For enwiki: really the only way to tell whether these comply with LLMTRANSATE is spotchecks unfortunately Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The user clarified that he uses AI since March/May 2025. The english article Jean Violet created in May 2025 is a translation from the german article. According to Pangram both german and english Article have ai-generated text. Even if they are translations, the german article can have ai-generated text and can be transferred with a translation to the english article. --Skranon (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

According to Pangram, these articles have ai-generated text:

Jean Violet, Kuwait–United Kingdom relations, Niger–Russia relations, Luxembourg–Netherlands relations, Austria–Bosnia and Herzegovina relations, Jaroslav Haščák Skranon (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

thanks, those are May to October 2025. Pangram does give a lot of false negatives (I assume especially wrt translations), but it's positives are usually reliable. Oddly one of the 23 March translations are coming back as human-written. I haven't got the time to do the spotchecks for some of these to see if they comply with LLMTRANSLATE, it may have to go to the backlog Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Ariowisto

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-19_Ariowisto, 14 pages need review.

 Ariowisto (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (11 September 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

Submitted AIBOLD markdown in Diff/1374398201, less than two minutes after submitting Diff/1374397931 to the same article. Denied using AI in Diff/1374400008 (claiming be using Google Translate), and then immediately reinstated the edits with an edit summary also denying the AI use in Diff/1374400223.

Lots of rapid large edits. Added a new section in just over 30 seconds in Diff/1374253794, and another in under six minutes in Diff/1374254372. Produced nearly 16 kB of references in Diff/1374066340. Rewrote a section in under two minutes in Diff/1373926477. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This might be a language-related CIR issue, because there are two paragrpahs of Italian in Diff/1371814694, added in under two minutes after the previous edit. According to Special:CentralAuth/Ariowisto, they have logged in to itwiki but have never edited there. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I already told you that I am re-inserting old material that was deleted without reason. I used the translator only once to check the grammar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ausones&diff=prev&oldid=1289749088 Ariowisto (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That was added in Diff/1283555536 by a user that has LLM warnings on their talk page. The diff that you linked to removed it with the edit summary Last clean version. You're restoring AI-generated material that another user added, and are edit warring to keep it in the article. Please stop.

And translation software does not "check for grammar", you should enable and use the spell checker in your browser instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy/Archive 10 § Fabricated citations, possibly AI-generated, in content by User:Vineviz. Pinging Psychastes in case they are still around (hasn't edited since last year). ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Those accusations, however, refer to a different article "Latium Vetus", not the "Ausones".

Furthermore, I have only restored a few referenced sentences written by Vineviz, not his entire text. The rest of the changes are part of my own original research. Ariowisto (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that it "was unsourced", I said that it is AI-generated, which is not permitted by the WP:NOLLM guideline. The text that you are restoring was removed for a reason (the edit summary should have been a clue). Restoring AI-generated material is no different than copying from a chatbot yourself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright then. In the coming days, I will change or remove the AI-generated senteces. Ariowisto (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

The overlap is on three articles. I have cleaned up the Aurunci and Lombards articles, but Ausones needs re-cleanup (Ariowisto reinstated the AI-generated edits in Diff/1374400223 after I had reverted them), so I have tagged it for now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hm there is more, Ligures probably also needs to be re-cleaned up (edits were restored in Diff/1374400134). There is one reference that doesn't exist, nonsensical access dates, and AISIGNS in the prose. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:05, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

The changes on those articles (Lombards and Ligures) are my personal research. There may be issues with the sources, but the research remains original.

You can't count them as being created with artificial intelligence just because Vineviz modified those pages years ago. Ariowisto (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed, this is an encyclopaedia. And there are AISIGNS in your edits, aa I have described. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Original research in the sense of non AI-generated. Of course the material is referenced and you can check the sources.

In any case, I intended to delete the old edits regarding the Ausones and Aurunci; however, the Ligures and Lombards have absolutely nothing to do with this matter, and you cannot revert those edits simply because you "have a feeling" that I used AI.

You need to provide CONCRETE proof that I used an AI to edit those articles (Ligures and Lombards). Your "sixth sense" does not constitute an irrefutable evidence. Ariowisto (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: in addition to this response to markdown found in their edits, their recent edits are triggering Paste Check, and Special:Diff/1375260791 has chatbot communication (Would you like to explore the genetic data from specific Italian archaeological sites (like Parma or Sicily) or focus more on the evolution of Proto-Italic languages?) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Ariowisto sitewide for LLM misuse and denial of the same. — Newslinger talk 23:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I've cleaned up most of their edits, the recent stuff at least. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:53, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

They've now added a checkuser block to their collection. Made a tracker for remaining cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Martinpri

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

 Martinpri (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 September 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Previously warned for LLM use, they have clearly not stopped. is blatant AITALK (in my opinion, Claude). Oren Dobronsky is not blatant but has some amount of signs, mostly vagaries. Edit summaries are LLM. Fermiboson (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Definitely did not stop, look at Diff/1357486051.

• Reference nr. 10 has placeholders ([REVIEWER LAST NAME FROM BMCR PAGE], [FIRST NAME]).
• Reference nr. 13 has the wrong title, which has not changed since the page was archived in 2024.
• Reference nr. 5 does not exist, but has been saved on archive.org.

The user ignored the first warning in February 2026, but then acknowledged the second warning in April 2026 and claimed to have since stopped using it.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: the warning in April 2026 made it clear that they would be blocked if they continued. They have continued, so I think that they need to be blocked from at least article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

pblocked. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:34, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone I saw the discussion here and on the other page. I believe the block I received is unwarranted. Following the warning several months ago, there is not a single edit done by me that has not been written, reviewed and links verified by me. I saw the few links someone flagged as evidence of LLM or AI use. One of the links I believe is an article that has simply been taken offline after I used it . One has a wrong title probably my mistake.

Anyway, I took the warning seriously. As mentioned, all information is doublechecked by me and verified. I don't believe you'll find any false or inaccurate information on my edits (and if so, it does not represent the majority of the hundreds of edits I have done), and I believe they contribute to the project. I use AI agents from time to time to look for links or information in cases when Google or other online sources yield very little information. Or to consult on certain issues. But as mentioned, I review all links and edits entirely to ensure the sources exist and are valid (And relevant for the edit).

Since the warning several months ago, I've done several hundred edits with probably many hundreds or over a thousand links and citations. I believe a look at them will show they are all or mostly all valid and accurate.

I would like to request you reconsider and that the block be lifted. I am very happy and proud to be part of the community and contribute, and I would like to continue doing so. Again, given the above, I will be even more vigilant in verifying all links and content, but as mentioned the vast majority is my work and not AI, and I'm pretty sure you can verify that. Thanks for the consideration.

Martinpri

Martinpri (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Martinpri: How did you end up with placeholder names for the reference above? In addition, was the talk page comment linked above AI-generated? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi.

I'm not sure about the placeholder - I honestly don't remember but as you can see it's a fluke and a one-off. I did a spot check on my work going several months back and haven't found any similar issues. As you can see, also from the articles, there are almost no mistakes or issues on my links other than this. Again, I honestly don't remember why this link is like this. It's not typical of my work, a can be seen). Martinpri (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Oren Dobronsky, the article was translated from Hebrew (with the use of AI, which I understand is allowed), and then edited by me, including addition of info and sources not in the original page in Hebrew. And I rechecked the article - all links accurate, working, properly formatted. Martinpri (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you speak Hebrew? Fermiboson (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Martinpri (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Martinpri, the procedure for asking for a block to be lifted is given in the block message on your Talk page. I suggest you post your reasoning there, not here. Unblock requests on AINB won't be seen by admins, and non-admins like the volunteers here can't do anything about them. M kuhner (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we find a start date for tracking? M kuhner (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Bookvulture

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

Not obvious except for the edit summaries, but AIATTR all over the place, some amount of AIBOLD. @JTtheOG marked one of their articles as LLM, which I have draftified. Fermiboson (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

The rapid editing also makes it obvious, Diff/1373650695 was produced in two minutes and Diff/1372732723 was produced in five minutes. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

They've triggered Paste Check a couple times, I'd revert and tag everything but idk what to do here to mitigate biting? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:11, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

given the fact that they or their ChatGPT instance are going right to the usual well of AI deflections in Special:Diff/1374397916 it doesn't seem like they particularly care Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

replied to that, will see how this goes Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

~2026-49390-64

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.

---

• ~2026-49390-64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately AIV declined action. Added large and obvious LLM-generated edits to Helambu, then restored in Diff/1374504884 after being warned. Article needs to be re-cleaned up and babysat because the TA was not blocked. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran has cleaned it up; no other significant edits by this editor. If someone has it watchlisted, I'll close this. M kuhner (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, I think this is okay to close up. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 21:14, 19 September 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.

Addition to Quasi-star

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Chanzipro (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

This change to Quasi-star reads like AI, has the highlighted list format of AI, and was added by a new editor. I would appreciate it if someone with AI analysis experience would take a look. I will do the clean-up. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

It cites Volonteri to support the idea that lack of metals is essential, when the whole idea of Volonteri's paper is to relax that assumption. The part starting "Astrophysics simulations" is unsourced and has the standard LLM vagueness of attribution. I agree with your diagnosis.

We had a previous LLM user who favored highly technical astronomy articles; I wonder if this might be the same editor. M kuhner (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

If you intend on cleaning up, it might also be pertinent to clean up Special:Permalink/1374490700, which is also obviously AI. Kisseran (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Done and user warned, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Dr.Bookman

Dr.Bookman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello: I wonder if editors here could look into this user? There are AI warnings on the user's talk page from last year, and I think Ronald Masin (which I have come across as an NPP reviewer) and Maria Kelemen are AI-generated. Note the non-existent Irish Times obituary notice for Masin (cited on both articles), and the WP:AIREDCAT on the first revision of both pages. The user has also created numerous other articles. I would like to suggest considering the possibility of WP:LLMPROD here. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I see similar redcats in the first version of Zygos Monastery, created on 26 May 2026, which also has several references that were supposedly retrieved between 2013 and 2024. That actually matches up with the references on the Bulgarian version of the page, so this one at least might be an unacknowledged translation. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Studiosus was created with a redcat and an infobox with an invalid parameter, plus another parameter that was apparently recognised by the template but not listed in the template docs (publication_date instead of pub_date; not sure if that means anything). There's no other language for that article, so not a translation. The references to this article are scanty and don't match the claims in it: there's a whole quote by Pliny the Younger that doesn't appear in the cited source, and there are two footnotes claiming to mark text copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, but only one of them actually does.

It's not looking great tbh. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the second Pliny the Younger quotation doesn't match up with the source either: it's rephrased in a very LLM-like way. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Some more checks:

• Bella Germaniae is eerily similar to Studiosus: created in one go with two redcats, the same bad infobox parameters, and five footnotes marking text copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, though only one does. A statement supported by one reference (Gudeman (1900)) is cited to another (the EB). Strangely, Gudeman (1900) is listed as requiring a subscription to access, though it's free on JSTOR and there's no other link. There's a blockquote supposedly from the preface to Pliny the Elder's Natural History; the link goes to volume 8 of it; I have searched the text of volume 1 and found nothing like the quoted words in it at all. Definitely LLM.
• Belgrade Dance Institute is a bit odd: created with two redcats, but not a translation of the Serbian article, and using mostly primary sources (already tagged as such). Possibly LLM, but not necessarily so.
• Also odd: Tabula Traiana was moved out of Trajan's Bridge into its own page and then tidied up a bit, so it's not LLM text. The text addition in Special:Diff/1353008663 is also not pinging me as LLM (I've not checked sources in depth). Both, however, were created with redcats. Perhaps this is just a quirk of this author?

I will tag the two Pliny-related pages and invite Dr.Bookman to talk to us here. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, wait a second.

I've found the source for the weird citations and misquotes in the two Pliny pages, and it's not AI. It's the Pliny the Elder page on Wikipedia! The blockquote from the preface to Natural History was added in 2009. At some point it got attributed to the 1938 Rackham translation, but it's actually from the 1855 Bostock & Riley (a much more readable work, imo).

@Dr.Bookman, could it be that you created Bella Germaniae and Studiosus by taking text from Pliny the Elder? Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your attention @Dionysodorus and @Suðurhafsljósæta. Yes, i created those from main article as those were there and i thought those deserved the articles for themself, despite the fact that we do not have those books anymore. :) I dont use Ai for creating articles, but i do use it for faster source searching as that mostly used all my time before. It may happen that some mistake passed by, but that is small error! Please let me know about the sources that passed by in error, i will gladly fixed all of those. I always doublecheck sources and i know some of those can be hallucination. So dont worry i am on wikipedia for years now i know very well to check and fix everything! But articles are my pride, so please i will be happy to fix everything that may be problematic or that is flawed. Going to fix those sources.. Thank you! --Dr.Bookman (📖) 10:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

And also, please, i have just checked, it was that one source, obituary and it went by me as there is ALREADY OBITUARY in the article and i thought it was the same, and that source from Strand IS the source i used. Fixed in both articles, and i ALWAYS add redcat for the places were they are needed! I am certain that wikipedia is in dire need for mass category creation system as most of the categories should be used even if we have only one page for now. With existing category we can expand far easier!! ;) So with your permsion i have removed template from article and i am happy that i can explain to you your doubts :) :) --Dr.Bookman (📖) 11:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you think i need to further fix Pliney the Elder books? Those were moved from original article, i was checking The Sources of the Germania of Tacitus and those were ok, one source in not available online but it was in the article? I dont think we should doubt it? It was in the article for years!! --Dr.Bookman (📖) 11:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Assuming you don't mind, I think I'll have a go at fixing those articles myself. It should be fairly easy as I had all the references open last night to check them. :) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for replying here, @Dr.Bookman! With your explanation here, and having seen for myself where the mistaken sources in the two Pliny articles came from, I am satisfied that you haven't been writing your articles with AI. The two biographical pages that @Dionysodorus mentioned look OK to me except for the obituary link—thank you for fixing that. :)

I would like to make you aware of the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: when you copy content within Wikipedia, you should add a link back to the source page in the edit summary, so it's clear where it came from. That would also have made it a lot faster for me to see what was going on!

You should also remember to credit the source when you translate a page from another language on Wikipedia (WP:TFOLWP), which I think is how you created the Zygos Monastery article.

If Zygos Monastery is a translation, could you add a note on the talk page saying so, please? And also a note on Bella Germaniae and Studiosus, saying that they were initially copied from Pliny the Elder. Thank you! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

About the categories: honestly, categories on WP are still a mystery to me. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will reply here about what we should do when fitting categories don't exist, because I don't know.

