Wikipedia

Wikipedia:AI noticeboard

Latest comment: 1 hour ago by BengalMC in topic User:BengalMC (and alts)

AI noticeboard
Shortcuts

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.
  • General discussion about AI use and policies should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup or one of the village pumps.
  • 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  • To view all open cases (including those whose reports have been archived), see Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases.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

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago21 comments6 people in discussion

Archives 1–6

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply
Also probably worth going through G15 notices, only ~500 of them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
Red X 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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

Archive 7

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

Archives 8–9

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
(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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

ANI edition

edit

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)Reply

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

User:DJ71park

edit

User:BiscuitsBeforeBias

edit

User:Cytoscape

edit

User:FerIow

edit

User:Alfiechidzik denying blatant LLM usage

edit

User:Thomson Walt

edit

User:Cyberkiborg

edit

User:Stardust20

edit

User:2006mar

edit

User:Middleground1

edit

MeloMaster

edit

User:Indinfokmr

edit

User:Noboyo

edit

User:Utkarsh Nandan Oreya

edit

User:Chiserc

edit

User:Kent Wang

edit

User: FeedMeGrapes

edit

User:AkaneNel

edit

The Sergei

edit

User:Wolf july

edit

User:Garudindflamewing

edit

User:Kagerou47

edit

User:Capankajsmilyo

edit

User:RogerYg

edit

User:Campaigner1942

edit

User:Shivaji Mitra

edit

User:Fabal77

edit

User:Electragod77

edit

User:BoonDock

edit

User:金色黎明

edit

User:EZPopoluv

edit

User:Rednaxela1962

edit

User:Martinpri

edit

User:Kskhh

edit

User:Benigo36

edit

User:2screeny2

edit

User:Curt1us

edit

User:Tipkorir

edit

User:CockroachHunter

edit

Yucalyptus

edit

User:Wikieual

edit

User:ManoiCMU

edit

User:Peoplelikeyoulikeme

edit

Possible AI usage by Whiskerpedia

edit

User:Troy26Castillo

edit

User:Eliezer1987

edit

User:DrMatzahBall

edit

User:RETR0kiT

edit

User:Ticatsfan1999

edit

User:Itsetsyoufree32

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

No relevant edit filter hits. Their only creation started as Special:Permalink/1179675945 (Oct 2023), is that chatbot comms or just some tool I've never seen before? They've overwritten some redirects in Sept 2026 , Special:Permalink/1373810387 (8 Sept) has some errors. They've never been warned, so I've asked them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's old wizard text Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have worked with AI agents in the past, but that was before March 2026, where I saw a guideline change was passed that people could be banned for generating articles using AI. Since that time I've avoided using it for generating text.
The current state of the Washington DC Temple's GA is well written and backed by quality sources. During the review, the reviewer went through various sources that needed to be fixed and I corrected them by hand. If there are any mistakes in the article, I am happy to rectify them.
I have been experimenting with letting AI find the sources for me, where I verify information from the sources before I post, (and where I type out the information it gives me by hand on a separate document), asking it to pull from articles to give details.
Has the policy changed since March? Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The current guideline is at WP:NOLLM.
Can you tell us during what period articles were made using LLM? This would really help with cleanup efforts and avoid the risk of messing with non-LLM articles by mistake. Thanks! M kuhner (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Special:Diff/1317908971 (Oct 2025) has some signs, Special:Diff/1273718930 (Feb 2025) might be AI or just ordinary promotional writing. Special:Diff/1273105424 (Jan 2025) makes me think these are AI. Special:Diff/1227275071 (June 2024) has human signs, Special:Diff/1253440166 (Oct 2024, not mobile) uses emdash and curly quotes where they'd previously used hyphens and straight quotes. I'd put the start date at 22 Oct 2024. Making a tracker Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
actually I didn't get an end date, idk when that'd be Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, that's good to know with the current status of the guideline, thank you. From what I can tell, it seems like using it for sources (as I mentioned above) isn't part of reasons for blocking. I just want to be clear, is this considered a warning? It was mentioned above that I've "never been warned," so I wanted to check (I want to avoid any sanctions on my account that could lead to me being banned).
I'd like articles I've worked with to not be deleted wholesale, and I'd like to help with cleanup where I can. When I was using AI to generate text for articles, I did my best to review and verify all the information that came from each source before I uploaded it, so the prose will likely be what needs the most work. Near the beginning I didn't know much about Wikipedia's rules for promotional language, and I cleaned it up the more I went.
I'm aware this doesn't 'grandfather' anything in for AI usage, but I thought it would be helpful to know for cleanup efforts for identifying where things need work. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

AI sovereignty

edit

User:ProjectAutomate

edit

User:Vasyatka1

edit

User:Educatedblkman1914

edit

User:Harold9595959

edit

User:VirtualStoic

edit

User:Tiny Particle

edit

User:Bwoart

edit

User:Yeshu972

edit

User:TheBirdsShedTears

edit

User:BLTSandwicher

edit

Stockton High School (Illinois) signs of AI use

edit
Latest comment: 17 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion
signs of AI use Stockton High School (Illinois) by @Issac I Navarro
LLM phrasing "highlights its importance" and Potential notes published in text reference/citation:[6][7]
First edit 2024-08-23 23:20
Total edits 12,038
Unique pages edited 6,059

~2026-51227-54 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The line "highlights its importance" was added in Old revision of Stockton High School (Illinois). Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
2024's still in range for AI (and that phrasing is more typical of 2024 than 2026), looks like it was added by User:Dfsjlk1 as part of a spree of article expansions (Newcomer Tasks strikes again!), several of which (e.g. Special:Diff/1241459378) also seem like AI Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Gnomingstuff, I am looking at that history section, and while this may bring the article down to a stub class, I think most if not all of it could be WP:RMV. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Somehow I missed that Dfsjlk1's userpage outright says "edits are ai-assisted" so yeah Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Special:AbuseLog/39693065 and Special:AbuseLog/44139977 triggered filter 1325. Special:Permalink/1258533023 (Nov 2024) had markdown link and red cat. LLM use appears to stop early- to mid-2025, @Issac I Navarro?
For Dfsjlk1 Special:AbuseLog/38521674 (August 2024) cited Wikipedia, only live creation is Leif Erickson Park (Sept 2024) which had a category that was deleted 6 years ago, AITITLECASE, AILIST, mostly unsourced, AITREND ( as part of the City of Saskatoon’s broader efforts to revitalize local parks), AIVOCAB ("highlights"), AI-tagged by Gnoming in Jan; LLMPRODed. Active from March 2024 to Jan 2025, see Special:Diff/1241078886 (their first large edit) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Kowal2701, I joined in February 2024, and if you look at many of my earliest of edits, you’ll see that they contain quite a mountain of mistakes. All me, trying and failing to contribute.
Of course that is no longer the case, I have since tried to go back and rectify many mistakes I made when I was WP:NOOB. That is partly why I joined WikiProject Schools, since many of my first edits were related to schools articles that I unfortunately mucked up because I really didn't know what I was doing. And probably gave too many overly kind editors a headache.
That is why, I always assume good faith with others as there was a time when I had no clue but wanted to contribute. It is just unfortunate that many of my earliest ones are kinda of nonsense; looking back.
There is also: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Issac%20I%20Navarro/all and Issac I Navarro (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can you give a date range in which we should look for LLM-written articles and edits? It would be really helpful in guiding cleanup, and can protect valid articles/edits from possible removal. Thanks! M kuhner (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(just want to reiterate -- the text pointed out here was not added by Isaac, it's User:Dfsjlk1 whose userpage discloses it's AI Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:HistorianSemiAmateur

