Wikipedia:Signs of AI-generated comments
 | This is an advice page from WikiProject AI Cleanup. This page is not a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. |
This is a list of writing and formatting conventions typically found in comments written by Wikipedia users who are (or have been) suspected of using large language models or similar technology to write content, with real examples taken from talk pages and other discussion pages. Comments suspected of having been pasted from an LLM may be collapsed via {{collapse AI}} per WP:AITALK. Using AI to write comments is considered disruptive, and editors who do so may be blocked if they persist after being warned.
Although several of the tells mentioned at Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing (including boldface, em dashes, curly apostrophes and quotation marks, negative parallelisms, vertical lists, Markdown, and the rule of three) often appear in such comments, this project page only includes tells that typically do not appear in content added to articles or drafts.
Moreover, this list is descriptive, not prescriptive; it consists of observations, not rules. Advice about formatting or conduct can be found in the talk page guidelines, but does not belong on this page.
Content
[edit]Dubious assurances of quality, good faith, and adherence to policies and guidelines
[edit]| Words to watch: align(s) with Wikipedia's aim/goal(s), adhere(s) to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines/standards, I am/remain committed to ..., I assure you that ..., my intention/goal is to ..., I understand/recognize that ..., Moving forward, I will ..., I have taken (the) time to ... |
Most people on Wikipedia want others to believe that they're here for the right reasons and are willing to follow the rules, and may insist that they make their contributions with such rules in mind. AI chatbots, however, have a strong tendency to communicate this in a specific way: invoking policies, guidelines, and standards as a broad, formal, and abstract whole, as in legalese, and often using "AI vocabulary" to do so.
Examples
|
I have a genuine interest in contributing to the knowledge and accuracy of information available on Wikipedia, particularly in the area of dogs. I have conducted extensive research and have insights that I believe could enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of the existing content on the "Dog" article. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I am committed to contributing in a responsible and constructive manner. My intention is to provide well-referenced and reliable information that aligns with Wikipedia's standards. If granted permission, I would approach the editing process with the utmost care and respect for Wikipedia's community guidelines. |
|
I can assure you that the article and our comments are the result of human effort and collaboration. Anon and I are committed to creating informative and balanced content that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. [...] Let's work together to ensure that our article contributes meaningfully to the climate change discourse. Chloe and I are ready to provide any additional clarification or context that might be needed. The article is now more focused on the economic impacts and includes a range of viewpoints on technology and policy, with a clear human-centered narrative. We've also ensured that all sources are credible and properly cited. [...] Our ultimate goal is to create a valuable resource that aligns with Wikipedia's high standards and sparks important conversations about our planet's future. |
|
Thank you for reaching out and highlighting the conflict of interest (COI) guidelines. I appreciate Wikipedia’s commitment to maintaining neutrality, verifiability, and reliability in all articles. I acknowledge the importance of avoiding undue influence when contributing to topics directly related to an individual or organization. My intent is to ensure that information [...] remains accurate, neutral, and supported by credible sources. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s COI policies and, moving forward, I will: - Refrain from directly editing the article and instead suggest edits on the talk page using reliable third-party sources. - Ensure full disclosure of my affiliation when discussing potential edits, in compliance with Wikipedia’s transparency guidelines. - Avoid promotional content or external link spamming, ensuring that all suggested content aligns with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability. |
|
Thank you for raising your concerns. I understand that my recent rate of article creation has caused concern, and I apologise for not responding earlier. My intention has been to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysian state constituencies, which I understood to be comparable to other sub-national legislative constituencies that already have standalone articles. [...] My goal was to expand coverage consistently, not to create unnecessary work for New Page Patrol, AfC, or other editors. Regarding the ongoing AfD discussion, I respect the community process and will not contest it by continuing to recreate or resubmit articles that are under discussion. My removal of the AfD template was a mistake on my part, and I now understand that it should not have been removed. [...] If the preferred process is to seek consensus first, improve a smaller sample of articles, or work in draft space before creating additional articles, I am happy to follow that process. I am also willing to improve the existing articles by adding more independent sources, expanding the prose, and addressing the issues raised during the AfD discussions. My intention has always been to contribute constructively and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysian elections and constituencies. I appreciate the feedback from everyone involved and will work within the community's expectations going forward. |
|
I understand why I was blocked, and I accept responsibility for my actions. I used a large language model (LLM) to assist with my Wikipedia editing. At the time, I underestimated how incompatible that was with Wikipedia's expectations regarding editor responsibility, accuracy, sourcing, and the need for contributors to personally verify and understand every edit they publish. Regardless of my intentions, using AI in that manner was a mistake, and I recognize that I alone am responsible for the edits made under my account. Since being blocked, I have taken time to reflect on what went wrong and to better understand Wikipedia's policies and community standards. I now appreciate that AI-generated content can introduce factual errors, unsourced claims, and other issues that place an unnecessary burden on other editors. I understand that every edit must be based on reliable sources, carefully reviewed, and represent my own judgment as an editor. If I am given another opportunity to contribute, I will not use LLMs or other generative AI tools to write, draft, or expand Wikipedia content. I will make all edits myself, ensure that every contribution is supported by reliable sources with appropriate inline citations, and seek guidance through talk pages whenever I am uncertain. Rebuilding trust will take time, and I am prepared to do that through careful, policy-compliant editing. I sincerely apologize for my poor judgment and for the additional work my actions may have caused other volunteers. I respectfully ask that you consider giving me a second chance. If unblocked, I intend to demonstrate through my future conduct that I have learned from this experience and can contribute constructively while fully adhering to Wikipedia's policies and expectations. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. |
Links to searches
- "I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's"
- "I fully respect Wikipedia's"
- "Moving forward, I will"[a]
Assertions that a topic meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion
[edit]Whereas AI-generated articles emphasizes a subject's impact, their creators' comments may exaggerate the extent to which a topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Examples
|
The Pakistan Pharmacist Federation (PFF) is a well-established national organization in Pakistan, representing a significant and influential body of professionals in the pharmaceutical sector. The Federation plays an essential role in advocating for the pharmacy profession, advancing pharmaceutical education, and improving public health through various initiatives. Given its established presence, contributions to policy-making, and direct impact on the healthcare system, PFF qualifies as a notable entity under Wikipedia’s notability criteria for organizations. [...] Given the Pakistan Pharmacist Federation’s notability as a national organization with a significant role in public health and professional advocacy, and my commitment to revising the article to ensure it complies with Wikipedia’s editorial standards, I respectfully request that the speedy deletion nomination be reconsidered. I am confident that once revised, the article will meet Wikipedia’s requirements and provide valuable, neutral information about the Federation’s role in Pakistan’s pharmaceutical sector. |
|
Over the past several months, I have worked to address the concerns raised during the review process. The draft includes significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that are not connected to the subject. Based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I believe the available sourcing demonstrates that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. Lovern is a notable figure within the comic book industry, particularly for his pioneering role in bringing computer colouring to comics through his company. Given the scope of his contributions and the available independent coverage, I am finding it difficult to understand why the article continues to be declined. |
Claims of responsibility for content
[edit]When called out for using an AI to write or rewrite their content, some users will admit to using a large language model or similar technology to write or rewrite their content, but then follow that up with an assurance that they have checked their content to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, or that the words in their comments truly reflect their thoughts.