I do know that articles being created with empty categories is one of the frequent signs of LLM use that we see here. That doesn't mean human editors don't/can't do it too, of course! It's just one of many small signs that, together, make people checking for LLM use suspicious. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

But listen, that is seriously a question! Some categories SHOULD exist and it is difficult to always go into category creation spree whenever category is not created already. But it is also maybe a bit wrong now to add obvious category only because your article is the first one to populate it. Also, thank you, i will add templates on translated article and those two :) --Dr.Bookman (📖) 11:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This user is almost certainly using AI, some things that I noticed;

• Attempting to cite Wikipedia in AbuseLog/43929109, AbuseLog/43928569, and AbuseLog/40791849.
• Created Belgrade Dance Institute in Diff/1312662623 (AbuseLog/42272257) with two AIREDCATS, AILIST, AIBOLD and two references that return 404 not found errors.
• Created Tabula Traiana by overwriting a redirect in Diff/1311259588 (AbuseLog/42206393), has two AIREDCATS.
• Created Zygos Monastery in Special:Diff/1356218828 (AbuseLog/44301605 and AbuseLog/44301608) with two AIREDCATS.

There's more in the filter logs. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I actually think a lot of these have other explanations.

• The refs in Belgrade Dance Institute that now give 404s were valid in September 2025, at article creation time: , . I agree that the page is overly promotional, but I'm not convinced it's LLM.
• Tabula Traiana was created by moving content out of Trajan's Bridge (where the redirect pointed). @Dr.Bookman: this is another page where you should add a Talk page template to note where the text came from.
• Zygos Monastery is a translation from Bulgarian. Dr.Bookman has just added a template to the talk page acknowledging this.
• About the redcats: please see the conversation just above. Dr.Bookman says, i ALWAYS add redcat for the places were they are needed! I am certain that wikipedia is in dire need for mass category creation system as most of the categories should be used even if we have only one page for now. I personally have no idea what the guidelines about categories here are—would be great if someone more knowledgeable could contribute.

The other pages I checked last night were the two biographies linked in the original post, and two pages about lost works by Pliny that I don't think were LLM. The two biographies look OK to me except for one incorrect link, discussed above, and the redcats that were initially added. Happy to be corrected if there's something I've missed, but I don't think the the signs you've listed are conclusive. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

South sea light eater: talk page templates are not sufficient for CC-BY-SA and WP:TFOLWP compliant attribution, it must be given in edit summaries accompanying the text. I'm not sure about the redcat explanation, why wouldn't you then create the categories? But I'm not sure either way. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:10, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you know of a better way than adding the talk page templates to correct the attribution when so much time has passed? (I suppose one could remove the text and then add it again, with the right attribution this time... but I don't think inventing my own method is necessarily a good idea here.) —South sea light eater aka Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

As far as I understand, and WP:PATT says so, it is acceptable to provide the attribution with a dummy edit. How to fix missing attribution is written down somewhere, but I can never remember where exactly it is. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Aha, found it. It is at WP:RIA. Same page as PATT and TFOLWP. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

@Dr.Bookman, please add dummy edits to the pages that were created by copying material or by translation, as described here: WP:RIA. This is necessary so that the proper attribution is in the edit history; the talk page template isn't enough. Sorry for giving you incorrect advice earlier. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You can also add the talk page templates, they make it easier for other editors to see the attribution and trace the text. It just that they don't satisfy the legal requirements for attribution on their own. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Seconding Gurku, Special:AbuseLog/42203234 had markdown around "mausoleum" Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, definitely agree that that one's an LLM addition! As Dionysidorus mentioned that the user had been warned about AI use last year (most recently in September 2025), I only went back that far in investigating the logs. It was super late in my time zone when I finished up, so I didn't make a note of that, sorry. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you all @Kowal2701, @Suðurhafsljósæta, @Gurkubondinn, i will add dummy edits and talk page explanations tomorrow you asked for. Yes, you already see, i moved articles from other places. Actually i didnt know that those are mandatory in that way! Yes i was informed about LLM edits and i give my best to follow that. Thank you all for your additions and opinions, i will follow it with even bigger care from now on. Actually learned a lot of new wikipedia guidelines in this communication :) If anyone have anything new, let me know, and i will gladly follow it, but i am actually happy that everything is ok. Will let you know here when i finish tomorrow. Thanks everyone :) --Dr.Bookman (📖) 18:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dr.Bookman, how are you getting on with this?

(Full transparency: for my part, I’ve fixed up the references for Studiosus but not yet Bella Germaniae.) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Suðurhafsljósæta i did add it on Bella Germaniae right now. And also on Tabula Traiana. i will do now on Zygos Monastery in edit summery. I think that is it! Right? :) --Dr.Bookman (📖) 15:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you missed Studiosus but after that, that's it! Thank you. :) I have also fixed up the references for Bella Germaniae. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Where are we at on this one? Can it be considered resolved, or is more checking needed? M kuhner (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

We can consider this one resolved. I’ll update the template. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, @Suðurhafsljósæta: Hold on a sec. Has anyone actually examined Ronald Masin and Maria Kelemen, and does no-one other than me think they are AI-generated? Sources don't substantiate information, one of the sources doesn't exist, etc. Ideally I would like this to be addressed before we decide this isn't a case of AI use requiring cleanup. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Dionysodorus here. One minute before Ronald Masin was created in Diff/1348766696 with 5x AIREDCATS, the user attempted to cite Wikipedia in AbuseLog/43929109. I'm not convinced that this user has stopped using AI. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

And Maria Kelemen was created with 4x AIREDCATS in Diff/1348745515 (AbuseLog/43928579) and also attempted to cite Wikipedia in AbuseLog/43928569, one minute before the article was submitted. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

And Bella Germaniae was also created with 4x AIREDCATS in Diff/1316426387 (AbuseLog/42451789), but did not attempt to cite Wikipedia first. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, @Dr.Bookman states that the reason for the non-existent death notice is that they were using the Strad obituary (which does exist and does contain the relevant information), and admits that that reference came from AI in this comment and the following comment above. Dr.Bookman is saying that they simply asked AI to suggest sources, but if that was the case why would the reference be added into the middle of a paragraph drawn from a different source (with the correct source at the end of the paragraph)? This would surely only happen if AI had been asked to write the original text (which Dr.Bookman denies, I am unsure how convincingly), or at least had been fed the user-written text and been asked to amend the text by adding sources to it, which is not compatible with WP:NOLLM either: if Dr.Bookman references their articles by writing them and then asking AI to add the references, we cannot trust any of the referencing in any of their articles, since AI is unlikely to be fully accurate in providing the right sources that Dr.Bookman actually got each individual piece of information from. After all, the whole point of including references is to actually document where the human user found the information given, and a procedure that involves using AI to add the sources to human-written text entirely breaks the connection between the user finding the information and the source for it being added.

So I think we probably need to invoke WP:LLMPRV here, and we also need Dr.Bookman to clearly understand for future reference not only that AI cannot be used to generate article text, but also that AI cannot be used to amend or generate references for human-written text. Users are expected to manually reference the actual sources that they actually got each individual piece of information from: using AI to add the references after writing the article text is simply unacceptable. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks (sincerely) for being vigilant, @Dionysodorus. I did check over the two biographies at the start of this discussion but, as you can see above, I quickly got distracted by the Pliny articles and didn't return to them in depth. I've now taken a closer look at Ronald Masin and found the following inconsistencies with the sources:

• Reference #4 is an incomplete sfn and has been from the page's creation
• Amsterdam Kern Ensemble: founding date and members are cited to #5 (YES Artistic History) but are not found there.
• Publications: details of the book, its reception, content etc. are cited to #5 but are not found there: the source only states that Kelemen coauthored the book and published it in 1982.
• Academic career in South Africa: details cited to #6 (MIFI profile in The Strad), but not found there.
• Dublin Institute of Technology: Maslin taking up the position in 1988 (not 1987-1988 as in the WP article) and retiring in 2002 at 65 are correctly cited to #1 (obituary in The Strad), but the WP article says twice that he held the position for nearly 30 years, when that's really 14 years.
• I found the inaccurate 'nearly thirty years' phrase in #7 (The Journal of Music in Ireland), but this is not cited either time it's mentioned.
• Legacy: of the 'notable alumni' list cited to #6, none are mentioned there. Gwendolyn Maslin is, but it's not mentioned whether she actually studied under her father.

I don't think the redcats are conclusive of AI use in this case, as discussed above. I even found the Strad obit explanation convincing! This is way too much, though. Even if @Dr.Bookman didn't get an LLM to write this article, one was definitely involved in the referencing, in a way that makes the referencing useless. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are conclusive on their own, just that they should be considered together with all of the other signs that together end up painting a rather convincing picture for me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Got you, that's reasonable. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I also agree that the redcats aren't in themselves conclusive: what strongly suggests unacceptable AI use is problems of the kind listed above (many thanks to @Suðurhafsljósæta for listing these!), and the fact that Dr.Bookman's own explanations above only make sense on the premise that they make unacceptable use of AI to generate references rather than manually identifying and adding the sources that support each statement made. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Support invoking LLMPRV for cleaning this up. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPRV. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Chenshijie2005

 Chenshijie2005 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (17 September 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-19_Chenshijie2005, 62 pages need review.

Chenshijie2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recent edits exhibit numerous WP:LLMSIGNS and need a good looking over... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I did not use AI to write any of my articles. I spent hours researching and writing each of them myself. I stand by the quality of my work, and I do not believe AI could have produced these articles to the same standard. Chenshijie2005 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I spent several hours carefully researching, writing, and improving each of these articles. Could you please explain why you reverted my edits outright instead of first discussing with me what specific issues you found with my work? Chenshijie2005 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple WP:LLMSIGNS such as linking to non-existent pages in the see also section as well as inserting non-existent categories. It is not incumbent on me to fix your dump of AI generated material which is to be reverted and removed onsight. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

The only non-existent page I linked to in the "See also" section of the Liao Yiwu article was the Independent Chinese PEN Center. The organization does have a Chinese Wikipedia article, but apparently not an English Wikipedia article. At the time, I assumed that the Independent Chinese PEN Center would also have an English Wikipedia page, but it turned out that it did not. All of the pages listed in the "See also" section of the Xia Yeliang article, however, do exist.

As for the categories, I acknowledge that this was my mistake. I am not very experienced with adding categories to Wikipedia articles, and I added some of them based on what I thought would be appropriate. I did not know how to determine whether a particular category actually existed, so I acknowledge that I inadvertently added some non-existent categories. I had also seen many articles on Chinese Wikipedia containing red-linked or non-existent categories, which led me to believe that having a non-existent category on an article was not necessarily a problem. I recognize now that this was a misunderstanding on my part and that I should have checked more carefully.

These are mistakes that can be corrected, and I accept responsibility for them. However, I genuinely did not use AI to write these articles. The issues you have identified do not, by themselves, demonstrate that the material was AI-generated.

Moreover, the existing English Wikipedia articles on both Xia Yeliang and Liao Yiwu have substantial gaps and omissions. My intention in editing them was to improve and expand their coverage, not to disrupt Wikipedia. Chenshijie2005 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

The correct thing to do is not to rely on whether our evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you did use AI, instead it should rely on your presumably intact recollection of whether you did. (Also, please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence.)Did you not use the preview feature? For the future, please do this if nothing else but to ensure you do not break things. What tools did you use to add categories? What particular substantial gaps and omissions did you identify in the two articles mentioned? Fermiboson (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

not triggered any edit filters, Special:Diff/1374469199 was made in 5 minutes.

• Assembly of Citizens (29 August) has red cat, AICURLY, plausibly AI + Pangram partial-positive . The safety of members has been a recurring subject of media coverage because some participants have family members living in China is typical AITREND OR. Ref #3 doesn't support Its public activities have included demonstrations, commemorative events, cooperation with other advocacy groups, and representations to government bodies.
• Wester Yang (9 Sept) has red See also entry, plausibly AI + Pangram partial-positive . Ref #10 doesn't mention "Li Wenliang" and doesn't support He has also taken part in events with Hong Kong, Tibetan, Uyghur and Taiwanese activists.

Possibly using a humaniser or copyediting tool Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

noting that the comment above has several WP:AITALKSIGNS + a Pangram positive . @Admins willing to patrol AINB: they have continued editing and have since created 8 articles, they also removed an {{AI-generated}} tag . Disappearance of Diane Prevost (17 Sept) was created in 19 mins (7 kb), as above there aren't many signs (Pangram says partially-AI-assisted ), so doing spotchecks:

• ref #3 doesn't support Prevost was born on January 2, 1964., nor Her father, Bernard, repeatedly returned to Grundy Lake Provincial Park, including on anniversaries of her disappearance., nor No publicly identified suspect has been charged in connection with the disappearance., nor On the 50th anniversary of the disappearance in 2016, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection again publicized the case. (typical OR interpretation)
• ref #1 says 92 cm instead of 91 and 11.5 kg instead of 11
• ref #2 Police stated that Diane had never been located despite the original month-long search and that investigators were still seeking information that could explain her disappearance. strays from the source

On to Killing of Rick "Tiger" Dowdell (14 Sept) has SUPERFICIAL (Rice's death and Dowdell's killing came to symbolize the racial and political turmoil that affected Lawrence during the summer of 1970.), completely unsupported by the source , and a Pangram positive .

Imo I'd say a sitewide block because they appear to use AI for comments and that'd disrupt this thread, but a mainspace block would work as well (ofc I'll defer to admins) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Went and restored the {{ai-generated}} tag on Disappearance of Diane Prevost and tagged all of the articles that Kowal mentioned. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Chenshijie2005 sitewide for LLM misuse and denial of the same. I spot-checked random articles on the Chinese Wikipedia and found that it is not normal for Chinese Wikipedia articles to have invalid categories, with the exception of articles machine-translated from other language editions of Wikipedia. Chenshijie2005's editing history on the Chinese Wikipedia shows similar signs of LLM misuse as their history on the English Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 16:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, raised it at zh:维基百科讨论:2026年AI调查#Another user? (还有其他用户吗？) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The thread above was moved to zh:Wikipedia talk:2026年AI调查/临时提报处#Another_user? (还有其他用户吗？)  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 08:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Made tracker from June 1, 2026, based on definite WP:AIATTR around June 6, and very few, short, apparently innocent edits before that. M kuhner (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:SadamShk

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

 Cleanup has been requested.

WP:AIBOLD and non-existent reference at Ahmed Umdagas Hamidu. AI-generated tag already applied by another user at Tsahi Vider. This user has created numerous articles. I would be grateful if users more familiar with AI cleanup could investigate and consider WP:LLMPROD. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Found another nonexisting references in the initial revision of the article, you can probably request G15 for this. The user's other edits and articles need to be investigated though. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn: Thanks. I'm very happy to do a G15 nomination if that would be helpful: I held off doing so just in case it was more helpful to leave the whole matter to be investigated and addressed as a whole by you editors here, who know how to deal with all this better than I do. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

There's on real rush to G15 it, I've tagged the article as {{ai-generated}} in the mean time if you want to wait with it.

