Wikipedia:AI noticeboard

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

AI noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues of AI misuse.

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• To view all open cases (including those whose reports have been archived), see Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases.

Start a new discussion

Fuzheado

Userfied the relevant articles Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Previously closed by |Kowal2701. Unclosed by M kuhner due to ongoing significant discussion post-close. M kuhner (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Fuzheado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit summaries disclose that they're using an LLM-powered tool called "Wiki Bio Helper" to generate articles. See [1] for what the tool does, articles: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. These all violated the 'old' WP:NEWLLM at the time of creation, and several have been created since the passing of NOLLM. I've notified them of this discussion Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• He Tingbo:
  • The citation [12] returns a 404. The actual url is at [13]. No archives found at the first url.
  • Sources 10 and 11 have the same title. Bloomberg is the correct one [14]; Fortune returns an error page.
  • Sources 1 and 3 are cited to the statement In 2003, Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei placed her in charge of the company's chip development, providing an annual budget of US$400 million and a mandate to reduce dependence on foreign semiconductor suppliers. The numbers are supported by Reuters, but "a mandate to reduce dependence on foreign semiconductor suppliers" is not explicitly found in either source. In fact my read of the Reuters source is that the mandate was not originally that, but eventually became that, with the associated consequences.
  • In the years following the US restrictions, He led HiSilicon's effort to redesign its chip portfolio using alternative approaches that did not depend on restricted manufacturing technologies is sourced to [15], which mentions neither HiSilicon nor US restrictions, and Nikkei Asia, which does mention both (checked through university subscription), but is mostly on He's role inside Huawei rather than any specific HiSilicon effort to redesign anything.
• Joe Ando:
  • [16] is cited for He later played the recurring role of Rodney in the ninth and tenth seasons of The Walking Dead. but does not mention the ninth and tenth seasons.
• Irati Gorostidi Agirretxe:
  • [17] is cited for Agirretxe being awarded the Fulbright scholarship, which is not in the source, and and I cannot find Agirretxe in the Fulbright scholar directory.
• Steve Sweeney (journalist):
  • Source 2 does not say Sweeney was "the international editor" of the Morning Star. Using the article list page to surmise what he reported on is a bit SYNTH, but is relatively minor.
  • The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed the strike targeted military infrastructure and that explicit warnings had been issued to civilians in the area. is cited to [18]. No Israeli response is mentioned in the article.
• Six AI tigers:
  • [19] (source 2) is a bad domain; there is no "ftp" in front in the real article.
  • [20] cites author Rita Liao; it is not clear where this is found in the article itself.
  • [21] has a publish date of 13 March; 15 May is the update date. Also why is the ref name Reuters2025?
  • All six companies reached "unicorn" status (valuations exceeding US$1 billion) by early 2024 (source 3) only mentioned Zhipu raising a billion in 2025, and does not mention any other company.
• Shawn McCreesh:
  • [22]'s author is Ariana Ortiz, not Malak Kassem.
  • [23] does not say that McCreesh was raised in Hatboro, only that he wrote something about it.
  • [24] does not say that he was involved with The Torch.
  • [25] does not confirm that McCreesh is the WH correspondent of NYT. I cannot in fact find any evidence that McCreesh is a WH correspondent for the NYT.
• Fight Unlawful Conduct and Keep Individuals and Communities Empowered Act:
  • Source 1 has the wrong author field. Source 2 has the wrong title (took the abbreviated URL; real title is NJ panel advances bills to strengthen immigrant protections, target ICE).
  • The legislation was introduced as part of a broader package of bills aimed at increasing state-level protections for immigrants following a series of high-profile enforcement actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Hudson County. for Source 2 - the source does not mention Hudson County.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all, I will respectfully defer to what is determined by consensus on reverting or removing any content as well as curtail article creation as per the comment by Fermiboson. I have been off en.wiki for a number of days so I did not want to give the impression the issue was not important. In fact it is quite the opposite, and I welcome discussing any and all issues related to AI use at Wikimania, not just LLMs, both in person and in the virtual sessions. Wikipedia has always been about being bold and moving the platform forward, dating back to 2003 when my 50 college communications students first started editing English Wikipedia that was pioneering, but was accepted as "virtuously disruptive." [26] Getting that balance is important, so I respect the "D" in BRD and have paused and welcome the discussion. Related to that, this recent thread on VP may be interesting to folks. We have very strong sides of this discussion but face challenges to have more convergent discourse around AI. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Recent changes to WP:LLM are too restrictive and actively harm some parts of Wikipedia. – Fuzheado | Talk 12:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Seconding Fermiboson's comment above, this seems like a lapse in judgement. All I ask is that everything is always put to the community and subject to consensus, I'm sort of worried that such tools will be introduced from the developer side a la WMF (or quietly attempted), causing conflict or rifts (I'm not reassured by Wikimedia Switzerland's board including someone who advisors tech companies on AI). The only way forward is arguing/convincing and listening (I get the impression that people more amenable to AI view those opposed to it as irrational or reactionary, which may be true to a certain extent, but there are valid arguments besides just content quality). There also needs to be more dialogue between AIC and AIT, current thoughts are to merge the two discord servers (link for AIC server, everyone is welcome to join). Re LLM-generated content, a potential comprise may be [27] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten days no response. Where do we go from here? M kuhner (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Imo wait some more, but hypothetical next step is unfortunately to raise it as an WP:ADMINCOND issue at WP:AN, then if that is ineffective and others agree it's a big issue, WP:RECALL. But I'm happy to assume they're just busy irl, academics notoriously are, and they haven't edited for a couple weeks (can't expect everyone to be 'full-timers') Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

How much of their suspect output has been checked? If the answer isn't "all of it" we could do that check now. (I can't tell from what's been posted here.) M kuhner (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• I understand that Fuzheado is a celebrity of sorts, by why is his Autopatrolled status not being pulled, as would be the case for any other flagrant, serial LLM violator? Carrite (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to trout me, but I have unclosed this thread as it has been ongoing for quite a while post-closure. M kuhner (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ReaderOfSciFiNovelsNPhilosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oliwiasocz

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

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

There are 899 of their articles in the main space. [28] Fortek67 (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jsinnyj

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UpdatingUK

 Cleanup has been requested.

 UpdatingUK (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (23 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That link is inaccessible to me as well. I checked the National Library of Australia [29], Google Books [30] and WorldCat [31] and found nothing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

seems to be still going at LLM-generated text, judging by this quote vs the source ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: , please see above Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked UpdatingUK sitewide for continued LLM misuse. — Newslinger talk 17:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Guywelch2000

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

they responded [32] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Yahya0071

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

Bumping thread. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Astharosh

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Astharosh (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (21 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. Blocked for sockpuppetry.

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-20 Astharosh, 21 pages need review.

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

They were warned for AI use 5 June [33]. Given they've had an article SD'd for G15, this should probably be a mainspace block Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

I removed about 160 pages from the tracker as they were Newcomer Task style edits; I spot-checked a dozen or so and all were innocent. I judge the risk of missing a meaningful edit that happens to have a very small change of length to be acceptable, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. M kuhner (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Nish Aryal

 Cleanup has been requested.

Though they've said otherwise here, Nish Aryal (talk) seems to be using LLMs in some of their contributions, specifically in all of their edits marked with the tag "Edit Check (paste) shown." See this diff at Dal bhat for example: [34]. All their other edits with that tag show similar LLM-like language. InfernoHues (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Now at ANI, WP:ANI#Repeated ECR vios in the WP:CT/CASTE space Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Vayro.7

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-23 Vayro.7, 33 pages need review.

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

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

they were previously warned November 2025 (after the markdown diff) [35], to which they replied

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

can someone please spotcheck their latest contribs for LLM use? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Checked their articlespace edits from July 16th till now, seems all good to me - modest additions supported by the added sources. I'm unclear on how much cleanup has been done; since they admitted to previously using AI shall we make a list? ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

i think it'd be interesting for backlog reasons (also i don't believe i can create the pages myself because TAs can't create subpages, but i can get refunded or have a userpage) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracker created. (-64, you are a strange creature, neither fish nor fowl.) M kuhner (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

i think it's a silly joke to spoof the admin hopeful template into autoconfirmed hopeful, arguably the best joke i have made on wikipedia ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

haha, that's brilliant! (TM:User Wikipedia/Administrator someday is the original template for anyone unaware) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the user's edits to Biological intelligence, which they represented to Jlwoodwa that they had fixed. In one edit summary they claim to have corrected bad references [36] but though they say they validated Friston 2019, it's a dead link. In another edit summary [37] they say they added a DOI, but it goes to a totally different article. I conclude from this that, like the sources themselves, their claims to have improved the article are hallucinations. (IMO they are too stupid to be lies: why go to the trouble of pasting in a new link if it's going to 404?) Given that, we can't assume good faith on subsequent edits: I think some action is needed promptly. M kuhner (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Calhetan77

LLMPRODs are done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this should be closed i think ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:LumenArchivorum

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

Hello @Gnomingstuff and fellow Wikipedians

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

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

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

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

Hi Gnomingstuff,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:AtlanteanAstorian

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

also from 2026: [38] [39] [40]. Incredibly they don't appear to have been warned, so I've gone and done that Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Rejoy2003

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

Still no reply nor edits. ~200 creations since Nov 2022 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

YosefKT

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello PeepeeDino,

Thank you for your kindness.

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

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

Righty then, glad you've understood!

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

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

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

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

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

Another AI agent blocked

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-12 Jaredzimmerman, 25 pages need review.

LLMPRODs are done

User:IndigoKarasu was blocked by User:Asilvering for being an AI agent. Do we need to get formal consensus for WP:LLMPROD? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

First, I think we'll want to see what the editor (or their AI agent) has to say for themselves. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I fixed the Frank Epperson article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we have now seen that. In my opinion the unblock request is LLM. I'd ask that any cleanup focus on the declined drafts rather than articles the community already accepted. just sounds too much like all the other requests to "focus" on something other than doing a full investigation. In any case it was declined. M kuhner (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think we're going to get anything useful out of this person. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Support immediate cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• IndigoKarasu along with 藍からす were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Jaredzimmerman per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredzimmerman. I have updated the tracking subpage accordingly. LLMPRV will also apply to the master, especially since there is clear evidence of past LLM use from that account as well. I'll update the tracking page with edits made by them shortly. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Updated, their LLM use began 22 March 2023. Some details found: WP:OAICITE [41], imparted a foundational understanding of blending historical styles with modern sensibilities [42], a notable edifice that exemplifies a meld of Brutalist aesthetics with the tropical ambiance of Hawaii [43], various 404s in [44].

When compiling the list I also found evidence of programmatic TA socking to "fix" pages they created, see the SPI for details. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Freetrashbox

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

Mostly on Talk:Badhan, Sanaag#AI. Slow-motion sealioning after refusing to get the point regarding NOLLM violations and repeated removal of AI generated tag. Fermiboson (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I made that edit in October 2025. I found the sources myself, used an LLM to help with the translate, and reviewed the text under my own responsibility. At that time, the community rules regarding LLMs were not as strict as they are now. After another user informed me about the current rules, I immediately rewrote the text to comply with them. Although I made further revisions to ensure the quality, Fermiboson refuses to review the current version. Instead, he is retroactively applying current rules to my past edit and ignoring my sincere efforts to fix it. While I understand the concern about LLMs, I believe my current edits follow Wikipedia policies, and I am fully open to constructive feedback on the latest version. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Freetrashbox, can I ask if you used an LLM to write this comment (and those at Talk:Badhan)? If so, please see WP:AITALK. You've now said three different contradictory things re your workflow:

1) the above comment,

2)

I would like to clear up a misunderstanding: I do not let LLMs write most of my articles. The most important part of Wikipedia is researching sources, and current LLMs cannot do this at all. I find and read every single source by myself. For the previous version of this page, I used an LLM to help with phrasing. However, because the LLM-like style was pointed out, I have now rewritten the text. I believe the current version fixes this issue, so please let me know what you think.

3)

I usually create the content in my own language first. The LLM is used for translation, which makes it the first English draft. I then review and rewrite it myself. The ideas and facts come from me, not the LLM.

If the reason you are using an LLM is because you're not fluent enough in English, I strongly recommend not editing the English Wikipedia until you can contribute constructively without an LLM as it becomes a WP:CIR issue (generally-speaking, editors shouldn't edit Wikipedias whose language they aren't proficient in). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not using an LLM to write this comment. I have been participating in discussions on the English Wikipedia before LLMs became widespread, and if you look at those, you'll see that my basic way of thinking and how I develop my arguments haven't changed from what they are now. I sometimes write drafts in my own language, but that's not because I'm not fluent in English. (Of course, I'm not on par with a native speaker.) I frequently contribute articles in my own language Wikipedia as well, and I thought preparing articles in my own language would make the process easier. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If something is generated by AI it can't just be copyedited; it needs to be completely rewritten from scratch. You have not done so and so the v1 AI concerns remain. This is not the first time this has been explained to you.

While we're here can you explain how you cited source 3 in Fadumo Saeed Ibrahim as "Daawo: Reer Wales-ka ka soo jeeda Somaliland oo xusay boqol guurada markii ay degeen Cardiff" when the BBC article appears to be about something completely different published on a different date and I cannot find any evidence of the named article existing? Fermiboson (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It was my mistake to get the source title wrong (I probably copied the title from another page I had open at the same time), but the BBC article clearly states that Fadumo stayed in Newport and Cardiff and returned in 1991. If you think this is a hallucination generated by an LLM, you're mistaken. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It has been extremely rare in Wikipedia’s history to have to rewrite past entries based on newly established rules. However, I chose to interpret the request as “there are many unnatural expressions, so rewrite it”—in a positive light, and I have already completely rewritten the description. What more am I supposed to do? Freetrashbox (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

their recent creation [45] is human-written Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

User:KittyHawk2014

LLMPRODs are done

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-22 KittyHawk2014, 52 pages need review.

Since April 2026, this editor has been creating WP:BLP articles at an inhumanly fast rate despite having received many AI use-related warnings, taggings, draftifications, and deletions. [46]

Other WP:AISIGNS include...

• WP:AIREDCAT: [47]
• WP:AIATTR: Contemporary newspaper references from the Courier-Express identify him as at Draft:Charles J. Gaughan
• WP:AIBOLD: Draft:Kevin R. Hardwick

I suggest applying WP:LLMPROD for their post-April 2026 edits, a time which their writing style experienced a significant shift. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment, additionally Daren Dryzmala which was created in this timeframe was deleted via WP:G15 for Unreviewed LLM-generated content (communication intended for the usernon-existent or nonsensical references) [48], so LLM use is entirely unambiguous.

I think the range may be wider than post-April 2026. In October 2025 they created Bobby Walker (political operative) and Peter Giunta (political operative) within an hour of each other, and the subject matter is the same as seen in this latest creation spree with Matt Poole (political operative). In April 2025 they created Rus Thompson pre-populated with {{pp-pc1}} and maintenance banners dated to 2019. Support LLMPRV either way. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. I'll try to get a better start date and make a tracker. M kuhner (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This user has been blocked from mainspace. The talk page documenting all the problematic article creations is quite damning. I was tempted to use the administrator's "nuke" tool to mass-delete the page creations, but too many of them are now under discussion. Several have been A7-deleted today, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Making tracker from April 2025 onwards. M kuhner (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Historical 5776

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested.

I ran across Invasions of Kuwait (1793-1808) which itself flags as possibly AI to me. The creation edit summary raised further flags. Looking through their history and speed of page creations too, I highly suspect their to be AI usage, but am not an expert in it. A more thorough review would be appreciated. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I see you’re concerned about my article, but I could assure you that the AI wasn’t used in the article The flags themselves are only taken from another article mentioning Kuwait the [[Battle of Khakeekera]] (1811) I even used AI detector to see myself in the article is written by ai it came out 0%. You could go check yourself and The speed of these articles Creations it’s just simply me I’m a Historian I have access to lots of books in Saudi history I use quotes and references from These books That’s why my Article could made in one day of work Thank you Historical 5776 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

At least some of the references in Invasion of Bahrain (1801) do not support the text and are themselves cited improperly or incorrectly (such as (1), which is not in Arabic, (2) (not those authors) and (5) (which has no mention of the person the text references). I would also draw attention to how one of those references (5), a self-published book, bears the same characteristic punctuation as this particular editor. Also, a strange phrase on the talk page when challenged by another editor on AI use: "I would just like to note that, to the best of my knowledge, the text was not AI-generated." This implies the text was not written by the editor, raising concerns of plagiarism if it is not AI. OsFish (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It could be that the references cited improperly that’s a Easy fix but they are not incorrectly Regarding the content of Invasion of Bahrain (1801), my interpretation is based on multiple independent sources rather than a single reference

Reference (1) Bahrain’s Surviving Dynasty book states “The events of 1801–10 when the Imam of Muscat, then the Wahhabis annexed Bahrain, undermined their authority over the acquired territories. The eight-year period of retrogression…”

This explicitly refers to the Wahhabi annexation of Bahrain and the period from 1801 to 1810.

Reference (2) The Great Arabian Sword of the Saudis likewise states that “ In 1800, Sultan bin Ahmad Al Busaidi of Muscat seized Bahrain and installed his brother Sa’id as governor, forcing the Al Khalifa once again into exile. Seeking to reclaim their lost dominion, the Al Khalifa turned to the First Saudi State. They appealed to Imam Saud bin Abdulaziz for assistance in liberating Bahrain from Omani control. Imam Saud dispatched a military force under Ibrahim ibn Afaysan. In a swift campaign in 1801, the Saudi forces crossed to Bahrain, expelled the Muscat garrison, and declared the island part of the Saudi realm. Yet, rather than restoring Bahrain to the Al Khalifa” Both sources therefore describe the same sequence of events: the campaign began with Saudi military intervention against the Omani garrison, after which Bahrain was incorporated into the First Saudi State rather than restored to the Al Khalifa. This is why I summarized it as a military intervention that resulted in the First Saudi State taking control from the Omani forces and subsequently annexing the territory, followed by an occupation lasting until 1810 In addition reference (5), The History of the First and Second Saudi State by Dr. Khalid Al-Azm, states that:

“The Saudi leadership authorized a military expedition led by the experienced commander Ibrahim ibn Ufaysan. The Saudi forces advanced into Bahrain and succeeded in expelling the garrison aligned with Muscat in 1801.”

My wording in the article

“The Al Khalifa family requested Imam Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Muhammad’s assistance in reclaiming Bahrain from the ruler of Muscat. He promptly dispatched an army under the command of Ibrahim bin Afaysan, who seized Bahrain and expelled the Muscat ruler’s forces in 1801.”

Its a summary of that material and is directly supported by the cited source. The source does mention Ibrahim ibn Ufaysan, the Saudi expedition, and the expulsion of the Muscat-aligned garrison in 1801

Regarding the AI allegation my statement “to the best of my knowledge” was simply cautious wording. It was not an admission that someone else wrote the text or that it was plagiarized I wrote the article myself based on the sources I consulted To clarify, I did not write or publish reference (5). My use of the source is based on the historical information it contains Thank you Historical 5776 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Wiscomiller

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested.

Blocked for AI use here but opening a formal cleanup thread since I keep running across untagged articles by them, seems most have slipped through the cracks Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Noting that their edits are eligible for immediate presumptive removal via 1A in WP:LLMPRV. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMPRODed up to #123 of [49] (Marilyn Barua-Yap) (going forwards in time, so decreasing numbers) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Done Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Anúna page - User:Choral12 and User:Brezairola

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Choral12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Anúna, there was a large amount of content contributed by User:Choral12 between January and March. User:Brezairola, who has also contributed to the same page, recently had much of their content and drafts removed or deleted due to LLM usage. Looking at the type of edit summaries by User:Brezairola, of which there is evidence of being Claude responses [50], they are very similar to that of User:Choral12. It's possible User:Choral12 is in the same boat as User:Brezairola, or could possibly be the same person. The edit summaries, content amounts and subject matter are very similar. Could User:Choral12's contributions at Anúna also contain LLM edits and should more content be reverted at the Anúna page? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Heeheemalu

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

This user has created lots of articles, many of which are tagged as {{AI-generated}}. One of their articles is currently listed at WP:AFD/Science and technology in Taiwan, where I've pointed out some typical WP:AILEGACY and source-to-text issues. They have been warned for LLM use, most recently I've placed an {{uw-ai3}} notice on their talk page after I draftified Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War with China (which was then submitted to AfC and accepted back into article space).

The have barely used their own talk page, but they did address User talk:Heeheemalu § Promotional prose, saying that they have used AI to [help] source the information but that they have written the article themselves.

This is far more than I can go through myself now and have a proper look at. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Also note Talk:Forbidden Nation, complaining about their AI-generated text being blatantly obviously AI Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for your messages. I am not sure how Wikipedia determines the use of LLMs to "create" articles, as I have only ever used it to help "source information" but have not used it to "write" the said articles. Furthermore, I have always done by best to check the information sourced by LLMs to ensure that they are not hallucinations and are as accurate as possible.

However, if using LLMs to source information is also prohibited by Wikipedia, please note that it is done unintentionally and out of pure ignorance of such regulations. Therefore, I hereby make a pledge to stop using LLMs to source the information and will clean up existing articles where I have used LLMs to source the information.

Nevertheless, I would like to note here that it is totally unfair to delete my old articles prior to 2023 before LLMs were even released for users as well as new articles such as "National Innovation, Creativity and Finance Center", "Dominica–Taiwan relations", "Grenada–Taiwan relations" and "Cactus ice" where I've not even used LLMs to source the information and have literally just translated most of the information from the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia pages. If you care to check, you will see that most of the information was obtained from there, a part from the annual trade information, which is obtained purely from the sites I have indicated.

I would like to remind everyone that there is always an element of false-positives no matter which AI detector you've used and some people naturally have a very similar style and tone to AI when writing academic articles as LLMs are precisely trained to write in an academic style by the information it has been fed. Therefore, if the community is to delete every single "suspected" AI-generated article without clear guidelines of how it is determined and rules of what to do / not to do, eventually, Wikipedia will completely be replaced by AI as people would not continue using it as a source of information since it will never be able to compete with AI in terms of the level of detailedness on certain topics. This defeats the whole purpose of what Wikipedia was initially created for and I am sure is not something that we Wikipedians want to see.

Thank you for reading my long message. I apologise again for any inconvenience caused and I hope you can understand. Heeheemalu (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you take the time to read the WP:USED-AI? essay? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, thank you for pointing to the article to read. After reading it, I confess that I have used ChatGPT to source the information for longer articles with information that I am not too familiar with myself and whilst writing it, I have used Grammarly to help me check my grammar and write more eloquently. I was not aware that Grammarly had been connected to OpenAI, which is probably the reason why some of my more recent articles seem like AI. Again, I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience and I hereby make a pledge to stop using LLMs to source the information and will do my best to clean up existing articles where I have used LLMs to source the information.

For the wider Wikipedian community, I would like to ask for everyone's help to save my articles by helping me rewrite them. As I am an amateur, my efforts and abilities are limited and would not be able to rewrite everything in a short time. And as @Cunard said, I have indeed put a lot of time and effort into writing these articles which are in a "deeply underrepresented topic" and would hate to see them deleted. As I already mentioned, I have done my best to ensure that the information is accurate, thus if it is just about rewriting/paraphrasing it so that it is not in "AI tone", then I am sure there will be people willing and able to help me out.

Thank you in advance for everyone's help! Heeheemalu (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for making these pledges, Heeheemalu (talk · contribs)!

From Wikipedia:Presumptive removal of AI-generated content#Reversing removal of content: "If the PROD timeframe is too short, editors are free to userfy or draftify PRODed articles before removing the tag provided that they do the above before moving them back to mainspace."

The articles can be userfied or draftified to allow for cleanup since there are a large number of PRODed articles and too little time to clean them up before the five-day deadline. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cunard that was a recent addition made to the guideline without consensus, it's been reverted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I have only ever used it to help "source information" – False.

Lunar New Year in Taiwan – 02:42, 8 January 2025

• For example, Taiwan emphasizes religious rituals and temple visits, blending Taoist and Buddhist influences.
• While it shares cultural roots with the Chinese New Year, Taiwanese New Year incorporates distinct customs, traditions, and terminology that reflect the nation’s unique cultural identity.
• Overall, the Taiwanese Lunar New Year is a blend of ancient customs and modern-day celebrations, offering a unique experience that highlights the country's rich cultural heritage.

You've stated that Grammarly is why some of [your] more recent articles seem like AI, but the above example is not recent, and is from a year and a half ago.

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They have ignored the notice and continued creating articles, at least one of which exhibited AISIGNS; I have gone ahead and placed a {{uw-ai4}}. Might be time for LLMPROD. DraconicDark (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Over the years, Heeheemalu has made numerous excellent contributions to Taiwanese topics. I have enjoyed reading the many articles they've written in a deeply underrepresented topic. I think their early contributions did not use LLMs while their recent contributions certainly have. It is unclear when they started using LLMs.

They are likely to be blocked and may have every article they created deleted if they do not pledge to stop using LLMs to write articles. I do not want to see this happen. I've left a personal message on Heeheemalu's talk page asking them to respond here with a pledge that they will stop using LLMs to write articles and that they will clean up existing articles where they have used LLMs. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cunard (talk · contribs) I agree that Heeheemalu (talk · contribs) should not be blocked. His articles should not be deleted but instead be cleaned up. Dash9Z (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to do the cleaning-up?

<linebreak>

Since user has gone inactive without addressing the issues, it might be time for LLMPROD. Based on the above it may be worth spending some effort to determine the start of LLM use instead of nuking everything. Fermiboson (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Bondwagon

LLMPRODs are done and drafts are tagged

Yet another serial AI user. The reason I am making a noticeboard thread here is that they have a charming habit of removing the tags on their obvious (and eventually disclosed) AI articles with edit summaries like "typo". Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Bondwagon hasn't edited at all since April and the actions being commented on here mostly occured in 2025. This tag was removed in August 2025 with the edit summary "removed likely to be AI tag". This tag was removed in October 2025 with the edit summary "typo". Gnomingstuff restored it.

I still see signs. SenshiSun (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

April is only 3 months ago. I am opening a noticeboard thread so there is documentation of this and I don't have to wait until the next time I stumble across the same article because the same shit has not gotten fixed and get greeted with the tag being gone with the mocking-ass edit summary "typo". Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I like when in April 2025 they said My additions aren't AI generated. They are a result of careful research [51], and then the next month they started adding utm_source=chatgpt.com [52][53][54], careful research indeed. Later on they stated that AI only did spelling and grammar check [55].

These "spelling and grammar checks" resulted in classic generated text like ... an important tourist destination in Rivers State, known for its cultural heritage and historical significance [56], The vibrant community of Anyama persists in its trading activities, specializing in a diverse array of ... [57], The ceremony was marked by vibrant displays of color, with guests dressed in matching ... [58] or Kaiama is distinguished by its swampy terrain and lush vegetation. Unlike other ... [59].

It's clear that this editor has a history of AI use in a generative capacity, and so their edits may be removed via 1B of WP:LLMPRV. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Bondwagon has requested their deleted pages be restored to their userspace at WP:REFUND, ironically with a request that itself appears to be AI-generated. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 19:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Went and tagged all of the restored pages because I'm afraid they'll just find their way back into article space, and we'll just have to start all over. Funny how they admitted to using an LLM in the refund requests. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

the requests are at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 424, they haven't edited since but worth keeping an eye on Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Soldatipro

Edits by the user have been reverted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) by Gurkubondinn but without actual accountability as to whether they used AI or not, they might just keep using it. More so, their drafts have been declined for being generated by LLMs (Draft:Pando S.A. and Draft:Dos en Uno) PeepeeDino (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Backlog bonanza

Archives 1–6

Main page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 1–6)

Welcome to the first instalment of Backlog Bonanza (click the link above, be prepared to be disappointed). All the LLMPRODs from Archives 1–6 are done (besides what's listed here). I haven't done any normal reverting, there's still loads of that in the archives if anyone fancies systematically going through them. At the linked page are users whose AINB reports got archived to Archives 1–6 or have a page in Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases. They're either recently editing and unresolved re whether to block, or consensus is needed re whether to LLMPROD their articles (and when to start from). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

for the masochistic there's always the list of user talk pages with uw-ai (not for LLMPROD, but for backlog) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

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

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Can we please get a block for Schaumturducken2020 (talk · contribs), they were reported January 2026 and warned many times but ignored it, and are still editing. Their most recent creation was 29 June which has a bunch of AI signs like At least one source states the Principles comprised fifteen articles in editions circulating between 1933 and 1941, expanded to seventeen in the 1942 NDH-era Crljen edition. The combined 1933/1941 publication consulted by Tomasevich gives seventeen principles. Readers should consult Jareb's 2007 study (pp. 124–128) directly to resolve this discrepancy., em dashes, ...though it played an important political and psychological role in Croatian history., WP:AIATTR Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Schaumturducken2020 (talk · contribs) indefinitely from article space, as they have recently misused LLMs to generate article content without acknowledging previous talk page warnings.​ — Newslinger talk 21:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: It appears you are the mentor of Schaumturducken2020, who is apparently using AI to write, and has not acknowledged concerns placed on his user talk page. I don't see any interaction between the two of you since you posted the announcement of mentorship on the user talk page, but I wanted to know if you also support a mainspace block or some other administrative action. This is a collaborative project, communication is a critical element for collaboration, and Schaumturducken2020 is not communicating. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, communication is crucial. If they are unresponsive, I have no problem with going down the block route. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Archive 7

Main page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archive 7)

Done all the LLMPRODs in Archive 7 other than those listed, same story as above. More cases from Archive 7 than there were from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 combined. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Archives 8–9

Main page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 8–9)

Same again. This should be the last big one from the archives since it's the last before WP:LLMPRV was passed. Enjoy Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

ANI edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:FlutterDash344

 Cleanup has been requested.