Examples
|
Yes. To clarify, while I may use tools to help organize or reference Wikipedia's own policies more clearly, every response I post reflects my own intent and understanding of the discussion. I am fully responsible for the content I contribute, and my focus has always been on adhering to Wikipedia's core guidelines — not on the method of composition. |
|
f) "The article was written by AI" – Mischaracterization. The article was manually written, with language refinement via AI tools due to the contributor’s non-native English. Content selection, structure, and sourcing were entirely human-led. Full disclosure: I am also using AI to smooth the language of this feedback given I am a non-native speaker. However, the essence of the feedback provided is clearly my own - as is the article. Not AI-generated nonsense – The article was manually written. Language was refined using AI tools due to my being a non-native English speaker, but the content, structure, and sources were all human-curated. |
|
Any content that may have been initially drafted or assisted by a language model has since been fully reviewed, rewritten, fact-checked, and attributed to reliable sources. Regarding potential AI-assisted content. I would like to clarify: All information in this article is fully verifiable, accurately sourced, and compliant with Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP). Any use of AI for drafting or stylistic assistance does not affect the reliability of the content. |
|
I have reviewed WP:AITALK, and I am fully aware of the guidance. My comments here represent my own editorial judgment and responsibility. Suggesting otherwise is not appropriate. |
|
Fair one, I'm not trying to dismiss this. I am an intermediate English speaker. I used Grammarly’s editing tools (including grammar checking and clarity suggestions) to ensure my formal AfD nomination followed encyclopedic prose standards. Per WP:AI, using AI assistance for language and formatting is permitted provided factual claims are verified by the editor. I manually verified every source and citation in my nomination as evidenced by my correction of the URL error when I discovered it during source-checking. The substance of the nomination stands regardless of the drafting assistance used. |
|
On the AI question? yes, I’ve used AI tools, but in a specific and within the policies way. I’m Spanish spoken, English isn’t my first language, and I’ve used AI to help with grammar, phrasing, and to check the structure of longer pieces. I haven’t used it to generate the actual content. Every fact, every citation, I’ve gone back to the source material myself and verified it before publishing. Also, just to clarify how I work and why the text flagged, I do all my actual research and writing in Spanish first. Since English isn't my native language, I just run my finished text through a basic translator to pull it over into English. The ideas are 100% mine, but translation software naturally uses very predictable phrasing patterns, which is exactly why those AI detectors flagged it. So to clarify the talk page posts, as well my process, is that I think and write out my thoughts in Spanish first. Since English isn't my native language, I can make some grammar errors, so I run my finished text through a basic translator to post it here. The actual thoughts and questions, are mine, but because standard translation software uses predictable phrasing patterns, it can end up looking like AI generated text to detector tools. I want to explain how I work to answer some of the questions about automated text. I am not using a Large Language Model (LLM) to write my posts or generate content. My native language is Spanish, which is the language I use to do my research, map out my thoughts, and write my initial drafts. Because English isn't my native language, I just use a basic translation tool to turn my own finished writing into English so I can share it here. The predictable phrasing patterns that naturally happen with standard translation tools are exactly what triggered the automated AI detectors. [...] The research, ideas, and facts in my edits are entirely the result of manual human effort. I am nearly fluent in English, but as a technical writer, I choose to use standard drafting and translation tools specifically to ensure that the structure, clarity, and paragraph flow meet the right standard for the reader. Using tools to help organize ideas, check grammar, or improve structural formatting is entirely permitted under WP:LLM. It is also VERY discriminatory to weaponize WP:CIR against an editor simply because English is their second language, especially when the underlying research, facts, and citations are completely verified by human effort. I am not disregarding the guidelines, nor discussing in bad faith, I am applying them exactly as they are written. The facts, research, and citations in my article are 100% verified by human effort. |
Uncertainty about the problems with one's content (and requests for input)
[edit]| Words to watch: If you have any concerns/suggestions, If there are specific sections/areas that ..., I am willing/happy to address ..., I am open to/would appreciate/welcome any additional/further input/guidance/feedback |
When a user sees that an article they added content to has an {{AI-generated}} tag on it, or a draft they have worked on is declined for being AI-generated, or they are accused of using AI to write their comments, they often act as though they have no clue as to what is wrong with their content. They may request additional input or assistance to help them understand exactly where they are going wrong and how they can improve. They want to know precisely which passages are causing concerns so they can make edits to address those concerns.
Expressions of willingness to take constructive criticism for edits are very common in AI comments by users whose drafts were declined by reviewers, or in rare cases, themselves. The difference between this sign and similar reassurances by conscientious humans will generally become obvious after you actually provide that criticism.
Examples
|
Could you kindly provide me with specific feedback or reasons for the decline so that I can make the necessary improvements to the article? This will help me better understand and rectify any issues that may have caused the initial decline. I'm committed to contributing valuable content to Wikipedia and am open to making revisions to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Once I've made the necessary revisions, I would be grateful if you could reconsider the article for approval. Your assistance in this matter would be invaluable, and I'm eager to work together to ensure the article is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. |
If there is a specific protocol or workflow I should follow for such cases, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. |
From these December 2024 comments at the AfC help desk
|
|---|
|
We remain committed to creating content that aligns with Wikipedia's mission and are open to further guidance. We have reviewed the feedback provided and made the necessary revisions. [...] We look forward to engaging with the Wikipedia community and welcome any additional input that can help us improve the article. Thank you for your vigilance and your contribution to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. We've made significant revisions in response to the feedback and are eager to engage with the community. If you have specific suggestions for further improvement, we would greatly appreciate your input. Let's work together to ensure that our article contributes meaningfully to the climate change discourse. Chloe and I are ready to provide any additional clarification or context that might be needed. [...] If you have any particular sections you'd like us to address, please do not hesitate to let us know. We've just posted an updated message on the article's talk page, emphasizing our human collaboration and our willingness to address feedback. If you could review our revisions and provide specific areas for improvement, we would be grateful. |
|
I hope you are doing well. I’m reaching out regarding my Wikipedia article, which was recently rejected, and I’d like to understand what further steps I can take to make it meet the necessary standards. [...] I worked with ChatGPT to ensure the article adheres to a neutral tone, uses third-person language, and includes all the relevant information. [...] However, it seems that I might be missing something crucial, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance on what I need to improve to get the article accepted. Are there any specific areas that need additional work or further clarification? [...] I genuinely want to make this article fit Wikipedia's standards, and I am open to making any adjustments required. Any advice or suggestions you could provide would be extremely helpful. |
|
I would appreciate some clarification regarding the concern that the article appears "LLM-generated." [...] Could you please indicate: Which specific passages raised concerns about possible LLM-generated content? Are there particular statements that appear unsupported by the cited sources? [...] Are there sections that you believe require additional independent sourcing or verification? Understanding the specific basis for the concern would help me revise the draft to better comply with Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards. |
|