While looking at this, I saw User talk:SadamShk § Aisha Hamman moved to draftspace where rsjaffe said that it had been draftified in part because the references are nonsensical. The page has been deleted by now, but some of the references are in AbuseLog/42605429 and the full wikisource can be found in the "Old page wikitext" and "New page wikitext" sections, and there's also other filter log entries for the same page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Since my post above, this editor has created a new article at Tunde Adelakun, which has already been nominated at AfD on notability grounds, and which has some references that fail verification (e.g. this one says nothing about him being the President of Rotary International, and this one does not say he is the chief scout of the Super Eagles).

Is there enough here for WP:LLMPRV? I will ping SadamShk in case they would like to comment. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Stu in Flag

Stu in Flag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-19_Stu_in_Flag, 22 pages need review.

Stu in Flag created an article at Phoenix Dust Storm Scale with LLM assistance. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Phoenix Dust Storm Scale (nom) for details. I've nominated that article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Dust Storm Scale and have been advised to raise their LLM usage here as their edit history may need more scrutiny. TarnishedPath^talk 01:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That userpage legitimately disgusts me and whoever says strict accuracy and no-confabulation rules in the context of an LLM prompt betrays their absolute mathematical ignorance of what an LLM is. Anyways, editsums are likely all AI, is virtually direct copying of the two sources, has a bunch of rules of three and weird italicisations and abbreviations, almost certainly all AI generated. Fermiboson (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/44796017 (3 August) had a markdown codeblock. Warned for now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

said they're retiring Special:Diff/1374738284 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I am going to propose that a clear statement they do not intend to edit anymore means "inactive" and permits cleanup. Tracker attached. M kuhner (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Support, that makes sense to me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Haoreima

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-31 Haoreima, 489 pages need review.

 Haoreima (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 September 2026)
Editor has acknowledged AI/LLM use, committed to stop, and will follow WP:NOLLM. Cleanup may still be needed. Autopatrolled permission has been removed from editor's account.

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

Autopatrolled user with 35k+ edits. A lot of content written on Simple Wikipedia and then copied here. The content itself is filled with AISIGNS and on Simple WP the edit patterns are clearly inhuman. For instance, a 6.5k edit and a 6.6k edit 9 minutes apart, both pure, unreferenced AI prose. Many of their articles have just now been AfDed for non-LLM reasons but I suspect more need attention. Kisseran (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This user has also been removing LLMPROD tags from the § Immanuelle case, which also involved copying text from simplewiki, claiming it was their own text that was copied (usually calling it a "translation" which does not make sense).

When users with Autopatrolled are caught using LLMs, the autopatrolled userright is normally revoked. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah so I didn't immediately recognise the username because their signature is something completely different, but I did remember the Meitei festivals article because of the § A misunderstanding discussion on my talk page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Created the Haoba Athouba article that was tagged as {{ai-generated}} by Astra Travasso in Diff/1368529225, before Haoreima removed the tag in Diff/1371670985. The edit summary in the initial revision also claims that this is a "translation" from simplewiki. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This user has also confirmed using AI on Wikipedia, see the § AI and § LLM use conversations with Kowal2701 on the user's talk page.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: can you please revoke autopatrolled? ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the autopatrolled permission from Haoreima's account. See also prior discussions Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 15#User:Haoreima and User talk:Haoreima#AI. — Newslinger talk 13:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Newslinger: you made a small typo on their talk page, the extra lowercase i in with the AIi cleanup process makes it read like the name Ali instead of AI. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. — Newslinger talk 14:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Many of their articles were taken to AfD by the subject of the somewhat lengthy § User:Flyingphoenixchips case. Not alleging any misdeeds here though. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Flyingphoenixchips contacted me to point out what they regard as a concerning pattern here: User talk:M kuhner#Mass creation and spam cleanup needed. I was just debating what to do and am glad to see this thread. The article I was pointed at had a lot of issues, though I was not clear that LLM was among them. M kuhner (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this is resolved for now, they said they'd go back and cleanup their articles and though they didn't respond to the last message they gave me lots of Thanks. They said that AfD stresses them out, so I'm not surprised they haven't edited for a bit since the wave of AfD notices. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Just adding onto this. I had nominated quite a few articles to AfDs. You all might be interested in taking a quick look at these articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Manipur. LLM is not really an issue here as much as the other concerns. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey all, I thought of chiming in here as well, since I was the one who informed User talk:M kuhner about the same. I do not think the issue is just AI as Kowal2701 pointed out. I would have trusted the user with a clean up, but most of the articles created are not notable at all, and are borderline WP:SPAM. Just do take a look at articles like Meitei people in North America, Meitei people in South Korea, Mit (Meitei letter). Most of the content also appears to be a WP:SYNTH of user generated content from e-pao.net. The user has also created questionable pages such as Bibliography of Meitei culture which is also another violation of WP:NOTDIR. There is also borderline WP:PROMO and violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY with pages such as Yenning-tha. There are WP:NOTNEWS violations at pages such as 2023 in Meitei culture. There are barely anything of substance created by the user, and there is a total of 596 or so pages. Although I agree with Kowal2701 that we should allow the user to help in the clean up, because in the past I had been guilty of LLM use as well, I do not believe that we could even go about cleaning these pages, because there is nothing to save. All of the pages to me simply appears either spam, promotional or other violations of Wikipedia's guidelines. In order to save articles they must atleast be salvageable, that is meet the standards to be included in Wikipedia. These articles do not. Also the user had in the past created articles such as Prostitution in Kuki society, by again synthesising user generated materials, so I feel further scrutinization would be needed. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Flyingphoenixchips, this may be better at WP:ANI, this noticeboard only handles concerns related to AI. My impression of the user is that they are very good-faith, but that there may be WP:CIR issues Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

agree on this. I have had past interactions with the user and I do not have concerns with bad-faith edits! However there definitely appears to be a lot of issues with WP:CIR in terms of judging an article's notability or understanding the purpose of Wikipedia. I was not sure on how to approach this at ANI. @M kuhner I was wondering, if you could help starting something, for such a clean up to revisit all the articles created by the user. I had also requested @Star Mississippi just today to batch nominate quite a few articles relating to the Sangai Festival 2011 all the way to Sangai Festival 2022 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Kowal2701, I brought this up at WP:ANI, do take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Articles_Started_by_User:Haoreima. I am not sure if I am missing anything. Appreciate the help! Also how do you notify the user about the ANI discussion? Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

At the top of the ANI board is a template which you can copy to their Talk page to notify them. I have done this for you, since it's important to do so as soon as possible. M kuhner (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for being late but Haoreima has a history of whitewashing misanthropic terrorist groups and dehumanizing the Kuki-Zo people.

Here is him removing well-sourced claims and whitewashing a group known for sexual violence against Kuki-Zo people.

He also uses personal attacks multiple times such as calling me and Kautilya3 "notable" for "fabrications" for good faith edits in Thangjing.

He is also hard to work with in Simple Wikipedia with his copy and paste from the English one, and also his biting of new users. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@AnonLionCavalier83, this noticeboard is just for concerns about potential AI use, it is not for accusations of general misconduct. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

There is an ANI case at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Articles_Started_by_User:Haoreima. I request all discussion of the editor's behavior not related to LLM use be taken there. M kuhner (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

User:DesmondAkisah

LLMPRODs are done and draft tagged

 DesmondAkisah (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-19_DesmondAkisah, 8 pages need review.

I included Desmondamisah in the tracker, dunno if that's useful or necessary. M kuhner (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Created 2025–26 Elite One with a reference that returns 404 not found and is now full of the WP:AISIGNS § turn0search0 byte sequence after Diff/1373043415, so I have requested G15 speedy deletion. Has also created some other articles and edited others.

Because this user has been renamed (Diff/1345200786), the filter log is incomplete. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging BusterD since you deleted 2025–26 Elite One on my request. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:41, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

no blatant signs or relevant edit tags, a bit more analysis needed for LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

who am I kidding, the articles were created on the same day as the G15'd one, doing now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Kskhh

 Kskhh (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Created PakID with a chatbot block and AIREDCAT in Diff/1374667063 and then partially removed the chatbot block in Diff/1374667134, I've requested G15 speedy deletion. Has also created Muvi Cinemas in Diff/1372996767 (AbuseLog/45032343) with four AIREDCATS and non-existing templates. Created Dhurandar Part 2 with protection templates in AbuseLog/42937161, deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhurandhar: Part 2. Has edited before the public release of free-access chatbots, so it is unclear when AI use began. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Also created Hunger Station in Diff/1374665489 with two AIREDCATS and a pretty irrelevant link to Jahez (a redirect to Dowry system in India) in § See also. The article reads very promotionally and was created c. 13 minutes before the PakID article. ‑‑gurkubondinn

Almost the same with ARY Plus, submitted less than 20 minutes before Hunger Station in Diff/1374649592. There's two AIREDCATS, duplicated references, redlink in § See also, and it is very promotional. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

In Feb, March, and Sept they added non-existent templates, which they never did before. 2026 PIMS hospital fire (August 2026) rings as human-written to me, though there's The incident was among the deadliest hospital fires in Pakistan in recent years, highlighting concerns over the country's under-resourced and overburdened public healthcare facilities. (AITREND/AIVOCAB), Pangram gives a partial positive (tagged this one). Muvi Cinemas (3 Sept) had AIREDCATs (have draftified that one). That's all there is wrt creations, finding a start date for ordinary edits looks like it's going to be tricky Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Benigo36

 Benigo36 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Seemed to have created Mick Garvey, Madge Harvey, Gavin Ramsbottom, Tiger Dyke and Geoff Maltby, large articles over several days. There could more. scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Between March and May 2026 they triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325 a few times and had chatgpt-derived links , earliest creation is April. Warned, will wait for a response Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:25, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Vanderwaalforces

 Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

 Cleanup has been requested.

My suspicions began when GPTZero and Pangram identified their new FAC Ohuan as AI generated and AI assisted respectively. Similar results turn up for Ogbebo, a recently promoted FA. I hoped that these would be false positives, since I couldn't identify any clear tells aside from AIATTR, which could plausibly be human precision here. This unfortunately stops being plausible upon deeper inspection.

2023-era creations seem to have 2023-era tells, and are completely unreferenced upon creation. I picked out three at random:

• In Special:Permalink/1173176424 there is Benin City Ring Road plays a pivotal role in facilitating both local and intercity travel. It eases traffic congestion within the city center and enhances accessibility to various commercial, residential, and educational areas situated along its course.
• In Special:Permalink/1178706794 there is His brief time as ruler of the Benin Empire is a testament to the complex dynamics of royal succession in the kingdom during that period.
• In Special:Permalink/1172086622 there is The usage of "Japa" reflects the resourcefulness and adaptability of Nigerian youth in navigating challenging situations.

These do not stop in 2024, except that now articles are created with a few sources rather than none. I am cherrypicking sentences, but I am not cherrypicking articles:

• In Special:Permalink/1259216139 there is a very out of place "challenges and prospects" section with sentences such as Despite these challenges, AKTC has made notable achievements, such as providing commercial buses, moving goods and people, offering affordable fares, stabilising transport fares, and enhancing commuter welfare.
• In Special:Permalink/1229649332 there is AILIST and sentences such as The play delves into the complexities of human emotions and cultural expectations. It raises questions about the nature of tragedy and the essence of "craft" in storytelling. Igbokwe's mastery in blending tragic and comic elements is evident, as the audience experiences a range of emotions, from laughter to sorrow, often simultaneously.

Plenty of AISIGNS continue into 2025 and 2026, but they are no longer as clear cut from a single sentence. Then, in 2026, we start to see rewrites of old articles in a single edit. If their style had always resembled their present style, then that would make sense, but instead we see a writing style that changes in lockstep with LLM style and capability. In October 2024, they denied using AI to write RM closures, but I don't see any discussion as to the use of AI in mainspace. Kisseran (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah they have been at this for a long long time Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Editor has been notified ChrysGalley (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

2023 I was using chatbots to assist for some of my creations, 2024 is started to dislike how they actually writes so was just using bit by bit (not to create an entire article). I can’t remember exactly when in 2024 I entirely stopped using the thing, though. In fact, since the LLM policy, I have personally reworked many of my early creations which, with my knowledge and experience as of now, were messes at least, I’ve worked on many. You said plenty of AISIGNS continue into 2025 and 2026 but being specific might help as I’ve not used any chatbot during these periods.

You’ll probably continue to see me rewriting olds article in a single edit because I usually work on my notepad and put the whole thing, after I’m done, on-wiki. I’ve also been told privately that I write like an AI even though it’s something I can’t explain exactly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I have seen Vanderwaalforces around Wiki and, while they admit they previously used AI, I haven't seen any obvious signs of AI in their recent writing. Looking at Ohuan, I didn't see anything that stood out as AI-esque to me. Some people just write in that manner; LLMs are based off of actual human writing after all. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Full dislaimer, I consider VWF a wikifriend and have spoken to them off-wiki about this. I think this is okay to archive and send to the backlog, the LLM use appears to have been confined to 2023 and 2024, and they are going back and cleaning up those edits. So I think it's best to revisit this at a later date and focus on more immediate/egregious cases rn. Will archive in a bit if there are no objections Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

It would be great if at least the last LLM-assisted edit could be identified though, since there are still quite obviously LLM-generated ones at least up to November 2024 (the last 2024 article creation) in the diffs above. The one thing that would immediately clear things up would be diffs from 2023 or 2024 that match the present writing style. For instance, the thorough if not excessive in-text attribution seems to only appear in article creations after LLMs started to be able to do so, while earlier creations in 2023 and 2024 uniformly have vague attributions like "some sources" and "historical accounts". Kisseran (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

User:1keyhole

1keyhole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NPPer to my immense disappointment. is one of the most blatantly AI generated edits I have seen in quite some time. Fermiboson (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Jako96 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

could someone identify the specific verifiability issue with each reverted edit? since there was eight items 1keyhole (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the facility faced a wave of individual and class-action lawsuits alleging physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, medical negligence, and violations of constitutional rights (such as in the landmark cases Milonas v. Williams). cited to the court case Milonas v. Williams is a huge one. Basically that whole edit attributes broad, sweeping trends to one case, one person, one news story. ^purring_maggot (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for human error over dates I meant 70s to 1990s for some reason I always think it 80s was when ACLU filed lawsuit due article being from 1981.

In 1978, three students attempted to escape from the residential treatment center, stealing a car and prompting a police chase. That same year, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Juvenile Justice Advocacy Project filed a lawsuit alleging that students had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and denied constitutional rights. The allegations included censorship of students' mail and the use of polygraph tests and solitary confinement. 1keyhole (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That's one lawsuit, and you cited another lawsuit to verify "a wave of individual and class-action lawsuits". A court case itself is WP:PRIMARY which should only be used to verify simple facts such as its own existence, not to establish a broad trend. There's alsothis unsourced addition - if the text is based directly upon Doroshow and Leichtman, you've already used those sources in the same section so why not cite them here too, but if it's just your own personal analysis, that's textbook WP:SYNTH, is it not? ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

More to the point, the issue is that AI-generated content is not allowed on Wikipedia, and by adding AI-generated content anyway you are demonstrating that you either do not know about or are unwilling to follow the guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The exact wording 1. Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Editors must ensure that any text copyedited in this manner is still supported by the sources cited. 1keyhole (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

If people can tell that you used AI by reading the text that you added, then you are using AI for more than this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are saying.