edit

User:JL 09

edit

User:Avi8tor

edit

User:Divnanoc

edit

User:Vncdengc

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago21 comments6 people in discussion
notified  Vncdengc (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (24 September 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Lots of large and rapid edits, talk page full of dab notices. For example Diff/1376453081 is c. 2 kB and was produced in two minutes, Diff/1376433676 is c. 10 kB and was produced in eight minutes, and Diff/1376428243 is c. 5 kB produced in six minutes. Lots of election boxes and tables. There is a lot to go through, not many filter log entries, no markdown. Could use more eyes. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello,
I wish to clarify that AI is used exclusively for editing repetitive tasks, not for generating information or any hallucinated content. My use of AI is limited to editing election results and electoral history—tasks that both AI and humans are capable of performing, but which AI can complete within seconds. You are welcome to verify any article; there is no hallucinated information present. AI/LLMs are employed only for editing templates and handling repetitive tasks, which would yield the same result even if performed by a human. Please consider this before issuing any notice. I kindly request you to withdraw the notice. Vncdengc (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
but which AI can complete within seconds
See WP:LLM: LLM-generated text often violates several of Wikipedia’s core content policies, and can be produced at a rate that makes review by other editors infeasible (emphasis mine). Northern Moonlight 09:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wish to clarify that my edits consist of updating constituency results and electoral history of Indian constituencies, sourced directly from official records. The AI/LLM simply reproduces the text exactly as it appears in the official PDF source. As such, I believe there is no possibility of error, and the content is easily verifiable. I have not produced any article containing hallucinated text. My work is strictly confined to this scope. I kindly request you to review my contributions before proceeding with any action. Vncdengc (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The long list of disambiguation-page links you've added to articles, as reported on your talk page, immediately disproves your claim that there is no possibility of error. That point doesn't need to be discussed any more.
Furthermore, it doesn't actually matter whether you believe that or not. WP:NOLLM disallows using AI to generate article contents, including in the way you've been doing it. You need to stop this at once, and commit to not doing it in the future.
Lastly, please don't use an LLM to talk to us here: WP:LLMCOMM. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have no business to talk about this, and I'm not using any LLM. Kindly mind your language. Please don't jump to conclusions before verifying whether I actually used an LLM for the text Vncdengc (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you read WP:NOLLM, you will see this line: The use of large language models (LLMs)[a] to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited. As I said above, this includes the way you have been using them for the tables of electoral results. Please confirm whether you will stop using LLMs to generate article content here. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
When it comes to reviewing your contributions, I'm also wondering how I (or any other reader unacquainted with the Indian electoral system) could do so, since I don't see any references in the tables you've added. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, there is absolutely no guarantee that there is no hallucinated information present or that this would yield the same result even if performed by a human. The problem here is exactly that AI can complete [the text] within seconds, which is one of the reasons that the WP:NOLLM guideline disallows the use of AI on the English Wikipedia. Another problem is that this also means that you can't have read your own edits, it is simply not feasible for you to have adequately validated every single number at the rate that you have been submitting edits. Using AI to write articles is actually much slower than doing it yourself, we know this because of the data published by WikiEd. It is also completely immaterial that you believe there is no possibility of error, because there is a very real possibility of a lot of errors and, maybe more importantly, you are now not allowed to use AI on the English Wikipedia.
Writing Wikipedia articles is not an easy task, and it is not supposed to be easy or fast. If you are not willing to put in the work and the effort required to write encyclopaedic entries then you shouldn't be doing it. And I also want to know the same as Suðurhafsljósæta, can you commit to stop using AI on the English Wikipedia? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please revert any changes you wanted to make and do whatever you feel is right. I was only here to contribute. Do whatever you want don't message me again. I'm done. Vncdengc (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
We have agreement from Vncdengc for LLMPRV. I'm trying to find out whether there's a plausible start date for LLM use for a tracker, but not found one so far. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Two tracker pages made, because the AIC article list template didn't want to display correctly with more than about 700 items in it. Is that a known issue? There are 1457 pages in total, excluding changes under +/-35 bytes. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's a known issue and hard to fix--the template parsing machinery gets overwhelmed. M kuhner (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! So do I, looking at this list of pages. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’ll dedicate some time to go through them and get it done - but yeah, when I saw the number I as well was like ugh! Hasekidms (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, please do not revert all articles, some articles are relevant, do check those articles, do not blindly revert all articles. Vncdengc (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Idk, on what basis all articles are reverted. Do look at them, if they are relevant retain them and ask for citation. No one has right to delete all my contributions without any reason. Vncdengc (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
On the basis that the English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material, and that these are AI-generated articles. The "relevancy" of these articles are immaterial because the WP:NOLLM guideline prohibits AI-generated material. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not all articles are AI generated. And what basis you are labelling the articles are AI generated ones. Please mention the reason and then proceed with deletion Vncdengc (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Things we look for are listed at WP:AISIGNS. The guideline that allows us to delete further articles without close examination once a pattern of LLM use is established is at WP:LLMPRV. Yes, this sometimes results in deletion of an innocent article; but given that LLM articles can be generated very rapidly, it's necessary to have a rapid process for dealing with them.
I will note that you were specifically told one of the signs we saw, in the initial post in this thread. You really should have noticed your talk page filling up with error reports when you wiki-linked to disambiguation pages. There are forty-one such error reports on your page (by my quick count)--it is difficult to believe in your error free editing process, given that. This is a mistake everyone makes once or twice, but to make it 41 times suggests you are not taking much responsibility for correctness of your work. M kuhner (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have nerved myself up to apply mass rollback due to the large number of articles involved. There may be complaints from other editors: please direct them at me. I can't update the tracker while doing this, unfortunately. M kuhner (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

~2026-49615-10

edit

User:Hrvatskaeditor

edit

User:Preferwiki

edit

Er-gg1ab 2

edit

User:Acratopotes

edit

User:Huletitaliator

edit

User:MargaritaPLV

edit

User:GRohan2002

edit

User:Judy6341

edit

User:JMvanDijk

edit

User:EdwinAlden.1995

edit

User:UzbukUdash

edit

User:Arts culture editor

edit

User:Tpbradbury

edit

User:Wikisadia16

edit

User:Third003

edit

User:TheCraftyCailleach

edit

User:Grifomaniacs

edit

User:JhowieNitnek

edit

User:System tinker 90

edit

Tithayaramepasiyantu

edit

User:PrabhatRanaWiki

edit

User:Nsokolsky

edit

User:Waxapple

edit

User:WindBorneListener

edit

User:WellHelloBuddy

edit

User:LeSablierZeus

edit

User:Yikes9272

edit

User:Wikibenchris

edit

User:Ebubedike1

edit

User:Nordfjording

edit

User:Ipflo

edit

User:Agus Damanik

edit

User:AFeatherlessBipehead

edit

User:Help.Football.History

edit

User:Vanderwaalforces (again)

edit

HRShami

edit

User:Praseodymium-141

edit

User:Wk3v78k23tnsa (again)

edit
Latest comment: 9 hours ago15 comments5 people in discussion
mainblock  Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (2 October 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

tracker linked in from previous case

Previously.