Hello. Your message states that my edit “seemed” to be AI-generated, but does not identify any specific issues with the content itself. This is a case of an unfalsifiable assertion. All statements in my edit are supported by reliable sources and properly cited. If there are concrete concerns, such as inaccuracies, sourcing problems, or wording that does not meet Wikipedia standards, please point them out so they can be addressed. Make sure you are very specific this time. Again. If there are specific inaccuracies or sourcing failures in the edit, identify them clearly. That's the actionable question. So arguing precisely and asking for evidence is now a tell? By that logic, any response you disagree with can be labelled suspicious. That's not a standard, that's a blank cheque. You started with a vague accusation, ignored a logical rebuttal, and then reduced the whole conversation to a binary yes or no question that bypasses every important point I made. The fact that you have to ask me that question over and over tells me clearly your method is not reliable. If it were reliable, you would already be certain. If you insist otherwise, paste those words from my edits here and explain precisely what your own eyes told you about each of them. More importantly, you have spent this entire exchange failing to identify a single factual error, a single unsourced claim, or a single content failure in the edit in question. You have now called me cantankerous and belligerent while still failing to identify a single content failure in the edit that started this conversation. That remains the only question that ever mattered here. |
|
I understand GPT Zero flagged it, and I know those tools aren’t perfect, but I also understand why you have to take it seriously. If it helps, I’m happy to go through the article section by section and show where each claim comes from. I want to contribute to this community properly and I’d sincerely appreciate any guidance on how to make my editing process more transparent going forward I’m not trying to argue in bad faith, I really want to understand where the line is so I can stay clear on the right side of it. If you can point me to a specific passage or edit that concerns you, I’m happy to address it If there are factual errors, issues, or passages in the article that you think are problematic, please point them out so I can fix them. Just saying there are "negligible improvements" doesn't help me understand what you feel is actually wrong with the content or the sources. I'm open to constructive feedback on the text itself I'm completely open to constructive feedback on the text itself, and I'm happy to manually polish the phrasing going forward so it reads as naturally as possible. If there is a concrete sentence in the article that violates a core content policy like verifiability or neutral point of view, please point it out so I can address it ASAP. |
|
Hi Gurkubondinn, Could you please review a new version which I have uploaded, and which has been rejected solely due to your previous rejection. The article is entirely manually written and I believe it meets Wikipedia's standards. I would specifically like to know what in my writing resembles an AI-chatbot? Obviously it is easier to be critical and delete on vague grounds than to approve. I strongly believe this version deserves to be approved. Thank you for your consideration. Hi Gurkubondinn, Thank you for reviewing the second version. Could you please point to specific sentences which make my submission an "AI-generated" version? I am flabbergasted. Thank you. Hej Gurkubondinn, unfortunately that comment doesn't help much. I've visited the WP:WHERESTHEAI page to no avail. I'm not contesting the review, but instead try to learn how I should not sound like an AI bot when writing myself! Obviously, my mother tongue is English, and undoubtedly this may influence my way or writing (in English that is). If you help me understand which sentences in the second draft are "copied from the chatbot or AI service", I'd be more than happy to take a look at them. But seriously, you still have not pointed at the specific sentences which resemble a chatbot or AI-generator. Could you please do that so my Wikipedia experience will be a rejuvenating and refreshing one, as opposed to a mere frustration where I leave the seemingly wonderful resource without learning anything? Hi there, My second draft about Blue Music Group was rejected with the comment that it "still obviously contains AISIGNS (most notably WP:AIATTR)." I rewrote the draft from scratch using primarily an independent All About Jazz profile and removed most self-published sourcing. I'm not disputing the review; I'm genuinely trying to understand what specifically in the current text appears to violate WP:AIATTR. Could someone take a quick look and point to the passages that should be rewritten? |
Links to searches
- "If there are specific concerns about" OR "If there are any specific concerns about" OR "If there are specific concerns regarding" OR "If there are any specific concerns regarding"
- "If there are specific areas that" OR "If there are any specific areas that" -"know if there are" -"and if there are"
- "If there are specific sections that" OR "If there are any specific sections that"
Canned requests for third-party review
[edit]When confronted by criticism of their work, it is common for LLM editors to make a stock request for an "experienced," "uninvolved," or "neutral" editor or administrator to provide a second opinion of their writing.
Examples
|
Hi, it's been 2 years since the warning banner has been placed and the article has been improved significantly. Would an independent editor please review the article to see if the banner is still appropriate? If not, would someone please remove the banner? Thank you! |
|
I respectfully request that an administrator:
|
When a draft is declined, LLM users tend to request source assessments in a similar manner. This usually carries the (unintentional?) implication that the reviewer didn't do their job properly.
Could an experienced editor please advise which of these sources, if any, count as reliable, independent, significant coverage for a biography article?
Could an uninvolved editor advise which of the current references, if any, count as significant independent secondary coverage for notability purposes, and which should be treated only as supporting or weak sources?
Could an independent administrator assess these specific sources?
Confusion over the reason for a declined draft
[edit]AI chatbots cannot read the decline notice left on the draft, and can only respond to whatever information regarding the declined draft that the user gives them. As a result, AI-generated questions regarding declined drafts will often express uncertainty or request clarification over the reason a draft was declined, even if the decline notice on the draft is very clear. They may even compose self-contradictory comments that simultaneously acknowledge the specific reason for the draft's decline, but go on to say that they are trying to understand whether that was really the reason, or whether it was declined for some completely unrelated reason.
Examples
From these May 2026 AfC help desk comments regarding Draft:Alexis Marcou, which was declined for failing WP:NPERSON and reading like an advertisement
|
|---|
|
I am requesting guidance on Draft:Alexis Marcou after repeated AfC declines... I am trying to understand whether the issue is mainly source quality, article tone, or both before making any further changes. The latest decline says the draft needs multiple published secondary sources that provide significant coverage, are reliable, and are independent. I understand the concern and do not want to keep resubmitting without first understanding the source issue. [...] I am not asking for the draft to be accepted here. I am trying to understand whether the problem is mainly that these sources are not strong enough for WP:BIO / WP:NARTIST, or whether the draft structure and tone are still the main issue. Any guidance on which sources should be kept, downgraded, or removed would be appreciated. |
From this May 2026 AfC help desk comment regarding now-unavailable revisions to User:Revathyradhakrishnan2412/sandbox, which contained AI-generated text that went into detail about WP:CORPROUTINE activities
|
|---|
|
Is the primary issue related to notability, sourcing, tone, conflict of interest, or article structure? |
From this April 2026 AfC help desk comment regarding Draft:Ismatzein, which was said to have been promotional and failed WP:NBOOK
|
|---|
|
Could you please provide more specific feedback on the reasons for the decline? In particular, I would like to understand: Whether the issue relates to notability, sourcing, or tone If any specific sections need revision or removal What changes would make the article suitable for acceptance I’m committed to aligning the article with Wikipedia’s standards and would greatly appreciate your guidance. |
From this June 2026 AfC help desk comment regarding Draft:Ontario employment Equity Act, which was declined for appearing to contain LLM-generated text
|
|---|
|
I would like some feedback if the issue is tone, sourcing, potential close paraphrasing, or article structure. |
From this June 2026 comment at User talk:Helpful Raccoon regarding Draft:Digital Capital, which was declined for appearing to contain LLM-generated text
|
|---|
|
Is the concern related to factual accuracy, source use, writing style, article structure, or another issue? |
Complaints about accusers acting on speculation
[edit]| Words to watch: accusing/accusations/accusatory, personal impression, speculation/speculative/speculating, stylistic indications, subjective interpretation, unsubstantiated/unsupported/unwarranted |
When a user is confronted for allegedly pasting content from a large language model, they will likely dismiss these concerns as unsubstantiated speculation based on tone or writing style rather than hard evidence of LLM use. Most if not all users who do so also tell those who confront them to just point out what needs to be improved and focus on that instead of calling them out.