Please understand that I am respectfully stepping away from this discussion and topic to take an extended break from editing. I am not in the right frame of mind psychologically speaking to deal with this, and I have hit my limit. Editors are free to adjust or rewrite the prose directly on the article as they see fit. 1keyhole (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff, I'm only reading  Unlikely from this. This doesn't seem like it belongs at WP:AIN and can probably stay at either User talk:1keyhole or WP:AN. I know from experience that human readers can be quite bad AI detectors. If the problem is that it's unsourced, then you can focus on that rather than whether or not it's AI. AI is a cause of problems, but if the symptoms are bad enough, it is enough to prove the symptoms. guninvalid (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Please do not ping me to a discussion I responded to less than 24 hours ago. Clearly I know it exists, so all you are doing is deciding to spam me.

Also, please do not condescendingly lecture me that I know from experience that human readers can be quite bad AI detectors. I know from experience that people will never trust or believe AI patrollers have experience in a skill (that is corroborated by research as a skill that exists and is possible to have), and thus maybe, JUST MAYBE, know what they are talking about. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it comes off as condescending. I tend to reflexively ping people when responding, so I'll keep your preferences in mind in the future. guninvalid (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Turn-About Ranch (Oct 2025) had AIREDCAT, AIATTR, AIVOCAB ("emphasized"), overreliance on primary sources, will do more analysis later Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Noting that 1keyhole appears to have been trolling by using User:Sophisticatedevening/AI Cleaner.js on Troubled teen industry and an article I wrote (these were the only two). Looking at other creations:

• Wilderness therapy in the United States (March 2026) had AIVOCAB ("highlighting"), AIBOLD/AILIST, some AICURLY, lots of typical AI prose, + Pangram positive
• Special:Permalink/1187414451 (Nov 2023) had several spelling/grammatical/punctuation errors
• Disappearance of Daniel Yuen (June 2025) had AITITLECASE, it's all plausibly AI and has that impersonal/distant tone, but no other signs really, except for a partial Pangram positive , some spotchecks of ref #2: ...reportedly triggered by a breakup with his girlfriend. is completely unsupported, it also doesn't say Raymond was hired by the family, searches yielded no conclusive evidence is OR. Family Help & Wellness on the following day had AIREDCAT

Pretty sure the start date wrt creations was June 2025, consensus needed for LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I based the Disappearance of Daniel Yuen on event and similar Wikipedia articles for example

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Disappearance of Andrew Gosden

This is a witch hunt

[link dispenser Disappearance of Daniel Yuen] 1 out of 5 Could be LLM generated because it has http status code 402 which means Payment Required 1keyhole (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

adding quotes to referenceRevision as of 12:21, 31 August 2026

quotation to reference Revision as of 12:35, 30 August 2023

human rights abuse category Revision as of 00:52, 29 December 2022

nanmed reference and quote Revision as of 18:19, 30 July 2026

nces id to infobox Revision as of 15:05, 4 May 2025

1keyhole (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Link-dispenser KIDS Centers of America

Link-dispenser Turn-About Ranch

Link-dispenser Larry Ray (criminal)

Link-dispenser Agape Baptist Academy

Link-dispenser Hell Camp: Teen Nightmare

1keyhole (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain what you're trying to tell us with these diffs and links? I'm a bit confused. ^purring_maggot (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I think they're saying that the links aren't hallucinated, either meaning the articles aren't AI-generated or they did basic review, which isn't really how this works Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Consensus for LLMPRV

See analysis above, support LLMPRV/LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:15, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models - Wikipedia

"The writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs, meaning that the imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications. 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."

So where is evedince beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications? 1keyhole (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

We're not imposing sanctions (i.e. a block), this is cleanup. But FWIW: red cats, WP:V failures, and the fact that your comments here and your creations prior to June 2025 had a load of spelling/grammatical errors, while none of your articles since June 2025 do, just to name a few Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

BTW I fixed Disappearance of Daniel Yuen the problem was you didn't read reference number 3. I added quote to citation and moved the reference it's position Special:Permalink/1375666992 1keyhole (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPRV. M kuhner (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

References

User:2screeny2

 2screeny2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (18 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

2screeny2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The usual. High-volume AI editing since 2025. Warned in June 2026, said they would "be vigilant" (which is questionable on its own because what's there to be "vigilant" about? Are you not in control of your own actions?), does not appear to have actually stopped. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

 Unlikely. The spread of edits and pace of edits seem more "interested editor writing about their hyperfixation" than AI user. It's not impossible they're using AI, but I'm not seeing a smoking gun. Special:Diff/1374197013 in particular seems like the kind of extremely human mistake that every editor makes multiple times in their editing career, but which an AI user would either not make or not notice and correct. It's impossible to prove a negative, but they're at least being careful with the content they're adding, enough to go back and fix their mistakes. guninvalid (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm more skeptical than you about this case, @Guninvalid. The rate of recent edits doesn't strike me as necessarily inhuman, either, but looking at their most recent contributions, I see the following:

• Special:Diff/1374200412 gets the name of the list wrong (it's just 'Most Powerful Women', not 'Most Powerful Women in Business', and it's right there in the previous item and the citation title/url).
• Special:Diff/1374201539 mentions the retrospective being shown at three specific European museums. This actually is supported in the references—but neither reference mentions it happening in '2025–2026' (with en-dash). They only say it's being shown at Museum Ludwig in August, the Stedelijk Museum in September, and was previously at Fondation Beyeler.
• Special:Diff/1374198065 adds a Prizes section with three items. The first is cited to kids.kiddle.co, which gets its material from Wikipedia (and come on, does it really look like a reliable source for a grown-up encyclopaedia?). The second refers to the 'First Prize in Sculpture, Gabrovo, Bulgaria' when the Spanish-language source gives a more specific name: 'Kiter Peter Sculpture Grand Prize at the VI Biennale of Humor and Satire, Gabrovo, Bulgaria' (machine translation). The third gets both the prize title and the year it was given wrong, even though there's hardly any more information at the cited website.

This is all very suspicious to me. Let's not write it off yet. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1364074360 includes two references: the first says nothing at all about Orlopp resisting the takeover, and the second mentions a negative statement she made about it but does not support the very LLM-typical reaffirming the bank's strategy of remaining independent amid ongoing negotiations. Additionally, the edit includes a red link to 'Bettina Orlopp', when there's already an interlanguage link to that page two paragraphs above. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this discussion on @2screeny2's talk page. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1363927774 adds one dubiously-worded claim (it was Starmer who announced the funding, though Reeves is mentioned in the article) and one absolutely wild made-up one (no mention of financial regulation reform or "£80 billion" in either source!). Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1370649752 links to the 2026 version of a list as a citation that Friedman was on the list in 2023 and 2025. Actually, it seems she's been included every year from 2020 to 2026, so this was faint praise!

Okay, I'll stop for now, I really do have other things to do today. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

There are chatgpt-derived links between Feb and June 2025 , only one stubby creation so large edits need analysis Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

User:SerChevalerie

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-14 SerChevalerie, 0 pages need review.

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

• Xtools (pages created)

SerChevalerie has been proactive about disclosing LLM use in edit summaries . I used these edit summaries to compile two lists of article creations at the case subpage: 1) articles created via LLM (n=89) and 2) articles partially composed of LLM-translated text from Konkani Vishwakosh, a free-use Konkani language encyclopedia which was scanned and uploaded on wikisource (n=98). My thanks to SerChevalerie for their consistent and proactive disclosure. Cleanup may be required however, based on an analysis of two of their LLM-translated articles I will add below. Also pointing out the recent thread User talk:SerChevalerie § Use of chatbots, where SerChevalerie helpfully answered questions about their use. Here , however, they mention they continue to use LLMs to "improve the tone of an article", which is unlikely to be covered by the exceptions at WP:NOLLM. NicheSports (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I took a close look at two of the Konkani-translated articles after having GPT Sol translate the sources (I don't speak or read Konkani at all). I had Sol translate both the scans and the transcriptions to ensure nothing was lost in transcription, which happened in one case. Of course there could still be an issue with these translations.

• Venkatamadhava sourced only to . This sparse article is a faithful translation of the Konkani encyclopedia. However, the subject is an 11th century writer mentioned in 2-3 short paragraphs in the source. The article does not come close to meeting notability guidelines sourced as it is
• Vishnushastri Pandit sourced only to . An interesting subject treated in some depth by the Konkani encyclopedia, I do not have the same notability concerns. However, this article is not just a translation. Some sections, such as the lead and the bullets at the end of Social reforms, are "original" writing and I suspect may contain de-novo AI-generated text. The article contains many NPOV issues and verification failures. Sample: Known for his progressive stances and powerful oratory bolded is non-NPOV and fails verification, he dedicated much of his life to advocacy for women's rights and economic reforms all of this is questionable given source, and is SYNTH at best, the editor of Induprakash, a prominent newspaper the translation I reviewed did not mention the paper's prominence (also, AI word), where he presented highly structured, evidence-based arguments my translation did not mention this, While women's liberation and widow remarriage remained his primary focus never mentioned, Pandit was a skilled writer, translator, and editor NPOV issue, fails verification.

NicheSports (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I have read WP:NOLLM and understand it completely. I also agree to any cleanup that may be required from the AI translations, as pointed out. I have myself done some cleanup for Vishnushastri Pandit. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

That article still has several unresolved WP:V failures, unfortunately. I thought about this over the night. There are about 190 heavily AI-assisted articles in mainspace. The two articles I randomly selected showed significant issues. It took me several hours to even investigate this issue, let alone clean it up. Assuming that each article takes ~2 hours to resolve notability, NPOV, and WP:V issues, we are looking at about 400 hours of community time (and this is very optimistic). The best path forward is LLMPRODs, but maybe with a twist. WP:LLMPROD#Requirements allows for use of the procedure if the article creator agrees to cleanup. Would you be willing to agree to LLMPRODs of these articles? The twist I was thinking of earlier is – if you want to "save" a few dozen to your userspace (ideally, ones that clearly meet notability guidelines), you can move them and work on carefully verifying all content, then moving them back to mainspace when ready. We will LLMPROD the rest. However, if there are any articles in the future that you want undeleted so you can "fix" them, you can made an undeletion request to one of the {{@AINBA}} admins, who I believe would be happy to do so. This approach is most considerate of community time, while also getting the problematic content out of mainspace and giving you a chance to preserve the articles you feel most strongly about. Lmk - but I'm hoping this can work out! NicheSports (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I guess that works. Can you please share the list of articles and I will work on this over the next 1 week? Thank you. After that we can decide with one can be LLMPRODed. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The lists are at the case subpage: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-09-14 SerChevalerie. Take your time – let me know when you're ready. If you need more than a week no problem. NicheSports (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, you should know that LLMPROD can only be used on articles where the creator is its only significant contributor. So any article that has had a few sentences worth of content added by another user should rather be tagged as {{ai-generated}} and left in place for cleanup. Ok, that's all for now. Thank you for the cooperation! NicheSports (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie, you need to slow way down while fixing these articles. As I noted above, your clean up to Vishnushastri Pandit was incomplete and now you are "verifying" articles at what looks like a speed of one every few minutes, which means you are missing things. There are no shortcuts here. If you can't/won't take the time to go through every single line of these articles to ensure compliance with core content policies, I will pursue presumptive deletion of all of them under option #1.D of WP:LLMPROD#Requirements. NicheSports (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, I have already verified the AI output line by line before this. I'm only tagging those which I am confident about. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I have demonstrated in this thread that As mentioned, I have already verified the AI output line by line before this. is incorrect, and re: I'm only tagging those which I am confident about. I immediately found a sentence that failed verification in the first of your "cleaned up" articles that I checked. NicheSports (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Accepted after our recent discussion. Give me some more time, I will do this more slowly. (This will take longer than a week.) In the meantime, I am okay with tagging the pages as "AI-generated". SerChevalerie (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Curt1us

creations draftified and tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

This user seems to be expanding & writing new articles using AI with obvious WP:AISUMM, and content tagged as AI-generated by several users and as AI-assisted by Pangram. At least one of their articles (Shell Technology Centre Bangalore) has already been tagged as having LLM-generated text. They've also deleted at least three users' talk page messages asking about AI use without any real attempt to address the issues raised [1] [2] [3], so some further action might be necessary here. A few of their edits (e.g. on Chemelot) might be compliant with WP:LLMTRANSLATE however, depending on their fluency in Dutch which I'm not 100% sure about. Thank you all in advance for your help! Knypster (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Fermiboson reverted one of their large edits a couple days ago, which the editor reinstated: . They can somehow make multiple large rewrites/expansions within just a couple of hours, with and being made within 15 minutes of each other. And I agree AISUMM is on full display. ^purring_maggot (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

For that specific edit, I ran an automated check on it and did not find any implausibly human-made mistakes, so I let it go as a borderline case. It might be useful to get an admin in here to talk about LLMTALK first, as if it is AI, then the model/pipeline/amount of human involvement might be good/large enough that we won't get anywhere without the human participating. It is also not implausible that the summary itself is generated with AI but the edit is not, because I have seen a few cases of that happening, for God knows why. Fermiboson (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

not triggered any relevant edit filters, though they did add a non-existent template, and remove AI and COI tags . First creation was a 15 August translation from nlwiki which they effectively rewrote in . There second creation was an unattributed translation of which they edited and added a markdown codeblock. Chemelot (13 Sept) has several signs. I'll draftify the creations and give a final warning. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:27, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

A practical point: the affected articles are now materially less complete, less current, less well sourced, and/or less logically structured than the versions that were removed.

I worked on these subjects because I know them intimately through my professional background, local knowledge, longstanding OpenStreetMap contributions, travel, field familiarity, &c. I would therefore appreciate it if other editors could review the previous revisions and consider restoring them, or reincorporating the material that improved the articles.

The relevant drafts and revision histories remain available, and the articles are generally rather short, so their accuracy should be reasonably straightforward to assess. Curt1us (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

~2026-48122-73

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

I reverted this edit because of an expansion of the article with AI tells such as an AI sourced citation. I wanted someone to take a look at their other diffs though, because they don't contain the same blatant tells as the one I reverted. Jdcomix (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The rest of their edits seem to be wikilinking and basic definitions based off of government sources. I'll drop a warn, but nothing left to do here. guninvalid (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Guninvalid, please either revert or make sure WP:V is met, these are definitions for relatively important articles. Also when it comes to TAs it's worth checking whether there are any more related ones, I can see that on the /16 for one of the IPs is this edit to a glocked user talk, same for the /16 here. Tbh I'm not that familiar w IP anti-abuse stuff, /16 is a wide range, but it doesn't look like a good sign for PAG compliance Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Obasi Ogbeyialu Precious

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-17 Obasi Ogbeyialu Precious, 87 pages need review.