It appears that Wk3v78k23tnsa is at it again, despite knowing about the AI guidelines and supposedly agreeing to follow them. Sample articles Special:Diff/1366901964 and Special:Diff/1366441168. Isn't it so weird how their writing has suddenly taken on the characteristics of mid-2026 AI output (most obviously AIDISCLAIMER absolutely everywhere)? Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think a mainspace block is necessary here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Red X Blocked Wk3v78k23tnsa from article space for LLM misuse. — Newslinger talk 14:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello. I will re-re-re-review WP:LLM. Sorry about creating extra work for everyone. Certainly was not the intent. Just got a little ai-lazy once in a while when digging for reliable sources. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
BTW - Not denying I use ai to polish and refine articles. I just have to remember to use more judiciously and adhere to this: "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." I will do as I did before and clean up articles that may have drifted into autopilot. (When you write/edit full time 9-5 outside of Wiki with merciless deadlines, it's easy to cut corners, and AI, sadly, has become a bit addictive that way.) Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Wk3v78k23tnsa for the honesty. I'm not an admin, but I'd suggest submitting a few drafts through WP:AFC before appealing the block (there's also some advice at WP:GAB) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you kindly. This is very helpful (did not know these pages existed). Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello. First AfC draft has been submitted here: Draft:Skating (song) Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Second AfC submitted here: Draft:Great Pumpkin Waltz Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wk3v78k23tnsa, are you using a chatbot for copyediting or something like Grammarly or MS Copilot? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Primarily Hemingway Editor. Also occasionally Slickwrite, PerfectIt, Quillbot. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wk3v78k23tnsa, all of those apart from PerfectIt are LLM-powered, please make sure you're strictly following the point at WP:NOLLM on copyediting, I know it's strict but it's for good reason (LLM-powered copyeditors often go beyond their scope to rewrite sentences and introduce WP:V failures) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:53, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Understood, and thanks for pointing that out. Most of my edits begin with material I've already discovered in reliable sources WP:V. then I work on tightening the wording and keeping it within what the source actually supports. I generally prefer that kind of WP:GNOME work over creating new articles. I'll be more careful about the copyediting tools used and make sure any changes remain within WP:NOLLM. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Third AfC submitted here: Draft:Little Birdie (Vince Guaraldi song) Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have linked in the tracker from the previous case. Some articles had been marked "Completed" by their author; I have reversed those tags as I see no evidence they are correct. Requesting consensus for cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:PorkNBeanz

edit

User:InkstoneAtlas

edit

User:Kristan2025

edit

User:MNWiki845

edit

User:Тараненко Артем

edit

User:Warpandas

edit

User:Berocca Addict

edit

User:StormL00ver

edit

User:Paperbirch32

edit

User:Ananya Taye (2)

edit

User:Ditaap13

edit

User:HerBauhaus

edit

User:Give Up

edit

User:Aqsis Bey

edit

Draft:Artificial intelligence in journalism

edit
Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I know this is not really the place, but I want members of the noticeboard to be aware of the short draft I created a while ago for Artificial intelligence in journalism. Not only is Wikipedia being filled with AI content, most major journalistic outlets are as well. I notice unattributed AI content almost daily in the publications I read. This is likely not going to change. Please pass the draft to anyone who might be interested in building it out. It will truly be an essential article for the text-based project of Wikipedia. Thriley (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

WT:AIC and WT:AISIGNS would be good pages to notify (this noticeboard is already struggling under the weight of active cleanup cases, so I think the other project talk pages would be preferred for project talk). —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 02:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good idea. I also just noticed Automated journalism exists.. Thriley (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

"MediaWiki MCP Server"

edit

User:Pachu1

edit

User:The Regulator 1

edit

User:GShas

edit

User:YousifMustafa881

edit

AFC drafts - new feature in Wizard

edit
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a point of information for those who monitor this noticeboard but are not AFC reviewers. There is a new addition to the WP:Article wizard where AFC submitting editors are clearly asked to identify any AI usage, including the script used. Here is an example of one such usage and there is a visible Claude script attached. Naturally there are some AI scripts which emulate the Wizard, and so implied in the History log, and which are in fact no such thing. And these scripts won't be asking / reproducing this recent change to the Wizard either. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Turwaq

edit

User:ScottyNolan

edit

Shencypeter again

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Shencypeter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been at this noticeboard less than two months ago (thread), and yet I have a strong suspicion they are continuing to use LLMs to generate talk page messages at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner, as there are a lot of AI tells in their writing. When challenged they first deflected and are now outright refusing to address the issue. Danners430 tweaks made 07:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Courtesy link: Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner § For the Record
‑‑gurkubondinn 11:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Chatbot block in AbuseLog/45313645, despite being aware of NOLLM by now. Have also tried talking some sense in User talk:Shencypeter § AIN discussion. but unfortunately I don't seem to have gotten through. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wondering whether it's worth going to ANI here given their response Danners430 tweaks made 12:15, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Militant.Insurgency

edit

User:RuthStevens

edit

User:Wester2

edit

Soviet Union national football team all-time record

edit

User:LifeLearning

edit

User:Official06

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago18 comments6 people in discussion
CLEANUP COMPLETED
SPI in progress. (non-admin closure) M kuhner (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

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.

Green checkmarkY Cleanup has been completed, see /2026-10-08_Official06 for reference.

Official06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would appreciate another pair of eyes on this one. They created an article about Hamam al-Hammami (Omani pilot), now deleted because the subject relates to a contentious topic and Official06 isn't yet extended-confirmed, which I happened to see because they posted about it here: Wikipedia:Help desk § Hamam al-Hammami (Omani pilot). The article was 31k, created in a single edit, with lots of extraneous and wordy sub-headings and many of the currently-typical "According to an article in Newspaper X...", "Newspaper Y reported that..." phrasings.

I actually just noticed that, before their last message in that help desk thread, they posted and deleted a different message with (imo) a different writing style, also denying LLM usage: Special:Diff/1378267112.

Having noticed that, I have quickly taken a look at their most recently created pages.

  • Sons of Abotani: The Misings: reference 1 says nothing about cultural identity; reference 2 is the film itself at the Internet Archive and doesn't say anything about Dilip Doley; references 3 and 4 do support the information about the film's prizes at the 39th National Film Festival, but ref 3 also reviews the film and mentions its being shown at a different festival, none of which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
  • Desert Doc (Documentary): references 2 and 3 are the exact same article; references 5 and 6 are also the exact same article; reference 4 links to a barebones series page on Prime Video (in Malay, for me at least?) and doesn't give any of the episode-specific information it's supposed to support in the article.