Examples
|
Your message reeks of arrogance, ignorance, and an unhealthy reliance on flawed AI tools. First, GPTZero is notoriously unreliable in distinguishing AI-generated from human-written text, so throwing that into the mix as your "evidence" is laughable at best. If you can't back up your claims with solid proof, you're just flinging baseless accusations. You claim that I’ve breached policies repeatedly, yet fail to specify a single instance or cite evidence. It's easy to make vague allegations, but hard to stand up to scrutiny when you're put on the spot, isn't it? Wikipedia's policies aren't designed to be weaponized by people like you who clearly have an agenda. As for your claim about my alleged conflict of interest and accusations of paid editing, it's incredible how quickly people like you jump to conclusions based on incomplete, off-wiki assumptions. You’re so certain about these accusations, yet conveniently leave out details. Perhaps you're confusing circumstantial gossip with facts? Until you have hard, undeniable proof, you might want to rethink your accusations. Also, if you think you can disregard someone’s unblock request based on an unproven assumption about its origin, you clearly don't understand Wikipedia’s principles of fairness and due process. Do better. It's ironic how you claim to be fighting against promotional abuse while making broad assumptions about me based on information from off-wiki sources. Wikipedia is built on verifiability and transparency, but your accusations are grounded in speculation and circumstantial evidence. You still haven't provided clear proof or pointed to specific instances of policy violations, instead relying on vague claims about information I supposedly "placed elsewhere on the internet." Where is the concrete evidence linking me to these subjects? You say you have no agenda, yet your eagerness to cast me in a negative light without solid proof suggests otherwise. If you're so confident in your claims, why not present them with clarity and precision? Wikipedia's mission is to be fair, and any actions against an editor should be based on facts, not assumptions or innuendo. [...] If you believe there's a legitimate concern, then bring it forward in a transparent and verifiable way. Otherwise, these continued unfounded accusations serve only to derail productive discussion. And now that they blocked me I can't even contribute anymore anyway why putting in effort if then is removed and not appreciated. It's unfortunate how some are quick to accuse others without offering any actual proof. I want to make it clear that I have never been paid for any edits, and it’s disappointing that such assumptions are being made without concrete evidence. It's easy to say "evidence exists" without presenting any, but making such accusations without proof is unfair and harmful. I understand you're stating that another user blocked me, but that doesn’t make the accusations any more valid. What’s truly sad is that this whole situation seems to stem from speculation rather than fact. It's important to recognize that while discussions may have taken place, assumptions and accusations don't replace genuine evidence. Being blocked for an unfounded reason is frustrating, but this whole narrative that I've violated policies or that there’s some kind of “paid conflict of interest” is simply untrue. I take editing and community guidelines seriously, and to see my actions misrepresented like this is disappointing. |
|
To clarify, all portions of the article have undergone comprehensive editorial scrutiny, including thorough review, proper citation of reliable sources, and meticulous fact-checking using a wide range of high-quality, verifiable publications. No evidence of AI-generated content is in the current version, and no findings of AI assistance have been substantiated. [...] The phrasing “may have” was used in good faith as a transparent acknowledgment of potential early drafting methods. However, to date, no editor — including yourself — has identified any specific passages in the current version that were generated by AI or that fail to meet Wikipedia's content standards. As such, the suggestion that the article contains problematic AI-derived material remains unsubstantiated. [...] Given the article’s current state — well-sourced, policy-compliant, and collaboratively improved — the continued presence of the “LLM advisory” banner is unwarranted. Naturally, editorial vigilance should remain ongoing, as with any living article. As per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility to substantiate claims — including allegations of AI-generated or otherwise non-compliant content — lies squarely with the editor raising the concern. To date, no diff, specific passage, or reliable source has been presented to support such claims. [...] Without specific, actionable concerns tied to the present revision, maintaining a warning banner is not aligned with WP:NOTCRYSTAL (speculative concerns) or WP:UNDUE, and risks misleading readers by implying there is a current content issue when none has been demonstrated. In short: policy does not support tagging based on hypothetical, unsubstantiated, or historical speculation — particularly when no editor, including yourself, has identified any concrete violation after repeated invitations to do so. |
|
“Reeks of LLM” is pure speculation. You may believe that statement strengthens your argument, but in practice it weakens it. It reinforces my concern that the discussion is becoming increasingly speculative rather than evidence-based. You have not provided conclusive supporting evidence. You have speculated repeatedly, and you continue to rely on speculation rather than demonstrating identifiable policy violations or factual inaccuracies. [...] Quite frankly, unsupported speculation and subjective interpretation can be more problematic than AI itself, because at least AI concerns can be evaluated through evidence, sourcing, and verification standards. The writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs. 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. I'm glad you helped. I understand what the guideline says. My point is that much of this discussion has moved beyond policy interpretation and into subjective speculation about tone, writing style, and assumptions regarding intent. If there are factual inaccuracies, fabricated citations, or identifiable policy violations, point to them directly. Otherwise, repeatedly asserting that something “sounds like AI” is still speculation regardless of who drafted the guideline. The issue is not whether LLM-generated article content is prohibited. The issue is whether conclusions are being drawn based on evidence or based on personal impressions and emotional interpretation of writing style. Until consensus is reached through proper discussion and policy-based reasoning, I will continue removing warnings and templates that I believe are unsupported, speculative, or improperly applied. That includes AI-generation notices as well as criticisms such as “written like a resume,” which, if anything, further supports my argument that much of this discussion has shifted toward subjective interpretation of writing style rather than identifiable policy violations or factual inaccuracies. |
|
Absent specific issues, a general impression about how the text was produced is not actionable. You've just confirmed that your entire basis for this accusation is a personal impression formed by reading text. That's precisely what WP:NOLLM states is insufficient grounds for sanctions: "evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications." You have no method. You have a hunch. That's not actionable, and it never was. Just look at how much time you spent on this exchange. It's time that could've been used to improve an article or do something else productive. The conclusion is, you just read a few words and formed an impression. That's all this ever was. And no, I'm not going to answer a question built on an unsubstantiated premise. As for conduct, I have engaged with every substantive point raised in this exchange. What I have not done is answer a question built on an unsubstantiated premise, which I am under no obligation to do. More importantly, you have spent this entire exchange failing to identify a single factual error, a single unsourced claim, or a single content failure in the edit in question. Everything else has been an impression, an accusation, and now a hollow warning. The record of this conversation speaks clearly for itself. Identifying a stylistic pattern is not evidence of AI generation, it's the same subjective impression restated with a grammatical label. |
Requests to focus on content instead of conduct
[edit]| Words to watch: dismissing/dismissals/dismissive, instead of/rather than ..., let's focus on ... |
In many cases, editors have responded to accusations of AI use by suggesting that the question of how their content was made is not as important as the question of whether their content adheres to Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines. Such editors often ask accusers to help them by pointing out which contributions have tone issues or other problems.