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

I've just draftified Sherie Margaret Ngigi for AI concerns. The rate of edits (large additions often only 2 or 3 minutes apart) seems inconsistent with human editing, and the edit summary of their second edit indicates a distinctly lower level of English than their next 100 or so edit summaries. They did say Yes, I am drafting content and pasting it into the edit box on their talk page which partially explains the unusual editing rate and potentially the formatting issues, but the difference in apparent English proficiency is stark enough that I'm going to start reverting these (fewer than 5 edits in the last month means they're eligible for WP:LLMPRV).

I'll ping Idoghor Melody since they seem to be a participant in m:Nigeria National Funding Program/Idoghor Melody/Improving Depth and Source Quality in Nigerian Biographies. lp0 on fire () 16:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

made a tracking page Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Tipkorir

 Cleanup has been requested.

I came across this prolific editor on Kenyan football and found several articles that were G15-eligible due to multiple non-existent citations. (Others have just one non-existent citation and are thus not G15-eligible: Vincent Wasambo and Boniface Akenga, for example.) WP:AISIGNS are also present. I appear to be the first to have warned the user on AI use, but the user's creations are so prolific I think cleanup is in order. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User likely continues to use LLMs; this expansion included two dead link sources with no archived version (, ). Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

That's incredibly disappointing, I've seen this user around a lot. I wonder how long they have been using LLMs for. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

the earliest chatgpt-derived link was in April 2025, they've not triggered other relevant filters. On their talk they promised to stop using LLMs, but appeared to continue using AI (?). Creation speeds are pretty normal AFAICT. Austin Oduor (Nov 2025) and several in August 2026 all had red cats, but vast majority of creations don't AFAICT (I found the August ones through doing an EIA with @Bearcat lol , but for the Nov 2025 one they corrected the red cat themselves). Could check through the ~150 articles at time of creation for red cats but don't want to. These are too stubby for signs to appear, spotchecks needed for WP:V unfortunately Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I had a look through Tipkorir's edit history. Cleanup seems the only choice! Some looks needing source verification too. Not everything in the basket may be bad, but given the pattern going back to at least April when edit got tagged as possible AI generated citations, a presumptive cleanup sounds like the way to go. NicoR8 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee badging

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

I just found a 2024 article which uses real references but they don't seem to related to the article. Might be worth checking if it wasn't AI generated, and investigate its creator's activities in more detail. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:34, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the bulk of the article was added in this edit, and they weren't the creator. I'd have to look closer in the morning but it can likely just be rolled back. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

(J0ht0sch (talk · contribs), it's their only edits, I'd just stick it through Pangram if I had the credits spare) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:CockroachHunter

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

High rate of short content edits to a very wide range of articles. For example this edit just 2 minutes after a pervious edit from an editor that doesn't normally edit about football. Source selection is also all over the place. Dodged the question when challenged. Only started editing 31 August 2026 so should be possible to clean up with a simple mass revert.©Geni (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Ridiculous rate of edits on a preposterously wide range of topics given the speed. I chose an edit at random, in the [[cement] article: This edit, which repeats info in the previous paragraph, contains a claim about cement being used in the El Tajin acropolis which the source does not support, in what to me is a very characteristic AI slip. OsFish (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The source directly supports what I added to the text. Here are the quotes from the text of that source:

1. "...El Tajin displays advanced construction techniques as many structures have concrete slab roofs..."

2. "In the 8th century CE, the Pyramid of the Niches was completed and the huge raised acropolis platform of Tajin Chico was constructed. El Tajin was destroyed by fire and abandoned around 1100 CE or even earlier."

What I wrote on the cement article is standard synthesis. Nothing points to LLM or not editing in good faith. Also, there are no "AI slips", and nothing is "characteristic". If there is something "characteristic" or "slipped", please @Geni @OsFish show evidence, not just "gut feeling". Thank you. CockroachHunter (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Your edit here seems to be added by LLM: WP:AICURLY and the extra spacing in the reference. Masterhatch (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Their very first edit is conclusive. It inserts a citation to The Conversation titled "The myth of the soulmate – how the word came into common use" but that article title only appears in the wiki article and the link in their edit actually goes to a totally unrelated article. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 18:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Over at Two-party system, his 1st 2 edits were good. His 3rd reeked of AI. I reverted that 3rd edit and a few other recent edits from other articles that have clear LLM signs. Masterhatch (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quotes that show your source does not actually match the content it's cited for. OsFish (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed all of their edits up through the end of Sep 3 and reverted/refactored obvious problems. Not all edits appears to be LLM, though all were bot-like. Some edits were constructive. Many consistent of inserting redundant and unnecessary prose, or adding citations that did not verify the content to which they were attached. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 20:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I looked at some of the Sept 13 edits since that was the date of a muddled edit that cropped up on my watchlist. I would not recommend a mass revert because quite a few of these edits are valid typo fixes. LLM use is obvious - over 100 edits that day, all on different obscure topics, often only one or two minutes apart. Paul Matthews (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

edits on 11 and 13 September had markdown . I'd create a tracking page if there weren't the risk of more AI edits Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Yucalyptus

 Cleanup has been requested.

User is mass dumping 5-10,000+ byte single edit article creations/expansions in rapid succession e.g. , which would be extremely difficult to do without AI. All of them tend to have a characteristic "AI-ish" writing style.Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yucalyptus (talk · contribs) chatgpt-derived links in Dec 2025 , Special:AbuseLog/42851871 (Nov 2025) triggered filter 1325 for a strong AI sign, creations need analysis Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The Odyssey (1987 film) (July 2026) had a silly amount of red cats but no other signs really (quite stubby). Cowpasture Road (1 Sept) had AIATTR (The Roads and Traffic Authority described it as a regional freight link between these industrial areas.), all quite promotional for an article on a road. Pangram says (drumroll) AI-assisted . Special:Permalink/1306688629 in August 2025 has a spacing error in one of its cats. Euphorbia succulenta (Nov 2025) had AIDASH, plausibly AI + Pangram positive for AI-assisted (AFAIK "AI-assisted" here doesn't mean exactly that, just that the certainty that it's AI-generated is middling) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Euphorbia succulenta also gives USDA zones that are not mentioned in the given source. M kuhner (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User hadn't received any warnings for AI use so warned and notified. DraconicDark (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. As I said, I have used AI for correction of my grammar. However, the overall content I've written is in my words, backed up by sources I have found and saved. Before creating an article, I gather sources and save them in my documents (i.e. my personal 'sandbox'), hence the 'rapid succession'. If grammar correction by an AI source is prohibited, I will stop of course. Yucalyptus (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Grammar correction is formally permitted. However, if you push your text into an LLM and ask for grammar correction, it will very often do more than that. A non-LLM grammar checker, which can't hallucinate new text, is much safer.

Euphorbia succulenta has USDA zone information that I can't find in the source you cite: how did that happen? M kuhner (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

1geel0ng1

1geel0ng1 (talk · contribs), XTools

LLM use was raised in Nov 2025 but it wasn't really a warning. In Jan 2026 they repeatedly removed AI tags from Barwon Park, at which point several creations were draftified for AI use (later found their way to mainspace via AfC with minimal changes). In 15 Jan a creation was draftified for AI use, which they denied.

St George's Presbyterian Church, Geelong (Dec 2025) had AIREDCAT, in the same month there were lots of chatgpt-derived links . Golf Hill (4 Sept) had AICONNECT (The origins of Golf Hill are associated with the Clyde Company) but I'm not seeing any more signs except for a Pangram positive . There are some spelling and grammatical errors though. Notifying them of this thread Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

These were edits I had made last year, whereby the text was quite literally copied and pasted without any proper check of the text. There was then a period when I phased out and ultimately did not use AI for making edits.

Since this time, I have reached an equilibrium where I have collated sources, then asked chatgpt to combine the information and prepare it for a wikipedia article. However, I have since double-checked what "Chatgpt" has written and what the source actually says. Bringing up the Golf Hill example here, that sentence "the origins of Golf Hill are associated with the Clyde Company" was kept because it's factually correct and the prose seemed to match what's expected and what I've seen on wikipedia articles. 1geel0ng1 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Having ChatGPT draft articles for you is prohibited under WP:NOLLM even if you review them afterwards. If you could try to identify a rough start and end date for when you were not using AI, that may help in the cleanup efforts (and help protect any genuinely non-AI articles).

"The origins of Golf Hill are associated with the Clyde Company" is a perfect example of a not very good sentence. Uh... how is it associated with the Clyde Company? Do they own the land, etc? It would be like the first sentence of Jeff Bezos being "Jeff Bezos is associated with Amazon." It's not incorrect, but it's not very encyclopedic - it doesn't provide any information. Many AI articles are like this - lots of words of fluff, then when you've read the whole thing you still don't know anything about the subject. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately (and as much as I would like to help identifying what needs to be cleaned up) it would be hard for me to give a precise timeframe, but this timeframe was roughly after January, for roughly a month, and then started again in this new form.

Thank you for making me aware of WP:NOLLM, I had no idea about this, and had been making these articles without factoring in the fluffiness aspect of AI writing. I had been particularly paying attention to the hallucinatory aspect that LLM often spits out, which is why I thought my practice was ok and qualifies (i.e. because it's factual information, and something that actually happened, or that the text relating to Gala Homestead is about the homestead and not some other "Gala" related topic).

Therefore, as identified, the issues encountered with my writing where this practice was employed will likely revolve around the removal of "fluffy" language (or a simple refining of the language). I don't believe in the slightest that the changes warrant sweeping re-writes of articles or deletions (articles of mine have been deleted in the past but this revolved largely around their notability), and I think they would fall in the same time category as, say, fixing a spelling error (but this is my personal opinion, I have no idea which pages' texts start to taper into fluffy language).

Again, I will stress that I had not been aware that the complete drafting of articles with the assistance of AI was prohibited, however I hope I have outlined my improved "careful" (but certainly not perfect as identified) use around it, and why I had incorporated it.

I hope this explanation and my reasoning helps. 1geel0ng1 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry just as a follow-up (I've just spent some time reading the other users above's notices), because it's seems to be a bit of a grey area: I'll explain my process of how I have made some articles.

1. On a word document, I have snippets from old newspapers/books/websites (the text copied (not verbatim, mindful of W:CLOP) over from the original Trove articles (for example), then listing the source that they can come from beside/underneath the text so I can come back to check them later so as to see if there is hallucination or not).

2. I then ask ChatGPT to collate the information (as it may be anachronistic on the Word Document), asking it to place a marker next to the generated text (i.e. calling the first source "Article 1") so I can match it with the first bit of text in the word document, so I can check for hallucination and manually do the referencing.

3. It then creates this "draft", and then from there,

4. I have the ChatGPT on one screen and the "Create X" page on another, and then I physically type out the text into the "Create X" section.

Given that the majority of pages where I've done this process has resulted in small, digestible paragraphs, it has made it easier to verify if the generated content is actually true, as it's easier to read.

5. I can then manually enter the references, giving me another chance to check over the sources to see if hallucination has occurred or not.

Bearing it mind that ChatGPT has generated the draft, but given that there are two "checkpoints" in the process, would this then make it ok? If the issue is now to maintain the encyclopedic tone and the removal of fluffy language, which I can identify in the physical re-writing of the article, is this usage of AI "acceptable", albeit a bit of a grey area? 1geel0ng1 (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No, not really: The use of large language models (LLMs) to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited except for the uses as outlined below. WP:NOLLM The only carveouts are for minor copyediting (basically spellcheck) or as a translation assistant from Wikipedia articles in languages in which you are fluent. (And I don't think that typing ChatGPT's text into the edit window yourself makes it not LLM-generated...)

I see that you have a sensible process here, but the guideline has gotten this strict over the years because many trusted editors before have attested to LLM-generating articles with a similarly strict process of human review, only for familiar patterns of WP:V problems to reveal themselves as soon as another human examines their output with a critical eye - and then because of the high volume of text that someone with an LLM can introduce into Wikipedia, by the time these problems are revealed, there's a massive amount of cleanup to do. I hope you don't take it personally if other editors can't take your word for it that your current process is high-quality; it's not personal, we just... can't. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, that's annoying!

In that case, should WP:V appear in any of my work up to this point (and I have done my utmost to not let it appear!), let the aforementioned numbered points serve as an explanatory note, and my prior unawareness of the WP:NOLLM. There will be a change in my creation/editing process, as outlined.

Any upcoming flags regarding the use of AI in writing during page creation will be (if any) purely coincidental, and I will be willing to offer an explanation should there be a need for there to be one.

I hope that a marked change will be seen in the prose, editing and quality of my articles! :) 1geel0ng1 (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding! ^purring_maggot (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @1geel0ng1 for your honest and clarity. FWIW I did extensive spotchecks of Golf Hill and found no WP:V failures (though that's not to say there aren't any in other articles). It looks like some cleanup will be needed, especially of creations before c. Feb 2026, but I think it'd be best to leave that for a later date while we prioritise more egregious cases here (we're getting flooded atm). If it's okay, we'll get back in touch with you in a few months' time (in the meantime, if there are some problematic articles you know of and feel like rewriting them, that'd be grand, but no worries if not) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Wikieual

 Cleanup has been requested.

User engaged in suspiciously rapid article creation yesterday some of the article show some obvious AI signs:

• WP:AIREDCAT: Hippodrome d'Enghien-Soisy
• WP:AIDASH: Pari Mutuel Urbain, Fédération nationale des courses hippiques

And a lot of these creations also haver high ai scores on GPTZero.

Pari Mutuel Urbain also has a page on fr-wiki, but this page does not appear to be a straight-forward machine translation.

I left them a message on their talk page about a day ago, but they haven't been online since. I'll draftify the obvious ones from yesterday, but their other work might also need a look

Giulio 22:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Took a 5-year break in article creation from 2021 to August 2026. EUCS (cloud computing) (25 August) had AIREDCATs, they've triggered no relevant edit filters. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:AnkushBharadwaj

 Cleanup has been requested.

@AnkushBharadwaj: has repeatedly made edits with very obvious WP:AISUMM. There are also plenty of textual indications, such as this talk comment and this dead-obvious article creation from 2025.

I PRODded Maheshwari saree as being entirely AI-generated (regular, not LLMPROD), and was met with this AI rewrite along with a PROD decline. The most obvious sign here is WP:AINOCOPULA, with "traces its origins", "are characterized by", and other avoidances of simple phrasing. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 02:08, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I warned the editor for now, since I couldn't see that anyone has informed them of NOLLM yet. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/42833866 (Nov 2025) had markdown. AIREDCATs in National Handloom Day (Sept 2025, when they joined) which is their first creation, the others are similarly all obviously AI-generated (latest is April). Safe to assume practically all major edits are AI-generated. They're only edit in the past month was the PROD removal, so they technically are inactive, but I'm gonna wait to see how they respond to the warning/explanation Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:59, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Saiprakash9959

 Cleanup has been requested.