I don't have time right now to look deeper into this, but my AI senses are tingling. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh hey, you can still see the Omani pilot details in the filter log, here: Special:AbuseLog/45292500. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's worse than I remembered. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Was about to mention that, I often copy the wikitext (found in the "New page wikitext" or "Old page wikitext" if the log entry is not of the initial edit) into my sandbox and look at it in the preview if I don't want to just read the wikitext. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Useful tip, thanks! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Several of their creations were WP:G5'd saying they were by a sock of Alakmarsaify, but the account isn't blocked and is listed as possible/inconclusive at SPI (I've asked whether them both using LLMs changes anything) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
The SPI thread suggests that the G5's were an overreach as the account was not (and is not) blocked as a sock.
Their most recent article Sons of Abotani: The Misings has some issues.
Source 1 disagrees with the article and other sources on the year of the film, and with source 2 on its length; the embedded copy of the film is severely truncated compared to the one in source 2; it misspells the director's name. It's hard to think this is a reliable source. It also fails to confirm almost everything sourced to it, not mentioning erosion, social change, or cultural preservation. (You could argue this is a plot summary and sourced to the film itself, I guess, but it is very far from the summary given in source 1's text part.)
Source 2 is an archived copy of the film. Examining its end-credits yields "Ideas & Script: Doley, Gogoi, Choudhuri, Bora" which is not exactly confirmation of "Doley wrote the screenplay." There is nothing to confirm the biographical information about Doley given in the article, or "was his first non-feature film". (Source 4 says it was his first film, period.)
Source 3 does not mention Doley despite being used to support his receipt of an award. (Source 4 confirms he did; this could be the LLM tic of putting a true statement in the mouth of the wrong source.)
Looks like LLM to me. (Also like PAID.) M kuhner (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Whoops, duplicated Suðurhafsljósæta's analysis above by mistake.
On their first day on the account, they added an electric vehicle manufacturer to an article on an Indian movie Penn Jenmam. They changed the title of the infobox to the company name, but not the infobox contents. A TA promptly reverted this. I can't say it's LLM (too short), but it's sure not okay.
I'm just going to make a tracker for the whole time period; they started Sept. 22, if they are using LLMs now they likely were then too. M kuhner (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Requesting consensus for cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support cleanup. Kisseran (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support cleanup. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support cleanup. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:12, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Give it time. Inconclusive CU doesn't equate to a closed case. Many of the socks are blocked on behavior. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 22:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not clear what should wait. I am proposing we clean it up because it's identified LLM, using criterion 1D of WP:LLMPRV. In the future it may or may not be revealed as socking, but the LLM has to go in either case, so I don't think waiting for SPI makes sense. They have very different priorities than AINB: in particular SPI does not much care about inactive or old accounts, but AINB does. M kuhner (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I meant that the G5s were premature (which has already been discussed) but not necessarily incorrect. If you want to work cleanup on articles that may be summarily deleted anyway that's up to you. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 22:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
If an article looks suitable for LLM-related deletion we'll LLMPROD it. A bit slower than speedy but does the job. Generally creations can't actually be cleaned up so are either LLMPROD or tagged as AI-generated. Edits can be checked and cleaned up or tagged.
I'm trying to be aggressive in getting cases moving, because otherwise they just accumulate. M kuhner (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
In this case they have a history of warring against any attempts to address content issues, so we often have to just sit back and wait for the block to drop before we can actually make any headway. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 23:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Masterofthename

edit

SourceSeekerr

edit

User:Governor Sheng

edit

User:Author144

edit

Deceptecon

edit

User:Linaduliban

edit

User:Lord of Fantasy

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments3 people in discussion
warned  Lord of Fantasy (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 October 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Lord of Fantasy (talk · contribs), XTools

Triggered llm paste check 5 times over the past week or so , Special:AbuseLog/44747860 (28 July) had chatgpt params. Effectively took a break between March 2025 and Feb 2026. Have given their first warning Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: do llm paste checks count as warnings? (phab:T420258 has info on it) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
While these do count as warnings, they are easy to hide and I would consider a proper talk page warning like yours necessary before a block. If they resume this behavior, I can block from mainspace and draftspace.
Their only post-warning edit, Special:Diff/1379015477 is quite odd – I'm not especially convinced of them leaving acknowledged AI content as a placeholder, and the paste check also triggered in edits such as Special:Diff/1378939074 outside of the plot section (...and this, by the way, is why it would be great to see the content that triggered PasteCheck warnings!) Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Chaotic Enby. I prefer seeing a clear warning (not just a notification) on the user talk page followed by evidence of willful disregard of that warning before I block anyone. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
in Special:Diff/1379015477 they said only the plot section is AI, and indicated they'll stop using it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Cf. my comment above, not 100% convinced of this. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:58, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Communityupdater2847

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion
notified  Communityupdater2847 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 October 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

First a TA triggers the LLM paste check in Diff/1376646757 on Venus Bay, Victoria, then the new account Communityupdater2847 reinstates the edit in Diff/1376816134 and also makes the large Diff/1376842025 edit to Nunawading Christian College, which triggers the other paste checks. Reinstates the edits to Venus Bay again in Diff/1378816038 with an edit summary that says no LLM used, after Catfurball had reverted. After I tagged the Venus Bay article as {{ai-generated}}, the tag was first removed in Diff/1378848982 calling it a false AI content flag and then again removed in Diff/1379021789 with a similar edit summary.

The Venus Bay edit has AIATTR like ..., Venus Bay attracted national media attention after a 12-year-old boy from Taylors Hill, Melbourne, went missing ... sourced to an ABC Australia article, which does not support the claim that this "attracted national attention". The claim that the place sits on a dynamic barrier sand spit system is sourced to a tourism website, that doesn't support that the sand spit is dynamic (nor does the article explain what these terms mean).

Communityupdater2847 has also denied any AI use in § October 2026 on their user page, saying that the edits made to the Venus Bay article were not generated using AI or an LLM, and in § False AI flag. on my talk page they say that they are happy to talk about this issue but that the edit is not AI generated. Supposedly these edits were made during some sort of community information nights, so I am not sure if Communityupdater2847 and the TA are the same person or not. I'm less sure about the edits made to article on the christian school than I am about the Venus Bay edits that originated with the TA and was caught by the paste check. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:13, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Communityupdater2847 has also violated WP:Edit war, WP:Disruptive editing and also Communityupdater2847 is a sockpuppet of User:~2026-51778-17. Catfurball (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
It isn't sock puppetry (assuming it is the same person), because the Communityupdater2847 account was created about a minute after the TA edited. We are have been told that these edits were made during or following some community information nights, so these may plausible be different people. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted again, cleanup is completed if they don't re-revert Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Yemenicoffee