FlutterDash344 (talk · contribs) Lots of LLM copyedits like [60], [61], [62]. Warned earlier today [63], to which they responded But I don't know how to copyedit without using LLMs, then said they'll be more careful, before Masterhatch explained things and they replied Alright then. About 1600 mainspace edits since Nov 2022 [64] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I promise not to copyedit using LLMs anymore. I'm really sorry about this. I will only do normal copyedits from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlutterDash344 (talk • contribs)

Hey @FlutterDash344:, you should sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~ so we know it's you replying. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not use artificial intelligence or grammar apps to write articles. It was a misunderstanding. FlutterDash344 (talk)

User:Prince-ed-tech

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested.

Warned for AI in 2025. Responded: thank you for your suggestion and support for next time i remeber that think. I guess they forgot, because they're still making AI edits as of this June. (Their username also suggests COI.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you make a guess when they started using LLMs? M kuhner (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

From the beginning. It hasn't even been one year. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

User:LordRapture

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-21 LordRapture, 348 pages need review.

Large swath of AI edits, as recently as May 2026. Claimed in September that I'm using AI only to fix code.; when someone else pointed out that their AI edits "only to fix code" were somehow also doing stuff like rewriting direct quotes, they blew off the comment entirely and soon afterward blanked their user talk page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit summary, October 2025: There are no reliable sources that confirm 30 million sales. Certified sales across all markets amount to around 14.5 million copies, and even industry estimates typically cite about 25 million worldwide, not 30. Therefore, the previous figure was overstated and has been corrected to 15 million to better reflect verifiable data. They have not edited since May, so we won't get a block. Consensus for cleanup? I support. M kuhner (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Support and also noting that requirement 1B (inactive user) is automatically met. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Derek J Moore

 Cleanup has been requested.

Yet another large swath of AI edits. Sort of. I don't think all of their edits are AI; there's a pronounced difference in writing style even between edits that were made basically at the same time, e.g. this from October 2025 (does not seem like AI) and this from September 2025 (is very obviously AI).

Unfortunately, their response to my flagging one of the obvious AI articles was to leave a sarcastic comment on my talk page accusing me of using a bot (which I don't) and implying I deserve to be griped at because of this, and in the process not actually addressing the issue of whether they used AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Howzit! @Gnomingstuff You are absolutely correct. I did use AI on Wits MIND institute (Q138036253) and I did not use it on Springfield College of Education (Q136450274). Now I'm not sure if you are familiar with South Africa (Q258). (I see that you have made two edits to Zu Wikipedia and 1 to Tswana Wikipedia.) The former is a University that is creating AI slop and integrating it into their curriculum. This is where the problem lies. Benji Rossman can also address the matter out if he sees the need too. The latter is a teacher training college concerned with education. I gave them the respect they deserved and tried to write a proper article. The mind institute have just got a taste of their own medicine. You seem angry about AI, which your posting history suggests (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=usercontribs&ucuser=Gnomingstuff&uclimit=500&ucdir=older&ucprop=ids%7Ctitle%7Ctimestamp%7Ccomment&format=json&origin=*). I'd suggest that you address the matter with the organisations who are creating the scholock, with the Wikimedia Foundation. Don't look for scapegoats to take your anger out on. Finally, you have been prolific on Wikipedia and I did not give you the respect you deserve. 333 000 contributions is a lot. Keep up the good work, just re-direct your passion. Best Derek J Moore (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Derek J Moore, have you used AI to write any other articles? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Kowal2701 I have used AI occasionally, generally I use it to find a structure. I'm often disappointed by the things its leaves out. I'll use an example. Krugersdorp Police Station was built by Paul Kruger (Q244407). He installed his grandson Sarel Eloff (Q31736472) as station commander. This is a known fact. . An version of this history leaves out this important piece of information about nepotism. I do try to remember to use the template notifying others that was used.

P.S. I was pleased to see your focus on Africa. Thanks you. Are you connecting to local language speakers? ~I can introduce you Best Derek J Moore (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Derek J Moore (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If you truly care about "[giving me] the respect you deserve" then please do not passive-aggressively tell me what I should and should not care about. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

References

User:Thoppy234

LLMPRODs are done

Yet another swath of AI edits. (Should not need too much explanation, the talkpage comments are especially blatant.) I've reverted, reviewed or flagged all of the prose edits, but they have also added dozens-to-hundreds of infoboxes. These are AI too (WP:AIPLACEHOLDER shows up constantly, and I mean also they're using AI for everything else so...) and thus need review. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Kind of non-actionable by an admin, except for cleanup, since that editor hasn't been active for nearly a year. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not asking for admin action, if I was I'd go to ANI; this is just to document the stuff needing cleanup so it doesn't fall through the cracks Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

We now have the capability to make cleanup tracking pages from a specific start date, not just the start of the ChatGPT epoch. Can you venture a guess as to when they started? I'll set up a tracker. M kuhner (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Everything. They have no substantive edits before 2025. I don't mean to be rude, but this is something you could easily have checked yourself to answer your own question instead of making me do it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sorry. I should have looked before asking. You are much better at telling when LLM started than me, but there's no reason to bug you when it's obvious. M kuhner (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries -- in this case it's mostly that they basically have no edits whatsoever before a given point. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They have reappeared and have requested undeletion of at least one prodded article (now Draft:Adetokunbo Omishakin). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m the editor behind User:Thoppy234, and I like to respond to the concerns raised here. My substantial edits begin around 2025 are being taken as evidence of AI use; in reality, that timing reflects when I started contributing more actively, and I have never used AI tools for any of my edits.

The previous article on Draft:Adetokunbo Omishakin was written completely without AI. I will be rewriting the draft again now, also without AI, and making sure that every significant claim is supported by reliable, independent sources so it complies with Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons, neutrality, and verifiability.

I also understand there is concern about my infobox work. I know infobox syntax well and can create infoboxes quickly, the speed of my edits comes from practice, not automation. If specific infoboxes or past edits contain errors or look like AI placeholders, I’m happy to fix or remove them once they’re pointed out.

My goal now is to improve existing content in line with policy and to avoid any future issues with AI‑suspect edits. If editors have concrete suggestions or concerns about particular parts of the article or my earlier edits, I’m willing to address them. Thoppy234 (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

And that was a 100%-probable AI generated response according to AI detection tools. We are not stupid. See Wikipedia:Do not lie about AI. And especially once you are caught at it, don't compound the problem by adding more. We want to talk to you, not your chatbot. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

so you mean anything written is AI generated. We then need to write single sentence. ENGLISH human writing and writter still exists. Some of us are just bless with using words. Thoppy234 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

In this post you haven't produced one single grammatically correct sentence, but you expect us to believe that you wrote four perfectly grammatically correct paragraphs without using AI. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

So now it comes down to a single sentence with a grammar issue. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I’m not here to trade words with a bunch of AI editors. English is not my first language, and I’ve learned my lesson about arguing over things that don’t help me grow. Civility

Reading all the threads here shows me there’s a kind of power I can’t control. Anything outside my control, I prefer to leave to those of you who are in control or to those of you whose power is English. No personal attacks

And just to be clear: saying my grammar is bad doesn’t prove the text is AI generated; read alot of articles daily and AI slop is in most of the content does not mean Human dont write . Human writers still exist, and some of us are simply comfortable playing with words in our own way. Thoppy234 (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Why did your grammar and spelling deteriorate towards the end of this reply? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Because i didnt go to Reykjavik University Thoppy234 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with anything. They don't even have an English Studies program (but University of Iceland does) or even a faculty of languages/linguistics, at least they didn't when I was there more than 15 years ago.

Your reply started with perfect grammar and perfect spelling, but towards the end it completely changed. All of the grammatical errors and spelling mistakes are in the last paragraph, but there are none in the previous paragraphs. How come that happened? It's a genuine question, and I'll take a reasonable answer at face value. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you thinking the above comment was AI-generated? I think it bears a lot of difference from Thoppy234's original comment in this thread, but if they can't or won't acknowledge that we can easily tell the difference between that original comment and the other comments in this thread, this conversation is almost certainly going nowhere. ^purring_maggot (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No idea, honestly. I just wanted to know why the last paragraph was so different from the rest of the reply. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ai detectors arent reliable Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but it was also blatantly AI generated anyways so the point is rather moot. Fermiboson (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I've seen studies indicating that certain detectors can achieve very high accuracy and low false positive rates. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

MIT Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

University of San Diego Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Every study cited in both of those is 2023. This is a fast evolving field and 2023 is a long time ago.

It's policy here not to rely entirely on LLM detectors but they can certainly help double-check a conclusion reached by a human. One interesting study in this regard is [65] from 2025, which showed that both experienced users and recent algorithmic detectors are quite accurate, while inexperienced humans did not do particularly well. (A problem familiar here as we deal with occasional reports that something has typos or bad grammar so must be LLM, which is definitely not true anymore, in fact it's an anti-sign.) M kuhner (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Uzsport

Yet another large swath of AI edits with various people pointing out symptoms of the problem (source-to-text integrity issues/hallucinations, deleted draft notices) but no one identifying the problem.

Is unambiguously using ChatGPT for at least some things, and their articles have the usual slate of other WP:AISIGNS (infobox "add file name here" placeholders, "plays a key role" crap, AI talkpage comments, the whole gamut.

This goes back at least to mid-2025. Not sure about 2023-24; I have not done a full check of all articles. Definitely by 2025. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

the Anthropometry section at Guljahon Turdikulova from April 2023 and from June 2023, there's also « symbols in this from July 2023 but idk if that's markup (at least seems to come from being copied somewhere) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think they're quotation marks on a Cyrillic keyboard or in other languages. I have them because « I write in French ». SenshiSun (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I want to answer honestly. I accept that I used AI sometimes, mostly for translated/paraphrased sentences, and help with references. The article where I used it more was WBC Boxing Grand Prix, mainly because I had difficulty with the brackets and formatting. I didn't understand at the time that using AI in this way could be a problem on Wikipedia. I did not use AI every time or to write full articles from start to finish, but I understand the concern. Could you please guide me on what I should do next and which issues I should focus on first? I want to correct the problems properly. Uzsport (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and clarifying the situation. You're in a better position than anyone else to know which are the AI articles, but those are the ones to start with, unfortunately the only thing to do is go back to the beginning and write them from scratch without AI by reading the sources. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest reply. If you could clarify which articles may contain LLM text, that would really help us out, and would also protect your non-LLM work from mistaken deletion. Even a rough start and end date would be helpful. M kuhner (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Ertuyotuyo

Warned for AI usage by other people; says they're only using it for formatting, but is creating articles at an incredibly fast clip (and removing tags). Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Reference 5 in Almanaque Panayanhon only contains the name in a citation, “Mga Magsusulat sa Panay Cutub sang Tiempo sang Cachila Tubtub Caron.” Almanaque Panayanhon,

1914. Mandurriao, Iloilo City: Imprenta y Libreria Panayana de Casimirio F. Perfecto,

1913. 66. Impreso. SenshiSun (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

[66]

Good day! Our team already has a lot of articles that we post on our Facebook page, Historia Antikenya. We decided to publish these articles on Wikipedia and have been using a generator tool to format them, as we have no idea how to code. We sincerely apologize if we have caused any issues. We had a lapse in checking whether the bot added any false information or citations. However, to back up our integrity, please know that we research our articles and write the information ourselves. Ertuyotuyo (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Moving forward, we will no longer use the generator tool. I am actively learning how to format using Wikicode myself. Please note that following yesterday's warnings, I have already gone back through our previous uploads to remove any false information and correct the formatting issues. Ertuyotuyo (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This is far more serious than AI cleanup. This is copyvio cleanup, which is difficult in this case due to language translation. The Wikimedia Foundation has not been given permission by the copyright owner to republish content that is already published on Facebook. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It also appears that the account is being shared (note the repeated 'we' above), contrary to policy. And I'd question whether, regardless of copyright issues, the material from this 'team' meets WP:RS criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they are multiple people and deserve multiple blocks, indef in fact. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

See Ertuyotuyo's talk page explanation. I am satisfied the account is a single person. The editor has also agreed to refrain from further contributions until the WP:CONSENT process is finished. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but why is there so much tolerance towards these disruptions? Why is there no admin action? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Because none is needed after communicating with the editor, which some participants should try doing. This is a collaborative project that requires communication. Maybe you should try communicating with newbies who are editing in good faith, not knowing what they're doing wrong. In this case, it's a new user who is acting in good faith, not using AI except for translation of original articles written by that editor and associates, and who was unaware of the AI and copyright issues and wants to do the right thing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The user (or one of them) started in 2024 ! Not new. Again the keyword is: timesink. Collaborative has to be a 2 way street. For the AI addicts it is not. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The start date doesn't matter. The low edit count suggests inexperience. That is the sense in which I used "new". This user responds to comments, and is therefore collaborative. A block is intended to prevent further disruption, and if an editor has stated that they need guidance in doing the right thing, then no reason has been offered by anyone here to issue a block. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Anyway, I am going to stop looking at this board. The AI material is getting into Wikipedia like Marine plastic pollution and the few editors here will eventually be overwhelmed and pollution will sink into the encyclopedia. Sad, but inevitable. C'est la vie. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

From July 6 edit, subsequent to the warnings: Gella belonged to the prominent Gella family of Antique. His brothers included Vicente Gella, who served as governor of Antique; Ariston Gella, the province's first pharmacist and a delegate to the Malolos Congress; and Bartolome Gella. He was married to Baltazara Yturralde, a member of another prominent provincial family. Sourced to [67] which does not mention Ariston or Bartolome, does not mention Malolos or delegate, and mentions a Vicente but with a different family name. This looks hallucinated. We need some kind of cleanup action, as the editor does not seem to be cleaning up despite continuing to edit, most recent edit July 18. (Very recent edits are gnoming and cannot be checked for LLM, but they are not cleanup.) M kuhner (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Loyal luz

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested.

LLM PRODMinistry of Textiles and Jute (Bangladesh)

DeletedBangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami Women's Wing

DeletedBangladesh Chashi Kallyan Samity

LLM PROD2018 Rajshahi City Corporation election

Needs reviewFeroza Bhaban

DeletedDeputy Leader of the Opposition in Jatiya Sangsad

CleanMohammad Abu Sufian (Chittagong politician)

CleanSayeed Al Noman

LLM PRODArgentina national kabaddi team  nominated on 10 July

LLM PRODPrivate Secretary to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh

Needs reviewPrime Minister's Press Secretary (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology

Needs reviewWard No. 21 (Dhaka South City Corporation)

Needs reviewWard No. 19 (Dhaka South City Corporation)

Needs reviewWard No. 13 (Dhaka South City Corporation)

Needs reviewChief of the General Staff (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewSecretary of the Jatiya Sangsad

Needs reviewMinister of Land (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewGovernor of Bangladesh Bank

Needs reviewMinister of Commerce (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Science and Technology (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewAir Chief Marshal (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewBrigadier general (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewPrincipal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh

Needs reviewMinister of Planning (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewDirector General of National Security Intelligence

Needs reviewMinister of Agriculture (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Cultural Affairs, Bangladesh

Needs reviewList of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Turkey

Needs reviewMinister of Health and Family Welfare (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Shipping (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Youth and Sports (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Information and Broadcasting (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Bangladesh)

Needs reviewMinister of Defence (Bangladesh)

DeletedList of high commissioners of Bangladesh to Australia  Deleted via PROD on 2025-04-07

Needs reviewShahadat Hossain (Chittagong politician)

Needs review2023 AFC Annual Awards

Needs reviewSaiful Islam (police officer)

Needs review2024-25 Upazila Council elections

Needs reviewChattogram BGMEA University of Fashion and Technology

Needs reviewNorth Pathantooly Ward

Needs review2024 Comilla City Corporation by-election

Needs reviewTahseen Bahar Shuchona

Needs review2024 Mymensingh City Corporation election

Needs reviewSouth Patenga Ward

Needs reviewNorth Patenga Ward

Needs reviewSouth Middle Halishahar Ward

Needs reviewNorth Middle Halishahar Ward

Needs reviewGosaildanga Ward

Needs reviewBoxirhat Ward

Needs reviewPatharghata Ward

Needs reviewFiringee Bazar Ward

Needs reviewAndarkilla Ward

Needs reviewAlkaran Ward

Needs reviewEast Madarbari Ward

Needs reviewWest Madarbari Ward

Needs reviewPathantooly Ward

Needs reviewEnayet Bazar Ward

Needs reviewDewan Bazar Ward

Needs reviewSouth Bakalia Ward

Needs reviewEast Bakalia Ward

Needs reviewWest Bakalia Ward

Needs reviewWest Sholashahar Ward

Needs reviewEast Sholashahar Ward

Needs reviewSouth Halishahar Ward

Needs reviewMohra Ward

Needs reviewChandgaon Ward

Needs review2022 Narayanganj City Corporation election

Needs reviewPanchlaish Ward

Needs reviewJalalabad Ward

Needs reviewSouth Pahartali Ward

Needs reviewChawkbazar Ward

Needs reviewBagmaniram Ward

Needs reviewSouth Agrabad Ward

DeletedNorth Pathantuli Ward  Deleted via G7 on 2024-05-07

Needs reviewNorth Agrabad Ward

Needs reviewRampur Ward

Needs reviewSholokbahar Ward

Needs reviewJamal Khan Ward

Needs reviewPahartali Ward

Needs reviewSaraipara Ward

Needs reviewNorth Pahartali Ward

Needs reviewNorth Kattali Ward

Needs reviewLalkhan Bazar Ward

Needs reviewNorth Halishahar Ward  Potential start point of AI edits; older articles may need source review

Needs reviewList of high commissioners of Bangladesh to the United Kingdom

Needs reviewList of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Saudi Arabia

DeletedList of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Kingdom of Saudia Arabia  Deleted via G7 on 2023-02-25

Needs reviewMayor of Gazipur  Reference 1 is a 404, others resolve. Potential ref1 link replacement is only in Bangla.

Needs reviewMayor of Rangpur

DeletedDaraz  Deleted via G4 on 2022-12-27

Needs reviewMayor of South Dhaka  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewGazipur Metropolitan Police  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewRajshahi WASA  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Mymensingh  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewList of mayors of Barisal  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Narayanganj  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Rajshahi  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Khulna  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then

Needs reviewMayor of Cumilla  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then. English sources mostly clean. Bangladeshi sources not yet checked.

Clean2016 Men's AHF Cup  Article created before November 2022 - no edits made by them since then

CleanCruz Silva  Article created before November 2022 - no edits made by them since then

Needs reviewMayor of Sylhet  Article created before November 2022, but edits were made by user since then. Reference 1 404s. Reference in English, actual law seems to be Bangla. Needs confirmation from an editor who speaks the language

CleanMohammad Akbar (politician)  Article created before November 2022 - no edits made by them since then

Loyal luz (talk · contribs) User with 20k edits who was recently blocked for LLM use and no communication. Looks like a monster Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone able to work out when they started? Struggling to tell Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, good luck trying to figure it out. As I said above I am going to stop looking at this board. Too few experienced editors and too much AI pollution, which like Marine plastic pollution is highly unlikely to be ever cleaned up at this rate. Good bye. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

At the worst, we need to check every main space edit they made since 2022-11-30, the date Chat GPT came out. I would like to avoid that. Their editing became more frequent in January 2024, so that might be a good place to start. Maybe start with pages they created? SenshiSun (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Just added {{AINB article}} for all this user's article creations, noting any deletions and noting any pre-November 2022 creations where they have/haven't edited. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 15:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but are you sure their LLM use goes back to 2022? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that'll be the next step - figuring out the extent of LLM use. I just assembled the list as a starting reference point. Many of the articles are stubs as well. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 15:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

AI detection is exponentially harder since the majority of these articles are microstubs. I've PRODded one post-2025 creation which includes "plays a crucial role" in its first and only sentence, but the others are really hard to tell. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 17:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Mayor of Sylhet's text is clear, but reference 1 404s. It appears the actual law is Bangla, which I can't read. If a Bangladesh speaking editor wants to help, I'd appreciate it! SenshiSun (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Wondering if it might be worth giving WikiProject Bangladesh a ping? Netstars22 (talk to me!) 01:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Asked on their talk page. We'll see how that goes. SenshiSun (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! SenshiSun (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sholokbahar Ward, created by this editor June 5, 2023, was a tiny stub, but from creation it cited facts about the organization of the city to a scholarly paper on water sources which does not mention this ward. Subsequent edits by the same editor made things longer but even worse (there are a lot of "inline" cites which are malformed and just sitting in the article text). As sure as one can be from an article this short, the current version is LLM and it likely has been from birth. M kuhner (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually think it's clear, for the whole articles, where the trouble began. The earliest articles on the list were all created unsourced and then sources added later (and some of those are this editor, and LLM) but the original text sometimes has typos and in general is not LLM-like. This goes up through two "List of" articiles in February 2023.

Then there is a gap, and a flurry of "Ward" articles. I checked three; they have sources from creation, and those sources are bad (irrelevant paper, source/text mismatch). North Halishahar Ward was created June 2, 2023, pre-tagged with a "more citations needed" dated July 2022.

Articles of this kind appear to start June 2, 2023. I propose June 1 2023 as a cutoff date. M kuhner (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Marking North Halishahar Ward as a likely start point. I’ll spot check some of the older article creations that have newer edits for anything untoward. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 03:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like their Mayor of (Location) articles have identical phrasing. They may have been copying basic information between them. That's not an AI issue, but is something to note. SenshiSun (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

None of the ones I have looked at were good articles at creation. But that probably has to be someone else's problem.... we have plenty to do just with clear LLM issues here! M kuhner (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Do we have to worry about the article state when it was created? SenshiSun (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

(it can be useful to look at the first versions of articles because editors sometimes remove the more obvious signs like markup in later edits, XTools is great for this) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to figure out when they started using LLM, so creation state was important--if they made it non-LLM and added LLM later, the creation date isn't evidence. Also there is a big difference between maintenance tags added to an article after creation, and ones that it was born with--the former are perfectly normal, but the latter are red flags. You could tag your own article for maintenance when you write it, but I don't think most humans do that. M kuhner (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk · contribs)

AI slop going back to at least 2024, which I first noticed in their 2024 edits on the article for Palestine (yes, certainly an article you want written with AI); I have not looked at all their edits on grounds of their being a lot of them, but through 2025 they have unambiguously used ChatGPT for at least some purposes, and had a page (User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan/Baghdad) speedied for ChatGPT usage. Also what appears to be an AI userpage.

They were asked about this last summer on their talk page as well as on this ANI thread, which points out the marked difference in their writing style between some of their talk page comments/edits and other ones (see Talk:Palestine for a sampling, apologies to use that as an example again but it's the one I just noticed and I have not gone through their enormous amount of edits to find others)

This isn't a conduct report as going through their recent edits it doesn't seem like they are using ChatGPT for article content anymore. It's mostly to flag the older stuff for cleanup, it is very frustrating to figure out where this stuff starts and ends. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Please take a look at the user talk page. It is a nightmare of rejected drafts, edit wars and earthquakes in general. The user should either clean up the old stuff themselves or be warned and blocked, and have the material deleted. If someone throws trash on the floor, get them to pick it up themselves. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  All those edits were previous one. Now I no more use AI for content writing Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I said in the original post. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Those older stuff is mix of AI and original written and its not that easy to filter out AI written and if that content is deleted entirely, then my entire original written content will also go in vain. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

You know which parts were AI and which were not. I suggest you tackle this right away. If we have to do it, you are right, some of your original writing may be lost.

If nothing else, can you give us a date when you started using AI, and a date when you stopped? M kuhner (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

There is not a proper date I remembered using AI. Just I was new and I used it and now I stopped it. The problem is, AI generated content is totally mixed with originally written ones.

Is it necessary to cleanup AI generated content, because most of them are in sandboxes and drafts, not actual articles, I guess Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't normally clean up anything but published articles and edits to published articles. I can make a cleanup report for you to look at, if you want to see what articles we would be examining. Let me know if you want to see that.

There's no way around it: if you can't tell us which articles or parts of articles are LLM, we're going to have to try to figure it out ourselves, and some of your own writing will probably get deleted. I'm sorry for that. But experience shows that LLMs can get things seriously wrong, so we can't afford to leave LLM text in Wikipedia articles. M kuhner (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

As far I remember, I didn't made any edits to published articles using LLM and whenever I did, then it was already removed. Mostly, I have used them in my draftspace and sandboxes. and also some of those articles which I wrote and published using LLMs have been either deleted, redirected or moved to draftspace. Anyway, if there is a for you to scan and inform before deleting, then I will see to it Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have created a "tracking page" which lists all your edits since LLMs were publicly introduced, grouped by article. Our next step would be to go through this list and try to determine when LLM use started, then go article by article and take appropriate steps. I am not linking this page for immediate action, since you say you will help. Please have a look. If you can use this list to remember when you started using LLMRs or when you stopped, that would be extremely helpful.

Here is the tracking page: [68] M kuhner (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, as I have been busy nowadays. Seeing the list, one thing I am sure that most of the LLM contents were published on articles around overall Middle East topics, like countries (Iraq, Palestine etc.) and I remember, I stopped using LLMs in my India-related articles. and regarding helping, suddenly I can get busy and won't be available. Because it was all of a sudden. And please let me know that content will be removed or entire version. Because if version is not deleted, then I can rewrite those contents originally by myself. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

In general we delete articles that were created as LLM, and revert large LLM edits; we try not to touch anything else. M kuhner (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

regarding the edits, if the entire version is not deleted, then it will be better, because i will be able to rewrite originally that content Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User:SyzygyRebel

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-09 SyzygyRebel, 104 pages need review.

SyzygyRebel (talk · contribs)

Sorry for all the topics.

Anyway, another user who was warned a while back (2025) about repeated AI usage, including hallucinated sources, and responded with This is a bit embarrassing as I actually supplied all the information to be constructed while I intended to be neutral. I will go through every other created articles to clean up for anything I might have inadvertently made worse.. However, as recently as a month ago, they're still not only using AI, but doing stuff like not even bothering to remove the chatbot response. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Nominated one of their drafts for speedy deletion under G15 since you pointed out they can't remove the chatbot response. Beta Beta Beta - talk 07:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Support presumptive reverting, they started creating articles again in 2025, this was their first. Latest edit 19 June so need consensus here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Count me on your side for consensus. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Support presumptively reverting and deleting as much of this as possible. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Support as well. Beta Beta Beta - talk 00:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Support prompt start of cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like July 2025 is the start date. Setting up a tracking page. It is a lot. M kuhner (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff,@Beta Beta Beta,@Gurkubondinn, @Kowal2701, @M kuhner and @Yesterday, all my dreams...

Thank you for flagging this, and apologies for the delayed response. I haven't been active on Wikipedia recently due to work and health challenges, and I only saw these messages, including the proposed deletion notices just now.

For context, I have a repetitive strain injury that makes extended typing difficult, so I've been using AI tools to help draft text from my own dictated points, and to help surface sources I might have missed. I understand now that this produced text that reads as unreviewed AI output, and in at least one draft, unremoved chatbot text made it through, which is not acceptable regardless of the reason.

Going forward, I will not use AI to generate or rewrite article prose. I'll switch to dictation software for my own wording instead.

Any source I cite, I will personally verify against the original text before it goes into an article.

I will go through the 104 pages on the tracking list myself, finishing by end of August.

I would ask to be allowed to do this review myself rather than have it fall entirely on other editors, but I understand if presumptive reverting is still the preferred approach for pages I haven't gotten to by end of August. While I thank you for your understanding in this matter, I also want to tender unreserved apologies for all my oversight. SyzygyRebel (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @SyzygyRebel, that sounds like a good plan. The most important thing to review for is whether the cited sources support the content (ie. WP:V), because LLMs have a tendency to hallucinate. Hope your injury gets better soon. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your honesty and cooperation. I'd certainly support you taking responsibility for the cleanup, and like the idea that we'll touch bases again at the end of August.

Please note that LLMPRODs are often done in batches, and only marked on the tracker when someone else notices that they have been done. So there may be LLMPRODs not currently marked on tracking.

I would strongly recommend, if you intend to rescue a created article currently under LLMPROD, removing the LLMPROD tag and immediately draftifying the article. Unreviewed LLM articles should not be in mainspace, and this will give you time to fix them. If not rescued they are likely to be deleted after 5-7 days. You can see instructions at WP:DRAFTIFY or ask here for help. M kuhner (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:USERFY might be better because we've had problems with people draftifying in the past (like someone would draftify an article with the intention to work on it there, then someone else moves it back to mainspace later without it undergoing any changes) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kindness and for your understanding @Kowal2701 and @M kuhner I really appreciate it.