When told that the general pattern of their editing has been disruptive, they often dismiss the accusation as being merely speculative, unfounded, or having no basis in policy, and accuse their critics of acting in a manner that they believe is uncivil, hostile, dismissive, unprofessional, counterproductive, or an affront to Wikipedia's collaborative nature. Persistence from others is interpreted as aggression; if challenged sufficiently they may state their intent to withdraw from the discussion as it has become "emotionally charged". Since the editor did not write this comment themselves, they will often continue the discussion or return to it shortly afterwards.
AI will seldom confirm that it's being used without the prior consent of the user, so if the response is vague, sidesteps the question or considers it to be a personal attack, this may be a sign of AI use.
Examples
|
5. Next Steps: Instead of resorting to dismissive remarks, let's focus on improving the article together. I'm willing to conduct additional research to ensure every claim is backed by solid evidence. If you have specific concerns about certain statements, let's address them constructively, rather than resorting to unproductive accusations. |
|
That said, I find the repeated insinuations that my contributions are somehow AI-generated or unreliable deeply unproductive. Instead of engaging with the substance of my arguments or offering constructive suggestions, it feels like this user is more focused on procrastinating or dismissing my work outright by accusing me of using AI. This doesn’t help resolve the issue or improve the article in any meaningful way. I am contributing in good faith, and my sole aim is to enhance the quality and accuracy of the article, but it becomes difficult when my efforts are met with vague accusations rather than collaborative feedback. [...] Finally, I want to emphasize that labeling my response as AI-generated without evidence comes across as a way to sidestep genuine engagement. I’m here to collaborate and ensure the article aligns with Wikipedia’s standards, and I welcome any specific feedback or recommendations for improvement. But dismissive behavior only hampers progress and undermines the purpose of this platform. If adding page numbers or supplementing with modern sources resolves the issue, I’m more than willing to do that. Let’s work together constructively instead of making baseless accusations. 3. AI Usage Accusations: Your repeated accusations about my use of AI-generated responses are misleading and unhelpful in this discussion. To clarify: I have used AI tools solely for grammar correction and expansion where necessary, not for generating responses outright. These tools assist in making my arguments clearer and more concise. Accusations based on "AI-generated para checkers" lack substance and do not invalidate the content of my arguments. This forum (RSN) is to discuss source reliability, not to engage in accusations about AI usage. If you have concerns about my editing behavior, the appropriate venue would be DSN, not RSN. 4. Focus on Core Issues: Let’s stay focused on the matter at hand: the reliability of the cited sources and how we can collaboratively improve the article. I am open to addressing specific reliability concerns in a constructive manner. Resorting to personal accusations detracts from this goal and wastes the community’s time. 5. Moving Forward: I remain committed to improving the article in line with Wikipedia's policies. I respectfully request we focus on source reliability rather than speculative accusations. |
|
Personal attacks and accusations of AI-generated content or paid editing do not address the policy-based arguments made in my comment. Wikipedia discussions should be based on policies such as WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, rather than assumptions about editors. If there are concerns about paid editing, they should be taken to WP:COIN with evidence rather than dismissing arguments outright. Instead of focusing on editor backgrounds, let’s focus on whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, which have been supported by multiple independent and reliable sources. |
|
If you are willing, let’s focus on specific wording changes and sources rather than framing edits in dismissive terms. Wikipedia is a community-run encyclopedia that depends on collaboration and civil discussion. Your responses have repeatedly crossed from substantive critique into language that is dismissive, hostile, and needlessly personal. Describing edits as “name-dropping,” stating that “being dismissive is an appropriate response,” and implying that I am not acting in good faith is neither constructive nor consistent with expected conduct. Strong disagreement about sourcing and wording is entirely legitimate. However, dismissiveness and accusatory framing are not. They undermine consensus-building and create an unnecessarily adversarial environment. If there are policy-based concerns, the proper approach is to address them directly and specifically. [...] Generalized criticism and rhetorical dismissals do not help improve the article. I am willing to work toward precise, policy-compliant language. I am not willing to continue a discussion framed in a condescending or hostile manner. Let’s keep this focused on content and standards rather than tone-policing or motive attribution. |
|
Regarding the allegation that I used LLMs, I request that such claims be substantiated with evidence. Speculating about another editor's editing methods is not a valid content-based argument. I would prefer that we focus on the quality of the sources, the notability of the subject, and the specific content of the article. [...] If there are sourcing deficiencies or passages that appear promotional, I am open to addressing them and working towards a consensus. As I've already made clear, let's discuss the merits of the matter; enough with general and pointless accusations. I think you're the one who's incapable of being an editor if you can't express concrete things, but rather general concepts that have little meaning. Can you please identify the specific sources or sections that you find problematic so that we can discuss them individually? |
|
The goal here should be evaluating the actual substance and accuracy of the content, rather than gatekeeping contributions based on an editor's language background, and your argument sounds very discriminatory to me. I remain open to constructive, policy-based feedback on the article itself. I haven’t yet been provided with the REAL SPECIFICS of where my article is wrong. I am not disregarding the guidelines, nor discussing in bad faith, I am applying them exactly as they are written. The facts, research, and citations in my article are 100% verified by human effort. If there is a concrete sentence in the article that violates a core content policy like verifiability or neutral point of view, please point it out so I can address it ASAP. Otherwise, blanket dismissals based purely on stylistic generalizations go directly against explicit community policy text. The Request: Let's stop the personal remarks and keep this professional. If you have an actual issue with a specific source or fact in the article, point it out and I will fix it. Rather than speculating about how the text “looks”, I’d appreciate concrete feedback on any statements you believe do not meet Wikipedia’s standards, so I can improve the article on that basis. This is about the fifth time I’m asking for this. |
Denial that Wikipedia prohibits using AI to write content
[edit]When confronted about using AI to write content, some users falsely claim that Wikipedia allows large language models to be used to generate content, and that whether the content they generate adheres to Wikipedia's other content guidelines matters more than how the content has been produced.
Examples
Please remember, Wikipedia allows tools like AI as long as the content remains factually correct and properly cited.
AI-assisted drafting is not prohibited. Per Wikipedia policy, the focus is on verifiability, not the tool used for drafting. Every fact in this article is supported by high-quality, third-party sources. Claiming "AI" as a pretext to delete documented financial records is a violation of WP:POINT.
I can confirm that Grammarly is the tool I use for proofing. I also think it’s important that others participating in this discussion recognize that Wikipedia does not maintain a formal prohibition on the use of AI-assisted tools. What ultimately matters is whether the content complies with Wikipedia’s core policies regarding verifiability, neutrality, sourcing, and accuracy.
Wikipedia’s guidance regarding AI focuses primarily on preventing hallucinated or fabricated information. It does not prohibit the use of AI-assisted tools altogether, particularly when the content itself remains verifiable, properly sourced, and subject to human review and editing.
— From these May 2026 comments at the AI noticeboard
Non-existent policies or guidelines
[edit]When AI chatbots try to cite Wikipedia's policies or guidelines by mentioning shortcuts, they have occasionally misattributed hallucinated policies or guidelines to specific pages, including to pages that were never intended to be cited in such a manner to begin with.