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
notified  Yemenicoffee (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 October 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Created Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad in Diff/1378451177 (log, c. 30 kB), with ref nr. 26 redirecting and then returning a 404 not found error. Reference nr. 54 in the current revision, nr. 62 in the initial revision, goes to an article with a different title. Removed a {{promotional tone}} tag in Diff/1378852045 and {{ai-generated}} tags in Special:Diff/1378865074 ( removed irrelevant things) and again in Diff/1379046189 ( all claims are sourced and language checked) but has not denied AI use. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:28, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Created Draft:Teepu Siddique (in article space, moved to draft later) in Diff/1378674503 (log), with 2x AIREDCATS and ref nr. 2 returns 404 not found. Add the nonexistent template {{Encyclopedia Britannica Entry}} in Diff/1378876398 (log). ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:35, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not denying the use. English is not my first language so I am using it for clean up and suggestions. The 404 article on Northwestern is on the internet archive. Should that be sourced to archive and not the original link? Sorry, still learning the system on wikipedia. I would be happy to be corrected and will follow the correct process. Yemenicoffee (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
The last comment was about Teepu article. For the Muhammad article. Same issues as Teepu article. Once I was pointed out by other editors, I fixed the issues as best as I could. I thought some AI usage was permitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models). Advice would be appreciated and I am happy to be corrected. Other suggestions to improving these articles would be nice too. Thank you. Yemenicoffee (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@YemenicoffeeI also noticed a separate citation error in Draft:Teepu Siddique that wasn't mentioned above: the FUS/TLS section invokes the named reference “Britannica,” but it isn't defined. The infobox also lists Pakistan as his birthplace without an inline citation. Both seem worth fixing. Machine translation is allowed, but the translation still needs to be reviewed and rewritten in your own words, rather than copy pasted directly into Wikipedia as is; see Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models for the AI-use guidance. Hasekidms (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Acknowledged. This is the britannica article that I was left out (http://britannica.com/biography/Teepu-Siddique) I will review the two articles on Muhammad and Teepu again and fix things that may still to be fixed. Yemenicoffee (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:DMVHistorian

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

ChatGPT param in Special:AbuseLog/44513527 (and other less-unambiguous dodginess in filter log), large rapidfire article creations full of AIDISCLAIMER and such. Only seems to be new articles so LLMPRODs probably in order.

This seems to have started in 2026, none of the 2024 or 2025 articles I spot checked resembled what an AI article would resemble at that time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

there's a break in creations between Special:Permalink/1332275595 (Jan 2026), which is a stub and uses a hyphen instead of a dash, and Special:Permalink/1352551590 (4 May 2026). Special:Permalink/1357055541 (31 May) is pretty promotional, Special:Permalink/1357291086 (1 June) cites Contemporary historians have regarded Gilbert as an ineffective leader of the colony. to a book from 1925, Special:Permalink/1357331737 (2 June) is the first that really reads like AI to me and Pangram says yes . LLMPRODing from 4 May Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:28, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:ProgramT

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion
notified  ProgramT (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (8 October 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Replaced the redirect Piñerismo in Diff/1379159176 (log) with AI-generated text containing markdown and dab links today. Claims to have never used an LLM except when translating articles from other language, which might mean that there are unattributed machine translations in article space. Was was warned in § April 2026 and there's a bunch of removed dab link notices in their talk page history.

Lot of the usual rapid editing, f.ex. Diff/1379173678 produced c. 2,5 kB in six minutes, Diff/1379184365 added c. 5 kB just four minutes after their previous edit to a diffferent article, Diff/1374997203 added a c. 19 kB machine translation in 36 minutes, Diff/1373140652 is c. 2 kB in eight minutes, and Diff/1371754458 produced c. 5 kB in six minutes. The various sandbox pages in their user space shows even more of this pattern. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:21, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

ProgramT (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm the one who warned ProgramT in April. This is part of a very long-term concern I've had with their sourcing. I've regularly found articles they created or that they heavily edited to contain substantial quantities of WP:SYNTH and outright failed-verification sources. As an example, I noted that the Roger Griffin source cited at Authoritarian nationalism came from a book that did not, even once, use the phrase "authoritarian nationalism". I was pretty convinced at that time that this was AI generated content on the basis that Roger Griffin is a very well-known scholar of fascism and the sort who you might instruct a chatbot to cite. At that time ProgramT insisted that they did not use AI and I left it at that - I've other things to do with my Wikipedia time than fix more bad citations from one editor I had a history of conflicts with - but it does appear that these problems have continued. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the Authoritarian nationalism article, I acknowledge that my source verification was careless and the citation of Roger Griffin was improper. Regardless of my editing intentions, failing to strictly verify references was my error. ProgramT (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can you explain in more detail your editing process, i.e. how you wrote the content, where you found that source, and how you decided to cite it? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:35, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
While researching the topic online, I gathered various references on nationalist and authoritarian political systems, including works by Roger Griffin. In the process, I confused his comprehensive analysis of fascism with the term "authoritarian nationalism" and failed to properly verify the text's precise expression and context.
Additionally, regarding the citation format, entering the book title as the chapter title for Chapter 2 was a clerical mistake on my part during manual entry.
This was a clear error in my editing process, and going forward, I will strictly double check all source details and references before making any edits. ProgramT (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ProgramT, please read WP:AITALK (based on AITALKSIGNS + ) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I just saw National Charter of Education (see the lead and history sections especially) and my AI senses started ringing. I checked ProgramT's talk page, and I'm glad other people had the same feelings.
I've seen ProgramT's explanations above and I am not convinced by them. I'm fairly confident there has been inappropriate AI usage.
Side note, I've seen ProgramT's edits for a long time and have been displeased with them. Too many issues with lax sourcing, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Now this? grapesurgeon (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Mariamnei

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mariamnei (talk · contribs), XTools

Autopatrolled, triggered llm paste check on 25 Sept and 7 Oct . Special:AbuseLog/42606763 (Oct 2025) had chatgpt params, chatbot output was found in one of their DYKs and pulled from the main page , they said they just used Gemini to help with formatting a table. I don't see anything blatant in their creations at a glance, have notified them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was involved in the DYK discussion, and there was no evidence of LLM involvement besides the formatting of the table (which is honestly a useful application). The DYK later ran on the homepage. I wouldn't consider that article remotely a problem. This edit looks like a false positive (perhaps run through an LLM for copyediting or citation formatting). Re: one edit that triggered paste check, the phrases historians have long debated the work's reliability, noting its tendency... and The Jewish War is a foundational source for the late Second Temple period of Jewish history. It remains central to... could be a little iffy, but the problem for this noticeboard is that both those statements are actually true and could easily have been written by a human based on the sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Pristino

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
mainblock  Pristino (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (8 October 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

This user dumped over 30 blatantly machine-generated articles into mainspace in a 2.5-hour span earlier today. See 1811 Chilean parliamentary election or 1822 Chilean Convention Preparatoria. They were previously warned about LLM use in May. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