I'll start fixing the flagged issues right away and work through as much as I can, article by article. I'll come back to this thread if I run into anything I'm unsure how to handle. I take Wikipedia's quality standards seriously, and even assuming good faith on my part, I'm genuinely unhappy that this situation arose at all.

For now, I'm going to focus solely on fixing these existing flagged articles and will hold off from creating or curating any new articles until I'm confident I can produce reliable, properly verified work going forward.

Thank you, once again. SyzygyRebel (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Your response is 1000x better than what we usually see, and frankly made my day. M kuhner (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, oh, thanks for acknowledging that. I value this community and I am also learning to do better. SyzygyRebel (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Piece of advice, not related to LLMs, on Caroline Kouassiaman: Source 1 lives on a web site which says it will close down in December 2026. Strongly recommend that you archive it now while it's still alive! M kuhner (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, thank you for flagging this. I had missed it. I have now archived it. Please, if you are not too busy, kindly assist to review the pages I have fixed thus far in case I have missed other important things. Plenty gratitude. SyzygyRebel (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked Caroline Kouassiaman and have put comments on its Talk page. I am sorry to say, but you are underestimating how bad LLM sourcing is, and there are still multiple sourcing issues here including one flat-out hallucination. M kuhner (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner Oh, no! I will go back to it. SyzygyRebel (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, I have been wondering about some of the issues that @Gnomingstuff, and I discovered that a user Special:Contributions/~2026-22682 had copied and pasted an entire mathematical bold Unicode characters paragraph into Satang Nabaneh's article. And I was not notified of this editing and I was never aware of it. Isn't this a kind of garbled formatting from a copy-pasted source vandalism? SyzygyRebel (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This user is now removing their own LLMPRODs with little to no action taken. I've seen it on other articles, too: [69] [70]. I would suggest an indef mainspace block based on this disruption, as the user is clearly not following through with their promise to "focus solely on fixing these existing flagged articles". Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 15:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Despite their apparent cooperation, there have been source/text mismatch issues in both of the "cleaned up" articles I've spot-checked so far (see talk pages for Caroline Kouassiaman and Erica Woodland. I don't think the cleanup is sufficiently rigorous. M kuhner (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Somepinkdude and @M kuhner I am still editing. I didn't just remove them. I am compiling. I asked to finish all the editing in August. I have been taking time from work as busy as I am with my health to edit. I was editing everything as much as I can at the same time. I have no reason to take any of you for granted or not comply with community standards. Please, instead of recommending punitive actions, especially where I am complying, I will appreciate your help in any way possible. I was sleeping at 4am including working all day to get this done. Thanks for your understanding SyzygyRebel (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered draftifying the articles (moving them to Draft) so that there will be no time limits? We certainly don't want you to damage your health.

From experience doing it, LLM cleanup is very difficult. In many cases it might be better to cut down the article to a stub, then rebuild with human text. You can salvage any good references, but will have to read them as what LLM says they contain is not reliable. It's a big project, which is a major reason we're so hardline on LLM use: a problem can be caused very quickly that will be extremely slow to cure other than by deletion.

Please do not write or edit other articles until this is dealt with. Thank you. M kuhner (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, oh no. I do not intend to edit or write any article for a while even after this problem is fixed. I am taking this to heart too much to do that because integrity matters to me. If you look at distance between when I joined Wikipedia, wrote the first set of articles and came back again, it was a loooong time, because I do not have the kind of software skills that many people do here and I do my best as someone who loves to contribute to meaningful project to learn how best to participate, still. For instance, some of the errors you flagged like Early life and education on Erica Woodland's article was my error, not LLM's. And I used LLM because I thought it was accepted but minimally, especially when human contribution is involved, and can help with dictations for people who are neurodivergent, suffering some form of disabilities or have health concerns who want to participate in meaningful things. That said, the reasons I have not moved any article to drafts is; 1. because I thought some of the problems are quick fixes, 2. that even if I dratify, I may not still see all the problems and someone else can approve it as ready while I still get into trouble, after all most of the articles have been reviewed and accepted while having all these issues. 3. I have not received much help in terms of anyone helping to contribute to articles in AFC even when I declared a COI. It felt like I am largely on my own in this community, so I learnt to just do my best otherwise as the Women in Red, and LGBTQ+ Studies projects are meaningful for me. I am not making excuses but being transparent and accountable in this process and appealing that I am not punished for unintentional mistakes but supported to address them. I hope I can have the corporations of everyone who has joined the conversation to help me out like you are doing by assisting to look through all the 16 articles under scrutiny for what else I might have missed so I can go back and fix them. Your pointers on Erica Woodland, and Caroline Kouassiaman have been nothing but helpful, and I hope others kind editors will support me too. @M kuhner, would you kindly educate me on how to revert an article to a stub or build one? I have seen stub articles before and helped to develop them but I have never created one because I thought it was never intentional but an editing decision. Thank you. SyzygyRebel (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

As long as you are genuinely trying to improve the encyclopaedia in good faith, you don't have to worry about being sanctioned. They are WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, so they are not "punitive actions". Sanctions are only restrictions that are enacted to protect the project when needed.

I would think that the best thing to do here is to WP:USERIFY the articles, and move them into your userspace. Then there are no timelimits and no stress. Remember that there are WP:NODEADLINES on Wikipedia, there is no reason for any of this to become a stressful situation for you. If you want to, I can do it for you. Just let me know. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, Thank you so much for your understanding and for this helpful suggestion.

I think the reason I've been so stressed and autoautopiloting is that @Gnomingstuff had recommended a block, twice, and I've been doing my best to make sure that didn't happen. I also noticed that @Kowal2701 suggested moving the articles to my userspace rather than the Draft namespace, but I didn't really understand what that meant until you reiterated it now.

Before I move the articles to my userspace, may I ask whether someone could look over all the editing done and point out what I am still missing so I can see if I can fix them without moving them?

Once I review my options based on how much correction I still have to do on each article, I will come back to you for assistance in either to move or show me how, in case I haven't figured it out myself.

Thank you, and @M kuhner for all the help rendered so far. SyzygyRebel (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, I actually thought there were deadlines because what I know thus far is that unfinished drafted articles would be deleted after 6 months, and that I had 7 days to resolve the issue here or all the articles will be deleted, hence rushing to fix them as I have done. SyzygyRebel (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall bringing up being blocked and don't see anything here that is worth being blocked over. It wasn't here if so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@SyzygyRebel: Drafts that haven't been touched in six months can be deleted if they are in the Draft namespace, or are in the User namespace and have an AFC submision template. If you keep them in your userspace and don't submit them to AfC or move them to mainspace before they're ready, they'll be safe in your userspace and you can take your time.

And thank you for your efforts to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Such important work deserves to be done thoroughly and with care. Representation is important, but there is no deadline. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 11:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I want to echo the last paragraph in Claudine's response. We need more of this here on the English Wikipedia. We have a lot of blind spots that need filling in. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry @Gnomingstuff, I must have misread you. I apologise for that. Thank you @ClaudineChionh, and @Gurkubondinn. I appreciate your support and reassurance. May I take a few days to decompress and return to look through all the articles to see which ones need moving to my userpage and which have been sufficiently salvaged? I have already worked through all 16 articles over the past 5 days, but based on @M kuhner's comments, I still have work to do. I am still hoping one of you might have time to look at the articles for me. Your feedback would be of immense help. Thanks a lot. SyzygyRebel (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No need to apologize, and also just want to echo what everyone else said as well, really really appreciate you doing this Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have put comments on a few more of the articles in the cleaned-up list. I'd suggest going back to Godwin Murunga right away as there are mismatches between text and source in every paragraph. As I said in my comments there, it really is better to rewrite the text based on reading the sources: salvaging the LLM text seems appealing but it turns out to be more trouble than it's worth. (Speaking from experience--for example for New Vision I wish I'd started clean rather than trying to sort out someone else's LLM text, Hypocnemis too. I badly underestimated how hard these would be; wouldn't do it that way now that I have more experience.) M kuhner (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff, thank you so much for your support and everyone else's.

@M kuhner, massive appreciation for all your help. I have decided to dedicate next week to cleaning the articles and call upon @Gurkubondinn to help move any article I cannot salvage to my userpage or teach me how to do it by the end of the month if I am stuck. I will however go to Godwin Murunga article, right away, to address your comments so I don't leave it unattended until next week. I am also paying keen attention to your recommendations to rewrite some of these articles. It won't be fun but it is necessary. SyzygyRebel (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Top of the day to you all. I am starting the cleaning up afresh as promised. I believe I may be able to complete it without moving the articles out of mainspace. This may be somewhat ambitious, but I say so because I feel I now have a better grasp of what needs to be done. However, if I still fall short, it will be due to human error on my part, and the possibility that I may be blindsided to things I am missing. I would therefore appreciate it if you could still nudge me in the right direction should you spot anything amiss. Thank you so much for all your support thus far.

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

• S. M. Rodriguez: ✅ Done

SyzygyRebel (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:0xReflektor

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

 Cleanup has been requested.

0xReflektor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

see here, here. and there

I do not know if they were using LLMs on other edits, but they have a pattern of using LLMs whenever un-redirecting an article ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Forgery and Counterforgery (created Sep 2025) has WP:AIVOCAB and WP:AITREND ("highlighted") ("sets the New Testament writings within that broader landscape"), as well as WP:AITABLE. A lot of ther articles are like this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-speed solar wind was Nov 2025. Some sizeable articles were created very soon after one another. This looks like a rather straightforward LLMPROD run. Will probably do it tomorrow if noone else fancies it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Happy to do it. Your content creation area deserves attention over this. Did you use something fancier than copy-paste to tag Juan Martínez de Medrano? I activated Twinkle not too long ago. Cedarshadow (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Cedarshadow, I use User:Kowal2701/LLMPROD to copy-paste the tags and edit sums, unfortunately it hasn't been added to Twinkle yet Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've done the LLMPRODs (honestly quite enjoy them for some reason) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Jacob6493

LLMPRODs are unnecessary (draftified)

 Cleanup has been requested.

Behavior I cannot explain besides with LLM usage.

• Has been around since pre-2023, so you can see the difference in their writing style, most obviously in their edit summaries.
• Has been performing substantial rewrites of articles with <5 minutes between edits. See [71] this edit, made 4 minutes after the previous one, as representative.
• Behavior like creating articles with notability tags, "accessing" URLs that were dead 404s in the previous version (ref 3), adding DOA 404s (ref 5), adding DOA 404s (ref 5), marking sources as dead that are not dead (live: [72])

~ A412 ^talk! 04:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I draftified the page creations and left a warning on his talk page. The mainspace edits do need to be cleaned up though. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist, just FYI, imo it's best to userfy articles (or tag drafted ones w {{AI-generated}}), I keep seeing draftified articles get moved back into mainspace much later by someone else whose unaware of the context (eg. [73]) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If you see that happen, please make the person aware of the context. In the example you linked, the person who moved it to mainspace is an administrator, and should have known why it was draftified in the first place. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:SunriseInBrooklyn

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

SunriseInBrooklyn (talk · contribs), XTools

Was blocked June 2024 for CIR and AITALK at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#GA-banned user violating topic ban. Was unblocked June 2025 where they said Regarding AI: I now understand using such as ChatGPT or any similar tools without through human oversight violates community standards. I regret doing so and will not AI for editing again. I. Received a warning from @Gurkubondinn in 24 June 2026 (they haven't edited since). 9,700 edits (no relevant article creations). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

To any patrolling admins: is this worth a mainspace block? They've had a lot of rope, and I'm concerned that they're just going to return at some point and carry on. (btw courtesy ping to 331dot as the unblocking admin, no need to respond if too busy) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This also reads as probably AI-generated to me:

... has a long and varied history within ..., the street evolved over time ..., reflecting its intended role as a major thoroughfare. ..., hinting at its ambitious design origins.
— Diff/1304419918

There's also an utm_source=chatgpt.com in there, but I don't want to read too much into that alone. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Back in August 2025, they triggered the 702 (log) edit filter ('Warning against clipboard hijacking') twice in row: AbuseLog/41839229 and AbuseLog/41839237, saved as Diff/1304545542. So they must have copied that text from somewhere. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:TheRealBasti

LLMPRODs are done

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-10 TheRealBasti, 1 pages need review.

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

This user is making large LLM-generated edits to articles related to Philippines. I first noticed their edits on the General Tinio article, where they have inserted markdown (even code blocks in Diff/1363445599) and hallucianted reference among other AISIGNS. They have also been disruptively removing the {{AI-generated}} tag, for instance with the edit summary removed the ai reminder.. in Diff/1363146557.

A few examples (despite their low editing count, this is really only touching the surface):

• General Tinio
  • Diff/1363445599: chatbot output, still wrapped in a ```wiki markdown code block.
  • Diff/1354251115: includes sentences like ..., and continues to form part of the municipality’s cultural identity through religious performances, brass band participation, and fiesta celebrations.
  • Diff/1348326028: added a reference with doi:10.7152/bippa.v24i0.11866 that does not exist. Includes sentences like ...  and form part of the broader Pampanga River watershed and ..., reflecting both ecological constraints and adaptation to terrain. Other AISGISN include AILIST, AIBOLD.
• List of Municipal Officials of General Tinio (draftified to Draft:List of Municipal Officials of General Tinio)
  • Diff/1356894701 (AbuseLog/44335037): created a new page with AISIGNS that includes markdown and thematic breaks, avoids basic copulatives, etc. There's a half-baked reference list from the LLM at the botom.
  • Diff/1356897358: removed the bolded title from the lead, don't know why.
• Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija
  • AbuseLog/44238021: attempted to cite Wikipedia, but never saved the edit.
  • Diff/1354287539: few hours later instead, sources Scholarly studies by researchers from Central Luzon State University and other institutions identify Peñaranda as a principal center of the Araquio tradition to [74], which does not seem to support the statement.
• Araquio (draftified to Draft:Araquio)
  • AbuseLog/44213581: tried to cite The UNESCO-backed Philippine inventory of intangible cultural heritage included Nueva Ecija’s Arakyo tradition, highlighting its cultural significance within Philippine folk theater and devotional performance traditions to Wikipedia when creating the article.
  • Diff/1354250716: created the article without the "... inventory of intangible ..." sentence and CIRCULAR reference. Includes sentences like the tradition dramatizes narratives surrounding the discovery and recovery of, continues to form part of the municipality’s cultural identity through religious performances, brass band participation, and fiesta celebrations and part of the wider devotional complex surrounding the to name a few.

They have not responded to any of my notices on their talk page, and I am trying to get them to communicate. The only time that they have used their own talk page was to reply to a notice from a bot in Diff/1255270440, so they are aware that the page exists. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: can TheRealBasti be blocked from article space to prevent further disruption? They have continued to edit (inserting a giant LLM-generated edit), after having been asked in User talk:TheRealBasti § July 2026 to start communicating. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked. The editor can still communicate here, and is welcome to do so. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Am I good to clean up the General Tinio article? I've already reverted them once today on that article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Go for it, the editor cannot touch mainspace anymore. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to be sure from an edit warring perspective.

 Done, removed c. 100 kB of LLM output: Diff/1363522749.

‑‑gurkubondinn 18:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracking page created, cleaned up most of it. Will do the General Tinio later. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have just started using this page. again, I'm an amateur user of wikipedia. now, I initially edited our town's page but the changes were deleted by ohnoitsjoe (I think) because it was 'too personal' or something similar to that. I also added sources as I have continually got to accumulate them physically like books or reports from freedom of information request or from the government institutions. so those were also taken down because it was not cited correctly. leading me to using llms to help me not be 'too personal' on the style and put the correct citation. if there are incorrect sources, just let me know because most probably it is a typo. so, essentially, I used llms to help me write it more neutrally.. but it turns out, the community is just deleting everything immediately instead of just helping improve the article. as you noticed, there are a lot of edits I made recently as im doing it section per section so I can review the materials first, like a new book or document, before adding it in. if you got to this point, thanks for reading.. in summary, im just trying to use technology to help our town in terms of history and heritage. I got the materials, I try to write it so people who bother to check can also see the link where I got it. then they can start researching themselves. so may I request to return the edit privileges so I can improve again the style of writing - not personal, with correct citations, and following the rules, esp on llms. TheRealBasti (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

As I have explained to you (multiple times by now), this is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. You are not allowed to use LLMs. I have given you some advice in User talk:TheRealBasti § Blocked from mainspace that I think should help you.

I'll also add that you've added fictitious or hallucinated references that don't exist to the General Tinio article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

understood with the llm. I just read your reply. I can check the doi but the references are available and I can improve the citations.. TheRealBasti (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That DOI is just one example of the problems with your LLM edits. Using an LLM is not allowed. Full stop, there is no way to argue your way around the guideline. There are no shortcuts to this. It would not be enough to "fix" the DOI, that is just painting over the symptoms of the problem. I have already reverted all of your edits on that article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

so may I request to return the edit privileges so I can improve again the style of writing - ...

If you were to make an unblock request now, it might be declined. You were made aware of WP:NOLLM several months ago, but you didn't even answer and instead continued pasting LLM output into article space for months. I think that you will need to demonstrate that you understand the problem and can edit without asking a chatbot to generate it for you first, by working in draft space and making WP:EDITREQUESTs. But I am not an admin, and it is not up to me. The other person that replied to you on your talk page is an admin however. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Diff/1354251115: includes sentences like , and continues to form part of the municipality’s cultural identity through religious performances, brass band participation, and fiesta celebrations." - this is true as the bands are still part of our current activities, the town's web page, the Central Luzon State university study confirms this. Im not sure why this is flagged.

"Diff/1348326028: added a reference with doi:10.7152/bippa.v24i0.11866 that does not exist. Includes sentences like ... and form part of the broader Pampanga River watershed and ..., reflecting both ecological constraints and adaptation to terrain." this is also true, the Pampanga river is a major river that comes from smaller rivers like the ones from General Tinio. almost all rivers go to the Pampanga river watershed. im not sure why this is flagged. " ..., reflecting both ecological constraints and adaptation to terrain" I can review this part.

"Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija

AbuseLog/44238021: attempted to cite Wikipedia, but never saved the edit.

Diff/1354287539: few hours later instead, sources Scholarly studies by researchers from Central Luzon State University and other institutions identify Peñaranda as a principal center of the Araquio tradition to [169], which does not seem to support the statement." Araquio is listed as an intangible heritage of Penaranda and General Tinio and can be found in the National list. I also got another research from CLSU to support the claim. if the style is not good, I can change that.

"Araquio (draftified to Draft:Araquio)

AbuseLog/44213581: tried to cite The UNESCO-backed Philippine inventory of intangible cultural heritage included Nueva Ecija’s Arakyo tradition, highlighting its cultural significance within Philippine folk theater and devotional performance traditions to Wikipedia when creating the article.

Diff/1354250716: created the article without the "... inventory of intangible ..." sentence and CIRCULAR reference. Includes sentences like the tradition dramatizes narratives surrounding the discovery and recovery of, continues to form part of the municipality’s cultural identity through religious performances, brass band participation, and fiesta celebrations and part of the wider devotional complex surrounding the to name a few." the government maintains this list. I am explaining here what the tradition is about as this is my heritage and little it is not explained well. if the style is not ok, I can correct it and I can improve the sources citation. TheRealBasti (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Those are signs of the text not having been written by you, this is how we know that you used an LLM or chatbot to generate it. You cannot argue your way out of the WP:NOLLM prohibition. It isn't about what the text says, it is the fact that it is generated. This just isn't allowed. Full stop, end of story. You must write it yourself. There is no way around this, there are no shortcuts to this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

that is exactly the point, as I mentioned, my initial attempts to write it myself was also flagged as too personal. all the work I did was just cancelled immediately. I thought the llm will correct that style and make the article better. it appears it created a different set of problems and is over writing or making these circular logic. so nothing left to do but try again. im not 'arguing myself out of it. I am explaining what happened. as I mentioned in the beginning, I am an amateur in wikipedia and wouldn't know all the functions immediately. I see that there is a way in edit requests to submit changes. so I'll try that too. TheRealBasti (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

A non-encyclopedic tone isn't as hard or time-consuming to fix as LLM-generated content. If someone says it's "too personal" then that is fixable. The primary concerns are:

• Are the cited sources reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage in accordance with WP:Golden Rule?
• Does the prose summarize what those sources say, no more and no less, without introducing any synthesis or non-neutral point of view in Wikipedia's voice?
• Did a human being write it?

If you want to contribute an article, do it through WP:AFC so it can be reviewed. That way you get feedback, and you can learn through that feedback how to write an encyclopedia article. You are not blocked from doing that.

You are also not blocked from proposing changes on the talk pages of existing articles. You can use WP:Edit Request Wizard to guide you through that. Either way, you give the community a chance to give you feedback before making a mess in mainspace that needs cleaning up. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also add that this give you a chance to demonstrate that you are able to communicate in a collaborative project. You were informed of the NOLLM prohibition on using LLMs a couple of months ago; but you ignored it, kept on doing it anyway and didn't respond until after you were blocked. Communicating is not just about talking, it is just as important to show us that you are able to listen to feedback and learn from it. Edit requests and/or AfC are ways that you can do show this to us. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

noted on the info above. I'm an amateur user so I appreciate this. I didn't actively ignore the reminders. I just didn't know I had any warnings..months ago. in any case, ill try again to rewrite as my objective is the same to help build the story of the town using legit sources. TheRealBasti (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

are the sources reliable? of course! there are levels, I know but I try to get primary sources. I ask freedom of information request, ask government offices for data, I go through the different publications, research papers, books.. and buy some of these books. I personally go through it first.. that is why I feel so frustrated about this as there was a lot of time and work spent on digesting the info before writing it.. then rewriting.. since it's easy to get too personal - the initial issue I've been trying to correct. TheRealBasti (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Primary sources. Primary sources or government publications do nothing to establish notability. We need reliable secondary sources. See WP:Golden Rule (it is a quick and easy read) to get an idea of the kind of sources required. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

User:MaduraiSelvam

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-10 MaduraiSelvam, 7 pages need review.

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

Had been trying to get this user to communicate since § February 2026, but never got a meaningful response. They've since caught an indef for disruption and personal attacks, but they were definitely using LLMs.

A handful of examples:

• Dom João da Cruz Vikrama Aditha Pandiyan (since deleted under G15)
  • AbuseLog/44604419: OAICITES, negative parallelisms, AILEGACY, etc.
• Tamil inscriptions
  • Diff/1339879997: inserted CIRCULAR references to Wikipedia
  • Diff/1339776616: a 'Conculsion' section with CIRCULAR refs to Wikipedia, AILEGACY like ... played a central role in ... and ... reflects the linguistic stability and adaptability ....
  • Diff/1339780438: OAICITES
  • Diff/1339766997: markdown-styled circular references to Wikipedia, this time with utm_source=chatgpt.com, inside a markdown-syntax list. Includes ..., providing important evidence of Tamil merchant activity, settlement, and maritime trade networks and Tamil inscriptions discovered outside India demonstrate the extensive reach of Tamil-speaking merchant communities across the Indian Ocean world, as if to justify the text being added.
  • Diff/1339767089: more CIRCULAR refs to Wikipedia with UTM params from ChatGPT, inside a Markdown syntax list. Includes a 'Significance' section, with an AILIST Tamil inscriptions found outside India provide important evidence for: and that the inscriptions demonstrate the extensive reach.
• Tuula Teeri
  • Diff/1363351299: very large edit minutes after their last edit, has AILIST and subsections using boldface instead of section headers. Includes a bunch of promotional AILEGACY stuff like ... has appeared in leading journals  ..., ... regarded as one of the leading researchers in ..., ... one of the most prominent ..., ... has played an influential role ..., ... she has worked to strengthen engineering research, industrial innovation, and sustainable technological development., ... had lasting influence on biotechnology, ..., Many concepts developed through her research have become foundational in ...

There's a lot more (writing up this shortish list took long enough). I've cleaned some of it up, but would appreciate more eyes and some help. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I've created the tracking page, but the script seems to have missed some pages. Maybe I'm using the wrong script? ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I've worked my way down to their edits at the end of February 2026. Don't only look at the tracking page, also check Special:Contributions/MaduraiSelvam or in XTools. The tracking page script seems to have missed some edits/articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked the author of the tracking-page script if they could have a look. M kuhner (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The author says, the script is fine, but you guys got ahead of yourselves and started reverting before you made the tracking page, and reverted edits do not register. See [75]. They also mention that they are revising the script and would appreciate comments. M kuhner (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That's what I thought first, but it picked up other articles that I'd also reverted on. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Billyjeanheheehe

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

The Billyjeanheheehe user is an alternative account of Kyleoahsom, who is a been a previous guest here (courtesy of Fermiboson: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 9#User:Kyleoahso.

Found the Billyjeanheheehe user because they created the Magsaysay Drive (Olongapo) article with a markdown ``` code block left over from their chatbot. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Medelinezezie

This account has existed since 2023, but the vast majority of their 209 edits have come in the past few days. Their first edit after a 2.5 year hiatus was creating a clearly LLM-generated article on a music artist, which was sent to AfD. I also very kindly asked that they refrain from publishing LLM-generated content. The user proceeded to absolutely bludgeon the AfD discussion, acting very offended that their obviously LLM-generated text was identified as such.

Their second article, Yeyo (musician), also appears like it could be LLM-generated, although it is certainly not as obvious. They then started making huge additions to existing articles on music artists, adding thousands of bytes of content. Not only were these posted mere minutes apart, but they also contained the classic long-ass edit summaries, such as Article cleanup: improved neutral wording and organization, removed promotional language, expanded the career chronology through 2026, added sourced releases and chart information, updated the discography, and corrected formatting and citations. I believe that these additions (1, 2, 3, 4) were probably LLM-generated.

The user then moved on to other topic areas, making the same huge additions minutes apart with excessive edit summaries: (1, 2, 3). As of two days ago, they seem to have moved on to space-related articles. I'm not gonna post those diffs cuz they're a lot, but they've started creating articles again, adding and deleting hundreds of thousands of bytes worth of content in the past 48ish hours. Galaxy scaling relations, a 58k+ byte article, was published 6 minutes after publishing a 38k+ bytes article.

When asked again on their talk page how this was possible, they again got offended and denied the accusation, saying they've been working on these articles for months before publishing. I think it's time someone takes a closer look at all this silliness. JTtheOG (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Re-wrote early life with verified sources to not contain no AI generated paragraphs.

at least they're honest Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I looked at Galaxy scaling relations which has a recent-LLM tic of citing the material in the first half of each paragraph and then running on without citations in the second half. It foregrounds a lot of trivial math for no clear reason. Variable names come and go (what is gamma in the evolving zero point equation?) The Historical development section is completely unsourced and is just a jumbled list. Comparison of selected relations just below it is another unsourced list but this time in table format. Also duplicates material between citations and Further reading. The combination of extreme technical polish and intellectual emptiness is what I'd expect from more or less pure LLM.Interesting topic but the article doesn't say much despite 58K text. Super frustrating to read as someone who is actually interested in this sort of thing. M kuhner (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The use of LLM in the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § Gone Thursday is painfully clear: it hits the entry in the list I made yesterday about responding to a different argument than what was made. I think that we should lay out the case and ask for admin intervention immediately. M kuhner (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say wait until the next substantive contribution. We need more articles on topics like this editor is creating, and less pop-culture, autobiography, and COI company articles. We just need the editor to do the writing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you further explain what you mean? JTtheOG (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Meaning I'd like the editor to have a chance at redemption before blocking. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it'd be great if they bothered addressing the concerns. JTtheOG (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The replies from the editor are still there on User talk:Medelinezezie, where she claims she has lengthy research she did himherself already prepared, she uses text to speech tools, and she wasn't happy with what an AI gave himher in the past. It's up to the community to decide whether assuming good faith is warranted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist the user probably uses she/her pronouns (also, please use they/them when unsure of someone's pronouns please) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Woops, you're right. I'll correct my comment. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

User has now cleared most of their talk page and resumed creating articles on galaxies (Kormendy relation and Abell 3667, created 30 minutes apart). It's possible they're no longer using AI, but it's still quite concerning that none of this has been addressed. JTtheOG (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Could we temporarily block User:Medelinezezie from article space as the concerns raised here haven't been addressed and the user is continuing to create articles? thank you ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at Abell 3667. It claims redshift of 0.0553 sourced to 1, which says 0.0550: while this could be a simple typo, source 5 says 0.0553. (struck out because turned out to be an error on my part) 23:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Article says there is a northwestern and a southeastern radio relic, sourced to 5 which consistently says they are northwestern and southern; however source 6 uses northwestern and southeastern.

Sources exist and support claims, except for the two cases above where a claim is cited to source A but actually found in source B. While this is typical of recent LLM, it is also an easy mistake to make if you are familiar with the literature and writing from memory.

There is quite a lot of close paraphrase, though with material this technical it's hard to avoid.