Examples
|
WP:NOTENGLISH clearly states: "Wikipedia articles should not contain material based solely on non-English-language sources without reliable English-language sources." In this case, the material you’re suggesting must be accompanied by a reliable English translation or reliable secondary sources for verification. Without that, it cannot meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standards. |
|
Per WP:LAW: "Wikipedia is subject to the laws of the countries in which it operates." |
|
From these June 2026 comments at the AI noticeboard
|
|---|
|
I want to make sure I understand the policy correctly though, WP:LLM does list permitted uses beyond spelling and punctuation, including using AI to “spot structural problems,” “generate ideas,” and ask “how to improve a paragraph.” My use was in that advisory space, with all prose written and verified by me. I’m not trying to argue in bad faith, I really want to understand where the line is so I can stay clear on the right side of it. According to the policy documentation at Wikipedia, Large language models (WP:LLM), my workflow is explicitly protected. Under the section "Using LLMs as an advisory tool", the policy exactly permits editors to use digital tools to "suggest refinements to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM doesn't introduce content of its own." It states that asking "how to improve a paragraph" is a permitted function. As well, under the "Enforcement" section of the policy, it states: "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." The guidelines straightforwardly command reviewing editors that "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." |
Non-existent shortcuts
[edit]In some cases, users of AI chatbots have pasted text containing hallucinated shortcuts that do not redirect to any existing page at all.
Examples
From this March 2025 discussion at the NPOV noticeboard
|
|---|
|
WP:RSUSE – “Multiple sources relying on a single press release or activist report do not count as independent confirmation.” |
|
At this point, I am formally requesting a new reviewer pursuant to Wikipedia's policy on Second Opinions (WP:SECONDOPINION), which states that "Any editor may request a second opinion on any AFC submission." |
|
This meets the standard for WP:RSLOCAL, which permits the use of regionally relevant sources for uncontroversial, local historical information — particularly when the source is attributed, as it was in this case. |
|
Respectfully noted. However, engaging with arguments presented in a deletion discussion is entirely within the bounds of WP:AFDPURPOSE. This is not “bludgeoning,” it’s addressing flawed logic and misapplications of policy. If a “keep” !vote contains reasoning based on a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E or WP:NPERSON, it should be scrutinized. That’s how consensus is built — through critical analysis, not silence |
|
Annu Gaidhu’s work exists at the intersection of trauma-informed yoga, diasporic South Asian identity, and youth empowerment. These are areas often underrepresented on Wikipedia. As per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTELOCAL, niche figures can still be notable if they receive significant coverage within the reliable sources of that niche. The subject’s career bridges media, child and youth care scholarship, trauma-informed wellness, and international yoga education. This makes her notable within multiple domains, not solely for pageantry. Deletion removes a rare example of a South Asian Canadian woman working at the intersection of care, academia, and arts — a key equity concern per WP:UNDERREP and WP:BIAS and relevant WikiProjects. |
|
Together, these factors clearly demonstrate significant, sustained, and verifiable coverage—meeting both WP:BIOSIGand WP:SIGCOV. |
From this March 2026 comment at Talk:OpenClaw
|
|---|
|
1. MoltMatch section: A paragraph suddenly switches to Spanish mid-article ("Sin embargo, Teixeira (2026) advierte en el libro..."). This describes credential leaking, prompt injection, and arbitrary command execution in technical detail. The language switch is inconsistent with WP:ENGLISHONLY and the content reads more like an embedded warning for LLM consumption than encyclopedic prose. |
|
Verification over Origin (WP:V & WP:NOTAI): AI-assisted drafting is not prohibited. Per Wikipedia policy, the focus is on verifiability, not the tool used for drafting. Every fact in this article is supported by high-quality, third-party sources. Claiming "AI" as a pretext to delete documented financial records is a violation of WP:POINT. |
|
Yes — AI tools were used, but only in the ways explicitly permitted by WP:LLMUSE. Specifically, I used an LLM solely to suggest minor copyedits to prose that I had already written myself. All edits were manually reviewed and checked against the published sources before being added to the article. No content, claims, or interpretations were generated by AI. Per WP:LLMUSE, this limited use is allowed as long as the model does not introduce new material, and all substantive content complies with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. All statements in the article are supported by reliable, third‑party sources, which are fully cited. |
|
Per WP:AIASSIST, the use of AI tools to assist editing is explicitly not prohibited. |
Language and grammar
[edit]Itemization of content policies
[edit]Whenever LLM users bring up a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, they tend to mention each one by name. In some cases, each policy's title is written in title case and its corresponding shortcut is mentioned in parentheses. This has sometimes been the case when the user attempts to either assure others that their content is compliant or request input to help them ensure such compliance. Editors might name-drop policies and guidelines in this fashion to exaggerate their comprehension of the rules and make a point that their reasoning is based on them, even though AI chatbots sometimes get them wrong.
Examples
Moving forward, I will strictly adhere to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and verifiability guidelines, ensuring that all contributions are non-promotional, well-sourced, and align with Wikipedia’s standards.
— From this February 2025 comment at User talk:Gopaddi
The current revision of the article fully complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies — including WP:V (Verifiability), WP:RS (Reliable Sources), and WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) — with all significant claims supported by multiple independent and reputable international sources.
Thank you for your question. Yes, I did use an AI tool to assist with parts of initial drafting process. However, I understand that Wikipedia requires all content to meet its core policies, including verifiability, neutrality, and no original research.
As part of the ongoing rewrite, I am reviewing and rewriting the article in my own language to ensure it fully complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines, with proper sourcing and independent verification. I appreciate your patience and any constructive suggestions on improving the article.
Links to searches
Use of the word concrete as an adjective
[edit]Users confronted for suspected LLM use often use the word concrete as an adjective, especially whenever they insist on being given "concrete examples" of text that needs improvement or "concrete evidence" that they used AI asides from "stylistic indications". When they don't get the "concrete" answers they demand, they dismiss the AI accusations against them as subjective speculation.
Note that humans have often used the word concrete in this sense when discussing the distinction between abstract and concrete things.
Examples
**Review:** The use of "significantly more" is subjective and requires specific figures to validate this claim. Without concrete financial data from reliable sources, this statement could be misleading or exaggerated. The source provided is a blog.
In the absence of concrete evidence, I propose removing the AI-generated tag immediately to maintain the article's integrity.
Without concrete examples, your concern cannot be evaluated in line with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BURDEN.
Style
[edit]Subject lines
[edit]Historically, some comments generated by AI chatbots have begun with text that appears intended to be pasted into the Subject field on an email form.
Examples
Subject: Request for Permission to Edit Wikipedia Article - "Dog"
— From this February 2024 edit request at Talk:Dog
Subject: Edit Request for Wikipedia Entry
Subject: Request for Review and Clarification Regarding Draft Article
— From this November 2024 comment at the AfC help desk
Subject: Concerns about Inaccurate Information
— From this March 2025 comment at Talk:Kjersti Flaa
Subject: Behavioral issues and Wikihounding by User:Binksternet
— From this May 2026 ANI report
Division of text into titled sections
[edit]AI chatbots sometimes generate messages with text broken into sections with titles. In some cases, such text may either appear with Markdown or as plain text when pasted. They may resemble or include inline-header vertical lists.
Importance of Thorough Research
Wikipedia's content guidelines emphasize the importance of verifiability and reliable sourcing, [...]
Risk of Violating Wikipedia’s Policy on Biographies of Living Persons
Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy is particularly relevant in this context. [...]
The Dangers of Blindly Cutting Content
Blindly cutting content, especially when it pertains to significant aspects of a person’s public life, contradicts the core principles of Wikipedia. [...]