21k edits, long-term user. Markdown 8 Oct, Dec 2025, and emojis in Oct 2025 . ~50 creations in the past month. Special:Permalink/1295198200 (June 2025) seems blatant. They were warned lots of times for adding deprecated infobox params, which they basically responded w "not my problem" . The warning about LLM use in May was not responded to . @Admins willing to patrol AINB: can we get a mainspace block please? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:11, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is there a quick way to mass-draftify this latest dump? I'll be happy to do so if not. JTtheOG (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so (other than WP:MTD), might be easier to just get consensus for LLMPRODs, with drafts we'd have to tag them for tracking purposes and re-review ones sent back to mainspace or untagged, which isn't really feasible give there are so many and they're all very sloppy. OTOH if they want to save them then they'd get draftified anyway. Maybe wait for a response? Idk. Some are probably G15-able? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
ref links check out for the latest 5 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Blocked from mainspace given the extensive amount of previous warnings. Note that at least the first three are marked as translated from Spanish, but at a rate showing they couldn't feasibly have gone through WP:LLMTRANSLATE. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cm3397

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
warned  Cm3397 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (9 October 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: could I get an mainspace indef? They've had multiple drafts declined for AI use yet still continue adding AI slop onto Wikipedia. Thanks. msk 22:36, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I tagged and draftified the creations in mainspace (tbh I should've left them for llmproding) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:16, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I didn't draftify because they were accepted AfC drafts (and thus don't meet the criteria for draftification); but it should be fine, hopefully msk 23:24, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
No major edits since two drafts in late September, and I would prefer to see at least one clear talk page warning rather than "just" draft declines. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:26, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Left a level 2 but I doubt they'll see it; even for AI their contribs are fast which make me suspect an agent of some kind. msk 00:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Hasekidms (2)

edit

User:TheSquirrel1432

edit

User:Morvellane

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I believe User:Morvellane has an extensive history of adding blocks of hallucinated information, which it seems has been obfuscated by their use of Japanese sources. I first noticed the egregious levels of hallucinations after trying to verify the English-language sources in Semiconductor industry in Japan, which this account created. I went through their history to verify other English-language citation use. I may have missed something while verifying these but I think it's enough cases to identify the behavioral pattern. The user has denied using AI research after having an edit flagged by another user but I don't think these kinds of edits are generally attributable to translation errors. The following list is a sample:

(Account created on 29 August 2023)

Ash.tahno (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

they've got not edit filter hits because they name-changed from "VersedVoyager67", and there's nothing w LLM-related tags in Special:Contributions/Morvellane. Special:Permalink/1276189531 (Feb 2025) had AITABLE, AILIST, promo, over-reliance on primary sources, but otherwise I'm not seeing much in their creations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, thanks for your interest in my edits. I did use AI to format my edits and spot grammatical errors back in 2023 and 2024, since English is not my first language. I apologise if this was a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.
However, regarding what you call 'hallucinations', I can assure you that most of them are either translations from the corresponding Japanese articles or, in cases such as the '11th lord', basic facts that are clearly stated in other articles (in this case Nabeshima Naohiro (Saga)). As for Mitsuo Sato, the 1998 article was reporting that he was to resign in January 1999, so I should have written something like 'In 1998, it was reported that he was to resign in January 1999'.
I am not going to explain every single edit that you find suspicious, but I am happy to correct any factual errors or citation issues. However, I do not think it is fair to say these edits are AI-generated hallucinations simply because some of the citations are unclear. Morvellane (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the clarifications and corrections. However, you stating that you simply got the information from some other unknown page for some of these edits does not address that concern at all.
On verifiability
I can't help but notice the irony of how forgiving you are with your own lack of verifiable citations when your previous contributions have edit summaries such as these, just to name a few:
  • "Remove poorly sourced, overly specific generalisations"
  • "The sources don't support this"
Also please note in that "Wikipedia itself is not an appropriate source". And since you didn't even cite the Wikipedia page, it still violates WP:BURDEN.
On individual cases
  • As previously mentioned, you created Semiconductor industry in Japan, which has unaddressed failed verifications throughout the 12-paragraph page. May I ask why you haven't defended that page from deletion at this point?
  • In the case of Japan–United Kingdom relations, can you identify where the Japanese version of the article (that you presumably translated from) mentions the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or G7? I tried finding the equivalent paragraphs in the Japanese articles but was unable to.
  • Is this an admission that you added hallucinated information before? Please explain if not, as I cannot see the close structural parallel between it and the Japanese version from the time (or now).
  • Is this also an admission of hallucinated sourcing? Why did you attribute it to an unrelated source before? Also, how does this new source address the fact that Southsea is not mentioned there either?
  • I could not locate the source you used or some of the information in the Japanese version of the article from the time (or the current version as of this post for that matter).
On fairness
It's surprising to me if you can't address a total of ~10 examples of your own work when I was able to dig through thousands of your edits just to find this limited batch of examples and specifically link them for your ease of access. I do not see at all what you find unfair if you won't even address this much. Of course, you are not obligated to defend against my specific requests. But in the same way, there is no basis to keep content from an account that adds information that cannot be defended. Ash.tahno (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would prefer to base my points on the regular lack of proper sourcing because I think that is a more fundamental issue. However, if you think it is not "fair" to only base this on hallucinated information, here is a sample review from a vocabulary detection tool. I have not really used this before, so let me know if I am not understanding the results correctly.
I looked closer at University of Tokyo, which is one of the pages the user has edited significantly. The sections (which this user) added that returned 60% Passage % by https://wikitomte.toolforge.org/ are University of Tokyo Library System , University of Tokyo Hospital , Student housing , and Law and politics .
Looking also at Tokyo, relevant sections I can find (60%) are Leisure and entertainment and Recreation (from the same edit as before).
Would this, together with what I have presented otherwise, be rigorous enough of a basis? Ash.tahno (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I acknowledge that some of my older edits have citation issues. I was too accustomed to researching a subject broadly before writing up my findings and adding citations. This sometimes resulted in citations that did not fully support every detail. I recognise the problem and I will be more careful in future.
Regarding Japan–United Kingdom relations, I intended the passages as a prose summary of the chronology further down the article, in accordance with the approach used for lead sections (WP:LEADCITE). As it would have made the lead too long, I made a separate section instead. Most of the historical events mentioned, including the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the invasion of Manchuria, the Second World War and the royal visits, were already covered in the chronology with citations. The fact that both countries belong to the G7 is basic, uncontroversial information (WP:BLUE).
I would also like to point out that it is important to distinguish insufficient citations from AI-generated hallucinations. The former does not establish the latter, nor do AI detection scores constitute reliable proof of it. As I explained, my use of AI was for language and formatting assistance. I am happy to correct specific errors, but I do not think those examples establish a pattern of AI-generated hallucinations. Morvellane (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your clarification on that case. However, please note that such a statement can have MOS:RELTIME issues and create confusion. Consider Russia's membership in the G8 Ash.tahno (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to force your involvement in this discussion, but I noticed that @Gnomingstuff, who left an LLM warning on the article I mentioned above is active here (as opposed to myself). I would appreciate your input here. Ash.tahno (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't have anything to say that I have not already said. If I wanted to say something then I would have said it. Thus, there is no reason to ping me here or frankly to anything else. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Massel77