(Disclaimer: I am a biologist and statistician, not an astronomer.) M kuhner (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah, there's also a subtle error in Kormendy_relation where the article says that the kormendy relation is "a scaling relation between the effective radius of a galaxy and its effective surface brightness. It is mainly observed among elliptical galaxies " but most sources i see online agree that the kormendy relation is "a scaling relation observed between the effective radii of elliptical galaxies and their surface brightnesses at the effective radius." which is a subtle difference but seems to change a lot [76] ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Kormendy relation too. The author does say Some studies instead use the surface brightness measured directly at R_e. which I think captures what you're saying. I'm more bothered by the fact that I cannot find anything in source 2 to support what I just quoted: as you say, it's true, but it's not in that paper. I also wonder why (kpc) is in the formula in the article and not in the paper used to source it. The reminder that magnitude has reversed scale isn't in there either, though it's true. I'll keep going. M kuhner (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i reverted my comment and now you're replying to nothing! argh let me do some magic ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't sweat it.

I am not an astronomer but I think the first part of "Interpretation and use" is bogus: specifically The Kormendy relation is a two-dimensional projection of the fundamental plane of early-type galaxies. I can only see an unsearchable image of the cited source 3, but I'm pretty sure it does NOT say this. It says there are two independent axes describing elliptical (not "early-type") galaxies, of which one is Kormendy and the other is based on velocity. I'm not at all sure what a two-dimensional projection of a plane would even be: aren't planes inherently two-dimensional?

M kuhner (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

that probably comes from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/340021/meta which says "Finally, the structural parameters enter the fundamental plane of early-type galaxies, of which the Kormendy relation is a two-dimensional projection." ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

you can search the full-text for source 3 here (yay open access! nay bad user interface) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I can say with moderate confidence that there's a pattern of citing source A for fact found in source B.

I am not sure what so a linear fit derived for bright galaxies cannot automatically be extended to every spheroidal system means. It is cited to 6 which uses the word "spheroidal" only to talk specifically about dwarf spheroidal galaxies. This may be another source A/source B issue.

If it is LLM, though, it's some of the best I've seen; far less vacuous than Galaxy scaling relations. More likely, I think, a human/LLM joint project where the human knows what they are doing. M kuhner (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I have gone as far as I can with these: we need an astronomer. Learned a lot through reading all those papers, though! M kuhner (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i think that we have enough info and i don't think it'd be interesting or necessary to get cool people to review an article which we're moderately sure is either LLM-generated or where something has gone catastrophically wrong ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Source 5 also had an invalid bibcode that lead to an 404 not found. That generation has since been deleted under G15, but now Abell 3667 has been regenerated again. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

seems to be substantially the same article, with the citations leading to the same places ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I guess AfD will be required since they decided to paste in a new generation. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

a user (myself) has made me recently aware that i probably didn't see the original before-june-13-4-UTC article, which, oops ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It's in the filter logs: AbuseLog/44612907. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

oh, interesting (how did you find it? i don't know how to search in the filter logs) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I just remembered that I had previously seen that it got caught in the 'large creations by inexperienced user' filter, so I looked at the filter logs for Abell 3667. Even though a page is deleted ('removed' is a more accurate term), the filter logs will persist. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

oh, awesome! ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't see where the error is regarding the redshift. Abell 3667 says "It has a measured redshift of 0.0553", which matches the source, which says "from this sample, we derive a cluster redshift of z = 0.0553 ± 0.0002". ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the article has been deleted and recreated since I wrote that, and that in the original version the redshift was sourced to source 1 and not source 2. But it is very possible that I made a mistake. M kuhner (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Abell 3667 was a 36k article before you nominated it for G15 deletion, and I deleted it. Now it's a shorter 6K article. In both versions the redshift was sourced to Owers et al, which is source 1 in the deleted version and source 2 in the current version. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you mean to reply to me instead? But yeah, it's not the same article (and has fewer references), hence why I said 'regenerated' somewhere above. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

In that case I must have made a mistake, and will strike out this comment above. M kuhner (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: User has responded to my question on their talk page and claimed that they have only used AI for Gone Thursday. However, edit summaries such as these are concerning:

• Expanded and reorganized company history and operations; updated leadership and 2026 acquisition information; added public-company, Sony ownership, catalogue, digital-video and former film-division coverage; added freely licensed Commons images; removed repetition and outdated update template.
• Expanded and reorganized the article chronologically; updated Farruko’s career through 2026; corrected grammar, dates, album classifications, and repetitive wording; added sourced coverage of his musical style, Carbon Fiber Music, major releases, faith-based period, recent projects, tours, selected awards, and freely licensed images.
• Created an article on IC 4965 covering its identification, morphology, luminosity, role as the brightest galaxy of Abell 3667, peculiar velocity, head-tail radio source, intracluster-light envelope, 400-kiloparsec stellar bridge, discovery, coordinates, equations, images, and astronomical catalog designations.
• Created a comprehensive article on JO171, covering its detached stellar ring, central spheroid, counter-rotation, stellar populations, ionized gas, metallicity, ram-pressure stripping, Abell 3667 environment, formation history, MUSE and ultraviolet observations, equations, tables, and related images. 2months of editing and research. Ready to go live and share knowledge.
• Comprehensive cleanup and reorganization: improved grammar, clarity, consistency, and encyclopedic tone; corrected citation and formatting issues, repaired links, removed repetition, clarified scientific claims, and expanded the article with sourced material on cooling flows, AGN feedback, X-ray cavities, the radio mini-halo, molecular gas, and JWST observations.

Strangely enough, they have abruptly stopped these overwhelmingly exhaustive edit summaries after this discussion was brought up. JTtheOG (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: I had moved all three galaxy to draftspace, So the issue can be solved. Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Afus199620

• Afus199620 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• article count

This user has made 22,000 edits. I don't think all of them are AI, but I do know the most recent ones are. They've made five articles within minutes of each other. All show signs of AI, for instance, the first diff of this article is filled with broken refs. I've already nominated Rutunga for CSD during NPP.
First hoping for a response from the user, however looking for a consensus here on whether they should be drafted or deleted. Fortek67 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The articles where translations from short German articles. The text is not AI. I wont make these translations anymore.--Afus199620 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you from making these translations. It's just that they don't seem to be of the best quality. Are they machine translated? How exactly did you translate them/what did you use? Because once again this seems to have been done very quick. Fortek67 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I used a automatic translation program with editing. You are completely right. It was too fast. I will be more careful. --Afus199620 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You should take your own advice and check more thoroughly next time. Lupe (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

unreviewed/poorly reviewed LLM translations are still subject to the same issues as normal LLM-generated content, hallucinations and WP:V failures are the biggest problem Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I know that you have to review sources of machine translated articles and that that takes maybe a minute or so longer even for these short articles, but that wasn't the accusation (it wasn't even mentioned that the articles are translations). So I stand by my statement for him to work on himself. Lupe (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that Fortek said anything wrong here? The articles were AI-generated and problematic, it's just that we allow AI-generated translations that are reviewed. Though I agree saying that they're translations in the OP would be ideal Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Not just ideal but required. The original source needs to be credited. See WP:Translation. M kuhner (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

(I was referring to Fortek's OP here, but yeah, unattributed translations are a pain) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear: what I was trying to say is that if these are translations, they are unattributed translations, which is also a policy violation. M kuhner (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The Translations where actually not unattributed. The revision history showed that these articles were translations.--Afus199620 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right. I apologize and will strike out my remark. M kuhner (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

(The following has been copied from a separate case, with PARAKANYAA's permission, as they turned out to be about the same editor.) M kuhner (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This is more subtle and I'm not sure if I'm being paranoid but I'd like a second opinion. My concerns are about these edits to Peter Levenda [77] I removed a chunk of it for being undue weight on the author's self-description /borderline copyvio but reading further I think AI might have been involved. Not sure though. My reasoning:

1) a lot of the analysis of the books is not in the sources and reads, to me, like AI extrapolating the contents from more dry summaries in reviews. The above section is just basically copying from the author summary (which also seems like copyvio [78]) so this mostly shows up in the views section

2) phrasing like Levenda's books generally approach occultism as a historical, political and religious phenomenon rather than as a purely literary subject. Unholy Alliance examines the relationship between Nazi ideology, esotericism and occult currents, while later works such as Sinister Forces and The Dark Lord connect occult history with American political culture, H. P. Lovecraft and modern esoteric movements. In the Sekret Machines series, written with Tom DeLonge, Levenda applied similar themes to the modern UFO and UAP discourse, arguing that the subject should be considered in relation to religion, mythology, consciousness and political authority rather than only as a question of aerospace technology and was described in contemporary press coverage as being based on interviews with intelligence officers, scientists, engineers and military officials really smell of AI to me.

3) repeating the same information across multiple redundant sections, e.g. it covers the UFO books twice? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I notice this user is already being discussed above (Afus199620). My bad. Still, the problem here is a bit broader than what is discussed there, the problem goes beyond translations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User:1january2000

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-11 1january2000, 3 pages need review.

Indeffed in December 2025. The complaint just above, about Yandere Simulator, involves masses of dead links inserted in one go in June 2025. Looking at their 358 edits shows some suspicious article creations and other large edits (as well as masses of reverts and some revdels). I think we should do an immediate cleanup on their surviving edits and articles. M kuhner (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I went through the SPI report. Older socks have mostly been reverted (except for 1january2000 itself) but two more recent socks, KellyKiss and MaluHaridade, have many live edits still and should be checked. M kuhner (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It seemed like a few other socks with edits also existed in the edit history for the Yandere Simulator page. AaronNealLucas (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have IDs I should add to the trackers, please let me know. I have done all the easy ones and am now staring in dismay at a handful of articles with large, old, badly sourced edits. May have to take sapphaline's approach to those. M kuhner (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Requesting help with the last two articles Oliver Tree and Daveigh Chase. They are biographies of notable people who have recently died. The socks contributed a lot of text, but it is heavily overlaid with other editors' text. Biographies are very much not my thing and I'm afraid to touch these. The material is sourced in a typical recent-LLM way, which is to say that the sources exist and are related to the subject, but many things cited to one source are actually close paraphrases of a different source. (Look at the childhood section of Oliver Tree to see what I mean.) M kuhner (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merged all tracking pages under the sockmaster's in Special:Diff/1365638280. It's best to keep things under one username same as SPI. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I gave up and just tagged these two; they are beyond my means to fix. M kuhner (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Edfl22

Edfl22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [79] is the smoking gun. User has remained active with a varying number of non-obvious signs and very seldom are their edits long enough to tell in isolation but are all individually... weird. The most useful one is [80] which I can only characterise as "compulsively editorialising". Fermiboson (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Another smoking gun: AbuseLog/42097809

‑‑gurkubondinn 11:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I will preface that the manner of editting (deemed as "compulsively) was not to alter the plot but rather to make the plot clear. It wouldn't make sure to condense the article. In addition, I actually watched the film last night so I figured a few details had to be expanded. In addition, the film has a low to zero sources regarding the film's breakdown, other than the film itself. Will the article be reverted to it's original version? Edfl22 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That depends on the degree to which you used an LLM, which it would behoove you to be transparent about. Fermiboson (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Glm1

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Glm1 (talk · contribs)

Account created Feb 2025, ~2000 edits (mostly minor or content removal), no article creations. LLM-generated ANI report where they denied using AI (July 2025), edit with markup [81] (May 2025), last edited 27 June 2026. I've asked them on their talk. Would appreciate if someone could analyse their recent edits. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Larry Gatlin discography June 27 edits.

First they added an Adult Contemporary column in two edits. Most of an hour later, they came back and added two cites to Billboard, but did not know how to make them into inline citations--put then in the reflist, so they are sitting at the bottom of the article detached from what they were meant to support. Citations are rudimentary: you can find the article from that with a search and a lot of clicking, but why not link directly to the PDF? It is possible to work out which two songs are meant and compare with citations. One is entirely correct. In the other, a claim about the Adult Contemporary chart is being sourced to an Easy Listening chart. (Which might be correct, I dunno, maybe those are different historical iterations of the same chart.)

I am trying to imagine how a human would do this using Billboard. You want the top charting, not just any chart where the song happens to appear: so you'd have to click into and search multiple issues. It is agonizing (I just tried it, so I know). I can't really reach a conclusion from these edits but I'm leaving them here because they were so much work! M kuhner (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Same type of chart gnoming in The Statler Brothers discography, same attempt to put the reference in the reflist, no URL despite online source. This time the intended location for the source was the newly added Contemporary column, which was never going to work because a separate cite would be needed for each entry (they are all in different issues of Billboard). I do not see any sign of LLM here, just someone very persistent (no one else could get any good out of those Billboard back issues) but with a poor grasp of referencing. Edit summary also confirms that (the editor believes, at least) Contemporary == Easy Listening.

Editor manages not to have learned how to do an inline citation in 2K edits. I will put a message on their Talk page and see what happens. M kuhner (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at the edits to Buffy Sainte-Marie and they seem concerning. In particular, [82] says in Wikivoice that Sainte-Marie was aware of the upcoming documentary when she retired. This is sourced to something that simply announces the retirement, and to [83]. The latter source does repeat the allegation, but sources it to unnamed people connected with the documentary. I think this is too fragile to support a controversial statement in a BLP. But I don't know if it's a bad LLM paraphrase or something else --probably POV pushing, as seen in the change of the section title. (Someone else just reverted one of their edits on the basis of POV-pushing.) Still have no idea if there is LLM, though the edit summaries are suspicious. M kuhner (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: they denied any LLM usage [1] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

[1] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Article: Possible Jewish Origin of Columbus

Hello all, I am not too experienced with all of wikipedia but I wanted to bring to attention this article as it looks like it has been completely made with an LLM, first on another language wiki and then translated/generated into English? The main thing that stood out to me other than the general vibe of the text is the references.

Not a single one is actually linked to anything and in particular, the report referenced as "Scientists skeptical of new Columbus DNA claims" by The Guardian does not exist and no reports about such a thing can be found before 2024. I invite more experienced editors to look into this, please. In fact, when I look at the user who created that page it looks like they use LLMs profusely. Hooples (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hooples, thank you, this looks like a large case.

Mcapdevila (talk · contribs), XTools, Possible Jewish origin of Columbus

They've created ~60 articles and ~3000 edits since Nov 2022, and had two creations WP:G15'd (both October 2025). Warned October 2025 after adding hallucinations to which they responded They were partialy LLM generated in the beginning, and although I have checked them.. they needed more checking of the "hallucinated references" you've cited.. They had an article at AfD yesterday in which they socked and got a temp block for that, idk what's going on with [84]. Would appreciate if someone could check for WP:V failures in their recent edits Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked on their talk regarding the references for that article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Even it this wasn't LLM-generated (which it clearly is), it wouldn't be acceptable as an article. We already cover the topic in Origin theories of Christopher Columbus#Crypto-Judaism hypothesis in considerably more detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that is a much better and more informative article. Looking at it's references and the whole of the section, it's fairly obvious it's been trained on information along those line. Then what whatever LLM used just condensed it and hallucinated some information and weirdly translated some reports. Hooples (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: , given the background I think a mainspace block would be appropriate (or just an ordinary indef)? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Given previous issues its probably going to be an indef. AI and socking is burning too much good faith editors time.©Geni (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Levixius

massive potential LLM cleanup case, see here and one where they added utm source chatgpt Their user page says "and use neural language services (primarily GPT-4) to reduce labour while editing on Wikipedia." ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor removed ... and use neural language services (primarily GPT-4) to reduce labour while editing on Wikipedia ..."; ergo, I'm adding link here for historical reference. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Levixius (talk · contribs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I manually and painstakingly review all my edits, and frankly my use to neural language is rather sparse, and has more to do with readability/copywriting (which, again, I manually review) then writing entire articles. LΞVIXIUS💬 07:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

could you please explain this edit where the url parameter utm_source=chatgpt.com parameters was added then? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want to note the use of AI for source-searching is not in violation of WP:NOLLM. No comment on actual case, however. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Levixius, i'm also curious, why did you change Kane to a piped link about Kane (wrestler) here? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

must be a typo lmao, I just Ctrl+K'd it, didn't realize it landed on the wrestler instead of historian P.V. Kane(?) LΞVIXIUS💬 01:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah, that's P.V Kane in the source ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

fixed LΞVIXIUS💬 04:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Still a manually verified source. Not quite sure why it matters if there's chatgpt on the URL. LΞVIXIUS💬 01:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

manually and painstakingly review my edits

As of this year ,AI-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia regardless of how much "manual review" is done. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Noted. LΞVIXIUS💬 01:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikiwizardinho

Wikiwizardinho (talk · contribs), XTools

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#Use of unreviewed LLM content by User:Wikiwizardinho, they had two articles AfD for being LLM-generated and were warned but didn't respond, and the report got closed for some reason. Since then they've created 10 more articles for a total of 65. Jhalana Amagarh leopard conservation reserve, Rajasthan Forest Department, Menar Wetland, and Folk dances of Rajasthan were all created April–June 2025 and are tagged as AI (ANI thread was 31 August). Last edited 4 July so I've asked them, but would appreciate someone looking at their edits in other months Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Overwrote a redirect on Surha Tal Bird Sanctuary in Diff/1331096373 with an LLM-generated article fork instead, contained WP:AIREDCAT, WP:AIBOLD, and references to the main pages of websites. The redirect to the existing article Surha Tal has since been restored, but they're still using LLMs as of last month. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think a mainspace block is necessary here given the ongoing (though infrequent) issues and lack of communication? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

This is almost a stale account, with only one non-AI edit in the last six months. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

True, but tbh I'm just worried that such editors who've ignored warnings and even ANI reports and continued to use LLMs, will just come back and create more mess for people to clean up. There's Tbound2, Marcodicaprio, UrusHyby, PeppermintSA, BookOfDisquiet, NiseEdits, Nightsturm, and CoffeeBeanAffair, all of whose more recent edits were preventable, but instead we need to play whackamole where they come back for some edits, and we only notice a few weeks later when they've gone inactive again (rinse and repeat). Imo if someone's ignored a warning/not communicated and continued to use LLMs, a friendly mainspace block where it's only needed for them to commit to not using them in future would be best (regardless of having recently edited), but I get that this contradicts convention re sanctions and I wouldn't be the one liable for making them. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikiuser829

Wikiuser829 (talk · contribs), XTools

Yet another large pile of AI edits going back at least a year (most visible in new articles); no warnings until now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Gamji231

Gamji231 (talk · contribs) XTools

see this edit, it links a paper named "Preferences for Cash vs. Digital Payments" that has nothing to do with a Harley-Davinson advertisement featuring a hijab, says " in place of the brand's traditional leather-clad rider imagery" when the cited source talks about an ad that shows half the face of one woman in a hijab and half of another in leather, has an overwhelmingly exhaustive editing summary, and this textbook WP:AICOMMENT featuring oaicite

had a warning for using LLMs in february ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

BlueTigerBlue00

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard regarding an AI cleanup investigation which may be related to you.

 BlueTigerBlue00 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (25 July 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

BlueTigerBlue00 (talk · contribs)

LLM, exhaustive summary, here and there ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The second edit (Diff/1351359381) adds a source with an utm_source=chatgpt.com url parameter. Not necessarily a smoking gun in and of itself, but probably worth looking into. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i was alerted to their edits by mistakenly thinking that they added referrer=grok to the article, it seems that i have to file another AINB for that sockpuppet (eugh) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

They responded with

Thanks for the note, but thats not correct. I write all content myself, based on reliable sources. The only tool I use sometimes is an AI spellchecker to correct my grammar and typos before posting, because I'm native German but mostly do work on Engl wiki. The text itself is entirely my own words, not LLM generated BlueTigerBlue00 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Re this edit (23 July), the source [85] doesn't even mention "Seen", nor does it mention commercialisation (also WP:IMDB). @Admins willing to patrol AINB: , I think a mainspace block is needed here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kowal2701, Seen and the film details are mentioned in the cited IMDb page (cited archive link), so I can't conclude LLM use from that, despite IMDb being an unreliable user-generated source. However, their explanation does not address their addition of a ChatGPT-generated link. — Newslinger talk 17:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to be checking archived links. Will keep an eye on this then, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

All, or nearly all, of their big content edits have an "Edit Check (paste) shown" tag, which means they're copying and pasting from somewhere into Wikipedia. They could be copying from AI, or they could be copying from their spellchecker program. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Nasvetmcbafee

LLMPRODs are done, no live drafts

blocked sockpuppet in march, here LLM bolding, there ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Their creations are eligible for WP:G5, but I'm going to WP:LLMPROD instead to give someone the chance to rewrite them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, an admin at SPI also came to same conclusion, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lanternspaper92/Archive Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:MaryTheo2012

• MaryTheo2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was brought to my attention in § "Cleaning" on my talk page by 1000mm, who is an admin on nowiki and has blocked the user there.

The user seems to have been mostly concerned with inserting machine-translated versions of the MCND article to Wikipedia projects in various languages that they don't speak. So if anyone here is active on those wikis or speaks the language, you may want to help out over there (the page m:Artificial intelligence/Policies by project may be helpful to find the various guidelines and policies on LLM-generated content for other wikis). ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

same thing going on at the candy candy article ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a wonderful page and maybe should be linked from the header of this noticeboard. M kuhner (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Not about AI usage, but I've been repeatedly frustrated by this user's editing. They keep circumventing AFC without proving notability and using unreliable sources. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ivanhardybirt

Ivanhardybirt (talk · contribs), XTools

Their first LLM article appears to have been [86] on 12 April 2025 (stark difference to their earlier creations, obvious signs), they've created 26 since with some deleted. Was brought to ANI October 2025 (at which time they were warned for LLM use [87]) which got archived as unresolved. Their most recent creation was 11 July [88] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

well, that is upsetting [89] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Lebu Ayiga

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

More promising than most? Several AI articles throughout early 2026, was told repeatedly about the policy. They didn't respond on their talk page directly (they did post this AI-generated comment elsewhere), but they do seem to have taken the guidelines into consideration as their most recent edits, Draft:Justina Wamae and their edits to 2017 Somali drought, do not seem to be AI-generated either in v1 or in the subsequent revisions. (There's also this comment, not sure what to make of it. I didn't come across these via an AI detector and ZeroGPT sucks in particular.)

So the gist is that this applies to the articles created before May 27, 2026. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding on the talk page but I have taken the guidelines into consideration and will improve on my edits Lebu Ayiga (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that AI generated content is not allowed on wikipedia at all and going forward I am going to follow the WP:LLMS guideline on working to improve and creating articles Lebu Ayiga (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Just to clarify, this section is mostly just for backlog purposes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Varshith.Reddy.90

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested.

Varshith.Reddy.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam) There are way too many pages for me to go through myself. It appears they're using an LLM to rewrite plot sections of articles. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This editor has 35 edits today, some of which are just 6-7 minutes apart despite being extensive rewrites/additions, and they have been (somewhat) warned about LLM usage already on the 10th but have never used their talk page before, so I'm hoping for a block from article space if they don't respond to your warning pretty soon. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Continued to do it. Gave a level 3 now. They're gonna get AIV'd soon from this. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Could we get a partial block so this editor might notice the warnings and agree to stop using LLMs? They have never used their talk page and continue to make apparently LLM-generated rewrites of plot summaries over and over again after 3 warnings. ^purring_maggot (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocking here isn't a slam-dunk. Most edits are about plot summaries, which require no sourcing. I ran one extensive plot summary through GPTzero and it said "human written with AI polishing". In any case I have issued a mainspace block for AI usage and failing to collaborate (user has zero talk page edits). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM use by IyyasTihlah socks

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-16 IyyasTihlah589, 10 pages need review.

An ANI case WP:ANI § AI editing by User:TihlahAbdellah started with LLM concerns and ended with the discovery that they were a sock. All sock edits (three accounts worth) have been reverted, but the master IyyasTihlah589 has a small number of edits and two article creations that should be checked for LLM. M kuhner (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I tagged one article as an obvious G15, but the other one Dar Al-Thaqafa is too short to tell; it's a reasonable stub. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's been significantly rewritten, the original version was pretty unambiguous Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:The Royal Herald

 The Royal Herald (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

Article cleanup list (no articles tracked yet)

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-15 The Royal Herald, 0 pages need review.

The Royal Herald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See case at WP:ANI § User:The Royal Herald. Editor has been indeffed. In the closing statement voorts said "I suggest cleanup discussion continue at AIN." The user has been inserting extraneous material into a LOT of articles, and there are AISIGNS especially in their edit summaries; their responses during the case were also painfully clear-cut LLM. I ask for a cleanup consensus; this kind of insertion LLM material is painful to clean up if it sits around. M kuhner (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

examples: [90] [91] ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracking list template can't display: too many edits, I suppose. Xtools may be a better initial choice. M kuhner (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

600KB? dear god

good news: the page is under the category Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If we can find a more recent start date for LLM use we can cut it down. M kuhner (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Trying to fix this right now. sapphaline (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. sapphaline (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps better for elsewhere, but still think its worth flagging. Believe this may have been a Sock Puppet from a previously blocked user, User/Geronimo Virula Medrano El: Special:Contributions/Geronimo Virula Medrano El. Found while reviewing some edit history on the Medrano page [92]. Edits match the same pattern as the user as far as I can tell, and same subject matter. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. We should keep an eye out during cleanup. I think Geronimo is way too stale for the checkusers to be interested, but there may be something fresher. Geronimo was blocked pre-LLM so at least we don't have to vet their edits. M kuhner (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

SPI confirmed by suspicions, for better and for worse Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geronimo Virula Medrano El. Sorry for such a large case being on the table. On the one hand I'm glad to have found and flagged so it can be fixed, on the other it looks like a mess to remediate. Gwyain1 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah good luck with this one, I knew the name sounded familiar and it's because I was on the receiving end of the typical sealioning and stealth removing tags Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Does their LLM use go back to their early edits? [93] (Sep 2023) was created as a GA (presumably they asked the chatbot to write a "good article" lol), but I'm not seeing signs other than WP:AITITLECASE, and there are hyphens in the date ranges which is more of a human thing. [94] (Nov 2023) has WP:AIDASH and WP:AIVOCAB like "reflects" and "recognition of their importance in shaping human existence", throw in title case and a bolded list as well. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

not sure, sorry, haven't gone through this thoroughly because there is so much

would sure be nice if we ever got a straight answer! Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if they're AI or not, but their early edits are entirely unsourced: [95]. Pattern seems to be, write an article, then slow add sources to it, the sources themselves may be part of what's AI generated. Gwyain1 (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like a mix of what the LLM gave them and lack of interest in learning formatting. Things like "Idem id., cajon 12, num 59" and 29-page PDFs with no page number. Best to WP:TNT as part of the WP:LLMPRV process rather than have it in newcomer tasks with a maintenance tag. Some future history buff can make a stub. Cedarshadow (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm gonna LLMPROD from Sep 2023 onwards, though they'll all probably be covered by WP:G5 given the SPI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with WP:LLMPRV. InfernoHues (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Never seen an article with 4400 edits by the same editor before; no wonder it broke the tracker! M kuhner (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Just deleting that page took several minutes, and led to me thinking it failed to delete. That was interesting. ASUKITE 12:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Julien Sow 2

 Cleanup has been requested.

• Julien Sow 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has a habit of pasting AI-generated articles into their sandbox, and then moving the sandbox out into article space. Found them pasting chatbot output in Diff/1364169939 (after the page is deleted, the trailing marker can still be seen in AbuseLog/44652125), and looked through three of their pages and found AISIGNS in all of them:

• Marie José Sombo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Elle a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nora Hamdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is extremely rapid editing, with gigantic edits that can't possibly have been read properly in the timeframe (let alone written).

The user has promised to stop using LLMs in § Speedy deletion nomination of User:Julien Sow 2/sandbox on their talk page. I don't know if this can be cleaned up or should be deleted altogether. More eyes on this is appreciated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Add925

LLMPRODs are done

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-16 Add925, 3 pages need review.

 Add925 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (15 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

• Add925 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created a mess of pages, these seem to have redirected to one of the other ones at some point and then been replaced with LLM-generated text

• William "Bill" Swan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• William "Bill" Swann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Robert W Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For some reason both William "Bill" Swann (two n's) and William "Bill" Swan (one n) now exist, each with a separate generated article about the same person? I'm having some trouble following the page histories here, but I'm considering draftifying both of them.

The smoking gun in this case is User:Add925/Sample page, which I have just promptly nominated for G15 because it was wrapped in a markdown code block. But they've created a bunch of different pages, so some more eyes would be appreciated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The William "Bill" Swan (one n) page was created as a redirect to Robert W Johnson, but are separate people? And William "Bill" Swann (two n's) was created as a redirect to William "Bill" Swan. They are the same person, but William "Bill" Swann (two n's) says that his name was Keith Kelley, but William "Bill" Swan (one n) does not mention that name?

There's also some other page move shenanigans going on that I haven't figured out, for example some of this seems to have started out as User:Add925/sandbox, and then the Diff/1363983757 edit to Robert W Johnson was a page move from User:Add925/Sample page? Am I just missing something here, or what is going on? ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, [96] created 11 July has markup Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Has markdown? The whole thing is markdown... Hadn't even gotten around to looking at that page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I draftified Rodman Shutt, they then moved it back to article space in Diff/1364297323, and then re-draftified it in Diff/1364297866 themselves.