I've tagged an article Saiprakash9959's created for G15 deletion with AIREDCAT and various citation errors including a non-working archive url. User contested deletion with AITALK, then admitted to LLM use in Special:diff/1375235521, "I used ChatGPT to help with the wording of the comment and to review the sources." User's first article, Sanjeev (film) was initially created with AI Special:diff/1371442453. Claimed to have learned not to use LLMs Special:diff/1371738327 but this is contradicted by their most recent statement above. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/44978966 (27 August) had markdown. Will draftify their creations and leave them a message Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

New Democratic Republic

 Cleanup has been requested.

The New Democratic Republic article was largely written by an AI model, All sections are vaguely written and only tangentially touch upon the subject. The definitive proof of AI usage is the "Further reading" section, which fabricated a series of books and articles supposedly discussing the topic. Librero2109 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't see who created it for some reason , maybe it was done in userspace? There's nothing in the Move logs though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I asked the deleting admin if they can tell us who wrote it. M kuhner (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The article was created by Berniesandals, who last edited in July 2025. I have no idea why its creation doesn't show in the logs. It was nominated for speedy deletion by DraconicDark. JBW (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:ManoiCMU

 Cleanup has been requested.

User engaged in suspiciously rapid article creation and subsequent editing;

For example Kad Suan Kaew was written yesterday at 15:09 and then completely re-written at 15:12, the article was further edited until 15:26 then Wat Si Rong Muang was published at 15:40

Other AI signs are also present: second reference on Kad Suan Kaew appears to be a broken link, WP:AIREDCAT in Wat Ban Kao and Suphrom.

Giulio 20:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I will defend myself. I am one of the main editors driving the Thai English Wikipedia project. As a very experienced editor, I have full knowledge of Hallucination (artificial intelligence) and Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing.In the past, I have had no major problems with any Wikipedia policies, such as notability, writing errors, or translating from Thai Wikipedia articles. I have also never been banned for any reason. I have been a fighter in AfD discussions on Thai articles, and I have saved all the articles that I was involved in those AfDs. All the articles I have created fall under the notability guidelines, and none of them have been deleted. I have had no problems at all before.

During this time, I have created several articles because I have had more free time due to my school break. If I use a large language model (LLM), my articles would be automatically expanded beyond what is supported by the references. My articles do not show signs of containing both WP:AIATTR and WP:SUPERFICIAL. Moreover, my sentences in the articles are directly supported by the references given, and you can easily verify them one by one. If you cannot read Thai, you can use Google Translate or ask one of the Thai native editors to verify the information in each article. If you find any content that cannot be verified, we can open a case on the article's talk page.

You accused me of using AI here because I placed broken references that never existed or were hallucinated by AI, correct? Actually, reference 2 from Kad Suan Kaew is directly copied from the sources cited in th:อุทยานการค้ากาดสวนแก้ว. You can check the Thai Wikipedia article as well and determine whether it was added by AI or by editors. I used this reference in English Wikipedia for the retail floor area claim.

Thank you for pointing out the reference. 5. I have checked the references and found that reference 5 was misplaced and added as backup. Reference 5 is also used for general history and facilities. I added reference 5 to another sentence as a "backup" even though that sentence already had another reference. You can verify the sources one by one. So, I may have forgotten to add a reference to this sentence, and I did not want to leave it blank beside the sentence. However, this does not mean that the information is fake or AI-generated. That information came directly from the Thai Wikipedia article. I use some content from Thai Wikipedia articles by translating it and mixing it with my own writing. I rewrote these articles because I translated content from Thai Wikipedia some of them. Sometimes, I did not want to use or add the page's edit history for attribution under WP:CWW, and sometimes the rough translation sounded like storytelling, so I rewrote it.

You can also check the Thai Wikipedia article for this claim. To be sure, you can check this article (this is a source for the claim in addition to the Thai Wikipedia article) and for the theatre-related facts.

I also have a source that directly supports the South Pacific opening-performance claim: . It says:

โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งโรงละคร “กาดเธียเตอร์” ที่เปิดตัวด้วยการนำคณะละครบอร์ดเวย์จากต่างประเทศเรื่อง South Pacific มาแสดง

A close translation is: “Especially the Kad Theatre, which opened by bringing a Broadway theatre company from abroad to perform South Pacific.” So the source directly supports the claim that Kad Theatre opened with South Pacific and that the performance was presented by a foreign Broadway theatre company. Therefore, this is not AI-hallucinated information.

If my content fails verification, you should add {{cn}} or mark it as "failed verification" and question me on the article's talk page first so that we can discuss it. Bringing me to the AI noticeboard is too strong and has reduced my motivation to create more articles. If I use fake information, then of course I should be warned.

Regarding WP:AIREDCAT, this is very normal for me. I used test categories like this before AI was born (at the time nobody knew what AI was), and you can check my older edit history. I am also very lazy about clicking the preview button before saving.

Please kindly review the Thai article before concluding that some of the content in my articles is unsupported, since some of my sources and content come from Thai Wikipedia. Thank you. ManoiCMU (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Ping @DraconicDarkfor understand expalin. thank you ManoiCMU (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you please explain your process for Kad Suan Kaew? There are two edits minutes apart: at 15:09 you create the article, then at 15:12 you completely re-write it . Giulio 15:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The first edit was simply the initial creation of the article, using a rough translation from the sources and the Thai Wikipedia article. I had gathered all the useful information, including minor facts copied from sources, and pasted it into a Note on my MacBook. I also had many different draft sentences prepared before creating the article on Wikipedia. Copy paste from my notepad is my method. However... I tested Gemini AI to smooth my rough translation version sometimes, but AI often made it worse by adding a superficial tone like attributed or showcasing or renowned and unnecessary overanalysis, making my version worse and more horrible. After seeing that, I chose not to use AI and instead write my own research using mixed content from different sources. AI is useless even for paraphrasing.

If I felt that a sentence sounded strange or unnatural, I would replace it with another sentence from my draft notes or rewrite it. But...my browser also has Grammarly enabled for minor grammar corrections. To be honest, if you ask an AI chatbot such as Gemini or Grok etc.., “Hey, please create an article about Kad Suan Kaew for Wikipedia with refs,” and try it yourself, you will probably get a disgusting version containing fake information, unsupported expansion, unreliable claims, and possibly fake references or dead links. AI-generated versions can also have very recognizable sentence structures and wording. You should compare such a version with mine; they would definitely not be the same. Here are examples: https://gemini.google.com/share/c207c1190acb?skid=50f77144-1c03-4ea6-8da9-00e6b44399ac and the Grok version https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_7122d800-6b2d-4075-ad6c-7aad5af437c5 and the GPT version https://chatgpt.com/share/6aacb34f-9640-83ec-ac39-9b4b11840167.

I have also reviewed many Thai Wikipedia articles created by other editors in drafts that were marked for LLM-style writing. I corrected them and successfully helped publish them in the main space. I am familiar with identifying paraphrasing produced by LLMs. For my article, there are no fake references, and you can verify the content sentence by sentence. If you fail to verify any content, you can ask me or raise the issue anywhere appropriate. And the Kad Suan Kaew article is now tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G15, with the reason, “References 2 and 5 are hallucinated.” Even after I explained that the references came from Thai Wikipedia and pointed out that the facts are not fake and can be verified through the pointed sources, the speedy-deletion nomination is still open. May I know why, and can I remove the tag now that I have fixed the issues? Thank you. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a premium version of Grammarly? Fermiboson (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, I am slightly confused by I have also reviewed many Thai Wikipedia articles created by other editors in drafts that were marked for LLM-style writing. I corrected them and successfully helped publish them in the main space. Do you mean English Wikipedia articles about Thai subjects or articles on Thai Wikipedia? Fermiboson (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The first edit was simply the initial creation of the article, using a rough translation from the sources and the Thai Wikipedia article.

How much of your work is translation of Thai articls? Translation would explain the rapid rate of content creation, but at no point that I could see have you declared any of your work a translation as required for proper attribution per WP:TFOLWP. Giulio 14:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

chat-gpt-derived links in Nov 2025 , Yi Peng festival (Nov 2025) has lots of signs and a Pangram positive , it is clearly not a translation from thwiki's article. Looking at 2026 creations, Wat Ban Kao (15 Sept) has AIREDCAT, a bit of AICONNECT (The site is associated with Khruba Chaiyawongsa Phatthana...), Pangram comes back as human-written . There aren't many signs in the 2026 creations, spotchecks are needed imo Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Peoplelikeyoulikeme

 Cleanup has been requested.

Mark Holgate is clearly AI-generated per the tag by Gnomingstuff, and I suspect the editor's other numerous and ongoing article creations may be AI-generated as well. There are references in the editor's articles in which the information given is not fully supported by the sources used: so, for instance, in Chris Oh the "Artnet News" article by Katie White does not name the painting by da Vinci mentioned in the text, and the other "Artnet News" article by Eileen Kinsella barely mentions any of the content in the last paragraph of the article. Other editors more experienced in AI detection may be able to find more definite evidence.

I would suggest that LLMPROD might be appropriate, if other editors agree that there is a likely AI issue here. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

tons of chatgpt-derived links in Oct and Nov 2025 , they also triggered filter 1325 for a very strong AI sign w Special:AbuseLog/40297290 in March 2025 ("underscores the importance of"). 63 creations since Jan 2023, Divided Publishing (Feb 2023) had AIREDCAT but also some weird errors that look human, also uses hyphens instead of endashes/emdashes. Zora (platform) (Jan 2024) was deleted in part for PROMO. What is going on w the square brackets in Special:Permalink/1157904631. Bob Glück (June 2023) had the unsourced Bob Glück's body of work spans several decades and encompasses a wide range of poetic styles and themes. He is known for his innovative approach to language, delving into contemporary life and experiences of queer identity, unconventional relationships, narrative discourse, and moments where language, power, and desire fornicate.. OCDChinatown (Nov 2024) had AIDASH, AICURLY, AIVOCAB, ridiculously promotional, probably SUPERFICIAL if I could stomach reading it closely, Pangram gives human-written though. Ughh Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Spot-checking the refs on the user's latest article, Travis Boyer, immediately throws up sources that do not contain the information that they are cited for: so, for instance, source 8 does not mention the deCordova Museum, Rhode Island School of Art and Design, etc., and source 17 does not mention the subject's paintings on silk velvet (and does not even discuss the subject: his only presence in the article is that he made the image illustrating it).

On the basis of all this, is there enough for consensus for WP:LLMPRV? Dionysodorus (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Possible AI usage by Whiskerpedia

 Courtesy link: User talk:Whiskerpedia

Request: Please hold this discussion on Whiskerpedia's Talk page, User talk:Whiskerpedia, until AINB is removed from semi-protected status. Relaying messages back and forth is IMO interfering with the discussion.

Whiskerpedia (talk · contribs · logs) is a brand new editor (30 edits) who started on 15 September, and has been rapidly adding content to about a dozen Quebec town articles, and appears to be editing in good faith. They have created >100kb of polished content on 9/16 in about eleven articles, making edits of up to 20kb creating polished-looking artice or Draft content without requiring a follow-up edit. I removed one 12kb edit to Brome, Quebec but it was reverted. They blanked the first message I left on their UTP but have engaged constructively with the second message I left. Collectively, Whiskerpedia's edits sure look like AI to me, as nobody can create content that fast, but they have a counterargument. I told them I'd bring this here so we could discuss further. Plenty of diffs in the Talk page discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The counterargument looks like another AI edit. CMD (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Housekeeping note: Whiskerpedia reports that because this page is semi-protected (news to me!), they cannot respond here. As they are here in good-faith, it would be nice if lurkers or participants here could check Whiskerpedia's Talk page periodically, to see if they have a comment they would like to have ported over. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Material copied from User talk:Whiskerpedia as they are unable to reply here:

Thanks, I appreciate you taking it to the noticeboard instead of just reverting everything.

Unfortunately it’s semi-protected right now, so I can’t actually respond there myself. I did see the comment saying my last response looked AI-generated. It wasn’t. I wrote that response myself.

I also want to explain the volume a little more clearly. I’ve been home sick all week, with a lot of time on my hands, and this is quite literally what I’ve been doing to keep myself occupied. I got interested in these local articles and just kept going from one to the next. So I understand why the amount of editing looks unusual, but there really isn’t much more behind it than that.

It’s a bit discouraging that now that I’m trying to engage and explain myself, even that is being treated as further evidence of AI use. For now I’ll just follow the discussion and see what comes of it. Whiskerpedia (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

(copied by M kuhner (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)) ➤ ported W's 06:29 signature by Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT UTM param in Special:Diff/1375077880, this is not really ambiguous Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

"Yes, that part is true, and it’s what I was trying to explain earlier. I did use AI during the process, especially for research and finding sources. I wasn’t trying to claim otherwise.

I also did remove the ChatGPT tracking part from most of the links because I knew that seeing "ChatGPT" in the URL would probably turn the whole thing into a debate about AI rather than the source itself. Obviously I missed one. In hindsight, I can see how removing it probably looks worse now that someone has found one, but I’m not going to pretend I didn’t do it.

What i’ve been trying to say from the beginning is that using AI as part of my research process isn’t the same thing as asking it to write an article and then pasting that article into Wikipedia. That’s the distinction I’ve been trying, maybe not very successfully, to explain." Whiskerpedia (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC) ➤ ported from their UTP by Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Mont Écho has bucketloads of AIATTR at a start. The utm diff has AISUMM. Wait a bit for verification analysis, but FWIW I don't believe them at the moment. Fermiboson (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Contemporary newspaper coverage referred to Mont Écho when the ski centre was being developed in 1963.[6] Later accounts of the ski area state that the property on which it was developed had been known as Echo Valley, although the Commission de toponymie does not establish this as the origin of the mountain's name. I mean... really?

Shockingly, however, I cannot seem to find any source-text discreptancies after combing through it with the machine and with spot-checks. There are a few really minor points, like the reserve covering "more than 78 sq km" -> source "nearly 78 sq km" in 2009, and the 2025 forest fire sources not mentioning fire remaining in the soil, but this is far below the usual discreptancies we see in LLM-generated text. I suspect some combination of source-finding and copyediting. But then that wouldn't explain the AISUMM... Fermiboson (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"Thanks for taking the time to actually check it that closely. What you found is pretty much what I’ve been trying to explain. I do use ChatGPT a lot on the research side, especially for finding sources, pulling out the parts that look relevant and keeping track of things I still need to look into.

On the Mont Écho/Echo Valley sentence, the reason it’s so cautious is that the sources don’t really establish the connection. One source already has Mont Écho being used in 1963, another says the ski property had been known as Echo Valley, but the Commission de toponymie says the origin of the mountain’s name is unknown, so I didn’t think it would be right to turn those things into a definite connection when the sources themselves don’t.

The 78 km² point is fair... it should be "nearly 78 km²."