edit

User:AmatureHistorian47

edit
Latest comment: 8 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

AmatureHistorian47 has created 58 live pages (xtools). Has had multiple articles deleted for AI slop at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodlawn Memorial Park Cemetery (New Orleans, Louisiana) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1927 Farm Creek flood. Not sure how many of their contributions are AI-generated. A recent creation, Sage Lake (6 October 2026), has a very obvious typo: long the coastline and on it's islands, so maybe more human involvement recently. It would be great if someone who knows how to identify AI-generated text could go through their articles and figure out which are AI slop, thus which can be deleted (probably PROD? I am not sure, I dont really contribute about here). Thank you. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 22:27, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

chatgpt params and lots of filter 1325 hits between May and June 2025 . Account created April 2025, the last AfD'd creation for LLM use was July 2025, received warnings in June and July 2025, their only talk page edit was Special:Diff/1300497042. The 18 July 2025 warning seems to have worked, Special:Permalink/1300876422 (16 July) had AILEGACY ( The wreck continues to be an interest to maritime historians and technologists. Her conversion and deployment are emblematic of the military's need for civilian assets.), while Special:Permalink/1301294537 (19 July) had WP:INTOTHEWOULDS and hyphens between dates instead of dashes (i.e. human signs). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support LLMPRV, I've made a tracker Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support LLMPRV. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:CromsFury

edit

User:LegacyWiki (2)

edit

User:HarrowAdelphus

edit

Carigval.97

edit

User:PhilipJV

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago15 comments6 people in discussion

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

Noticed PhilipJV because of the volume of drafts they have submitted, often many in the same day log. Quite a few were declined for LLM and others for notability but 7 have been accepted that have signs of LLM. For example The Secret of the Pond has "Contemporary coverage noted..." with one source. Right now there are 16 drafts pending review. Would like another eye to take a look before declining them for LLM and moving the accepted ones to draft.

Even though some of the drafts have been declined due to LLM, they had not been left a warning so I just issued a level 1. However, does a decline serve as notice? If so, going forward I will issue a stronger warning in these situations. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also pinging @Helpful Raccoon as an FYI given they declined quite a few. S0091 (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Admins have said that they don't like to issue a block without an explicit warning, not just a decline-for-LLM. But I definitely think that if there are declines you can escalate to a stronger warning. Bear in mind, though, that multiple declines don't mean much more than one, given how long the queue is--they may have submitted all the drafts before getting any declines. M kuhner (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks makes sense. My thought was if they have had declines for LLM then a level 2 is probably appropriate. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I respect your concerns and will abide by whatever is decided. A little background: I have been uploading a number of articles lately because I am currently out of work and this is a project I have wanted to do for some time. I grew up with these television movies in the 1970s, and they meant a lot to me, so I wanted to see whether some of them could be documented on Wikipedia.
The notability issue can be difficult with some of these films because children’s television movies from that period were not always reviewed extensively. That is why I have gone out of my way to identify reviewers and quote the coverage I can find, which may make some of the drafts read a little unusually.
I never intended to cause problems for anyone, and I apologize if the volume of submissions created concern. If I need to stop submitting for now, I will. I just got excited about the project. ~~~~ PhilipJV (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just undertake the project yourself without using an LLM. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@PhilipJV yep, Simonm223 sums it up. I do believe you are here for good reasons but you just need to stop using AI/LLM. Even if you try to clean it up, it is so difficult to do. As one editor put it, it is like trying to spoon poison out of a bowl of soup. Bits are going to get left. S0091 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great analogy. I understand the concern, and I’ll abide by that going forward. I recently got access to Newspapers.com and ProQuest, so I’ve been strengthening the research behind the drafts. Notability will probably be my biggest obstacle, but I’m up for that.
I appreciate the feedback and I’m happy to adapt, so please keep it coming. I also appreciate the help everyone has provided. I genuinely apologize if I’ve caused any annoyance. That was the last thing I ever intended. ~~~~ PhilipJV (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@PhilipJV sounds good! Be your human self using your human brain to research and write, even if sometimes it is flawed. S0091 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@PhilipJV, are you copying these comments from anywhere? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:30, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I draft everything - comments and drafts - in Google Docs first and then paste them into Wikipedia. ~~~~ PhilipJV (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why? Why would you do that for a one sentence reply? It looks like you are using a translator for everything. Check out WP:AITALK. If you cant even formulate a 1 or 2 sentence reply without LLM/AI/a translator, then maybe, just maybe, English wikipedia editing is not for you. Just sayin'. Masterhatch (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay I won't do that for Wikipedia anymore. I always draft in Google doc for spelling and then copy and paste. Even with emails. But if it causes any issue here I will not. ~~~~ PhilipJV (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no policy on wikipedia that says your spelling and grammar has to be perfect. There is, however a WP:NOLLM policy, that includes polishing up imperfect English. We'd all rather see your replies as you wrote them—spelling and grammar errors included—than read something spit out with the help of LLM. Just sayin'. Masterhatch (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I've probably become too reliant on drafting communications in Google Docs over the years for work, and that definitely carried over here. I'll curb that behavior. PhilipJV (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Abskiee

edit
Latest comment: 17 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion
warned  Abskiee (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (12 October 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

More of the same. Lots of markdown, likely insufficient command of English, denies using AI, and continues after being warned and informed that it is not allowed. Should have made this report a while ago, but there's just so many cases that I have the energy for. Also apologies for not using the new format (feel free to move this), I haven't figured that out yet (again, theres just so much that I have the energy for).

Starting with behaviour, in User talk:Abskiee § September 2026 they claimed to understand and that they had removed all the AI-Generated and AI-Generated premise and flowery words removed, but then also said did not use AI in the edit summary of Diff/1377681355 to a different page.

Came to my talk page and posted § Removal of my edit on Shaira Rivera article to complain about their edits having been identified as AI-generated. Left the lovely accusation that I was power tripping with some editors.

Creates multiple pages with markdown:

Removes {{ai-generated}} tags (not an exhaustive list):

  • Diff/1377556059 saying Removed AI-Generated edits and retain my original edits, crew names and company names as per WP:NOLLM
  • Diff/1377514182: saying AI Generated edits were removed and retain the crew and company names for accurate spelling as per WP:LLM also added premise on my own words
  • Diff/1377501635 saying Ai generated edits and flower words were removed
  • Diff/1377502064: saying AI Generated edits and flowery words removed

Just now, they removed the tag from Draft:The Waiting Man again, saying check edit history. AI-GENERATED edits was long gone ... please someone help me to this editor in Diff/1379861413 and GENERATED texts was removed and replaced by my own edits, check edit history. I can keep removing this because I know there's an edit history for the proof! in Diff/1379862238.