Going to go through their recently created articles and send them to draftspace now, unless someone objects. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And now User:Add925/Sample page is a page about a Keith Kelley, and doesn't mention the names William, Swan or Swann anywhere? ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This is someone using grok, a bunch of grok:render card_id tags appeared in Diff/1364291072:

<grok:render card_id="0b300c" card_type="citation_card"></grok:render>

‑‑gurkubondinn 18:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

it really is uncanny how often Grok text reaches for constructions like roadside appeal rather than strict historical accuracy, claiming that things have woke subjective characteristics rather than characteristis of FACTS and LOGIC Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The Diff/1341541298 edit links to a PDF hosted at acrobat.com with an AI-assistant..? And the Diff/1341540702 edit replaces an existing external link with the same PDF and AI-assistant. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

They've ignored my question in User talk:Add925 § LLM use on their talk page, and instead created Talk:Robert W Johnson § New and shown up in User talk:gurkubondinn § Defacing my articles on my talk page to tell me that I had better stop defacing their articles. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: could someone maybe intervene? ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Add925 indefinitely for LLM misuse.​ — Newslinger talk 19:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks.. That seems to have been needed, judging by their reaction to it.. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And I've just figured out that Bill Swan (sculptor)Bill Swan (sculptor) exists as a redirect to Muffler man.. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And Bill Swan (Sculpture artist)Bill Swan (Sculpture artist) as well... ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The page Frank-N-Stein has been NPP patrolled, so I shouldn't draftify that one and I don't have NPP (at least not yet, I've requested it last week). Do we have consensus to apply LLMPRV to this stuff before the typical waiting period? ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I should also add that this is an older account (from way before ChatGPT was released), and it's hard to determine exactly when the LLM stuff began. I've cleaned up most of the recent edits and pages now, except for the Frank-N-Stein one. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll IAR and LLMPROD since they're never going to make an appeal/have one accepted ([97] is ridiculous, this was the whole article:

Richard Kishel

### Richard F. Kishel

**Born:** November 3, 1923

**Died:** September 8, 2010

**Location:** Muncie, Indiana, USA

#### Early Life and Education

Richard F. Kishel was born on November 3, 1923. He pursued higher education at the Cranbrook Academy of Art in Michigan and the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Kishel later obtained a master's degree in art education from the University of Iowa³.

#### Career

Kishel moved to Muncie, Indiana, in 1951, where he made significant contributions to the local art scene. His work and influence extended beyond Muncie, impacting the broader art community.

#### Personal Life

Richard Kishel was known for his dedication to art and education. He passed away on September 8, 2010, at the age of 86¹².

#### Legacy

Kishel's legacy lives on through his contributions to art and education in Muncie and beyond. His work continues to inspire new generations of artists and educators.

---

Would you like to add more details or focus on a specific aspect of his life?

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 8/25/2024

(1) Willie the Whale has a history you never knew beyond ... - IndyStar. https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2019/08/06/willie-whale-has-history-you-never-knew-beyond-indianapolis-zoo/1504322001/.

(2) Richard Kishel Obituary - Death Notice and Service Information - Legacy.com. https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/richard-kishel-obituary?pid=145240726.

(3) Richard F Kishel (1923 - 2010) - Muncie, IN - AncientFaces. https://www.ancientfaces.com/person/richard-f-kishel-birth-1923-death-2010/71507508.

It's refreshing to see such unsubtle bullshit Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

thanks for taking care of the rest of them. i've collapsed your dump of the article's first revision, hope you didn't mind! ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked all their other edits, reverted a couple large insertions. Just waiting for the LLMPRODs to go through now. M kuhner (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Sila Handsome

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested.

Sila Handsome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sila Handsome (talk · contribs) registered today. Large edits to military/firearm articles. I reverted two of their article changes: Iron sights and Madsen machine gun as not only clearly AI produced but also lacking references, as their edits replaced properly referenced text with unreferenced text. I haven't been actively patrolling AI issues recently so I'm not sure as to how much of the rest of their contributions are problematic, but certainly deserves scrutiny. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

There's huge edits (often multiple kB) being made within minutes or seconds of each other. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern about the size and speed of my edits. I will slow down my editing process and make smaller, more focused changes so they can be reviewed more easily by other editors. Sila Purachato (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe This looks like block evasion and evidently they still don't understand the reason for their block. Jfire (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

No good reason to have that second account so I blocked it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

also markdown in Special:Diff/1364288022 Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And now we have pure vandalism coming from the same user. This itself is blockable, in my opinion. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 23:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

They are continuing to make large unsourced, likely LLM-generated expansions to articles. @Rsjaffe seems like a block is warranted. Jfire (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from articles and invited to discuss here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention. I understand that some of my edits were too large and lacked sufficient references. I will review my contributions, restore referenced information where appropriate, and make sure future edits are supported by reliable sources. Sila Handsome (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not just that they were too large and lacked references; it's that they were generated by a large language model, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Many of the LLM generated claims were false. Please commit to not using LLMs to create text for Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is WP:NOLLM. M kuhner (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Girandoni air rifle has source to text issues, making a claim about using the weapon in "demonstrations" for Native tribes when the source knows nothing of this (and only speculates that it was a Girandoni at all). M kuhner (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Teknuccio

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

Contributor with English as a second langauge. Was asked about AI earlier this year on User talk:Teknuccio#LLM_use, and said I have used AI-based tools quite often as auxiliary tools for English wording, copyediting, structure, and checking neutral phrasing, and apologied for this going "beyond the guideline."

On the one hand, this is more cooperative than most of the responses we get (see above) ...but it doesn't really seem like they've stopped, based on their very rapid editing a few days ago, each rapid edit paired with an AI edit summary. A bit hard to tell from what's here how well this conforms to WP:LLMTRANSLATE; the text doesn't seem like obvious unreviewed AI text but unclear how much verification is being done in 5 minutes per edit. (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I understand the concern. The material I added was based on local and territorial sources that I checked myself, but I see that the speed of some edits may make the verification unclear. Teknuccio (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you use an LLM, like an AI chatbot, for your edits? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I used AI/LLM tools mainly to translate and organize my own Italian research notes and locally sourced material into English prose. I did not use them as sources; the factual material and references were selected and checked by me. Teknuccio (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:AnujMehtani

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-16 AnujMehtani, 2 pages need review.

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

I found this editor while working on a different cleanup case (some articles have no luck). Only active July-September 2025, 25 edits. The edit summaries make the case all by themselves: [98], [99]. Warned for LLM in 2025. No article creations. As they are inactive, suggest an immediate cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I have done what I can for these articles. Two of them are beyond my ability to fix: edits too large, too long ago, too well mixed. One has edits from both this case and MaduraiSelvam, rather a heavy burden for a single article. I have left tags and talk page messages. An interesting note is that one edit has a typical long, complex, alarming LLM edit summary--and was a perfectly valid small copyedit for which the edit summary was a complete lie. It felt like the LLM was trolling its user. M kuhner (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ElijahJWrites

I think I need another eye on this user to determine if they have a history of AI edits to clean up. I spotted the LLM use at this diff which added this amusingly vague, almost information-free section: [100]. However, many of the user's other contributions, despite having obviously AI-generated edit summaries, introduce typos and ungrammatical punctuation usage (see [101] where the edit summary ironically states that it corrected spelling errors and artist name inconsistencies while introducing no less than 5 misspellings of the subject's name). I don't know what to make of the distinction between the AI summaries and the, let's say, organically spelled content, and the potential mixing of human and LLM content within a single edit (see [102] which edit summary boasts neutral, concise, and source-based Wikipedia-style wording and adds a recognizably AI-generated Awards & Recognition section but also adds a Television appearances section bizarrely written in the first person).

Anyway, I warned the user for the LLM usage in the first diff and tagged the article (looks like the whole thing was already AI-generated before they got there) ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of stuff like led to several more appearances that involved a close interaction with the host, that is sourced to an episode of Super Dave on Apple TV..? ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

* 1990:The Arsenio Hall Show is already mentioned in the entry, but I did not perform routines. I performed only one routine: my signature Ballon-man act. sounds like some "ask Character AI if the article is accurate" workflow, maybe? I don't know how you'd even get this otherwise, outside some kind of weird larping or "Elijah J" actually being Blumenfeld but not a SPA Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User has now [103] denied LLM use. Personally I find this unconvincing and I've said so; we'll see how this develops. ^purring_maggot (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Now stating LLM was only used for "formatting" and a not-quite-promise to "be very careful with this next time": [104] (the conversation got split up between my talk and theirs) I think it might also be worthwhile to keep an eye on this user Kappalotti who originally made the AI-generated Dwight Cuthbert Revire Gardiner page and has come out of inactivity as of yesterday. Whatever's going on here, I'm at least definitely going to stubify that page whenever I have the time. I'm supposed to be at work! ^purring_maggot (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Karaokelegend

LLMPRODs are unnecessary

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-19 Karaokelegend, 556 pages need review.

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

Another large, high-volume, and ongoing spree of AI edits. They denied using AI but I think it's pretty unambiguous in this case; the smoking gun here is the [span_1](start_span) formatting in this edit, which upon googling seems to be a Gemini bug. (It also cites Grokipedia. What are we even doing here) Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Deedubaroo

• Deedubaroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:gurkubondinn § Oh darn, you're right of course

Could I get a second opinion on my tagging of the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse page? First a TA removed the tag in Diff/1364598177, and after i restored the tag in Diff/1364609031 it was again removed without consensus in Diff/1364613370 with an edit summary calling it an overbroad AI tag.

The user has confirmed using LLMs in § Oh darn, you're right of course on my talk page, but evidently does not like the tag. There's too much of the usual arguments about NOLLM not really applying and what it all means etc., so I'm asking for a second opinions here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents. I have repeatedly acknowledged the policy after being made aware of it, spent over an hour reviewing the page and the policies, and subsequently reaffirmed a commitment to the policy. The tag was applied blindly and mechanically in a manner that (as documented) clearly violates Wikipedia policies.

Without regard for adopting a more considered approach to tagging, or justifying their edits by reference to one of a list of principles associated with the rule (i.e. acting without effort in a manner that destroys effort), both of which were suggested to the tagger, or commonsense investigation of the quality of the page before or after, they have instead responded with a further counter-productive escalation ala. WP:BUREAU. It is my view this is WP:DE in the context of the particular page, although I continue to reaffirm and support both the LLM policy and the overarching principle on which the tagger is operating. Deedubaroo (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The tag was not "applied blindly". Special:Diff/1364569730 contains signs of probable AI use, such as markdown formatting (which is not present in prior edits so it's not due to unfamiliarity with wiki markup). As it turns out, those signs were correct, which moves it from "probable AI use" to confirmed AI use. Thus, the tag is accurate, and removing it misleads both editors and readers. If you don't like the tag, don't use AI, and then ask yourself why you are using a tool that you are ashamed of people knowing about.

As for the spirit of the underlying policy, both the letter and spirit of the guideline are that the Wikipedia community does not want people to use AI here. The principle is to not use AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, the template applied states: "As is the case for most maintenance tags, this should only be removed once the problems are undetectable or demonstrably non-existent." I have:

• previously included reference to the list of defects associated with the tag.
• already confirmed the page has been reviewed

Can someone please point to detectable signs of AI usage in the current version of the page, i.e. "factual errors", "formatting issues", "fictitious but plausible-seeming references", or prose that is "stilted", "promotional", or "occasionally ludicrous". Deedubaroo (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that I already pointed out formatting issues above, the most detectable sign of AI usage at this point is that you literally said that you used AI. No more detection is needed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You are continuing to engage with a blind and mechanical view of the relevant policy, which clearly states:

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited

It continues:

When evaluating possible LLM use, it is best to consider the full pattern of the editor's recent edits and whether the edits comply with core content policies.

The full pattern of the user's edits is clearly a manual labour poured in across more than a week. This requires a degree of nuance that is absent from the rule itself - the principle that the LLM has not been used here to create a problem of the sort the rule is intended to prevent.

You have offered no substantive reason despite multiple requests to suspect the page in question has quality problems in its current version, have not indicated how it violates content policies, and have not acknowledged commonsense requests to review its quality before and after. Simply acknowledging the use of AI is productive and honest behaviour done for the purposes of returning to editing as soon as possible. Policing without cause as done here however, is not.

Your mandate to police Wikipedia is based on implementing its content policies, not to police for policing's sake. This is pointless counterproductivity. A common sense view of the no-LLM policy is that it is designed to catch flagrant cases where people are generating entire pages filled with hallucinations and interpolated facts without any effort or human review. That ought to be what use of this tag helps correct, not momentary syntax errors in otherwise reviews content (which is plainly obvious by the delay between the flagged diff and the subsequent manual correction of errors). Deedubaroo (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The "substantive reason" is that AI-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia. That is the violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. You can complain about the guidelines until you are blue in the face -- or use AI until you are blue in the face, given that you have suddenly started to refer to yourself in the third person (The full pattern of the user's edits) -- but that doesn't make you an exception to them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited

This behaviour ceased the moment it was originally flagged, i.e. the violation of the prohibition has stopped, not continued, ended, whatever you need.

Ad hominem isn't useful. Of course I'm not using AI to edit these. If I had been, the above comment wouldn't be so full of typos. I'd expect a well trained officer of the law to recognise such things; that you do not explains this whole issue. Also as a reminder, Wikipedia's rules are principles, not civil code or exacting law, in spite of which WP:Wikilawyering is clearly a viable profession around these parts. Deedubaroo (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd expect a well trained officer of the law to recognise such things

Good thing I'm not a "well trained officer of the law," then. The only person wikilawyering here is you.

This behaviour ceased the moment it was originally flagged, i.e. the violation of the prohibition has stopped, not continued, ended, whatever you need.

Which only means that you're no longer violating the guidelines. It doesn't mean that the text generated by AI is somehow grandfathered in. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, and I notice someone else has requested this too, please indicate how the current content of the page violates Wikipedia content guidelines. You are most welcome to compare it to the old link page with respect to WP:NPOV in particular Deedubaroo (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

That's easy. It was generated by an LLM, and that means that it fails NOLLM. This been pointed out umpteen times already. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

And sentences like The proposal allowed a judicial or administrative authority to issue a detection order where mitigations had not ... from Diff/1364569730 still present in the article, meaning that there incontrovertibly is LLM-generated text still in the article and that the problem has not been addressed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The tag is a maintenance tag for calling attention to a possible problem, not a scarlet letter of shame. If you can't identify any issues then it shouldn't be tagged. Is the markdown you're concerned with the additional linebreaks, or is there other markdown I'm missing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The markdown here is the [link text](link url) formatting, which was automatically caught by an edit filter. (Before anyone starts to wikilawyer over this, the edit filter does not do anything to article text.)

As far as the "issues," the issue is that AI-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia. As with copyvios, the guideline isn't "AI-generated text isn't allowed unless someone thinks it's OK," the guideline is that it isn't allowed at all. Thus the two solutions to the issue are to either rewrite it without AI or to remove it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW that was the intent/spirit of NOLLM when it was written, but someone other than the author would need to go through the article (Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse, why on earth would anyone use LLMs on such a sensitive topic) to ensure WP:V is met, which is a massive task (I guess spotchecks may suffice?). I think presumptive tagging is fine until someone does that. Deedubaroo shouldn't use LLMs in future because of this waste of community time; if it turns out they do regularly use LLMs responsibly, other than me eating my hat, they or you can propose user right for LLM use. We don't automatically assume or take someone's word that they use LLMs responsibly for very good reason Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The tagging wouldn't be presumptive though, since we don't need to presume that there is LLM-generated text here. It is an accurate reflection of the state of the article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

True, but this sort of discussion was what I intended to have at a later stage (ie. just get NOLLM passed as focussing on content quality for the time being), with a later RfC to remove For this reason which'd basically make it that LLM-generated content is prohibited on principle. The idea was that we'd have more time to have community discussions and see how things develop, rather than just internecine conflict and limbo. Imo we're not really at the point where such a RfC is necessary since this is so incredibly rare/uncommon, and if the article is otherwise PAG-compliant we should probably focus on lower-hanging fruit re cleanup anyway Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have re-added the tag to the affected section for the sake of more important hills to die on, but I am at a loss as to how to progress on completing the remainder of the section, which was ideally going to be this weekend's project. If I add more text, it increases the size of the future independent review needed.

If you have influence on the course of the related policy (I am a baby Wikipedian), I think an approach similar to modern tech usage is fine: human review of every word (or as it goes in tech, change review by another human). For my purposes, the current state of affairs is not much far off banning typewriters, although I do understand its intent. Deedubaroo (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the big reasons why WP:NOLLM is the way it is today is because anyone can generate hundreds of articles worth of unverifiable, undue, unencyclopedic content every single day. And currently people do do that every single day, and they have been doing it every single day for nearly 4 years, and there are only like five editors total who actually identify, verify, and cleanup LLM-generated content on a day-to-day basis, so the project of catching & reviewing it all is literally insurmountable, even now that editors can be blocked for persistently introducing LLM-generated text (a policy only in place since like March of this year). So if you're wondering why people here get this intense about LLM usage, that's why.

I'm aware this debt exists in tech too, where code reviewers are buckling under the weight of an overwhelming amount of LLM-generated code. I've heard of some open-source projects have responded to this with a policy similar to Wikipedia's, judging that not wasting volunteer time reviewing the 99% of crappy AI-generated security reports & pull requests is worth losing the 1% of good ones. ^purring_maggot (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Working on a case here, I did a detailed source-to-text review of the first half of a medium-long article. It took me a bit over two hours, so about four hours might have done the whole thing. I did not fix it, mind you: just found the discrepancies. And I only did the English language sources, not the other three languages involved, because I don't feel I can do a good source-to-text in a language I don't speak.

We can't afford to spend 4+ hours on one article when the most prolific LLM users can introduce a long article in approximately 4 minutes.

So, backing up purring maggot: we are hard-ass because we have to be. M kuhner (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This user keeps disruptively removing tags with snarky edit summaries. They removed only some of the LLM-generated text that they have added (seemingly only to remove the tag that they reluctantly re-added following this thread), but most of the text that they have inserted still remains in the article. Even text from edits like Diff/1364569730 remains in the article, and attempts to conservatively tag just that section resulted in the tag being disruptively removed in Diff/1364753188 (even though they have realised that AI generated content is exposed to the user). ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The parent commenter is interfering with cleanup and acting without consensus that was established in this conversation. I believe they may be misusing the NOLLM rule to intentionally hinder further development of the content of the page owing to its topic. I'd like to document a progression:

1. They tagged the page originally. I responded with an immediate acknowledgement of the problem, indicated my unawareness of WP:NOLLM, and immediately indicated my willingness to comply with the rule going forward.

2. On requesting help with a procedure to remove the tag, they responded mechanically that all affected sections would require being rewritten, even though this is neither the text nor the spirit of the underlying policy.

3. On pushing back, they immediately escalated the issue, distracting from any cleanup happening yesterday owing to the conversation here, and without willingness to engage with any of the reasoning I offered for the pushback.

4. Following the discussion above, I wrote that I "re-added the tag to the affected section for the sake of more important hills to die on, but I am at a loss as to how to progress on completing the remainder of the section, which was ideally going to be this weekend's project".

5. In the interim, I realised the ideal approach was to inline-tag each affected paragraph, and work to verify, rewrite, and cite them one at a time. This is clear in the edit log: "tag every paragraph with the inline variant tag to facilitate one-at-a-time cleanup", and in line with prior strongly defended comments appearing on this thread, that the necessity of the tag is to reveal the presence of AI-generated text to the user.

6. This morning, less than a minute after submitting an obvious rewrite to the first section following this strategy, they reappeared making 3 edits in quick succession, re-adding the block-level tags in the wrong place, in spite of the fact every affected paragraph had already been tagged.

7. They then opened a talk page entry making a fresh accusation that the lead, an extremely carefully balanced piece of text on a controversial topic, was also AI-generated. It is not mentioned in the edit log, but I have been measuring exact word counts in this section, to ensure the disputed elements of the legislation are fairly represented. There is zero evidence for the accusation, and over a week worth of edit log refuting it. I simply do not understand their justification for claiming the lead itself is somehow AI-generated, absolutely nothing about the structure of the text whatsoever suggests AI use, it is simply too concise.

8. I reverted the block-level tag as it was clearly placed on the wrong section, it should, if it appeared anywhere, be at the top of the Provisions section, but a) every paragraph of that section is already tagged with a duplicate tag, and b) many paragraphs (both before the start of the incident and especially since today) are hand authored. A block-level tag is simply incorrect.

9. They have returned to this talk page to escalate again, telling more stories, and creating more distraction.

I am at a loss to explain the contributor's continual escalatory behaviour in spite of a cooperative author, baseless accusations, or their interest in this particular page. They originally stated they were "glad" to see my acknowledging the LLM issue openly, because such is rare. Yet, they continue to police the page excessively and without any level of ascertainable analytical effort, in a manner that is distracting from cleanup, and that also cannot be explained by my immediate willingness to cooperate with the policy.

None of the edits to this page from this user promote the goal of the encyclopedia or edits content policy, nor can they adequately be explained by a desire to even implement the WP:NOLLM policy, as all the affected content is already tagged, honestly and more broadly than the original tagged diff required for.

I am at a loss to explain continued interference in the progress of this page except out of the belief that as a tech worker, it is possible (or even likely) a political motive may exist. My only interest in editing the page was that it was in such a foul state originally, repeating almost exclusively partisan and often plainly incorrect claims and citations sourced from the Pirate Party, and documenting almost none of the non-controversial aspects of CSAR, that I took up the mantle to work on it as my first ever WP project.

My only request at this point is to leave the page alone if you are not actively intending to document CSAR. Working through the subtleties of this law is hard enough as it is without edit spam interrupting every change. The policing work is done - the policy violation was caught, acknowledged, and a plan to amend the affected sections is already in progress. There is nothing more to do on this page except actually document the subject in line with established policy and mission, which, as I feel it is necessary to remind the reader, is the collaborative authoring of an encyclopedia, not the implementation of a mechanical bureaucracy existing only for the purposes of practising the text of its rules free of any other productive output. Deedubaroo (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't remove maintenance tags until the work is done. Not "a plan is in progress." M kuhner (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The tags weren't removed, they were placed inline to facilitate the work. This must be what it feels like to attend a Wikipedia conference. I've readded the block tag, however utterly pointless that is, as it strictly duplicates the information from the inline tags, which I am actively using to clean up the page, while also suggesting non-AI text is in fact AI text. Thank you for helping improve the clarity and correctness of Wikipedia in this manner. If you'd like, I could also have ChatGPT whip up a fullscreen WebGL presentation on the merits of WP:NOLLM to insert into the lead. Deedubaroo (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:In use is more or less what you're looking for here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The relevant sections have now been gutted and stripped bare. I have removed the maintenance tag as it is no longer relevant. In particular, that means all nuance on the difference between Commission, Parliament, and Council positions has been lost. The idea that this in any way promotes neutrality or the overall mission of the encyclopedia is laughable. I'd like to repeat something said in the earlier talk section:

I appreciate the spirit of the tagging work done here, and the sizeable scope of the problem for any maintainer taking up the mantle, but it's important to notice, and I strongly encourage you not to ignore it, that blanket tagging without reasonable application is entirely equivalent (i.e. just as bad) as blanket LLM use.

I believe this very much encapsulates what has happened here. Blind application of policy is no better a poison than the ill it was meant to cure, i.e. this noticeboard is living, breathing and wholly intentional invocation of Goodhart's Law. That there is even a focal point of discussion for this policy can only act like a magnet of the worst kind. I hope that to at least someone reading this section, the point will ring home and hopefully moderate future applications of the policy.

In the meantime, I have a giant section to rewrite from scratch. Farewell, hope we don't cross paths again. Deedubaroo (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Deedubaroo, you quoted above a sentence and said it was spoken in the talk section above. No such thing was said, where did you get that from? Hooples (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hooples, it seems like it was in § Oh darn, you're right of course on my talk page (where they also said that they believe that tagging articles with LLM-generated text as having LLM-generated text is "without regard for the spirit of the underlying policy"). ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

the seemingly unknowing of what page is being posted on and the frequent policy citing and poor wikilawyering is common on claude models atm. stricken due to it being too close to aspersions for my liking and not wanting to cause any upset Hooples (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI: https://vocaroo.com/1i29z1KStfmT Deedubaroo (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

No clue why this is an audio file (never seen that happen before here), onwiki communication should stay onwiki. Externally hosted replies can disappear, be taken down, remove or otherwise altered. A quick transcription (made by Google Gemini), for others that don't want to listen to it:

I figured it would be easier just to send a voice note. I am, in fact, a real person. It is deeply demeaning and offensive to keep on suggesting that, for whatever reason, I'm using LLMs to write simple comments when the content of the comment should be very clear.

I'm actually really embarrassed that I've even contributed to Wikipedia after I discovered how it works internally. It's—it's absolutely disgraceful. The AI noticeboard, what are you people even doing? Like really, what are you even doing? You've—you know, you know you're worried about like machines taking over writing mechanical text, but meanwhile, every way you're acting is entirely mechanical. I've flagged, from the first post to the first talk page, the fact that the way you're acting doesn't actually sit with Wikipedia policy. You're enacting like machine-generated bloody rules. And every time something is said, it falls back to some ad hominem comment like, 'The seemingly unknowing of what page is being posted on and the frequent policy citing and poor Wiki-lawyering is common on Claude models.'

That's just plainly offensive. There's no other way to put it. I wouldn't like to work with you for any reason. I don't know what you think you're doing to help Wikipedia. Um, it's a really bad look. Um, I've been tempted to blog about it, actually—I'm not going to—but I have been tempted. Um, yeah, it—it's really disheartening to see this on a supposedly collaborative project. You know my account is 19 years old. You can see the edit log for yourself, and this is still the lazy-minder response. There's no place for this. There really isn't. It's just embarrassing.

As I said before, take care. I hope I don't bump into you again.
— User:Deedubaroo's audio file, transcribed by Google Gemini

I've listend to the audio file, and this is more or less accurate. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW I've submitted an account vanishing request, this episode has been thoroughly persuasive regarding the value of further editing efforts, as they will inevitably provoke yet similar manifestations of some other sort while the actual work of documenting some sensitive topic (in this case CSAR) remains undone. My manual labour is better spent elsewhere, and that is an entirely natural consequence of how WP:NOLLM has been enacted here. To be clear, I believe this is an institutional problem manifesting through WP:NOLLM, not a problem of the policy itself. Deedubaroo (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Just be cognisant of WP:VANISHNOT, if your vanishing request is granted. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

renamed to Renamed user 1b81409746c7324294ce6693d0de173a (talk · contribs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

id like to say, I withdraw any aspersions that I might have implied by my comment, as I DO believe you are a real person. This is the first time I've seen a voice memo sent as a wiki reply, made me raise my eyebrows for a moment. I do have one comment though, you're saying basically that people are too hard-lined about these AI rules yeah? It's been explained multiple times in this tall thread how much work it is to fix editors who use LLMs, especially ones who seem to have worse motivations than you. I appreciate you working on that article and I hope you understand that it's not a personal value judgement on you when people ask questions about possible LLM use. Hooples (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it's not even only that. LLMs are simply incapable of producing text that is up to standards, and I offloads the work of verifying sources to other editors (while the user who inserted the references is off generating 5 more articles, requiring 5x more editors to verify those, and so on and so on). And just how using llm-generated text is just fundamentally contrary to what Wikipedia is. There is already at least one llm-generated encyclopaedia, and there's a reason that nobody uses it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The user has now stated their intent to WP:VANISH and not edit Wikipedia again. Then the question is just what to do with the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse article.

It was moved from Chat controlChat control Chat ControlChat Control in revision 1363654197 on 11 July 2026. This was an undiscussed move, but nobody objected either. From a WP:COMMONNAME standpoint, it should maybe be moved back though. In revision 1363793750 from 12 July, the page was very clearly LLM-generated in large parts. Some users, like JSwift49, seem to have done a fair job at trying to fix various issues, but I'm not sure how much of that remains. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against moving it back to Chat control, although I think more discussion would be useful since it is a term primarily used by critics. JSwift49 15:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Minor note, but it was Chat ControlChat Control in title case. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Naseem.farhad

LLMPRODs are done and drafts are tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Naseem.farhad (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

• Naseem.farhad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think there's probably a language barrier here, but the gist is the usual: high-speed, high-volume article creations/expansions, warned for AI, responded in this case on their talk page with Thank you so much for correction and thank you for the appreciation., then went back to the same editing. I think it's Grok specifically; Special:Diff/1364602899 is full of ref names "grok_ref_[text]" when the sources have no connection to Grok. (I haven't checked any other edits yet so can't comment on the earlier ones) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. To clarify, the biographical facts and text were researched and compiled manually, but I used an external tool to help generate the complex Wikipedia reference templates and clean up the citation syntax. I see now that this formatting script injected automated tags (like the ⁠grok_ref⁠ syntax) into the code history. I apologize for the technical mess it left behind. I have since updated the draft to clean up the page markup entirely by hand, and I will format all citation syntax manually going forward to avoid any further Naseem.farhad (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

How are you "researching and compiling manually" when you are taking sometimes only 5 minutes per article? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

At Shahed Kamal, ref #1 doesn't verify anything about Born in Dhaka on 24 July 1940, Kamal grew up in a household involved in the cultural and political life of the region., and ref #3 doesn't verify He was the son of the poet, feminist leader, and civil activist Sufia Kamal and Kamaluddin Ahmed. (it only says his mother was poet Sufia Kamal), nor does it specify he was a reporter and sub-editor at the APP, nor does it specify the Dhaka University Central Mosque premises (just says the campus) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: User continues to make obviously LLM-generated edits. Article space block is needed. Jfire (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Naseem.farhad sitewide for LLM misuse across article and draft namespaces. — Newslinger talk 15:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I mistakenly filed a second case for this user just now, and they got blocked in the mean time... ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that I've gotten most of it, but I would appreciate if someone else looked through their edits too. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I've gone through the edits as well and I think you've got everything - all seem tagged as reverted or else part of a page that's now LLMPROD tagged. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Ogidzatul Azis Sueb

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-18 Ogidzatul Azis Sueb, 17 pages need review.