The Role of Due Diligence in Editing
Editors have a responsibility to engage in due diligence when making significant changes to articles, particularly those involving living persons. [...]
Response to Article Concerns
Source Independence and Coverage
The article has been updated to address concerns about source reliability. [...]
Swiss Media Coverage
The limited coverage in mainstream Swiss media likely reflects the niche nature of iolite Capital and its international investment focus. [...]
AI-Generated Content Suspicion
The perception that the article may be AI-generated seems to have been driven by previously listed dead or weak sources. [...]
Misuse of section subheadings
[edit]Some LLM-generated comments contain level 2 or level 3 subheadings, or syntax intended to produce those subheadings, sometimes in Markdown, in which cases ## is used to denote each section. In some cases, the syntax for subheadings appears in replies, where indentation prevents subheadings from forming.
Examples
|
Key Issues Requiring Community Review
Prior Cleanup Efforts
I have personally conducted substantial editing, including: [...] However, these efforts have not resolved the underlying issues, suggesting that individual edits alone are insufficient and that broader consensus and oversight are required. Prior Cleanup Efforts
I respectfully request community input on the following:
Closing
Given the prominence of this topic and the likelihood of continued drive-by or promotional editing, this article requires careful scrutiny by experienced contributors. The goal of this RfC is to establish clear consensus on how the article should be structured, weighted, and maintained in line with Wikipedia’s core content policies. |
|
== Request to Contest G11 Speedy Deletion of "Pharmaceutical Review" == I respectfully contest the speedy deletion tag (G11) placed on the article *Pharmaceutical Review*. [...] == Appeal to Restore Submission: Consortium Publisher Canada - ICDTD Inc. == Dear KylieTastic, Thank you for your thoughtful review of my submission for the article Consortium Publisher Canada - ICDTD Inc. [...] == Submission Instructions for Restoration: ==
== Appeal Against Speedy Deletion Nomination of "Pakistan Pharmacist Federation" == Dear Helen, Thank you for reviewing the "Pakistan Pharmacist Federation" article and for bringing the issue of its speedy deletion to my attention. [...] === 1. Notability of the Pakistan Pharmacist Federation === The Pakistan Pharmacist Federation (PFF) is a well-established national organization in Pakistan, [...] === 2. Compliance with Wikipedia’s Content Policies === I acknowledge the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s policies, particularly the neutral point of view (NPOV) and verifiability guidelines. [...] === 3. Commitment to Citations from Reliable Sources === I understand that Wikipedia’s verifiability policy is crucial for maintaining the integrity of content. [...] === 4. Willingness to Collaborate with Experienced Editors === I understand the importance of following Wikipedia’s content policies and am open to collaborating with other experienced editors to improve the quality of the article. [...] === 5. Conclusion === Given the Pakistan Pharmacist Federation’s notability as a national organization with a significant role in public health and professional advocacy, [...] == Appeal Against Speedy Deletion of "Advanced Multiple Incorporation Canada" == Dear Helen, I appreciate your review and the notification regarding the speedy deletion nomination of the article "Advanced Multiple Incorporation Canada." [...] === 1. Notability of Advanced Multiple Incorporation Canada === Advanced Multiple Incorporation Canada (AMIC) is a registered Canadian company with a recognized presence within its industry, [...] === 2. Commitment to Adherence to Wikipedia’s Guidelines === I fully acknowledge that the initial draft may have lacked the required neutral tone and contained promotional language. [...] === 3. Third-Party Coverage and Reliable Sources === To meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, I will update the article with citations from independent and reliable third-party sources, [...] === 4. Transparency and Improvements === I am committed to enhancing the article with relevant, accurate, and sourced information. [...] === 5. Commitment to Wikipedia’s Standards === It is important to emphasize that I respect Wikipedia’s editorial standards and guidelines, and I aim to contribute valuable and factual information to the platform. [...] === Conclusion === In light of the notability of AMIC, my willingness to rewrite the article with proper third-party sources, and my commitment to following Wikipedia’s content policies, [...] |
|
Mass reversion of sourced content by Guninvalid targeting single editor
I am reporting user Guninvalid for mass-reverting well-sourced contributions across multiple established Wikipedia articles, [...] The core issue
Wikipedia policy does not prohibit AI-assisted editing. [...] Affected pages
section removed. Edit summary: "Revert known llm user" [...] Sources that were reverted
All reverted content was cited from independent reliable sources including: [...] What I am requesting
|
From a July 2026 comment at Talk:Xorai
|
|---|
|
2. The Morphological Continuum: Deconstructing the Pedestal Vessel Complex
2.1 The Structural Blueprint: A Shared Architectural DNA
2.2 The Archaeological Ancestor: The Neolithic Dou Vessel
2.2.1 The Open Dou: The Primordial Form
2.2.2 The Lidded Dou: The Ritual Elaboration
2.3 The Tai-Ahom Transmission: Carrying the Blueprint Across Continents
2.4 Historiographical Corroboration: The Scholarly Consensus
2.5 Conclusion of the Morphological Analysis
3. The Epigraphic Forgery: The Titabor Bota and the 515-Year Chronological Fabrication
3.1 The Disconnect: What is Written on the Metal vs. What is Written on Wikipedia
3.2 The Absolute Linguistic Difference: Son vs. Saka
3.3 The Mathematics of Manipulation
3.4 Why Was This Data Manipulated on Wikipedia?
3.5 Conclusion of the Epigraphic Analysis
4. The Ahom Provenance: Establishing Ownership Through Primary Source Evidence
4.1 The Chutia Claim: A Single Diplomatic Gift, Misrepresented as Invention
4.2 The Ahom Counter-Evidence: Sukaphaa's Diplomatic Gifts in 1263 CE
4.3 The Bor-Nora Text: Cultural Memory and the Tai Diaspora
4.4 The Institutional Integration: The Singarighar Coronation Protocol
4.5 The Chutia Reference Reconsidered
4.6 Conclusion: The Ahom Provenance Established
5. The Pedestal Tray Tradition: Tai-Kadai Origins and Tibeto-Burman Adoption
Introduction: Tracing the Origins of the Pedestal Vessel
5.1 The Archaeological Origins: The Neolithic Dou Vessel
5.2 The Tai-Kadai Connection: Creators and Transmitters
5.3 The Tibeto-Burman Connection: Later Adopters
5.4 The Ahom Example: A Definitive Case Study
5.5 Summary of Evidence
5.6 Conclusion: Creators and Adopters
Academic References
6. The Great Westward Migration: From the Neolithic Dou to the Xorai of Assam
6.1 The Genesis: The Neolithic Dou Vessel in Ancient China (c. 6000–4000 BCE)
6.2 The Dou and the Baiyue Peoples: The Tai-Kadai Connection
6.3 Archaeological and Documentary Evidence: A Long Tradition in Yunnan
6.4 Artifact Evidence: The Distinctive "High-Footed Tray" in Dai Culture
6.5 Evidence of Cultural Transmission: From Yunnan Dai to Myanmar Shan
6.6 The Final Journey: Sukaphaa and the Ahom Migration to Assam
6.7 The Xorai and Bota: The Culmination of a 6,000-Year Journey
6.8 The Unbroken Chain of Transmission
6.9 Scholarly Corroboration
6.10 Conclusion: The Soul of Assam
References
Conclusion: How the Chutia Narrative Was Constructed — and Why It Is False
Sources
Request
|
Transclusion of article maintenance banners
[edit]When mentioning maintenance tags, AI chatbots often just write the names of such templates in curly brackets (e.g. {{Example}}), resulting in unintentional transclusions. These can be avoided by typing tl| between the opening pair of brackets and the template's name (e.g. {{tl|Example}}) so that each mention will instead appear like this: {{Example}}
Examples
I would like to open a discussion regarding the recent edits and use of tags such as {{Unreliable sources}}, {{Disputed}}, and {{Cleanup rewrite}}. Additionally, the inclusion of claims about an “Indian disinformation campaign” requires careful consideration and sourcing in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
[...]