I did check the fire point again too. The source attached to that sentence doesn’t support the soil part, so you’re right about that. There is an earlier Town of Sutton update that says the fire was very deep in the soil, so the underlying point wasn’t something I just made up, but I clearly attached the wrong update to it. That’s the kind of thing I can see happening when I’m moving through these articles as quickly as I have been, and I’ll fix it.

As for AISUMM, if you mean the NAS Oceana edit summary itself, I was using ChatGPT around that edit for research and source-finding too, as I’ve already said. If there’s something specific in the summary that you think is particularly telling, point it out and I’ll answer it. I’d rather be specific about what I did than just guess at what you mean." Whiskerpedia (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2026 (UTC) copied from user talk by M kuhner (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

This is so confusing. That comment reads like Claude, but the source parameter is ChatGPT. And quite frankly, if it is a human, the human has clearly not read WP:AISUMM and also did not address the stylistic/copyediting concerns. Either we're being played professionally here, or Whiskerpedia should get a job in LLM ghostwriting.

That said, I don't see anything blatant yet in terms of other core policy violations, so my vote for this one is rope. And in case this is one of those statistical rarities and we're talking to an actual human - the original quoted sentence isn't really encyclopaedic because it infers things from the lack of information in a given source, which is WP:Synthesis. Instead of attributing to vague "later accounts", etc. you should also either state explicitly what the statement is attributed to, if it requires in-text attribution, or just state it as a fact in wikivoice if not. Fermiboson (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"Well I went back and read WP:AISUMM properly. I understand what you meant now. I had taken your earlier comment as referring to something specific in that one edit summary, rather than the broader pattern the page is describing. I can see why some of my summaries stood out in that context. I've already explained how I've been using AI on the research and source-finding side, so I don't think there's much more I can usefully add to the comparisons with Claude or ChatGPT beyond that.

On the Mont Écho sentence, I do see the issue with the way I put those facts together. I wasn't trying to establish that Echo Valley was the origin of the name Mont Écho. I was actually trying to avoid making that connection because the sources don't establish it. But putting the 1963 use of Mont Écho, the later Echo Valley references and the Commission de toponymie's unknown origin together in the same passage can still make the connection look more meaningful than the sources support. That can be separated more cleanly. I also agree that 'later accounts' is vague and should either identify the source or be stated directly where attribution isn't needed.

I also appreciated that you actually went through Mont Écho against the sources in detail. You said you expected to find the kind of source-text discrepancies you normally see in LLM-generated material, but after checking it closely you didn't find that pattern apart from the couple of relatively minor issues you identified. Now I don't think that settles every concern people have raised, but it was useful because it gave us something concrete to look at rather than relying entirely on how the writing appears stylistically.

As I've mentioned before, this account is new, but I'm not new to Wikipedia. I've edited under an older account before and no longer have access to it. I've also explained why the volume was unusually high this week. I've been home sick with a lot of time on my hands, and most of these articles are about closely related places where the research overlaps quite a bit.

I'm not planning to stop making substantial edits or creating articles, but I may space out some of the very large expansions for the moment so they're easier for other editors to review. If there are specific content or sourcing problems like the wording on Mont Écho, those are useful to identify and I can deal with them directly." Whiskerpedia (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC) copied from user talk by M kuhner (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

And in case this is one of those statistical rarities and we're talking to an actual human

and we're talking to an actual human who is using ChatGPT for at least one thing, and whose text produced is also like ChatGPT, to the letter

do people think we're stupid Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you're jumping from “ChatGPT was used somewhere in the process” to “therefore these edits were generated by ChatGPT,” and I don't think the evidence gets you there.

I've never denied using ChatGPT during the process. The UTM parameter shows that. But even WP:AISIGNS says that a ChatGPT UTM shows involvement, not that the writing itself was generated by ChatGPT. It specifically mentions things like finding citations. Wikipedia's own guidance also allows LLMs to be used for research and finding sources. So the fact that I used ChatGPT in one part of the process doesn't automatically tell you how every sentence in an article was written.

The speed of my edits, the summaries and the style can obviously make you suspicious. Fine. But suspicion is still not the same thing as establishing that the article text was AI-generated. WP:LLM itself says some human writing can resemble LLM output and that you need more than basic linguistic or stylistic signs.

And when Fermiboson actually checked Mont Écho against the sources, they said they weren't finding the source-text discrepancy pattern they normally see in LLM-generated material. They found a couple of specific problems, I acknowledged them, and those can be fixed. That's an actual check of the article And its sources. Saying the text sounds like Claude or ChatGPT is a much more subjective judgment in my opinion.

The “do people think we're stupid” also comment bothered me for the same reason. It doesn't add anything to the evidence. It just makes anyone who doesn't immediately agree with your conclusion sound gullible. I'd rather keep this about the edits themselves.

And, what I really don't understand is why you then started reverting the material while the AIN discussion was still unresolved. Fermiboson's position was “rope.” I wasn't blocked, I hadn't agreed to a presumptive cleanup, and I don't see where there was a consensus at AIN to apply WP:LLMPRV to all of these edits.

Now, If you found a specific sourcing, synthesis, neutrality or other content problem in one of them, point to it then. That's something I think I can actually answer. But, if these were being removed presumptively as AI-generated content, then I think it's reasonable to ask what part of WP:LLMPRV you thought had been met before you started reverting them. Whiskerpedia (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC) copied from Talk page by M kuhner (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC))

Request: Please hold this discussion on Whiskerpedia's Talk page, User talk:Whiskerpedia, until AINB is removed from semi-protected status. Relaying messages back and forth is IMO interfering with the discussion.

User:Troy26Castillo

 Cleanup has been requested.

I rejected a draft with obvious AIATTR. They Immediately edited the draft with an AI edit summary Special:Permalink/1375350945 and resubmitted it, then replied with obvious AITALK Special:Diff/1375351879. They were warned of AI-use earlier this month, which they emphatically denied. I have just tagged that relevant article, List of awards and nominations received by BGYO, for G15. Kisseran (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I was able to find the sources for all three claims with a quick search. Is that suffice to then remove the G15, or are there still underlying problems?

PeepeeDino (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Unless you followed the links given on the article, then no, because the links being broken has no reasonable explanation other than being LLM-generated, and those links have been on the page since the first revision. Kisseran (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, after "fixing" (properly sourcing it I assume?) the links, would the article then be fine? Or is the entirety of the article just a mess then?

PeepeeDino (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

From experience, the best way to deal with an LLM-generated article is to delete the LLM text, read the sources (and add new ones as needed) and write a human article.

Trying to fix the bad sourcing is more work than writing a new, clean article--speaking as someone who's done it a couple times and won't be doing it again. M kuhner (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Update: The G15 tag has been removed presumably by a LOUTSOCK Special:Diff/1375360217 after they rewrote the article again with obvious AI summaries: Reviewed and corrected the cited references, replaced or removed problematic sourcing, verified award claims against the cited material, and copyedited the article for accuracy and consistency and Restored concise group and career context to the lead, including the members, former name, debut releases and Billboard Next Big Sound achievement; retained the existing awards and sourcing revisions.. They also posted on the talk page Talk:List of awards and nominations received by BGYO with obvious LLMTALK. On their talk page, they replied to my LLMTALK warning with Please note that I have checked the references mentioned in the CSD myself and fixed the ones that had problems. The edits are visible in the article history. I would like to understand why the whole deletion contest was collapsed instead of the sourcing points being reviewed. Could you please point me to the specific guideline being applied here? which completely ignores the fact that the relevant guideline is linked both in the collapse template and in my edit summary. Kisseran (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Andy37892

 Cleanup has been requested.

I reverted this diff due to probable AI usage with the formatting errors and weasel words (i.e. "describes the work as highly revered"). They proceeded to re-add the AI text to the page and their other contributions also have some of the same tells, so I'm requesting cleanup here. Jdcomix (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Eliezer1987

There is a dispute at Talk:Jabalia_refugee_camp#Discussion_regarding_LLM_use about possible use of LLM on a talk page. Pinging involved editors @Katzrockso and @Eliezer1987.

Further input from additional editors here would be appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. English is not my first language. I write my points in Hebrew first. Sometimes I asked a tool to help turn them into English for talk pages, then I posted. I understand the concern about whole posts looking like llm written. From now on I will write talk replies myself in shorter English, without that step. Happy to answer questions here. Eliezer1987 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this commitment. Your English seems very good so I don't think translation tools are necessary Katzrockso (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, your English is perfectly understandable. We'd rather talk to you directly with a bit imperfect English than going through a chatbot. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but is it possible to know what is allowed? Or is it better to avoid using them on talk pages altogether? Eliezer1987 (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

It is better to avoid them altogether. Fermiboson (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

This user has previously confirmed using LLMs in User talk:Eliezer1987/Archive 1 § LLM use. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Faraortho

Generative adversarial networks (GANs) for medical and dental education and Orthodontic mini-implants both appear clearly AI-generated to my eye, and score a 100% on GPTZero, though they do not appear to contain WP:G15able signs. At User talk:Faraortho the user denies that these are LLM-generated, and the user has reverted a draftification and been removing maintenance templates from the articles, so I wanted to come here and ask for input on what should be done. The notability of the latter of the two seems potentially plausible, but I don't know anything about dentistry so I don't want to say definitively. Appreciate any advice on what the best path forward here is. Pings to involved @Faraortho, @GhostInTheMachine. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Both are obvious enough to AfD, in my opinion. I'll leave you the honours. In the meantime please ping if the user makes any other creations and I'll see if I can build a case of verifiability failures, but these two are obvious enough that I don't want to spend the tokens on it. Fermiboson (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Both articles at AfD now, thanks to Wasianpower. M kuhner (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Gulabi Bagh Gateway

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

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-19_The_Mazhar, 2 pages need review.

Please review Gulabi Bagh Gateway. None of the references seem to resolve to anything about the subject. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Tone is blatantly LLM. AfD is probably the way to go. Fermiboson (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that five of the references look like they go to the Pakistani Department of Archaeology and Museums, but actually redirect to the Google Play page for the department's app. These refs were allegedly accessed today, which is obviously nonsense.

There are nine separate references to the same paper, which does exist and does address the topic, but it's a bad sign that (a) the reference is duplicated each time it's used, and (b) no link is provided, although the paper is accessible online.

The British Library reference goes to the catalog entry of a photograph, and does contain info about the subject—but that info is only a quote from a book, also referred to in the Al Qamar paper above with the same quote. The book itself is not directly referenced.

Lastly, there's a link to a small webpage with info about the subject, fine as far as it goes.

I would say this is definitely LLM generated and sufficient for G15 under 'nonsensical references'. Will add the template. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Their article Bricks builder is at AfD and has been noted there to be LLM (as well as possible COI). They have collected quite a few warnings despite only editing since August 29. I am making a tracker to help guide further investigation. M kuhner (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:DrMatzahBall

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

AITALK in Talk:Fuad I of Egypt and AISUMM all around. On mobile and will investigate further. Fermiboson (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Userpage also obviously written by AI too. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 12:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

User:RETR0kiT

RETR0kiT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edits make mistakes that no reasonable human would make and other edits are mostly solely minor grammar edits. I don't believe the user themselves is an agent but I believe they are very heavily relying on AI to make their edits, which is fine for translations' sake, like his clearly AI replies, however Retr0 has already had an AfC draft denied because of suspected AI use.

If you look at his recent contribs, you will see three reverted edits that I flagged. The edit summaries were very clearly AI, and the edits themselves were simple grammatical edits except for the fact that they removed nearly all other page content. I can excuse that once as human error, but three times and two warnings? No human in my opinion would make that same mistake over and over again and respond an hour later to the warnings (with a clearly AI response) while in the meantime actively editing very minor grammar issues (that seemed served to the editor back-to-back and were not marked as newcomer tasks).

In my opinion, RETR0kiT is misusing AI and may damage the project if he is allowed to continue. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 18:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for these errors and for the inconvenience they caused. I intended to make minor corrections, but I accidentally worked from an incomplete copy of the article and failed to notice that a substantial section was missing before publishing. The deletions were unintentional. I understand the concern, and I will carefully review the preview and diff before submitting any future edit. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. RETR0kiT (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@RETR0kiT: you're not in any trouble, it's just better for you to be honest: are you using AI tools for purposes other than translation (i.e. queueing copyedits and executing them automatically, generating edit summaries, etc.)? I understand that you are an English-second speaker (do the Maltese speak a common language, or is it named Maltese? I'm genuinely curious), and using AI for translation purposes is perfectly fine, but undisclosed AI use for other things is generally discouraged.

By the way, sorry for not notifying you of this noticeboard listing; I received other notifications immediately after posting it and it slipped my mind. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 18:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries about the noticeboard notification.

The language question is a bit complicated, but English is actually my first language. Malta has two official languages, English and Maltese.

On the AI point, the answer is also a bit more complicated than just yes or no. I use AI a lot generally, but for Wikipedia I am mostly using my own tools rather than having AI generate and post edits for me.

I have built, and am still building, my own local stack. My spell and grammar checker uses a self-hosted Qwen model through Manifest LLM Router, so I am not using a paid LLM for that. I tend to be fairly obsessive about grammar anyway, so I normally make the edits myself and then use Qwen as a second check.

I am also building a small tool for finding dead links. It is basically an automation script made in UBot Studio, which is pretty ancient technology now. Codex has helped me with parts of the code, but it is my own tool. It is still manual at the moment. I open a page, click "find", and it shows me the dead links. I also use Scrapebox for checking links.

When I am on my Debian laptop, a lot of this is easier because I can use more of my own scripts and command-line tools.

So the short version is that I am basically a human editor with a fairly advanced spell and grammar checker, plus some home-built tools for finding dead links. I am not queueing AI-generated edits and automatically posting them to Wikipedia.

If I get the dead-link tool into a decent state, I will probably share it publicly here as well. RETR0kiT (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

...so yes, you are using AI to generate at least part of your edits. For various reasons, AI usage is prohibited on Wikipedia. A dead-link tool is probably a good idea, but generating front-facing text is prohibited. guninvalid (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I am now rewriting all tools so that it uses no AI at all. It is not a big change. I was mainly using AI because I had not bothered to finish the fully mechanical version.

I am going to pause editing for now, finish the non-AI web app, and then return to manual editing using a browser tool that has no AI component.

The tool will basically work like an assisted find-and-replace. It will identify the dead link, look for the corresponding Archive.org snapshot, and present the replacement for me to review manually.

Before I start using it, would you be willing to have a look at it and confirm that you are comfortable with how it works? I should have it live tomorrow, and I can give you a guest login so you can see exactly what it is doing. RETR0kiT (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

GenAI college course from Spring 2025

 Cleanup has been requested.

In Spring 2025, an English course from the LaGuardia Community College had students learning how to incorporate generative AI in their academic research. A series of assignments from that course had students using generative AI to contribute to Wikipedia.