Ogidzatul Azis Sueb (talk · contribs), XTools

Was brought to ANI for not communicating and LLM use in Jan 2026 which was archived without any comments (thread). Had an article WP:G15'd in May 2026. Created this today, which has your standard WP:AITABLE, some WP:AIBOLD, red-linked category, WP:SUPERFICIAL like Along the way, young jazz singer Natasya Elvira joined and became the lead vocalist, strengthening the group's musical character. No communication. Block please Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracking page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-07-18 Ogidzatul Azis Sueb (I haven't actually done one of these before, tell me if I've messed up/gone too wide). —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 07:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks great, and no, I don't think you went too wide. The first entry is Sept 14 2025, and looks decently suspicious. M kuhner (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

gave them a level 3 warning (only because level 4 is a bit rubbish) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Waltereg

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Extremely rapid editing, turning redirects into LLM-generated articles. The metaphorical smoking gun is in Diff/1364752808 (one of them is even somehow smoking in three different ways).

All of their edits are contained in one subject area. The user's talk page has a litany of DAB notices, draftification notices, complaints about poor or nonexistent sourcing, and various deletion notices, about half of which even predate the public release of ChatGPT. But there is a lot to clean up. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

For examples of large and extremely rapid edits:

• History/2025–26 Real Madrid Baloncesto season
• History/2024–25 Real Madrid Baloncesto season

‑‑gurkubondinn 11:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Then there are others that I'm not entirely convinced about, for example Diff/1361974319 is a 6,4 kB edit made less than 4 minutes after the previous edit to 2026–27 CSM București women's handball season, but it seems to mostly be an empty boilerplate table. I've draftified some other articles in the same 'series' but leaving this one alone for now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Sports articles are the worst. There's so much table and so little text that it's incredibly hard to know how they were written. M kuhner (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

[105] (18 July) appears to have chatbot communication in it, <!-- The regular-season draw is scheduled for 22 July 2026. Add the fixtures after the official schedule is published. --> Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Kned Wiki

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-19 Renamed user 77899991399dbbe0009e5042335b619b, 240 pages need review.

Renamed user 77899991399dbbe0009e5042335b619b (talk · contribs), XTools

Good-faith editor, but admitted to using AI, and vanished after being informed of NOLLM [106]. 123 creations, the first of which was [107] (Nov 2024) which has WP:SUPERFICIAL and WP:AIVOCAB eg. ...the gardens feature panoramic views over Western Sicily and hold cultural and historical significance. The Balio Gardens are part of the Grandi Giardini Italiani network, which showcases Italy’s prominent historic gardens., and WP:AILIST, WP:AITITLECASE etc. Analysis needed of their later creations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

First warned about LLM use in § May 2025, and then admitted to LLM use in § May 2026 (saying I can 100% vouch for the content) after which they came to my talk page in § Trapani-Berghi to argue about their LLM-generated edit. After I actually relented and reinstated it, I had to then tell them in § Removal of maintence tag to not remove the tag and also told them about NOLLM at the same time. That doesn't seem to have encouraged them to stop, because I seem to have noticed them again and when I asked § Are you still using AI to edit?, after which they promptly blanked their talk page again and vanished.

I think that basically every edit and page created by this user can be presumed to have been LLM generated. They seemed like a very heavy user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:MissBVCC

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

This user was warned for using LLMs on July 2.

I am worried about their participation in AfD discussions; these are some examples of what I consider suspicious: Generative AI pornography, Western Iran clashes (2026–present), 2024 Dhing gang rape case, Alternate ending, Indian influence in Bangladesh, Save the Children Jalalabad attack, Meaning-making (2nd nomination). jhvx talk contribs 18:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The AfD comments are strange: a mix of LLM and human, I guess, given that almost every one has an error of some kind.

The mainspace edit I spotchecked, however, was pure LLM. I'll mark for needing a cleanup case. M kuhner (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Generative AI pornography

This page has one weird edit filter log. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the userpage of the person who created the original (and AISIGNS-full) Generative AI pornography article, you truly cannot make this shit up: Hi, Bobby here. I am an Artificial Intelligence enthusiast. I like what's going on with AI there in the world. I like creating stuff with AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

At the moment I don't think the AfD comments are LLM, within your examples there's some human variance in there such as in the Generative AI pornography comment: it feels like a high-traffic encyclopedic topic which should be deleted instead of saying "it should not be deleted" which is what the user clearly meant to say as they are voting keep. I notice they invoke a lot of policy pages, which is typical at AfD; some signs of LLM use with regards to policies would be invoking fake policies, invoking real policies but quoting statements that don't exist on the page, or invoking policies to argue something that the policies really don't say. No comment on mainspace as I have not looked at their edits there. ^purring_maggot (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Lots of errors like that, around one per comment. Surely not pure LLM.

There's always a risk that a newcomer is copying what they see in other AfD cases, and enough of those are LLM that they may sound "off." I kind of think there's some use here, but the mainspace will be the real test. M kuhner (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

it seems like a topic prone to WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT reasoning which may be causing comments to seem off? Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Still on the fence over the AfD comments, but this seems like a smoking gun to me, given that the edit was made in 3 minutes. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 18:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Maccoutinho

LLMPRODs are done

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2026-07-19 Maccoutinho for reference.

 Maccoutinho (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (18 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

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

Special:Permalink/1364848865 and Special:Permalink/1364848585 created with leading and trailing markup and other clear AISIGNS. All 2026 edits need review. Jfire (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: This user is continuing to move presumed AI-generated drafts to mainspace (Special:Diff/1364851435). I think an article-space block is warranted until they at least respond here. Jfire (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I just rejected one of their drafts after they forgot to remove the markdown code block from the chatbot in Diff/1364847657, claiming in the edit summary that the original article was not AI written. I think that an article space block is needed to prevent further disruption. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Maccoutinho sitewide for LLM misuse across article and draft namespaces. They submitted an LLM-generated unblock request one minute after they were blocked. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

At least it's clear where to start. Hadn't posted in 15 years, then a sudden flow of articles starting July 16 2026. LLM edit summaries. I'll make a tracker. M kuhner (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

My feeling is that Joana Rêgo is probably OK. I can't see any obvious signs, it's a short piece. Sources check OK. May need another set of eyes. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I draftified a few of the articles yesterday, feel free to move any of them back as appropriate. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to say, neither source 1 nor source 2 gives the academic area of Joana Rego's PhD as "Art and Design" (it's in source 3) and none of 1, 2 or 3 seem to confirm "professor at ESAD since 1999" (it is cited to 3 but definitely not there). The 28 solo exhibitions are not in source 3 (which lists 5) and I really dislike "approximately" attached to that claim--how do you approximate that? It's the typical recent LLM where sources have been shredded and thrown together, so most of the information (not all) is correct but not sourced to the right place. M kuhner (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner - sounds like at least LLMPROD if not G15 then, given the machine's history. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's way too subtle for G15 IMO. LLMPROD would be appropriate. I have to drag myself away from Wikipedia and go play a video game, so if you'd like to do it, feel free. M kuhner (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done ChrysGalley (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Just FYI, I usually mark all forms of deletion as "in progress" until they actually go through; it lets me make a follow-up pass to see if the tags got removed. Once the article is red-link I change to "completed." M kuhner (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner - I will do that from now on. My logic was, for what it was worth: For G15 I can see the point of "in progress", since a G15 could easily be denied on various grounds, and we still have an LLM screed to handle. However for LLMPROD then I felt that in practical terms the only two likely outcomes are PROD or adoption, and either way the matter is dealt with. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Alas, LLMPRODs get silently removed by TAs (some of whom are likely socks) on a painfully regular basis; they also get removed by editors who disapprove on principle or who have examined the article and "see no problems." (Occasionally they're right; usually not. Full source/text analysis is hard.) So before I do a close I make sure I know what happened to all of them. M kuhner (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. For Museu Municipal Amadeo de Souza-Cardoso - that's a new article from a respected longserving editor. From what I can recall of the earlier version, the new version is completely different. It did get fully G15'd first. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Happy ending! I've marked it. M kuhner (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

AI at DYK?

Am I going crazy, or am I seeing AI signs at Football manufacturing in Pakistan? I'm seeing some small AI signs across this user's contribs like "X reported on Y", large article creations in one go, verbose headings etc, but no smoking guns. See original football article creation: 1. + some more article creations: 2, 3. Also note a copyvio warning in May- User talk:Umais Bin Sajjad#MAY-17-2026 -and a non-template LLM warning yesterday- User talk:Umais Bin Sajjad#LLM use. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 07:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Nah, that v1 is obviously AI. Fermiboson (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

First paragraph doesn't quite line up with the sources in a very llm way, and that's with the Khaleej Times article feeling a bit LLMy as well. CMD (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I have tagged as AI. Source 10, OUP/World Bank used an aggregator rather than the source OUP host. The source is fuzzily transferred to the article text, e.g. it doesn't go into the SME side. Interesting source, but summarised in the best traditions of AI. Beyond that multiple other AI signs. ChrysGalley (talk) ChrysGalley (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I've used LLM assistance during drafting and then manually revised the prose afterwards. As WP:LLM does not permit broader generation or rewriting of article prose, I follow that restriction carefully. Regarding the large first revisions, I usually prepare substantial drafts in my userspace before moving them. I take responsibility for my edits and am reviewing the affected articles sentence by sentence against their cited sources. I will remove or rewrite anything unsupported, too closely paraphrased, or otherwise noncompliant. Football manufacturing in Pakistan was subsequently reviewed at DYK. I mention this only as evidence of the article's present condition, not as proof of how it was drafted or as an exemption from LLM. If there are specific diffs or source–text integrity concerns, point them out and I will address them. Umais🗣 09:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the candid and helpful reply @Umais Bin Sajjad, though I have to say that reply also looks AI assisted. Nevertheless, under WP:NEWLLM there are only 2 ways you can use LLM (translation, copyedits) and that does not apply here - you simply cannot use LLM to assist drafting, so I can't see how you followed that restriction carefully. Due to the DYK status I don't feel I can G15 this article (though I imagine it is a legitimate next step, given that at least some sources were not checked against the wording). The If there are specific diffs or source–text integrity concerns is standard wording we often see off AI tools when they, the tools, are challenged about AI - in reality as a human you would know where you used AI, so you are the best person to answer that point. In my view? The article needs to be rewritten, based on manual examination of the sources, and that you should resist the temptation to tinker with the existing article. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

English is not my first language, which is why I used LLM assistance while drafting. Nevertheless I checked the article manually against the sources and revised prose with MOS in mind. Now that this concern has been raised, I'll draft directly from the sources myself and use tool within the permitted WP:LLM. Umais🗣 10:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Comparing the two responses from the user in this thread, my guess is that one of the replies was generated by an LLM and not the other one. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

How did you review the draft sentence by sentence for source 2, which is an 11 minute video? CMD (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked accompanying written summary and relevant opening portion of video, where it states that Sialkot makes about 70% of the world's footballs. The citation was intended to support that estimate. I will move them closer to the claims they support and remove anything that is not directly verified. Umais🗣 10:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has been pulled from DYK: Diff/1364927197. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify - I think we can see what has gone on here, and the submitter has owned up to the issue and explained why, to their credit. Rather than further hole digging, I would suggest this article is now sent off to Draft status, which will then provide a good checkpoint if/when it is OK for mainspace. Other options being G15, LLMPROD, PROD, AFD. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify is fine with me, but I won't oppose any other outcomes. Thank you to @Umais Bin Sajjad for being honest and straight forward about this, the second rule of holes must be "don't dig holes for someone else" or something like that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  In order to avoid digging holes, and noting Umais Bin Sajjad stated above that they want to draft directly from the sources, a custom draftify pulling the sources and images but not the prose might be a more efficient way to move forward than bringing together the need to not only draft but also comb through text and videos. CMD (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I draftified it and TNTed the text.--Launchballer 12:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Forward Sports was expanded at the same time. The title of the Al Jazeera source [108] as "The football" is interesting, some automated process (llm or cite generator?) pulled the second h1 tag for the title, dropping the first half ("Story of"). CMD (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I ran GPTZero on a random portion from what appears to be the last edit made as part of the (far more piecemeal) expansion and it came back as likely human written.--Launchballer 12:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The statement Forward Sports operates within the wider Forward Group. The group's related businesses include Forward Gear, a Sialkot-based bag manufacturer established in 2007 is sourced to reference nr. 15 in that revision,which just points to the www.fgear.pk landing page. Not really definitive per se, but pretty typical citing by an LLM. I hope that the user can just improve these articles without using AI tools, as they seem genuinely interested in contributing to the project. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

EVO 2026 has a few AISIGNS like having 3 places where there's AIATTR, and AITABLE ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I just queued Nusuk, whose v1 also came up 100% on GPTZero. Extra eyes appreciated.--Launchballer 10:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer (note:WP:AISIGNS is the thing which most of us at AINB use to check for signs of LLM generated drafts)~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

so far, i'm seeing AIWEASEL, SUPERFICIAL, RO3, AITREND ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Vitaliikliushkinm

Vitaliikliushkinm (talk · contribs)

see this sandbox edit (AIVOCAB, RO3, AIBOLD, AITITLECASE, AILEGACY) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no cleanup to be done here since the newcomer's only work is this draft, which in its current state is quite a bit improved from the sandbox version containing those AISIGNS. Based on their Teahouse post the editor seems to be wrestling with referencing things themselves rather than allowing AI to do it, so I think we should use a soft touch here. I'll notify them of NOLLM. Based on the current state of the draft, I almost want to remove the AI-generated tag - does anyone concur with this, or are there still issues? Given that the draft is still not sourced properly, we can only judge the prose. ^purring_maggot (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Purring maggot i don't believe that's true, several of the references cited at the teahouse appear almost since the beginning of the sandbox draft, the only new information comes from this which was a site already cited in the article, just on the wrong page ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

What I mean is, they don't have any proper inline citations, and usually people just let the AI generate the inline citations for them, so the fact that the editor is asking for help is a good sign. Technically there's nothing wrong with writing an article using sources found by LLMs. I think we should let the AfC process do its job and the draft will get denied if the citations go in and stuff starts failing verification (or, likely enough, the subject fails notability). I've warned the editor, so there's not much more to be done other than keep an eye on the situation. ^purring_maggot (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

oh, yeah, fair enough ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM pages linking to AI Youtube channel

 Cleanup has been requested.

User Yoavd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yoavd) has two pages on their wikipedia profile that link to AI generated content on youtube. A channel called Yoavchess(https://www.youtube.com/@yoavchess) which appears to be the user's own. The two pages in question are Ancient Mathematics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yoavd/Ancient_Mathematics) and History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yoavd/History). All the links contained in these pages link to AI Slop videos from the User's channel.

The user also attempted to create a new wikipedia page about a book titled "Win at Work with Lessons from the Chessboard" by Zeev Zohar. Zeev Zohar's wiki page seems to have a section on this that was added by this user. I am aware that humans are terrible at detecting AI writing but the section under Authoring Chess Books should be looked into. It does not fit with any of the previous text and may be written by a LLM. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeev_Zohar) Weighing of the Words (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)}}

Research has shown that experienced users can detect LLM rather accurately. That research didn't test it, but I immodestly think experienced LLM hunters are also pretty good. IMO the block of text in Zeev Zohar is unquestionably LLM based on presence of signs from WP:AISIGNS. It's also unsourced, which is not an LLM sign but is bad in itself.

The math and history user pages seem eligible for WP:G11 "unambiguous advertising or promotion." The Felix Dothan userpage is a redirect to the same title in mainspace--could someone who understands redirects better than me weigh in on whether that's okay? (None of these, as I understand it, should be on the user page--they should be sandbox--but that's a minor issue.)

My suspicion is we have undisclosed COI or PAID and LLM use; it's not a rare combo. I will look at their other edits. Sad to see a fellow chessplayer stoop to this.

Really appreciate the heads-up: these are so much easier to deal with when caught early. M kuhner (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I left a warning on the user's Talk page and reverted the edits to Zeev Zohar. In the process, though, I discovered that the title of the book is wrong in those edits! (Page says it's "Win at Work with Lessons from the Chessboard"; every other mention I have found says it's "Business Checkmate: Win at Work with Lessons from the Chessboard"; cover art puts Business Checkmate in huge font.) This I find deeply baffling. I wonder if the account is compromised. M kuhner (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

probably not compromised, otherwise i'd see something in either the global block log or global user contribs ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I received an answer from Yoavd in response to a query on their Talk page: User talk:Yoavd#Concerns about promotional material and LLM use. I'll leave it to those with more understanding of English Wikipedia policies to evaluate this. M kuhner (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In response to a second query about Zeev Zohar, editor noted that Hebrew Wikipedia does not have a no-LLM policy at this time (and, I think, tacitly admitted that their edit was LLM). I pointed out that when editing enWiki they need to follow enWiki rules. Hopefully this will be the end of the matter. M kuhner (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Flyingphoenixchips

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-20 Flyingphoenixchips, 612 pages need review.

 Flyingphoenixchips (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

Flyingphoenixchips has been submitting LLM-generated content since their first article creation in 2024, the now-deleted Wesea (Western SouthEast Asia) page. In 2025, they added ChatGPT-generated citations to a number of articles: When Blackbirds Fly, Hannah Lalhlanpuii, Shania Yan (now deleted), Ron Whittaker (musician), Mokokchung Times (now deleted), Prajal Regmi (now deleted), and Anthony Doke. Flyingphoenixchips also used ChatGPT to generate comments in deletion discussions: Arunachal Times and Wesean Times.

Their LLM misuse continued after the WP:LLM guideline was implemented. In March 2026, Flyingphoenixchips created the article Melt Fracture with a number of red links in the See also section, as well as nonexistent categories. It was draftified, and the second time the draft was declined (reviewed version), the reviewer stated: "I randomly selected five references to review, and ALL FIVE either did not exist or linked to papers with completely different titles and topics. Together with the formatting, it's pretty obvious this article was written by an LLM and posted by someone who did not care enough to verify anything."

On 30 March, another editor told Flyingphoenixchips that "articles recently created by you appear AI-generated" and asked, "Did you use AI to create the articles?". Flyingphoenixchips responded with a partial denial: "I used a script to organize bare references, yes. did not use for writing".

A new page patroller flagged four of Flyingphoenixchips's article creations as AI-generated on 9 April: 2026 Manipur bombing, Child exploitation in Arunachal Pradesh, Christian persecution in Manipur, and Rpa Ralte. In the ensuing discussion, Flyingphoenixchips denied using an LLM to write the articles, but claimed that they wrote the articles in Markdown, used "two agents to format the paper and organise the references", used "a python script to organise it all and push edits onto my wikipedia account", and then checked the articles themselves. Flyingphoenixchips was told, "Using a Python script for editing isn't allowed if you haven't gotten approval from the WP:Bot Approvals Group", and responded, "I'll try doing things myself from now on and will try to get it approved."

Without obtaining approval for an LLM-based bot or article creation script, Flyingphoenixchips mass-created 46 articles about Yushania species in 84 minutes on 1 July and 7 July. Another editor pointed out issues with the articles, including "Many of the references you have provided lack accessible URLs with which to ascertain their accuracy" and "In a number of articles, references have been duplicated, and some make no mention of the article subject." Flyingphoenixchips responded that they were "planning to revisit those pages again", but have not done so.

The timing of Flyingphoenixchips's recent article edits shows a pace consistent with submitting LLM-generated edits. For example:

• Traditional beliefs and mythology of the Tani people: Gradually added 18,832 bytes in 10 minutes, including ISBN errors, then removed nonexistent categories
• Arunachal church burnings, 1968–1978: Gradually added 17,048 bytes in 9 minutes, starting with the infobox before the rest of the article, then removed nonexistent categories
• Fetishization of Northeast Indians: Created the 35,230-byte initial revision, then deleted an LLM-generated list of sources in the same minute. Heavily rewrote the article in the next 26 minutes, reducing it to 18,029 bytes. After another editor blanked and redirected the article, Flyingphoenixchips gradually added 8,828 bytes of content in 5 minutes before deleting nonexistent categories.
• Racism against Northeast Indians: Created a 39,435-byte initial revision, which was promptly nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G15 because "Some ISBNs and DOIs go to different subjects than the reference's title". Flyingphoenixchips attempted to remove the speedy deletion tag in violation of WP:CSDCONTEST, but it was reinstated. Flyingphoenixchips then edited continuously for about an hour with a stream of small edits overlapping with three large edits (+4,146; +1,076; and +27,697 bytes) that can only plausibly be explained as LLM-generated, because there is no way those large edits could have been written by hand when Flyingphoenixchips was busy making the numerous small edits. The article was culled instead of speedily deleted.

Per the above evidence, I have indefinitely Blocked Flyingphoenixchips sitewide for repeatedly misusing LLMs, denying the full extent of their LLM misuse when asked, and mass-creating articles with a script in violation of the bot policy. An unblock request would be more likely to succeed if Flyingphoenixchips acknowledges that their LLM misuse was inappropriate, agrees to refrain from using LLMs for Wikipedia editing in any capacity as an unblock condition, and agrees to clean up all of their LLM-affected edits.

The WP:LLMPROD process would be the most efficient way to address the LLM-generated article creations. — Newslinger talk 02:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is incredibly disheartening since they were NPP and AFC. But I can't say I am surprised. He was tackled about this by @Athanelar and I in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 63#Maybe Flyingphoenixchips shouldn't be an AfC reviewer. where he said that he used an AI tool, Wispr Flow, to speed through a lot of AFC reviews, with decidedly mixed outcomes. He undertook not to use that tool again on 26 May 2026, but that was in an AFC context. Separately I think we need to think about the sticks and carrots when it comes to long-serving editors who establish their bona fides via the traditional route and then get subverted by AI's deathly embrace. This won't be the only case. Probably out of scope for this noticeboard though. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm kind of kicking myself for not looking into their contributions after the fiasco with their LLM-powered AfC reviews. Glad to see it's solved now. Athanelar (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Also note that the box on top of their userpage is clearly AI-generated too. ChatGPT still loves those curved corners and emoji headers! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Greetings!

Retired user here just giving my two cents on this issue. While I do agree with your block of Flyingphoenixchips, I think it's too far to block him for an indefinite period of time.

While he made a mistake, his contributions to Wikipedia are great, he's a very good Wikipedian who has a lot of knowledge in the subject he edits. I think it's best that the community gives him a firm warning to not use AI, and let him go with the warning in mind.

Articles such as Angelte Zai Ri were not written by AI buy instead by him. He's from the state of Mizoram and used the sources in the Mizo language.

Aside from AI, his edits were great. He deserved a firm warning and a temporarily block for his use of AI, aside from that, he should be let go.

Thanks, ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

while they meant well in trying to increase coverage of articles, they unfortunately continued to use AI even when it was mentioned by other editors. EM (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright makes sense. I think he deserves a firm warning with an added temporary ban on this issue.

After that, let him continue editing as long as he's not using AI. I suggest this because the Wikipedian in question is pretty good at contributing within their respective topics so banning him would be bad at Wikipedia articles about these topics. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

"Indef" is not forever: the editor can appeal the block at any time. I have no authority here, but personally would much rather see a human-written unblock request and commitment to do better, rather than allowing the editor to wait out a timed block and perhaps start right back in. M kuhner (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the info. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to know the policy around AI-generated images. I am referring here to the image created for Template:The Hornbill Barnstar which now seems obvious to have been created using AI. Astra Travasso (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:AIGI. It only forbids their use in mainspace, so I don't believe a barnstar, meant for user pages, is actionable. M kuhner (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracker created, LLMPRODs started (I started at the top, if someone else is going to join in they might start at the bottom). M kuhner (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've done LLMPRODs from #195 (Makum people) to #100 (Lee Hee-wan) on XTools, they've fortunately got no drafts to tag Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• They've said [109] @Kowal2701 Hey, wanted to ping you here since I am unable to participate in the discussion? Would it perhaps be possible to userify or draftify the articles tagged for prod? I am willing to rework them (before touching anything else) and go through the AfD process. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC), I'll leave that to admins to decide, but if we are to userfy them then we can't track {{AI-generated}} removals with the filter Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  (I'm fine with draftifying and tagging FWIW) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Block appeal (Flyingphoenixchips)

On 20 July, Flyingphoenixchips posted the following appeal on their user talk page:

Flyingphoenixchips's appeal at 03:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Newslinger,

I do not wish to argue with this block, and would say it was warranted. I admit that I used AI to write articles, when I first started out. Most of the articles then were created with the help of ChatGPT as you had mentioned in the noticeboard. This was done without oversight but later on, I however started reading the contents and re-edited the text AI had produced. Yes, I mass created pages with a script when I shouldn't have and I was not fully honest about it. I am sorry for the time it cost everyone, I truly do..

I wish to however appeal this with hope that you all can allow me to edit wikipedia in probation. I would not use any AI tool at all for anything and would get the approval beforehand if its truly necessary in my part. I will not be creating any new articles or edit any other articles I had previously not touched, during this probationary period unless and until I am cleared. During this time, I am hoping to work on cleaning up the articles I worked on already. I will go through each one of them and check every claim against the actual sources. I will also remove and fix whatever does not hold up and I will keep a list on my user page so anyone can check what I have done. I will also remove any AI nonsense and fully agree to the clean up.

Stating this I agree that if I were to break any of what I said, do reblock me. I will not argue about it, but I would appreciate if I could be given a chance to clean this up.

In response, I indicated that I would post Flyingphoenixchips's appeal in this discussion and asked for clarification on the details of their LLM use and editing process:

My three-part question for Flyingphoenixchips posted at 22:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Flyingphoenixchips, thank you for your response. Could you please provide a full account of the following?

1. All of the tools you used to generate or assist with your edits, including LLMs, scripts, and other software
2. Your editing process (i.e. how you used those tools) and how this process changed over time, with specific timeframes and examples from your contribution history
3. Any differences between your previous portrayals of your editing process (e.g. your comments in [110] [111] [112]) and your actual editing process

Being transparent here would help you reestablish trust and strengthen your appeal. After you have your answers ready, I am going to ask the other editors in the AI noticeboard discussion for input on how you can best participate in the cleanup process, which may conclude with a modification of your block.

Flyingphoenixchips replied in detail with two comments:

Flyingphoenixchips's explanation at 02:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Newslinger apologies for not responding sooner. I needed time to write this out properly, so you have a full view of whatever I did.

So lemme just list out all the tools out first, them being:

ChatGPT, Wispr Flow, local open source LLMs run on my own machine namely DeepSeek and later Kimi, Self written Python scripts (I will explain what they did exactly...) and a javascript based browser extension to flag "AI mishaps" (I added this to validate if AI was changing anything that I strictly asked it not to)

So now for the process in itself,

Frankly when I started out, I did not at all use AI. Most of my new articles went through AfC, and all prose were my own. This is how I actually started building up my edit history and later got to extended confirm rights. See When Blackbirds Fly, Hannah Lalhlanpuii Unfortunately these got tagged with LLMPROD as well. [113]

After a while, I began using ChatGPT to research and find source links and used those links directly. These left the AI tellsigns even where I wrote the prose myself, and others did warn me about it. Sorry about not adding diffs here... Its extremely hard to relocate them now. After this incident I stopped doing this. I believe @Astra Travasso can also attest to my contributions to Northeast India which were mostly done at that time without AI assistance at all.

As an asian, at this point I really wanted to make a difference in bringing asian representation to wikipedia... as can be seen in my previous interactions with @Rosiestep and other editors. There was a lot to write, and formatting wikitext by hand over and over was tedious. So what I did was write a python script that used two local open source models I talked about before to output correct wikitext. You might be aware of how most LLMs mess up wikitext, so I spent hours training this setup to get it right. At this point my process was ... research and write the full text myself as a .txt with sources, have the models convert it to wikitext (I found out that the model finds it easier to read/edit .txts rather than word or markups) and then add it to wikipedia myself in stages. However for some reason, this model would still insert circular sources from wikipedia itself... so what I thought was.. Hey, atleast its getting the wikitext right. Let me add the content in bulk at stages and prune through whatever stuff AI messed up, ensuring that the final pruned version was my voice/work alone. As a result, the prose herein did not carry AI signs but true... the models ended up adding nonsensical categories which I started fixing by hand.

Saying this, I also wanted to provide an example of how this happened. Do see the article history of Angelte Zai Ri and Rpa Ralte. As you can see the final version has sources mostly in Lushei which is my native tongue. None of the AI models can source or translate or understand any of these languages of Northeast India so I hope, this shows, how most of it was genuine work of my own with AI assistance (only for formatting). This is also why, the other articles submitted through AfC were mostly never rejected as AI creations.