Despite all of this, they have just created Draft:Superman (Taylor Swift song) in Diff/1379858383 (log), which has now been renamed to something else. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

At first I thought you have some equipment or anything to detect what is AI or not but
You tagged my edit in this article Shaira Rivera as AI-GENERATED even though it was not. I am watching her game while editing her Wikipedia article and look for a news article to support my claim and then here you are tagging my edit as an AI-GENERATED edit??
Like how??
I am ready to argue with this
And I didn't deny that I use some AI in my draft articles but I rewrote it.
You keep saying and saying that it was still AI-GENERATED
What do I need to remove the names? The whole article or what? Abskiee (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this edit was AI, primarily because it is not grammatically correct. There is obvious AI use on other pages, particularly in draftspace, but an equally significant issue is the editor's fluency in English (or lack thereof). aesurias (she/her) (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I know I am not fluent in your language but I am trying and spending nights to rewrite the drafts but one thing that offended me is when he/she said that "remember that WP:LYING is under the WP:CIVIL policy." In my edit to the article of Shaira Rivera, like why do I need to lie to him? Because of that, I realized that he didn't use any tools to detect AI generated he was just tagging my edits and claim that I was lying. Abskiee (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ

edit
Latest comment: 2 hours ago5 comments3 people in discussion

ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ (talk · contribs · block log · filter log · page creations · central auth · count) XTools

Rapid article creation, 29 creations yesterday, 163 so far in October alone. They don't appear to be translations. User was warned for LLM use in Nov 2025 , and for unattributed translations in June 2025 , and various for adding deprecated infobox parameters and promotional writing. Loads of chatgpt params on 7 Oct . I don't have time to do a proper analysis rn, have warned and notified of this thread Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:50, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I understand your concerns, but I have improved my editing practices. I am writing the articles myself and not using AI to generate them. Around 30% of the articles have also been reviewed. I’ll continue improving the quality of my articles and make sure they follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. I appreciate you raising these concerns. ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ, read WP:AITALK (based on AITALKSIGNS + ). If you continue to use LLMs, you will be blocked. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
ok, I am going to read all the policies again, I have stopped creating new articles for now, and I am improving if there are mistakes I have made and I already said the 30% article are reviewed and there are more articles which are not reviewed till if any concern will raise, I will try to improve them. Thank you. ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I believe this is the same editor as AMurmu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Reversetalk

edit
Latest comment: 14 hours ago7 comments3 people in discussion
resolved  Reversetalk (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
This matter has been resolved; no further action is required. 

Reversetalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ridiculous editting pace on Honor killing, almost certainly can tell the edit summaries are AI-generated, the material is being rephrased fast. Warned on , reverted AI-generated material which was immediately reverted back. Was using an obvious LLM generated messages on talk space as well.User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:58, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Some, not all, of the changes were made with AI. You reverted every single change I had every made, including those which were a result of a process of a weeks long RFC. Reversetalk (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Even if only some of the changes were made with AI, that's still not allowed. Please indicate which of the changes were made with AI. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you can do changes in your own words without AI, thats a better chance of not being reverted User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:29, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&oldid=1379858956 this is the last version all in my own words; the article should be reverted to this (even though this version of the article is still woefully below wikipedia's standards for neutrality) Reversetalk (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Thank you for your honesty! Make sure to not use AI in the future. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure thing - I am almost never an AI user, but this article's quality was so poor it essentially had to be written from scratch. To be transparent, I intend on editing this article so that its structure is much more akin to the one that I had generated with the help of AI. All of the words will be my own, of course. But AI did not tell me how poorly done the structure of the article was, nor the ways in which I thought it ought to be improved; I had those ideas independently. Reversetalk (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Check please on Weight-bearing computed tomography

edit
Latest comment: 2 hours ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone please check Weight-bearing computed tomography. The page creator FrancoisLintz has admitted on the talk page that they "used an LLM only to help with phrasing, language, editing", but I am not sure if the page retains contaminated text or not. Courtesy ping of asilvering Ldm1954 (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

that article is tagged as having been created by an AI agent, Asilvering can tell this through using the CU tool. I've draftified it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, that was the direction I was going to go if I was convinced it was still LLM contaminated. What is the CU tool? Ldm1954 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:CheckUser, I've no idea how they can tell, secretive stuff Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
This was Claude, fwiw. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:HiddenHistoryPedia

edit
Latest comment: 6 hours ago11 comments4 people in discussion

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

I came across this user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second French-Senussi War. Their replies appear to be AI-generated, and the sources they provide don't seem relevant to the topic. One of the sources also returns an error. AriuCH (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Idk how nominations work, but @AriuCH is being absurd and blatantly WP:BADFAITH.
  • The source which returned an error, as already explained to them, was a linked doi. I provided them with a direct link to the article (here), and explained that the doi was copied from the article.
  • The reasoning behind my citations was clearly explained. Per WP:ATD, deletion discussions may result in outcomes which are not deletion (this is also explicitly disclaimed in the edit page at AfD); I very provided those sources, per my original comment, to indicate that they could be used in conjunction with the material in the article to either improve the article directly (at the same namespace), to create a new article (perhaps using material moved from the nominated article), or to change an article on a related topic.
There were various other thoughts that I had on this topic which I hadn't even shared with the nominator yet, because they preferred arguing over whether I used AI to draft my replies (I don't) over engaging with what I wrote. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
We've discussed this before (see here, off-wiki Fermiboson also vouched for their edits being human-written), HHP just writes and formats things similarly to chatbots. @HiddenHistoryPedia, if I could give some advice to make this sort of thing less common, avoid using bold in comments (WP:AIBOLD), especially with lists (WP:AILIST). FWIW your comments in the AfD appear obviously human-written to me Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:07, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Bolding was supposed to make it easier for people to track important statements, but I'll see what else I can do. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unnecessary boldface is discouraged by the talk page guideline, so it would be best to avoid it to help prevent your comments from being flagged for LLM misuse or incivility. — Newslinger talk 20:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Newslinger, If you have time, please take a look at the edit summary in this diff. AriuCH (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
AriuCH, the phrasing of that edit summary is contrary to the advice in Wikipedia:Civility § Identifying incivility (WP:IUC), although HiddenHistoryPedia did attempt to tone down the language in that comment with a later edit. — Newslinger talk 21:44, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I apologize for the tone and recognize that I should have been more civil. Usually I catch myself before I post when in disputes; but the attitude of the nominator (including ignoring simple explanations and displaying what I feel is obviously bad-faith engagement) admittedly struck a chord. I am curious if you have any opinions on other ways that I can emphasize text. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think your comments in that discussion would have been just as effective without the boldface to distract from your arguments. — Newslinger talk 21:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alright then (ouch). I do promise that the intention was only to direct people to relevant statements (so, in the nom for example, I thought it was particularly notable that the sources on the article weren't commented on by the nominator); not to violate talk-page guidelines. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I believe you, and my previous comment wasn't meant to offend ("ouch"). We just want to avoid a loudness war that incentivizes everyone to bold too much text in their comments for emphasis, which would (in my opinion) decrease readability in discussions. — Newslinger talk 22:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:BengalMC (and alts)

edit
Latest comment: 1 hour ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

AI use admitted at Special:GoToComment/c-BengalMC-20261012113900-Trouted 5 and Special:GoToComment/c-BengalNC-20261012111800-Gurkubondinn-20261012111500, along with a number of edits pinging as 100% on Pangram. Requesting cleanup; admin intervention may become necessary due to other related issues. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 21:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's also BiharMC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which hasn't been editing, but which an admin will need to block with the others if it comes to that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, if disclosing that Many accounts are problematic, then I am fine with using one account from now and as far as the AI concerns, I am actively trying to fix the mess I have caused. BengalMC talk 03:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard&oldid=1379994582"