Although the course was over year ago and I don't think the participants should be punished for contributions they made a year before Wikipedia banned WP:LLMs, I am concerned about AI-generated content potentially still on Wikipedia as a result of that course. Many of the students created AI-generated articles that are still up, those being African American film score composers, Food Freedom Acts, Football economics, Transnational cinema in India, Wellness guru (the only one currently tagged for AI content), and Witches in popular culture. Should we delete these articles? Lazman321 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

CCs: instructor @Doctorxgc and Wiki Ed liaison @Brianda. I would note that this is before the 2026 guideline change that banned LLM use in article writing. That being said, do the articles identified as problematic qualify for LLMPROD? Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they can (and should be) deleted via LLMPROD. No LLM-generated text is "grandfathered" in, and the NOLLM guideline does not have a start date. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that LLM text isn't grandfathered in, just wanted to clarify that the editors themselves should not be penalized based on the guideline. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:TinaLees-Jones

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-19 TinaLees-Jones, 829 pages need review.

TinaLees-Jones (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) is a globally locked user by an WP:OA in early September 2026. Many of this user's page creations appear to be AI-generated (or at least AI-translated), and some of the more recent creations have since been deleted through WP:PROD (e.g., 1). Is an LLMPROD clean-up campaign required? - Amigao (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

They have 26K edits, so we would desperately need a start date. M kuhner (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this is another longterm familiar name that keeps popping up in searches

Best guess at start date is ~January 2025. Maybe earlier into 2024, but most articles from then that I checked seem to be non-LLM translations. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Over 2K even with aggressive filtering. I made a creations-only tracker which is still fairly appalling. M kuhner (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Persian Lad

 Persian Lad (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Created Hui-Uyghur rivalry with user communication from a chatbot in AbuseLog/45160305, then immediately removed the chatbot communication in Diff/1375619515. Added the nonexistent Wikipedia:WikiProject ethnic groups to the talk page in Diff/1375619189 (AbuseLog/45160312).

Has edited since before free public access to chatbots, so it is unclear when the AI use began. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:34, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The correct Wikiproject name is Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups (capital 'E') so that may in itself not be a huge sign, but the chatbot communication (and the litany of other AISIGNS) is undeniable. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Sevageet

creations draftified and tagged

 Sevageet (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-09-19 Sevageet, 15 pages need review.

The usual, rapid article creations and large edits.

• Added markdown formatted links in Diff/1375662732 (AbuseLog/45161913) to Nita Ambani, four minutes after their previous edit to the same article.
• Created Hudo (Gujarati folk dance) in Diff/1375637099 (AbuseLog/45161084) with the ISBN 978-81-956774-3-6 that does not exist (and in violation of WP:CT/SA/CASTE).
• Created Garbi (Gujarati folk dance) in Diff/1375660532 (AbuseLog/45161832) in six minutes. Tagged it and sent it to draft space, where the {{ai-generated}} tag was immediately removed in Diff/1375681385.
• Created Mer Raas in Diff/1375660033 (AbuseLog/45161820) in four minutes. Sent to draft space and tagged.
• Created Dangi Nritya in Permalink/1375639588, with the ISBN 978-81-956774-0-5 in reference nr. 2 which does not exist.
• Produced the Diff/1374920821 edit (c. 2 kB) to Vaishali Harin Gohil in 29 seconds, which they created in Diff/1374920715 (AbuseLog/45123058) with a reference to a PDF file that returns an incomplete/wrong page instead.
• Created Indian Singers' and Musicians' Rights Association in Diff/1374668567 (AbuseLog/45110876) with an AITABLE, then added the paragraph in Diff/1374668926 in one minute, the paragraph in Diff/1374669173 in two minutes, and another paragraph in Diff/1374669547 was added in two minutes.
• Created Laxman Barot in Diff/1374511276 (AbuseLog/45104336) just 14 minutes after having created Maniraj Barot in Diff/1374509351 (AbuseLog/45104289), which has previously been deleted under A7.
• Created Lagan Geet in Diff/1374495487 (AbuseLog/45103737) with a CIRCULAR reference to Wikipedia (which is still in the current revision).

There is more, but there's so much of it that I can't list it all here. The user has made just over 150 edits, and some pretty substantial cleanup will be required. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out.

Okay, understood. I’ll check the issues and sources properly and slow down with new pages for now. Sevageet (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop using AI completely, it is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. It is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Edits to existing pages have been reverted. Do we have consensus to delete the created articles via LLMPROD? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPROD cleanup. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. M kuhner (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I've draftified their creations and left them a message. They've already reviewed a couple, which I've left in mainspace and need double checking (they're almost all stubs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Suspicious paragraphs added to Ne Zha (2019 film)

 Louii ii.Z (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 
This issue is currently under review. 

 Zypher06 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 
This issue is currently under review. 

 Felix0312 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 
This issue is currently under review. 

All three accounts have only edited Ne Zha (2019 film) to add paragraphs exhibiting a few AISIGNS (see talk page) and haven't made any other edits since the day each account was registered. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:ZamboniZoomer

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-09-19_ZamboniZoomer, 33 pages need review.

I am particularly concerned about the edits made by User:ZamboniZoomer. Here is a look at the user's list of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/ZamboniZoomer&target=ZamboniZoomer&offset=&limit=500 As you can see, of 455 edits, the majority of the edits are over 500 characters (57 edits over 1,000 characters, 35 edits over 2,000 characters, 13 edits over 3,000 characters, 11 edits over 4,000 characters, 4 edits over 5,000 characters, 7 edits over 6,000 characters, 2 edits over 7,000 characters), which is particularly unusual for a new editor. Take a look at this shocking amount of characters supposedly typed within a 28-minute period:

• 20:19, 1 September 2025 diff hist +1,078 Kimono added Kamakura and Muromachi period along with images and paintings from that time thank
• 20:16, 1 September 2025 diff hist +1,913 Kimono →Heian period to Azuchi–Momoyama period (794–1600): Expanded Heian Period and Added images thank
• 20:12, 1 September 2025 diff hist +740 Kimono →Yamato period to Nara period (300–794): Added images and expanded Nara period thank Tag: Disambiguation links added
• 20:08, 1 September 2025 diff hist +780 Kimono →History: added brief History and also for information from Edo period thank
• 20:06, 1 September 2025 diff hist +3,048 Kimono →History: added more information from Muramachi period thank
• 20:05, 1 September 2025 diff hist +1,035 Kimono →History: added brief history from Kofun Period thank
• 20:01, 1 September 2025 diff hist +6,563 Kimono →Parts of Kimono: added parts of Kimono along with Visuals (images) thank
• 20:00, 1 September 2025 diff hist +1,576 Kimono added parts of Kimono, expanding this section thank
• 19:55, 1 September 2025 diff hist +388 Kimono →Formality: added a small section of Kimono for Formal wear for men thank
• 19:54, 1 September 2025 diff hist +3,153 Kimono →Formality: added types of Formal wear type of Kimono depending on occasion and or ceremony (court functions ect) thank
• 19:52, 1 September 2025 diff hist +891 Kimono →Formality: added Kimono as women’s formal wear, Kurotomesode, Irotomesode, Furisod thank
• 19:51, 1 September 2025 diff hist +1,587 Kimono →Types of kimono: added types of Kimono that classified according to TPO (time, place, occasion) of wearing into formal wear, semi-formal wear, informal formal wear, and everyday wear thank

It is simply not possible for a person to thoroughly research, compose, and type out all of that information within a few minutes or even seconds of previous edits. It must be being copied and pasted directly from an LLM. This also seems to be the case for the overwhelming majority of the user's other edits, which involve adding thousands of characters of text within minutes of even seconds of previous large-scale edits.

Someone needs to go through all of this user's edits and remove their AI-generated content from the respective pages. I also suggest changing their current status of "partially blocked" to a permanent ban. This is absolutely terrible editing practice and does considerable harm. The amount of effort required to fix this user's edits is incalculable. Nicholas0 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup is certainly needed, if it hasn't already been done in the year since this user was partially blocked from mainspace, but since they haven't edited any articles since then, I'm not seeing that any additional administrator actions are needed. Here's the ANI thread from back then: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1203#h-Disruptive_editing_by_ZamboniZoomer-20251013124600

I've created a tracker (excluding edits less than +/- 35 bytes): 50 pages are affected. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Sajjadmrt

 Cleanup has been requested.

I haven't investigated AI use in articles, though @Joy has raised the concern on Sajjadmrt's talk page and draftified Draft:Nevenka Košutić Brozović for it. User responded with AI comments twice Special:diff/1375718750 and Special:diff/1375718750, and had previously responded with a suspiciously AI sounding comment -- Special:diff/1375176507 -- when I raised concern about unattributed translation in the article Maria Mayen, in which Sajjadmrt agrees profusely and says they understand. They've since created another unattributed translation: Krystyna Secomska, which even cite in his comment to Joy, while taking no steps to repair attribution in previous translations, of which there appear to be many. I think this raises the possibility that these articles could all be unverified LLM translations. —BrechtBro (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:BD2412

 BD2412 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

There is a chatbot block in Diff/1375743607 (no filter log link because admins and extendedconfirmed users are exempt from the 1369 edit filter), which was partially removed in Diff/1375743631 a few seconds later.

There's UTM params showing ChatGPT use in AbuseLog/45026383, AbuseLog/44822766, AbuseLog/44608389, AbuseLog/44426150, AbuseLog/43254725, AbuseLog/43137583, and AbuseLog/42846839.

This user is an admin and has autopatrolled granted. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Per our AI policy: "Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review". I work well within the bounds of those policies. I do my own writing, as I have for the thousands of Wikipedia articles I wrote before AI even existed. These days I run my latest revisions through ChatGPT basically as a spelling/grammar/consistency checker. Occasionally I will have it look for better sources supporting specific points that I would like to cover, and when it does, I verify those sources before adding them to an article. I would note that all of the articles cited were painstakingly created over dozens of edits, and that virtually all of this work was done in draft space. Since long before AI existed, I have always checked my work for correctness against sources before moving from draftspace to mainspace. BD2412 T 21:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Going through these, for example:

This edit, for John Deaton, is literally just me adding the sentence "He and his wife, Maria F. Deaton, divorced in 2007", with a source. I wrote the sentence, and I checked the source, which says "The Deatons filed for divorce on June 5, 2007, and a formal divorce hearing was held on December 18, 2007".

This edit, for Superpower (ability), is literally just me moving a line to the end of the paragraph and adding a source for the contention that "superpower" has come to be used as a mundane buzzword.

This edit, on Draft:James O'Brien (judge), is literally me copying two lines from a source (itself published in 2009), in a quotation template.

I could go on, but that's the gist of it. BD2412 T 22:15, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Violistic01

Hi, I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this inquiry. On the Tico-Tico no Fubá page, I noticed a section (Tico-Tico no Fubá#Notable arrangements and performances) that struck me as potentially being AI-generated. The main tell is the "superficial analyses" ("highlighting", "offering", "emphasizing" etc.), as the Signs of AI writing policy page puts it. Looking at the editor who added it, Violistic01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I noticed other articles they created had similar tells. Examples of this include 12 Etudes for Viola and Havun Havun (medieval Armenian chant). I've linked to the first revision in both cases. The first sentence on 12 Etudes for Viola is nonstandard (explaining what the suite does rather than what it is) and the whole article seems to be "justifying" the suite's notability, with a "Legacy" section at the end that does so the most explicitly. The Havun Havun page is similar, using terms like "celebrated" and "praised" without citing them. Both pages also use curly quotes. Please correct me if I have done anything wrong. Serena Strawberry (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

They're blocked sitewide from iowiki for writing in esperanto (not the wiki's language), and from plwiki for creating content using machine translation when they don't speak the language. Special:AbuseLog/41117047 (June 2025) cited Wikipedia, but other than that they've triggered no relevant edit filters Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Serena Strawberry, you haven't done anything wrong: this is the right noticeboard and that's a nice clear report. I examined Tico Tico and certainly share your suspicions. I'll try to do a source analysis tonight. M kuhner (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Ticatsfan1999

User has been repeatedly warned about AI usage. Their latest creation New Orleans Hurricanes (currently tagged for CSD under WP:G15) exhibits multiple overt and blatant WP:LLMSIGNS. Needs some action at this point... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Avertcool and Hallucination article

 Avertcool (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Needs reviewHallucination (artificial intelligence)

A "major rewrite" which was reverted by Alenoach, contested, then tagged by Aitraintheeditorandgamer. With that back-and-forth, I think this warrants a closer look. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Itsetsyoufree32

Itsetsyoufree32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know whether their more recent article creations are AI, but their older stuff, e.g., Special:Diff/1207067237, absolutely is. (some of those older articles have subsequently been GAs, have not checked what proportion of the AI slop is in the GA version, but make no mistake, it started as slop) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

AI sovereignty

 Cleanup has been requested.

• AI sovereignty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Newish article from a user who seems to be posting a lot of LLM-generated comments on talk pages. Topics like this tend to draw proponents and are a little suspicious to begin with, but this one looks fishy to me. But it's short, so I wouldn't mind someone else taking a look. Thanks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:11, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Prodijal son

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Prodijal son (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 September 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Editor was given a notice about LLM use in March 2026 and warned in May 2026 but did not seem to respond to those notices and continued to create apparently LLM-generated articles. I would like help with evaluating whether there's a strong enough pattern to make some of the articles eligible for LLMPROD.

Evaluated and tagged

DraftifiedDraft:Turborealism

Needs reviewYury Usachyov (musician)  Appears to be a translation, might be ok

Needs reviewThe Bath of Pallas

Needs reviewHymn to Delos (Callimachus)  This was in DYK

Needs review1961 Fars earthquake

DraftifiedDraft:Begemotion Records

DraftifiedDraft:Harassment (novel)  Likely partly a translation

Needs reviewHymn to Artemis (Callimachus)

Needs reviewSouthern Collegiate Baseball League  Already tagged by another editor in May 2026

Needs reviewDraslovka Holding

Not evaluated or tagged

Needs reviewDelaware Sportswriters and Broadcasters Association

Needs reviewJochū (maid)

Needs reviewGRANI Center

Needs reviewPetrochemical Holding GmbH

Needs reviewDeti Picasso

Needs reviewHymn to Zeus (Callimachus)

Needs reviewCystacanth

Needs reviewAlameda County District Attorney

Needs reviewSlava Veder  Has been edited by others, but original author text is still 81%

Needs reviewSidonie (Brumov-Bylnice)

Needs reviewThe Great Wall (1962 film)

Needs reviewThe Doll Master (2023 film)

Needs review1956 Hormozgan earthquake

Needs review1932 Mazandaran earthquake

Needs review1924 Java earthquake

Needs review1911 Kerman earthquake

There are many more earthquake articles, but my hands are tired. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

User:ProjectAutomate

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Same old same old, AI edit summaries, markdown, etc. out the wazoo; the pattern of editing has not changed since I pointed this out on their talk page and they said they used "a tool." (Why does no one ever specify what "tool" they are using? Why do people say stuff like "clearly I used a tool" as if they are stunned to discover their own actions?) Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)