Now going on... I started using Wispr Flow and this was mostly used when I was NPP and an AfC reviewer. I found it extremely easy to dictate. This was also the period of high review volume, that other users warned me about particularly @ChrysGalley. It caused a lot of problems and I fully accepted my mistake and stop using this altogether for AfC reviews. I also decided not to ask for the rights again after they expired so that I can first learn the ropes of Wikipedia properly before committing to reviewing articles.

Then comes the next phase... which was allowing my local workflow cloud access to whole articles in its entirety. I admit this was the most stupid mistake that I did so far (not that other stuff I described hence far were not stupid). I gave the model access to myCloud to generate whole articles from a restricted set of references I supplied. Unlike before I stopped oversight, because my models were working before (and it seemed like it did not add stuff on its own). I did this out of the longing to populate wikipedia, with notable Northeast India, Myanmar & South Korea topics, to better represent the place I and my wife comes from... I am genuinely sorry for giving you all such a hard time. This was also when @CostalCal warned me about factual errors, incorrect sources and a lot of other issues. This was clear Ai use and in retrospect I did not fully disclose this to either @CostalCal or @Fermiboson. After warnings, I went back and re-edited these in bulk using my own warning methods (the javascript thing I mentioned). See [114]

I stopped using this method in its entirety after the incident, but at the same time I felt the longing once again to create all those amazing articles that do not exist yet in the English wikipedia. I then created articles like Kim Sa-bok, Park Dong-hyuk (soldier), For this I went back to my method of pruning articles, and ensuring that the final version of my edits, were in my own words and the references were not generated by AI. All of the content therein, were thus verified thoroughly against individual references.

Later on, I experimented a new workflow with the bamboo plant. Here, I limited total access to the internet, and began supplying the models with key phrases/sentences to limit hallucinations. I then used the same old bot script to push these edits to wikipedia. During this time I also edited stuff myself, and thats why you can see overlapping edits (small edits alongside bulk ones) in a very short time frame. I shut it down completely once it kept reusing the same few references. My most recently ran setup was with my oversight limited to the references used.

as for question 3, I did describe stuff as it was but yeah... I do not think I fully disclosed it. What I am describing to you is the complete thing.

Once again I am so very sorry for all this. I promise that...

I will not use any AI tools for wikipedia in any capacity

I will not run scripts and will not mass create articles

I will help clean up every affected article.

I know I was extremely hypocritical too... One of the reasons why I joined wikipedia was to clean up predatory sources. I had also written a user essay on how to spot them, but I agree with @Astra Travasso. What I did was no different than the academic dishonesty I claim to hate.

Flyingphoenixchips's addendum at 20:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Newslinger

I thought of also showing clear examples of articles I had created without AI assistance during that phase. Do have a look at India Research Watch and Achal Agrawal. I have a conflict of interest for the two and had created the same through an AfC process with proper disclosures. See also [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]

and yes, I was totally stupid when I began increasingly reliant on AI models to automate this specific process. The thing is I never meant to vandalise wikipedia, or give any of you guys a hard time. I sincerely apologize once again for all of this. I simply wanted to make wikipedia feel more representative and write on the notable topics that most editors might not generally edit. I am sorry.

(Note: All of the username links in the four comments quoted above were replaced with {{np}}.)

Flyingphoenixchips's explanation does seem to be a comprehensive account of their editing process and tools used. There is an issue near the beginning, because the articles When Blackbirds Fly and Hannah Lalhlanpuii were both created with ChatGPT-generated links in March 2025 (as mentioned in my initial comment), but the remainder of the explanation appears plausible and serves as a correction for Flyingphoenixchips's previous comments, which had often underrepresented the extent of their LLM use.

I'd like to ask this noticeboard for input on whether Flyingphoenixchips should be allowed to assist with the cleanup of the LLM-generated content, which they have expressed a willingness to do. If so, how should Flyingphoenixchips's block be modified to allow for this? Potential courses of action include:

• Unblocking Flyingphoenixchips
• Reducing Flyingphoenixchips's block to an indefinite block from article space (or a set of namespaces) until the cleanup process is complete
• Retaining Flyingphoenixchips's block and recommending that Flyingphoenixchips make an appeal via the standard offer in the future

If Flyingphoenixchips's block is reduced or removed as a result of this discussion, the expectation is that Flyingphoenixchips will be subject to an unblock condition that prohibits them from using a large language model for Wikipedia editing in any capacity. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Here are Flyingphoenixchips's responses to comments in this discussion, copied from their user talk page:

Response to my comments about the When Blackbirds Fly and Hannah Lalhlanpuii articles

Thanks a lot @Newslinger. I also thought of responding to a few points you raised on When Blackbirds Fly and Hannah Lalhlanpuii. The reason why GPT links existed in the first drafts was because, I solely used GPT to compile a list of sources that might be of interest for further research. I then went on those website and wrote the stuff out myself. I inserted the links through the normal process (visual edit). As you can see only one of them had the gpt tag (the author's college profile). Subsequently I started editing and pruning the articles myself, and got the article accepted through the AfC process. GPT was not used to write the said article. This is what I meant Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Responses to M kuhner about the When Blackbirds Fly and Hannah Lalhlanpuii articles

thanks for the time in going through them, and yeah I'm not really brushing off the specific things you found, but I don't think "LLM output" really follows from them. As mentioned above, I did use an LLM to help me in webscrapping and finding sources. You noted that it was a hallmark of recent AI, but the article itself was created long time back. Thing is, I didn't say these were definitely clean. See this edit [121]. I did use AI to webscrap sources, but the write up was my own. I gave another list of clean articles. What I wanted to say about this one was that it was heavily pruned and the current state of the article was accepted through an AfC, and the final result was totally my own.

The weird author fields like "Reporter, Staff" are Citoid (basically a fragment of wikipedia itself) It was not me and not a model. The thing is when you add a ref through Wiki's Visual Editor's cite tool it scrapes the page metadata, and a lot of news sites literally have "Newsdesk" or "Staff Reporter" in there.. and even if they don't for some odd reason wikipedia add them there somehow? Do test it out yourself. Back then I was extremely new and did not even have extended confirm rights (I don't even thing I had the right to add articles to mainspace). This was the time when I leaned on visual edits heavily. The odd inline placement is the same reason... well I wrote the book first (Quite loved it) and that was one reason why I wanted to have a wikipedia article about the author and her book. I added refs after, which is exactly what produces citations sitting slightly wrong. A lot came from my own reading... and slowly I began improving the draft based on the AfC comments. I was learning how to use wikipedia during that period so please do not judge me on the history of the said article. I simply added that to show how I was like as a new editor. I agree on the specific education line, but her education is true and it's verifiable in source 4, sitting in the same paragraph. It was not an invented fact but an error on my part when I was adding references.

Also same thing for the close paraphrasing and peacock phrasing I'll own. I was quite new then and had no idea how encyclopedic article should be writetn. I hope you agree that tight paraphrasing and a bit of puffery is the most common new-editor mistake there is. Same with the OR bit and the "A Bird Called Freedom" and conflict-portrayal lines. do please see the final version of the article as it stands now which was heavily edited to be accepted by an AfC reviewer Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner are you talking about this diff? [122]? As mentioned above I was a new editor then, and it can definitely not be a new LLM as you pointed out. It was last year, and at that time I was still relatively new and was still going through the AfC process to get articles approved. I copy pasted the content onto wikipedia, and added the sources through a visual edit. as you can see they are not at all neatly arranged and the order is messy because I was adding them directly with the ref tool. LLM's don't format references in that manner. Not even the new ones or even the old ones, unless you train the new ones on wikitext. Also see [123] this. I added the whole chunk at once Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner by copy paste, I meant I first wrote it out locally and then moved to wikipedia, and used the visual editor to add the references. And I am sorry once again. As you had mentioned there are almost no editors working in this area, and I wanted to cover as much as I can... this is why I ended up becoming complacent. If given the chance, I am willing to clean up the whole mess I created. Sorry again for giving you all such a hard time. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Response to Astra Travasso, ChrysGalley, and M kuhner about speed of edits

I wanted to address your comment in particular on speed. Tbh I am not fond of it either and I fully understand why it read badly. I was not racing anyone. Also just to make one thing clear, most of my larger edits to existing articles were not AI at all as also pointed out by @Astra Travasso previously. The exceptions were topics I am not trained in like mostly biological areas. My restructuring of Theoretical Physics, Manipur conflict (2023–present), Arambai Tenggol, the University of Pennsylvania article and Mizo names was done by hand, and other editors had actively reviewed that work and said it made those articles better sourced and in many ways less biased. And these were editors I frequently clashed with in terms of disagreement on WP:NPOV. Those though are subjects I am close to professionally or through where I am from (Northeast India). The AI use was almost solely used for article creation, and this part I will not defend. It was stupid and I am sorry for the cleanup it caused. I wanted to also say to @ChrysGalleythat I had no intention to vandalise or waste anyone's time, and I am not proud of it. I only was hoping to expand how asian cultures are represented here.

I did also provide a list of clean and non clean articles before. I had first established trust through the AfC process on wikipedia, and I do not mind doing the same again. Thanks :) Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Flyingphoenixchips also responded to several comments concerning the South Asia contentious topic (WP:CT/SA) at User talk:Flyingphoenixchips#Re: Email. Further discussion can be found at User talk:Flyingphoenixchips#July 2026 2. — Newslinger talk 20:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC); last updated 11:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

As I've been named by this editor, here is my response: As far as I can tell, this is the only communication I had with them on my talkpage: User talk:Rosiestep/Archive 72#Hello (User:Flyingphoenixchips, 21:22, 31 March 2025). As I've made thousands of edits since then (April 2025), I don't know how to track what else (article talkpage?) they might be referring to. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have checked the initial version of both articles claimed to be clean.

In When Blackbirds Fly the first source is a user-generated review on Goodreads (plausible human error). Second source has author as "Reporter, Staff" which is a bit less so: a human constructing the citation might have noticed that. The material sourced to 3 is a very close paraphrase of it, and the inline citation is weirdly placed in a typical LLM way. There is a fair amount of peacock phrasing, especially the last sentence, though humans can do this too.

In Hannah_Lalhlanpuii "contributions to literature" and "encompasses themes" in the lead are LLMspeak. There is again overly close paraphrase of source 1. But the huge problem is Hannah pursued her Bachelor of Arts in English at St. Edmund's College, Shillong, Meghalaya, followed by a Master of Arts in English from North-Eastern Hill University, Meghalaya. sourced to 3, which is [124] and does not mention her education in any way (it quotes her briefly on a different topic). This is a classical LLM hallucination. The education information is in source 4, but the claim sourced to that goes beyond what it says (summarizing her area of research, while her institution page only lists publications; this is OR at best). The sentence sourced to 7 is a too-close paraphrase of 1. (I haven't listened to the video in 7 to see if it is also there.) provides a sensitive portrayal of the impact of conflict on children and civilians is sourced to 9 but has little resemblance to the review there, and is typical LLM puffery. "A Bird Called Freedom" is sourced to 10 but is not mentioned there.

The sourcing in the first article is questionable, but the second is catastrophic.

Flyingphoenixchips has put these forward as definitely clean articles; this seems highly unlikely to me especially for the second one. Scrambling of more or less true statements from different sources, plus too-close paraphrase, are hallmarks of recent LLM--I think especially if it is directed to use a limited range of sources. M kuhner (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have made an error here: I was looking at the current version of Hannah, not the original. I will quickly check the original and post any corrections. M kuhner (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem edits were not in the original stub, but were added in a large edit by Flyingphoenixchips on the same day. I'll stand by the analysis above. M kuhner (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Editor has responded to this analysis at User talk:Flyingphoenixchips#July 2026 (some way down the section).

I'm really sad about this, because we need editors working in this area, and the topics are worthy. M kuhner (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest we unblock him. He's a very good editor whose contributions to the topics he's educated in are excellent. I think the community should give him a firm warning on this and unblock him. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot support an unblock without a formal topic ban from the subject. The issues raised by multiple editors[125][126] on his talk page are concerning. Zalaraz (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Imo we can extend a little WP:ROPE and convert it to an article space block, and draftify and tag their articles so they can work on them. Can then revisit this to review some of their rewrites and consider an unblock. They do come across as genuine and good-faith. But they need to seriously not underestimate the issues with the current versions of the articles, they do need stubbifying or rewriting, and if this proves a hard ask I'd support returning to an indef, the ROPE is minimal imo. I'd ask them to be conscious of Zalaraz's point re WP:NPOV and be strict wrt that. Disappointed to see that they emailed someone which could be construed as WP:STEALTH/WP:PROXYEDIT, but I expect it was done in desperation and doesn't appear bad-faith (watching the PRODs tick down can have that effect). If others agree, I'll pin this section so it doesn't get archived for a few months or whatever Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 04:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Tbf to FPC, Fetishization of Northeast Indians and Racism against Northeast Indians do appear to both be notable topics (after having done a quick search on Google Scholar), so I'll retract implying there are problems with POV editing. POV issues with the articles can just be attributed to the LLMs. Personally I think both topics are best served in one article due to WP:OVERLAP and WP:NOPAGE, and "Racism against ..." articles are generally very hard to make encyclopedic and often just serve as WP:COATRACKs, but no concerns here from me Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Flyingphoenixchips, I'm not familiar with the topic area and haven't looked into the instances mentioned, but speaking generally and frankly, sensitive topics that map onto real world conflicts are often very fraught onwiki where WP:POVPUSHING is endemic (good-faith and bad-faith, as in subconscious and conscious bias), all you can do is follow WP:DR (both re content and user conduct), and just relentlessly WP:FOC, make honest arguments, and keep patience (WP:AE is the user conduct forum for WP:CTOPs). For the time being I'd suggest reading WP:NOTTHEM and focus on regaining trust from the community. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Discrimination (racism, fetishization, other words etc.) against Northeast Indians is definitely a notable topic, but it is obviously fraught with or without llms. I may have missed it, but I can't see Flyingphoenixchips being alerted of WP:CT/SA, which should happen if they are unblocked. Regarding the promised "I will go through each one of them and check every claim against the actual sources", my advice to Flyingphoenixchips would be not to waste time doing this, just write anew from the sources instead of spending extra time combing through everything multiple times. CMD (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(btw, the CTOP alert requirement has been scrapped, imo a good thing since it always came across like Saw's "the game has begun") Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean a notification as part of a formal process, but as background context as to why editing in that space may receive heightened scrutiny. CMD (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

my bad! Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment for the three approaches made by @Newslinger. My bias is towards the article, not the editor, I don't really get this TBAN/CBAN stuff, I'm not wired that way. That said, while I think the recent mea maxima culpa explanation has the ring of truth to it and is certainly helpful, however the factor that was not mentioned was the arrogance of pride through speed: this is an editor that won't (can't?) deliver 3 articles a week when 300 dollops of clanker-crud will do. I can therefore see a point to protecting article space until trust can be re-established, which may take a while. Therefore my suggestion to the sysop corpus is that the editor should be kept out of article space, but not necessarily draft space. Further that the editor should identify from the list of 686 suspected articles in question (a) definitely LLM (b) probably LLM (I don't believe the editor will know 100% about this, just thanks to the numbers) (c) definitely not LLM or now immaterial. For (a) and (b) there then needs to be a technical discussion on handling, with which the editor can assist. LLMPROD/AFD/TNT is valid in many cases since by definition these articles can be restored quite easily by editors in the future, there are no dusty library books at the back of the Bodleian involved here. But for some articles where the editor has a strong attachment and a potential value to the project: put them to draft, mandate AFC and require no more than 5 drafts in the AFC queue at any one time (which applies to some other editors). Add an experienced Mentor and a commitment to zero LLM and Python, broadly construed. At a moment of the editor's choosing, they can apply to rescind all or part of those editing restrictions if working at this speed is deemed to be enjoyable. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just as a clarification, editor has created 195 articles; the rest of the 686 are edits. I am going through and marking off small non-LLM edits but I'm not very quick at it. M kuhner (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am doing the same while juggling other mundane activities at home. Therefore, I am slow too. Hopefully, we will get there. I have no experience in creating or checking LISTS. So, I am steering clear of it. Astra Travasso (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes good point, and many of the 500 or so edits are just adding categories or wikilinks, and / or overtaken by subsequent editing or article restructuring. In some ways that is worse, since an article which was started by the editor and remains 95% editor written is an easy decision, and fair game for a rapid LLMPROD / TNT or whatever. Pythonesque bulk updates are harder work to check. And that's represented by the fact I've also checked a few and it's also slow work for me: three editors who should not be doing this work. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger, sorry but would it be possible to get a close/decision on this? The LLMPRODs are eligible to be deleted now, and if we're to userfy them it'd be best to do it quickly otherwise it's time wasted deleting, requesting, and undeleting (not a big deal though) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  It is indeed getting too late. Some articles now deleted under LLMPROD should have been rescued instead. However, it is what it is. This whole fiasco has been such a learning for me too. At the same time, I admire how Wikipedia communities work. Hats off to all who are part of this discussion and the cleanup process. Astra Travasso (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  It is possible to recover the text of deleted articles: see WP:REFUND. However, speaking as someone who has tried several times to rewrite LLM articles to an acceptable standard, I don't recommend it. There might be some usable sources, though they should be combined with a human source search to avoid bias; but the text is generally more trouble to fix than it would be to write a new article. And nothing that the LLM text says about what is in the sources can be trusted. M kuhner (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:SilentHalo

 Cleanup has been requested.

Looks like SilentHalo is using AI to generate content[127][128], posts in ANI & AFD discussions[129][130], and reply's on talk pages[131]. GPTZero comes back at 100% for most of them. They claim to be using Grammarly for copy editing but at the ANI discussion post it looks like there were several hallucinations. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. I replied to the user on their talk page. I'm not sure if using copy-editing tools is prohibited here. Wikipedia:Grammarly doesn't have much useful advice—it just says that it's prohibited for encyclopedia articles. SilentHalo (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMCHAT. LLM use, with extremely narrow exceptions, is not allowed in encyclopedia articles. Noticeboard comments that appear to be LLM can be collapsed and ignored.

The reason Grammarly is prohibited is that recent versions are, in fact, LLM, and can change the meaning of text substantially under cover of "improving" it. It can't be considered a "copy-editing tool" anymore.

Please completely stop use of LLM to generate text on Wikipedia. You might also consider helping with cleanup of your previous articles, which are otherwise likely to be deleted. This is a recoverable mistake--newcomers aren't necessarily aware of our policies and we're willing to work with you here--but only if you commit to stopping LLM use immediately. M kuhner (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know that Grammarly was now an LLM. I'm sure it worked just like Microsoft Editor, but it was much better. I've always made sure that the tool hasn't made any significant changes. However, I'll abide by the policies. I promise never to use it again. SilentHalo (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Not your fault, Grammarly is a little infamous for being misleading and sketchy about how its product works (for instance the whole debacle over a feature claiming to incorporate "expert feedback" by a bunch of writers who weren't involved in the feature or even told about it) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Urug1948

Urug1948 (talk · contribs) seems to use LLMs, i think that it might be the ghost of Calhetan77 ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've moved the SPI page between namespaces for you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

that broke my permlink! ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Serves you right for refusing to create an account for no good reason!^[Humour] ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

it's a really good, compelling reason though! ^[humor] ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

humour (haha) aside, there's urug1948's SPI case (before i saw them as a likely sock of Calhetan77) which might be of good use to clean up ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The user that filed that SPI was blocked as a WP:DUMBSOCK... ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Wiki writes AP

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2026-07-22 Wiki writes AP for reference.

• Wiki writes AP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rapid expansions of articles without any consistent area of interest. AIBOLD, invalid ISBNs, and other AI signs. Link suggestion changes are probably fine; everything else looks suspect. Jfire (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Never used AI, certainly not for this... Wiki writes AP (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

So how did you write 500 words of text and references in Special:Diff/1365192087 five minutes after your previous edit, and where did the ISBNs you referenced in that edit come from? Why did you reference The Smith: The Traditions and Lore of an Ancient Craft by Jocelyn Bailey (1999), with a nonexistent ISBN, when the actual book is by Frederick W. Robins (2010)? Jfire (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: User has resumed. Special:Diff/1365353078 adds hallucinated refs: [3] redirects to a generic landing page, [4] links to a PDF that does not contain the text "Background Debug Mode", and [5] is a 404. Article space block please. Jfire (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

And now indeffed after posting an LLM-generated unblock request to WP:AN, this time saying I used a large language model (LLM) to assist with my Wikipedia editing: Diff/1365504166. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Applied WP:LLMPROD to remaining edits and articles Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Removed from Spaltiite in Diff/1365613416, which I don't think meets the LLMPRVOBJ requirements. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Mangwanani

Same old story: Rapid-fire article creations -- for instance, this article was created only 11 minutes after its predecessor, and this one apparently took 5 minutes -- with clear WP:AISIGNS, across the board. Just to take one example, of which there are many more:

The government and ZANU–PF presented the Amendment as a necessary refinement of the 2013 Constitution to remove practical difficulties and improve governance efficiency. The Herald, Zimbabwe's main state-owned daily newspaper, reported positively on the Bill's progress. It highlighted that the Senate passed the Amendment on 5 May 2021 by 65 votes to 10, noting that some MDC-T senators joined ZANU–PF and traditional leaders in support. State media generally framed the changes as progressive reforms that would enhance stability and align constitutional provisions with practical requirements.

So we've got AIVOCAB all over the damn place right off the bat. The same patterns, locking into place. Did the newspaper really highlight this uncontroversial fact? Good luck finding out, because the link is a 404. (The last sentence, meanwhile, is not cited at all.)

In independent outlets such as ZimLive, commentators described the Amendment as a significant step backwards that concentrated excessive power in the presidency.

Textbook AIATTR, textbook AIWEASEL (no other outlets are cited or mentioned).

Public reaction, as reported in independent media, was predominantly negative among urban populations and opposition supporters. Petitions against the Amendment circulated in May 2021. In Parliament, while the Bill passed comfortably, some opposition MPs voiced strong objections during debates, particularly regarding the implications for judicial independence and democratic accountability.

More AIATTR, cited to the same (one) source as the previous paragraph, except this time very little of this seems to be actually verified by the link. Petitions, for instance, are not mentioned anywhere in the article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I resent and reject the premise of the accusations. I’ve been working on articles off Wikipedia in Word and bringing them across when I’ve been done with them. At the moment I’m working on a spreadsheet in Excel on the Constituencies of Zimbabwe. I thought it would be a better system than having lots of edits constantly changing the articles. Perhaps I don’t understand this accusation of Weasel. For years Zimbabwe-related articles have been lambasted for lacking neutrality. I try to bring in neutrality and then you accuse me of not working on the articles. Moreover, Zimbabwe-related articles have faced severe (and arguably racially-motivated) criticisms for the sourcing issues because much of what is needed to be documented is not available online and is only accessible in print or to those here in the country. Much is documented across social media, but those links are not reliable in line with WP policies because they are user generated. Therefore, the number of sources available is limited compared to our European and American counterparts, especially when we suffer such press suppression and censorship as we do. The Herald article that the user above mentions has been taken down or changed on their website since I accessed it, but you can see it existed here. My consistent issue with this - and with this user and others - is that rather than flag issues personally to someone and say “Hey - can you work on this? It’s a bit messy.” they simply revert to full-scale deletions. The one article he reverted put the table of “current ministers” to people who were in office in 2009 - some of whom are now dead. Whose encyclopaedic efforts is such a reversion serving? Let us work together, let us be constructive, not destructive. The question at hand is: is what is written true? Is it verifiable? Is it improving Wikipedia. If you find my wording clunky, then let’s improve it together. If you think the statements are “weasel” then let’s improve it against the context that many Zimbabwean articles are flagged across Wikipedia for lacking neutrality! Let us collaborate with one another and not attack one another. I don’t believe anyone here is spending all their time and effort to simply cause problems. Mangwanani ^(talk) 08:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you using Microsoft Word's built-in revision features? Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I certainly do make sure my spelling and grammar are correct. When you're working on long articles alone for a long time, it is not always possible to see the wood from the trees and mistakes slip through. I note that User Christhespeller has been through articles to fix curly apostrophes, for example, throughout the articles. Mangwanani ^(talk) 10:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mangwanani - spelling and grammar mistakes are not problematic in Wikipedia, someone will tidy that up in due course. LLM usage is problematic, as you will be aware. So for me the bigger question is "are you using AI / LLM or related software to write, assist, cite, and/or phrase your drafts?" Your response above didn't really handle that core question. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought it did. But for clarity's sake - no. I've been on Wikipedia for almost 20 years - the last thing I want to do is detonate my standing for something so trivial. Generally my work has been around data (ie the election results) and minor improvements to articles, especially around images and vectorisation. This is the first time that I've gone full-scale into writing whole articles from scratch because it is clear that no one else is doing it, and with the current constitutional crises going on in Zimbabwe right now, we need to make the information accessible and explicable to those who are seeking detail and information about what is happening and how things work. The issues identified above are clearly stylistic differences which we can gladly discuss. Let's go through some of the accusations for the sake of openness and collaboration:

1) Articles being published in quick succession: As stated, I've been working on articles in batches and bringing them across to Wikipedia when they're ready. As they are all on the same theme (ie Constitutional issues / organisations / agencies), there is naturally a lot of overlap and repetition, so it is easier to work on them in parallel.

2) The use of the word highlighted. Fine. Pick a different word. But the article did point out that the Opposition voted in line with the Government, a fact that in the context of the CCC recalls and capture of the opposition is a point worth stressing / emphasising / highlighting / underscoring / noting.

3) The deadlink: It wasn't dead when I first accessed it, but it is now. I have updated the link in the article and pointed out that the newspaper coverage is still accessible. This is the sort of issue that others could work on in a collaborative way, rather than an accusatory way that an editor has bad or malevolent intentions.

4) The lack of citing other outlets: As mentioned above, Zimbabwe has quite strict press censorship. Even 'independent' publications are under State scrutiny. This means that few other outlets can be cited in a meaningful way. Is the OP aware that Zimbabweans communicate news stories primarily through WhatsApp groups and through social media posts? These are not 'outlets' and can not be referenced in Wikipedia, but they are the nearest thing that you would get to alternative outlets in European and American countries.

5) Weasling. A new term to me. I'd not come across this before the OP started accusing me of things. But given how many Zimbabwean articles on Wikipedia are criticised for lack of neutrality, including even Rhodesia's 1965 UDI!, my concern was to not have anything too contentious to not be in breach of these issues.

The fact is that we need to work collaboratively here. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform. At the moment, I seem to be the only user working extensively on current Zimbabwe-related issues. There are lots of people working historically on topics around Rhodesia, but none / few on Zimbabwe. If there are issues, let's fix them together. In the meantime, the articles are being taken to states where they are either completely out of date, lacking any useful information, or both. The one on Elections in Zimbabwe for example now talks about "recent" elections being 2008. Well both the candidates in that election are dead, and one of the parties that contested that election no longer exists. It also talks about there being 270 members in the National Assembly - since 2023 there are 280. Much of what I'm working with - to try and remain factual, neutral and objective - are the laws of the land from Veritas and other constitutional platforms, so naturally there is much lifting from these official texts. If there were issues with the work I'd done - fine - I apologise sincerely and let's work together to fix it. But I can't see how leaving these articles riddled with errors is helping the Wikipedia project we all clearly care about greatly. Mangwanani ^(talk) 10:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just spent some time now reading through the AISIGNS page that was linked to above, especially the AIVOCAB section. It is interesting to me, because many of the words listed there are ones I would naturally use. I would indeed begin a sentence with Additionally, (alongside moreover for variation), and Zimbabwean articles all talk about new laws "aligning with" the 2013 Constitution (see here and here and here. That leaves us in a difficult place now because it means any such usage now needs to be worked through a thesaurus to come up with an alternative, clunkier version if only to avoid the criticism of being the work of an LLM. Mangwanani ^(talk) 11:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Well the language you have used in these posts do not seem to be AI in anyway whatsoever, but then the article text reads rather differently. Take National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe and the section under Oversight and independence, we then get: The Prosecutor-General is independent and not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. The Prosecutor-General and all officers of the NPAZ must exercise their functions impartially and without fear, favour, prejudice or bias. The trouble is that this is exactly how LLM would summarise 260 and 261 of the Constitution, however it's a fuzzy representation: 261 for officers does not specifically mention fear/favour (as it does say for many other positions such as magistrates) and that is in 260 for the Prosecutor=General. Instead 261 gives separate responsibilities for the officers, essentially not to be partisan. I think this would be pretty obvious under human oversight, at least it was to this human, whereas LLM just swallows and broadly represents, without being either accurate or inaccurate. Now I appreciate this is micro-dissecting something that is not hugely consequential, given the bigger picture, but hopefully you can see why the question arises. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Well I'm hardly trying to write neutrally and encyclopaedically in these posts... I do agree that you are micro-dissecting the above sentence, especially when the wording "fear/favour" appear so often on the NPAZ website and across local media - oh sorry, I can't say local media any more lest it be seen as AIATTR ... ermmmm In this one article by The Herald - to this Zimbabwean, it is natural that the concept of the officers behaving in this manner is expected. But this further goes to show that that is yet another example of something being criticised for being written by an LLM, and rather than another editor going in to tweak it accordingly, the natural reaction from editors here would be to simply delete the whole article, leaving nothing at all available for researchers to look at. Again I make my appeal - let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Mangwanani ^(talk) 12:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Noting the significant amount of damage done by Mangwanani and their continued evasive attitude as totally evidence from this lack of acknowledgement, I believe an indef block or block from article mainspace is warranted. Zalaraz (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  it'd be a shame to lose such a productive long-term contributor like this, I hope they reconsider their response Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you Kowal2701. I believe I have tried to engage productively above. I have shown willingness to be collaborative with other users throughout. In all my work, my only aim and mission has been to improve the knowledge of the country I love - a mission which I seem to be tackling alone and with little to no cooperation and assistance from other users. Going forward, I now intend to stick with the data entry and beautifying aspects as I have done in the past as it is clear my own writing skills are leaving much to be desired by users who call my work “damage”.