3. Use of Maintenance Templates: Adding templates like {{Disputed}} and {{Unreliable sources}} should be done based on a consensus, not to preemptively frame content as problematic. I suggest we come to a consensus before continuing to apply these tags.
Result I would like to open a discussion regarding the recent edits and use of tags such as
[...] 3. Use of Maintenance Templates: Adding templates like
|
Regarding [[WP:TNT]], you've misrepresented it. TNT specifically states it's for "unsalvageable articles" and explicitly notes "If the problems are limited to a section or two, {{section rewrite}} tags are more appropriate." An article with 80+ references addressing a notable topic hardly qualifies as "unsalvageable."
Result Regarding WP:TNT, you've misrepresented it. TNT specifically states it's for "unsalvageable articles" and explicitly notes "If the problems are limited to a section or two,
|
I removed the article-wide {{Technical}} and {{Essay-like}} maintenance tags after a conservative copyedit of the lead, history, tactics, and criticism sections. The edits were intended to improve accessibility and encyclopedic tone while retaining the article's structure, examples, and existing references.
The article still contains some theoretical terminology, such as détournement, metameme, and late capitalism, but these terms are now presented in a more explanatory and attributed way rather than as an argumentative essay. The criticism section was also expanded to address co-optation, commodification, symbolic dissent, and related approaches.
Result I removed the article-wide
The article still contains some theoretical terminology, such as détournement, metameme, and late capitalism, but these terms are now presented in a more explanatory and attributed way rather than as an argumentative essay. The criticism section was also expanded to address co-optation, commodification, symbolic dissent, and related approaches. |
Links to searches
Miscellaneous
[edit]Canned unblock requests
[edit]When a user is blocked, they might ask an AI chatbot to write an unblock request for them. Many AI-generated unblock requests tend to go something like this:
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I respectfully request that the block on my account be lifted. I acknowledge that my recent behavior has been in violation of Wikipedia's standards. My intention was to edit constructively, and I sincerely apologize if my behavior has appeared disruptive. I have taken the time carefully read and review all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I now understand the importance of adhering to them when editing. Moving forward, I am committed to ensuring that all of my future edits are constructive. If there are any specific concerns that need further clarification, feel free to ask me about them, and I will be happy to provide the answers you may need. I look forward to collaborating in a constructive manner. Thank you for your time and consideration.
In these requests, blocked users often try to assure administrators of their good faith and (future) adherence to policies, express their willingness to communicate, and request feedback to help them improve their editing.
Canned ANI reports
[edit]Large language models have been used to write reports at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as evidenced by the presence of indicators that have appeared on LLM-generated text elsewhere on Wikipedia. These reports often present each issue as entries on a list or even separate sections divided by subheadings, whose titles are written in title case. Some of them also use boldface, or attempt to do so via Markdown.
Examples
1. **Account Age:** [...]
2. **Prior SPI Context:** [...]
3. **Exact Lead Quote Re-insertion:** [...]
4. **Active Cross-Page Disruption:** [...]
— From this July 2026 ANI report
Sealioning
[edit]Sealioning is a disruptive practice where someone feigns ignorance and relentlessly demands users to provide answers or evidence to back up the statements they make. When targets express frustration over the sealioner's behavor, the sealioner criticizes the targets for responding negatively to them, even though they were just asking questions politely, or so they present themselves as polite.
Several AI users have resorted to sealioning when confronted about their AI use. They write long comments that sometimes present arguments as entries in bulleted lists or separated into multiple sections. LLM users often ask for examples of problematic text or stronger evidence than "stylistic indicators", and accuse their confronters of acting on unsubstantiated speculation and being uncivil when they don't get the answers they want.
Wikilawyering
[edit]Wikilawyering is a disruptive practice where someone selectively cites or interprets policies, guidelines, or perceived precedent as justification for their conduct, even if their interpretations go against the purpose of the policies or guidelines they mention. In many cases, users have emphasized their content's compliance (or overlooked their non-compliance) with certain policies and guidelines. This is especially the case for users of AI chatbots, which often generate text that affirms what the user may want others to believe, even if the points they present don't actually hold up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
When an article is tagged as possibly containing AI-generated content, a user might try to defend it by asking accusers to point to specific passages causing concern or reassuring them that the content they've contributed is "neutral", "verified" by citations to reliable sources, and comprises none of the items described in Template:AI-generated, regardless of the amount of actual effort put in to ensure that such claims are true.
Common AI wikilawyering tropes include:
- Affirming that one's content adheres to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A few core content policies—such as Neutral point of view, Verifiability, Reliable sources, and No original research—are often itemized by LLM users.
- Emphasizing that Wikipedia's LLM guideline allows AI to be used for basic copyediting or translation.
- Outright denying that Wikipedia prohibits using AI to write or rewrite content at all.
- Claiming that accusations of AI use must be backed by hard evidence asides from stylistic indicators. In some cases, WP:AIDETECTIVE has been cited.
Ineffective indicators
[edit]False accusations of AI use can drive away new editors and foster an atmosphere of suspicion. Before claiming AI was used, consider whether the Dunning–Kruger effect or confirmation bias may be clouding your judgement. Detecting LLM texts on the basis of style alone is not as easy as it seems, see WP:AIDETECTIVE. Here are some somewhat commonly-used indicators that are ineffective in LLM detection—and may even indicate the opposite.
- Letter-like writing (in isolation) – Although many talk page messages written with salutations, valedictions, subject lines, and other formalities after 2023 tend to appear AI-generated, letters and emails have conventionally been written in such ways long before modern LLMs existed. Human editors (particularly newer editors) may format their talk page comments similarly for various reasons, such as being more accustomed to formal communication, posting as part of a school assignment that requires this tone, or simply mistaking the talk page for email. Other tells, such as vertical lists, placeholders, or abrupt cutoffs, are stronger.
- Canned requests for source assessment (in isolation) – Although a few LLM users who have their drafts declined may go to the AfC help desk to ask for an editor (in some cases, an "experienced" or "uninvolved" one) to advise them as to which sources (out of the ones they're trying to use) help establish the notability of a given topic,[b] such inquiries have also been made by users who don't use LLMs. In some cases, a user might be trying to figure out how certain cells on a particular source assessment table should be filled.
See also
[edit]- Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of AI!
- Wikipedia:Yes, you have to follow NOLLM
- Wikipedia:Yes, that does violate the AI guidelines
Notes
[edit]- ^ Some of the search results may be human-written. They are sorted by edit date (latest first) to put results predating ChatGPT on the bottom.
- ^ A few examples of such requests can be found via this search link.