  As an aside, I am yet to be shown something I have written that is untrue or misleading, whereas many of the pages being highlighted are full of untruths (the noted page above stating that there are 270 seats in Parliament when there are 280, for example).

  I again make my appeal - let us collaborate with one another to build up this platform we all treasure, not tear one another down and with it the good we are all here to do. Where a friend strays from the path, guide him back to the right way, rather than push him to his demise. Mangwanani ^(talk) 06:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  In the "#Role and functions" and "#Impartiality and conventions" sections of Speaker of the National Assembly of Zimbabwe, the cited sources [132] (the actual constitution) and [133] don't support any of the content. Why? This is a very common thing for LLMs to do, and this appears to be replicated in other recent creations. You need to be honest with us or you will likely be blocked. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is exactly the sort of collaboration I want! As I’ve pointed out before, it is hard to find online sources to evidence things here on Wikipedia for Zimbabwe-related topics. Much of the information is offline, or in sites that can’t be referenced on Wikipedia (for example Pindula, or various social media platforms - Facebook being the most significant for Zimbabwe-related political discussions). If you believe those sources are not strong enough for those sentences then a citation tag would be a good start to say “Hey friend - work on this”, as used to happen in the early days of Wikipedia.

  Clearly, as has consistently been pointed out, I’m biting off more than I can chew here, but I am trying to improve the space in good faith. No one has yet pointed out to me anything that I have written that has been wrong or deliberately misleading. I will work on that section now and see if I can improve the sourcing. Thank you Kowal! Mangwanani ^(talk) 06:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Don't use LLMs to edit in future, including AI chatbots like ChatGPT (please) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  I pledge and swear to not do this. Mangwanani ^(talk) 07:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have worked on some of the sourcing issues that you have pointed out and I plan on doing more in the coming days.

  I have also started looking at some other drafts that I have worked on but not yet published. Can you help me with wording please? I see also you have flagged someone for using words like “highlighted” and “emphasised”. What can I use instead that would be acceptable as I am unsure how else you draw attention to these matters? Thank you for your help - and your collaborative, constructive (rather than destructive!) and engaging approach! Mangwanani ^(talk) 10:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:WTW covers this, but to answer your question, you may find an online thesaurus useful, personally I use WordHippo but there are probably better ones out there.

  Just speaking about LLM-generated content, people often underestimate just how much work is needed to make it policy-compliant; it's easier and less time-consuming to do a complete rewrite based on the sources (you probably know this but I usually recommend Google Scholar and Google Books for finding sources, WP:TWL gives access to most that are behind a paywall). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, it's not necessarily that there's a problem with those or any other specific words in and of themselves; more that they often point to one or two specific mistakes that LLM-generated text tends to make over and over when describing sources about virtually any subject, the kind of mistake that isn't really the kind of thing people do on their own or did very often prior to 2023. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would not worry too much about vocabulary. Things that are critical to fix: Any issue with sources, like dead links, wrong ISBNs, or sources that do not support the claim. Statements that "many" people are saying something sourced to just one person saying it, and variations on that (this is common and bad). Vague, empty praise, like "a significant addition to the corpus of" (made-up example, but it's the kind of thing LLMs tend to say). Unneeded lists and tables where text would be better. Made-up plot summaries--this is especially hard to check as plot summaries don't have to be sourced, but LLM cannot summarize a book that's not on the Net, so just makes things up.)

  But people are right: it's usually easier to rewrite the whole thing, speaking as someone who's fixed a few of these. M kuhner (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

~2026-40064-42

This temp account claims they only used AI for copyediting but I know that new accounts don't make articles that good. I don't think the copyediting allowance should even be allowed. The source editor already has red underlines for typos. You don't need AI. The temp account already reverted me, so I don't want to edit war with them. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

"New accounts don't make articles that good" is not reliable: I got my first one accepted on the first try, no problems. We need a detailed analysis. I'm looking at material re-added in this: [134].

rated the No. 4 overall prospect by scout.com is sourced to KSL.com, which is not ideal--should go to the original--and it's odd that they don't cite the No. 1 from rivals.com, also mentioned there. (But I don't know football--maybe the #4 is more prestigious than the #1.)

I don't think the author of this text understood Aiono's college career when writing the early parts, as they are muddled; there is a source that lays it all out, but the edit reads like they had written most of it before finding that source.

Maybe a football fan could tell if "half a sack" in the article is a match to "assisted tackle for loss" in the source.

The source given for Aiono graduated from Utah with a bachelor's degree in sociology is sourced to an article written before he graduated and not mentioning his major: this for sure looks hallucinated. Struck out because shown to be incorrect, I'm sorry for the mistake. 02:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I think your concern is entirely justified. I will warn the editor. M kuhner (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, M kuhner for the comment on the dispute with WikiOriginal-9.

Per your questions:

- Yes, I did write this article. Have edited in the past but it has been many years...

- Local media (KSL.com) is considered a highly reputable news source. Maybe the original rivals rankings would be better as an authoritative original source, that's a fair criticism.

- The #4 and #1 rankings are both mentioned. They are just mentioned in different sections due to the chronological orders. He was the #4 recruit coming out of high school by Scout.com. Since it was a high school based honor, this was mentioned in the early life section. The #1 ranking was when he was coming out of Junior College and transferring to Utah, so it was mentioned in the college section.

- A sack is a loss of yards on the play, by definition. It's simply different phrasing.

- The graduating with a degree in Sociology is accurate. He graduated from high school in 2006 and left Utah in 2012--six years later. There are a few possible reasons for your confusion... athletes don't always leave school after graduation. They often stay in school and enroll in graduate school (no record of him being listed as a graduate student on the roster so not likely the case) or taking a second bachelor degree (more likely given his class is listed as senior and not graduate student). But there is also a possibility that the Utah Athletic Department (source cited) updated his bio once he did graduate. Either way, Utah Athletics is an authoritative source. ~2026-40064-42 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Sack and tackle-for-loss are not the same thing. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the article cites source A for information only present in source B. As I said above: "The source given for Aiono graduated from Utah with a bachelor's degree in sociology is sourced to an article written before he graduated and not mentioning his major". Even if the statement about his degrees is true, it's incorrect to give a citation to an article that does not support it. This is an extremely common error in LLM text, which is what caused my concern. Struck out as incorrect, see below. 02:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

That's the only serious error in this edit. My next step is to check if this is a pattern in other edits, which will take me a while. M kuhner (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You said: "The source given for Aiono graduated from Utah with a bachelor's degree in sociology is sourced to an article written before he graduated and not mentioning his major".

That simply is not true. This is the source that is cited: https://utahutes.com/sports/football/roster/james-aiono/1262

It is his official Bio at the University of Utah, put out by the school. It explicitly says: "PERSONAL: Son of Ta'aloga and Ali'itasi Aiono ... youngest of five children ... married (Malvina) ... earned a bachelor's degree in sociology ... full name is James Pelenise Aiono (pronounced eye-oh-no) ... born Jan. 23, 1989 in Anaheim, Calif"

I am not sure what article you're talking about but the citation provided for the degree and major is an authoritative source that explicitly lists it.

Again, this was not written by LLM. It did not hallucinate any information. The edit should not be reverted.

If you have a problem with any part of the content, it should be improved. ~2026-40064-42 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right. I apologize wholeheartedly for my error and will strike it out above. I looked at the part that said he was a junior and assumed that therefore the article had been written before he graduated, but no excuse for not reading the lower part as well. M kuhner (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I know mistakes happen. I appreciate your good faith efforts.

I put time into researching the articles and writing them over a few days. So it's a little frustrating to be accused of not putting in the effort and then having the works reverted.

Not sure why the WikiOriginal-9 wanted to blow away all my work because of the flow of the prose (which I did write and took a long time of reworking it to get the wording that seemed to work). ~2026-40064-42 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

kingoliver7

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-22 KingOliver7, 341 pages need review.

KingOliver7 (talk · contribs)

see ANI thread ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

KingOliver7 (talk · contribs), XTools, now blocked (btw usernames are case sensitive) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

And now checkuser blocked due to proliferating socks. None of the socks have edits except one nonsense user page, probably not worth the effort to speedy. I'll make a cleanup tracker for the master, because I don't think that having your unblock request attract a CU is something you're likely to come back from. M kuhner (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

agreed lol, will LLMPROD Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Juc247

Juc247 (talk · contribs), XTools

See recent creations like Economic Reporters Forum (Bangladesh) (100% AI according to GPTZero for Wikipedia), there's lots of WP:AILIST, WP:AITABLE, though weirdly not much WP:AIVOCAB (no signs of human-written content either, it's very plausibly AI). Similarly there's Rozina Islam (which GPTZero gives 90% human-written, what a useful tool), in addition there's the unlinked See alsos which is odd. At Kazi Mostak Gausul Hoq, [135] (the subject's personal profile on a commercial site) is used for He is known for writing books on library and information science as well as fiction, history, literature and technology. which doesn't appear to support much of that, especially is known for. A lot of the biographies have/had unsourced lists like [136] and [137] which are typical of LLM output. Honestly I'm a bit stumped here, it may just be someone who's being clever w their prompts (ie. aware of WP:AISIGNS or using some humanising tool), I really don't know. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Response: [138]

No, I'm not using LLMs for my edits. But, I use LLMs for translation-related work. Thanks. Juc247 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

would appreciate second/third opinions Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMT says a bunch of things, and those things do not look like they've been respected. ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

"oh let me clean up my mess" "filter disallow: user blanking talk page" oh my god ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I CAN'T EVEN CHANGE MY COMMENT??? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

What changes do you want to make? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

change my comment to

Extended content

::according to [[WP:LLMTRANSLATE|the translating with LLM guideline]], you cannot put your raw LLM-translated text in the article mainspace unless you've edited it a lot, could you tell us where you used LLM-translation tools on wikipedia? thanks [[Special:Contributions/~2026-38678-64|~2026-38678-64]] ([[User talk:~2026-38678-64|talk]]) 19:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

because it's better and has less text and so on ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

well you know what you could do about that :p ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Even after translating content from another language, I make manual edits to improve text.

Why do people think that inputting a translation request to an LLM does not produce LLM-generated text? Or why do they think that "a translation" means "an LLM-generated translation"? How do people think that books are translated? ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 Honestly I'm a bit stumped here, it may just be someone who's being clever w their prompts (ie. aware of WP:AISIGNS or using some humanising tool seems neither [139] ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Haddad Maia fan

Haddad Maia fan (talk · contribs)

sizable case, drafts and comments [140] [141] [142] exhibit signs like AILEGACY, SUPERFICIAL, RO3, misusing NSPORTS (check WP:NTENNIS vs their comment) (that last diff suggest that they've been using LLMs since 2024, ie most of their edits) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

see also the ANI thread ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Copying my comment from the ANI thread, the AI signs appear from the first creation, ~8000 edits and 101 creations btw:

CRESSPOM was created with 3 red-linked (ie. potentially hallucinated) templates, including a maintenance tag. Mostra tua força Brasil had/has plenty of WP:AIVOCAB like emphasized, shaped, highlighted etc and WP:SUPERFICIAL. Also see Luciana Mariano (sports journalist), Luiza Fullana, and Magali Fernandes. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

actually @Kowal2701, i think that it starts here (28 October 2024) because the other edits before then are quite small, don't seem to have signs, and are generally about adding 1 source or 1 image somewhere ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah my bad, I've only been looking at article creations [143], which started December 2024 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

So, how do thing proceeds from here. Tvx1 16:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Mugenakashi101

LLMPRODs are done

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-24 Mugenakashi101, 196 pages need review.

• Mugenakashi101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Large swath of AI species articles, mostly new so probably LLMPRV-eligible. Exact pattern of AI species articles, also note markdown here, etc. This seems to have started in 2024, obviously the 2022 stuff does not apply. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Parapyxidognathus (August 2024) used markup for external links, seems like a good place to start from. Earlier creations (2023 and 2022) appear obviously human-written. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracker created from August 1, 2024. M kuhner (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Matete Plays

 Cleanup has been requested.

Matete Plays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I'm relatively new to this process so I sincerely apologize if I'm doing anything incorrectly here, but I discovered this user making 5 huge edits, including creating 2 new articles with around 2000 words each (Popular Party (Albania) & Progressive Party (Albania), within the span of 40 minutes. These all contain several WP:AISIGNS, including invalid ISBNs, rule of three, and (barely edited) negative parallelisms (e.g. "The Popular Party was not a modern mass-membership party with a permanent organisation, disciplined membership or detailed platform. It was a loose alliance of parliamentarians, regional notables and intellectuals whose loyalties were often personal and changeable." in Popular Party (Albania))).

I tagged both new articles for being possibly AI-generated, but they've been making huge edits on Albanian history & politics articles, often within a small amount of time, for at least a month and a half as of writing, so this might need the attention of more experienced users here. Thank you all in advance for your help! Knypster (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Your report is fine! We'll check out their previous edits and work out next steps. Appreciate your help. M kuhner (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello editors,

I do not want to waste your time. Yes, the last pages I created were made using AI. My goal is to improve Albanian coverage on the English Wikipedia, which in some areas is extremely scarce. To achieve that goal, I used AI while personally verifying that the information it provided was accurate.

However, after reading Wikipedia's AI policy, I realize that the way I used AI was not allowed. I sincerely apologize for this mistake and will refrain from doing so in the future. Matete Plays (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! We appreciate the quick and human response.

It would really help if you could provide a list of the LLM articles, or a date at which you started using LLM. This helps us avoid touching articles that were not LLM, which may otherwise be unnecessarily deleted. Alternatively, you could move your LLM articles to your own user space, and clean up LLM edits to existing articles yourself. That would be very much appreciated. M kuhner (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Nampong123

Nampong123 (talk · contribs), XTools

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User not stopping their mass-creation of articles despite community concerns., ~300 article creations since 13 July (not a typo). [144] was the first, created with a maintenance tag dated to 2022. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh man, those are as bad as sports articles. Hardly any text. I'm inclined to wait a bit, since the editor is responding to the ANI case. M kuhner (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Tbf it's very plausible that the maintenance tag derived from them copying another article with that tag as a 'template'. Their denial seems genuine tbh, worth doing some spot checks of prose and results, but seems like this was done the old-fashioned way Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

User is now blocked as a sockpuppet and the block appeal does not seem to be going anywhere. The contribs of the two minor socks named in the SPI don't require cleanup ^purring_maggot (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like admins have reverted nearly all of Nampong123's edits (and tons of creations have been draftified), but a few are still standing and a few have been undone by another editor in the ANI thread who stated they are selectively restoring useful edits, so if we don't strongly believe these are LLM-generated maybe cleanup is not necessary? ^purring_maggot (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I was going to say, we need a tracker anyway, to make sure. Then I tried making one. 23K edits; over 1000 edits in the last couple days; tracker not possible. I did look at articles created: all have been deleted except 5 of the earliest 7, and those are clearly before the article-creation spree. I think given the volume, the "old-fashioned way" would have had to be some form of database dump: 238 articles in 12 days is pretty staggering, but you could do it by filling in a template. From the unblock demand (one can hardly call it a request) I think at some point they decided to Right Great Wrongs and that mass article creation was the way to do it. It's unfortunate. M kuhner (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Boobiejonoffical

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.

---

 Boobiejonoffical (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (25 July 2026)
This matter has been resolved; no further action is required. 

Boobiejonoffical (talk · contribs)

• Mutt Lange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boobiejonoffical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Diff/1365518920
• I found out about this article and edit while I was rvving on recent changes. I reverted it because there wasn't any reliable source. Just now I found out the user readded the unsourced content. However, I went online on an LLM detector, and this paragraph the user keeps readding scored 100%. This is LLM-generated and is not permitted in Wikipedia.
• P.S. Special:Diff/1365475350 Check out this questionable edit summary. I’m the management for artist Boobie Jon... appears to be a confession of WP:COI, which is also strictly regulated on Wikipedia. SHSR _{T • C} 02:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, I warned the user. Since the user's few edits have been reverted, there's nothing else to do. If the editor continues edit-warring over their COI you can probably bring it to ANI. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Bustersidebury

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Bustersidebury (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (23 July 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

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

Rapid implausible rate of article creations/expansions, most of which have subtle but visible AISIGNS. At wikimania rn so can't go through the usual spiel: @Admins willing to patrol AINB: - maybe some help? Fermiboson (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I have warned Bustersidebury and notified them of this discussion. — Newslinger talk 12:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I've seen this discussion and understand the concern. My expansions drew on newspaper archives and trade sources I have been gathering for some time on topics that interest me, which is why several came together quickly. I take the point about pace, and I will slow down and keep contributions smaller and more incremental. The sourcing is real and checkable. If anyone spot checks a claim or citation and finds a problem, point it out please, and I will fix it promptly. Bustersidebury (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bustersidebury, could you please disclose the full extent to which you have used a large language model for your edits? — Newslinger talk 16:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. In some recent edits, I used an LLM for tasks including formatting citations, as it's not my area of expertise, standardizing markup, and catching typos. I selected and read the sources myself. I checked the factual claims against them. My focus has been on articles that lacked reliable sources, had broken references, or contained promotional language. I did not keep an edit by edit log, so I can't provide a precise breakdown. If you identify a specific claim or citation that appears problematic, I'll check it against the source and correct any error. Bustersidebury (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bustersidebury: Precisely which LLM-based tools did you use? Also, could you please explicitly state whether you used an LLM to generate or rewrite article content, aside from the citation formatting and copyediting? — Newslinger talk 19:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

One of your recent edits [145] sources the claim "some of his later albums" to a source that says "Ray Price's last record." This type of increase from one to several is a hallmark of recent LLMs. They will write "Several critics said" when only one did so, "According to multiple sources" when there is only one, etc.

I'm not so much concerned about this specific small error as whether it represents a pattern of LLM misrepresentation of sources. M kuhner (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hades7

Hades7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User hasn't been active in some months but produced a few extremely broad pages related to Western esotericism chock full of AI hallucinations and failed verification problems. According to Gnomingstuff (Talk:Western esotericism and Eastern religions) this was admitted though I can't find where. Only six articles, Western esotericism and Eastern religions, Western esotericism and psychology, Western esotericism and arts, Western esotericism and science, but also Matrona of Perge and Jean-Marie Déchanet. Not sure if they all have this problem but I'm inclined to think the Western esotericism ones do from my knowledge of the topic. See also [146] PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

All of those "Western esotericism and ..." articles can probably be redirected to a section in the Western esotericism article (or just LLMPROD since the user is inactive)? ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The sections don't match up with any on that article (but they are probably notable topics) so LLMPROD is probably better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM use probably started here (11 august 2025), i did a spot check on a few of them vs their usual edits and it strikes to me as definitely AI-assisted [147] [148] [149] (subtle signs, X rather than Y, not a lot of -ing but a lot of "emphasized") (also look at the "edit source" on any of those [150] [151]

i do not believe that jean-marie or matrona are LLM-generated from a quick glance, but the western esotericism articles look like a mix of LLM-translation, assistance, and generated text ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The comment is here, made the research of some footnotes with the clasical Google research, but in the reasearch of comparative sources for trying to discover which could be the not so well cited sources in the book I use as a template I consulted AI, so I think that give me barely related sources. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Also here: I'm thinking what happened is not the barely related sources as a result of an online/AI research, because I have read the sources and I'm sure they matched -months of reading these issues- but when I gave the AI the list of the sources and pages that I already had and needed to be ordered in lists and topic conections (the architecture of concordances I made before the redaction of the article, as an algorithmic system), the lines of some references were modified at some point ("hallucinations") in a "broken telephone game" style. Anyway, I'm checking the matching again. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Matrona of Perge and Dechanet are totally manual articles, word by word.

The ones about Western esotericism I have to complete checking to match the real sources. The problem was that AI assistence moved the pages of my references. Per example, I used Brill. Brill is scholar benchmark about Western esotericism. But when I asked to put my references in the narration the number of pages or chapters were moved. So, the scholar content is there, but the pages or the titles of the chapters where moved/modified. That's is the main mismatch. I thought that if I do by myself the architecture and give the AI the scholar data, it will organize it better than me. But I failed with that part.

So, I know the articles are good research and the scholar data is available, the information is real, but I have to check line by line the references to fix the match and that will take me several weeks. I will do it. Hades7 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:NShehan

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

Sugarbuttertea

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-24_Sugarbuttertea, 26 pages need review.

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

Sugarbuttertea (talk · contribs), XTools

Only 91 edits but 26 creations, some mere minutes after another. The sources are most often in Japanese, but for example on Sparkle Summer ref #4 [152] (the announcement) is used for Prior to the physical CD release, the title track was made available for digital streaming and download beginning July 8, 2025, serving as an early promotional release., and ref #8 [153] (another announcement) is used for The music video for "Sparkle Summer" was released on the group's official YouTube channel prior to the single’s release. The video features vibrant seasonal imagery and choreography emphasizing the group’s performance style. There's Rollin' Stones (Wolf Howl Harmony song) which has emdashes, WP:AICURLY, and a fair bit of WP:SUPERFICIAL. Bossa Bosa has WP:AITITLECASE, AICURLY, and WP:AIVOCAB + SUPERFICIAL like ...along with editing that aligns with the beat changes, creates a chaotic overall atmosphere. Will do the PRODs now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Their non-creation edits were essentially all linking work to their articles. Nothing further to do but watch the LLMPRODs; marked on tracker above. M kuhner (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hypersite

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-24 Hypersite, 50 pages need review.

Hypersite (talk · contribs), XTools

They were blocked in 2024 for LLM use and were later unblocked with a promise to stop using AI, but see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1206#User:Hypersite. They're also blocked on frwiki for LLM use (12 July 2025). ~1000 edits and 17 live creations, they've had several articles PRODed and deleted for LLM misuse. Their 2nd and 3rd post-Nov 2022 creations (Ancient Egyptian Order of Sciots and Society of Blue Friars) appear obv AI, High Masonic degrees (their 1st) appears to be a shit human translation of the French article. Will do LLMPRODs now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created, edits after September 2023 were considered. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Liamb723

 Cleanup has been requested.

• Liamb723 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been pumping out long articles with 30-60 seconds between articles today, and is now removing {{AI-generated}} tags from the articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concerns, but on my userpage under Future Projects, you can find sandbox articles of every single article, and if you check the edit history of these sandbox pages, you can see that every page actually cost quite some time to write. After finishing all sandbox pages, I copied the source to a new article. I did not use generative AI anywhere in the articles. Liamb723 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

An example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Liamb723/sandbox&action=history Liamb723 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You're still asking me to believe that Diff/1364253988 was written in under two minutes, so I find the claim that you did not use generative AI very hard to believe. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I am home in a few hours, I will get back to you Liamb723 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The edit you mention @Gurkubondinn was a copy of the sandbox page Po-Eun (teul). I will try to explain everything in more detail and with more proof.

A month ago, I came up with the idea to create articles for each Taekwon-Do form (teul) of the style I practise and one of the most practised TKD styles worldwide. There are dozens of these patterns, so I knew it would be a lot of work. I started with the first pattern in a sandbox page, and when I liked the look of that, I copied the source to the sandbox page of the second pattern, and then to the third, et cetera. To prove this, I would like to give an example: when creating the sandbox page for the 22nd pattern, Seo-San, I copied the entire page of the sandbox article of the previous pattern. As you can see, the contents coincide completely (except for some later improvements I added to the sandbox article on Mun-Mu. Another example is here: the first edition of the sandbox page of Yeon-Gae was the same as the preceding sandbox article Choe-Yeong.

Why did I do this? By copying the source of an article about a pattern to the next one, 1) I was sure that the structure of all articles was similar, and I find consistency in a set of articles about different elements of the same subset important, as well as that this way I was sure I would not forget something, and 2) it saved me a lot of time, because I did not have to rewrite the entire article, but could instead reuse the same sources when relevant and change information and data that is different across the patterns. This way, it sometimes only took me 30-45 minutes to create a new article, as I could use the structure of the previous article and had all sources by hand.

So how did the process look like? 1) I created the first sandbox page from scratch and started expanding it, 2) I copied what I had to the next article, and then changed the title, information, data, etc, but maintained the structure, 3) I kept copying and editing this way until finishing the list (while improving the previous pages if I thought of a relevant new piece of information on a page), 4) and then copied the sandbox articles of all 29 pages to actual Wikipedia entries. I believed this was a safe way to take my time and be able to work on all 29 pages calmly before publishing them.

In hindsight, I can completely imagine how this looks like a series of AI-generated pages, and I definitely should not have removed the AI templates myself, I simply believed it was a false automatic reaction by Wikipedia after publishing many pages at the same time. I would like to apologise for this removal. The articles are not written, partially or completely, by generative AI. If you have any remaining doubts, please feel free to go through the edit history of all sandbox pages I mentioned, as they are all listed on my Userpage as a sort of personal to do list. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. Liamb723 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

PanoptikEU

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

User:Keechak9999

 Cleanup has been requested.

• Keechak9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been suspected of using LLM to review at GAN, at this discussion. Reviews can be found at Talk:Brewing/GA1 and Talk:E A Terra Nunca Me Pareceu Tão Distante/GA1, the suspicion of LLM is valid in both. My main concern, however, has been their article creation.

The following have already been deleted:

• List of bridges in Mumbai
• List of Hindu temples in Mumbai
• Sri Ahobila Mutt, Mumbai

The following is at AfD and flagged as potential AI by me:

• Lamtex Insulation - refs 2, 5, 8 and 9 are hallucinated

These are their other articles, not yet suspected of being AI generated:

• Sindoor Bridge
• Draft:List of flyovers in Mumbai

Note that I also reverted this edit at Fort (Mumbai precinct) as it looked like unreviewed LLM output to me. I issued them another warning. My guess is that this is a good faith editor, perhaps not a native English speaker. I do feel, however, that warnings are falling on deaf ears. I would appreciate other opinions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ItsMeGabeProductions

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

User communication found in [154] specifically in the LLM comments in the casualties and identification section. Superficial AISIGNS also throughout. User decided, very sneakily, to simply remove the comment without addressing the fundamental issue. Presume with the long history of unknown parameter warnings that more scrutiny is required. Fermiboson (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am so sorry for using AI, I thought that even if I review all my articles, that they wont be removed as I followed G15, I am so sorry for using AI and I will even go as so far to accept a ban and make articles by hand, no AI, thank you if you read this ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

G15 is supposed to be WP:LLM sorry ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Since March 2026 WP:LLM has prohibited using AI to generate any text that goes into an article, and prior to that (I believe since Oct 2025?) it's prohibited creating new articles using AI. Since you've committed to never using AI from now on, I assume a block is not necessary. It would be helpful in the cleanup effort if you could tell us how long you've been using AI to edit. ^purring_maggot (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

For articles, it starts with Març Llinàs, but for edits, I have never used AI, like actually, I used AI just for making pages ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Adriana Ferreyr

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.

---

Y Cleanup has been completed.

Robot100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Robot100 appears to be the subject herself and is editing Adriana Ferreyr using Claude (it is also obvious from the username though). COI is a separate problem, but WP:LLM is clearly applicable here. ~2026-41283-31 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I left the user a COI warning, but the timing is bad because I didn't realize the user hasn't edited since May 31. Oh well... In terms of the LLM damage, it's limited to only the two articles Adriana Ferreyr and Marisol (Brazilian TV series).

I'm willing to bet that the TAs ~2026-32325-80, ~2026-32214-33, ~2026-32446-56 who all added/restored similar content in that timeframe are also the same editor. I reverted the series of edits on the Marisol article. Looks like someone else reverted the Ferreyr edits, but another editor restored them. I'm out of time now, but I'll try to discuss with that editor later if no one else does because it seems quite clear these are AI-generated and I highly doubt the sources support the content (I checked a couple on Marisol and they did not.) ^purring_maggot (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Left a message on the talk asking to revert the restored LLM/COI edits. Didn't look at every single source, but practically everything I looked at seemed to either be clearly unreliable or did not verify the text whatsoever ^purring_maggot (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Munfarid1

 Cleanup has been requested.

Munfarid1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Was unambiguously using ChatGPT for draft article content in 2025 as evidenced by User:Munfarid1/sandbox2 (+1 pattern, along with markdown etc). Their current edits are translations, but this appears to be a very very loose definition of the term and certainly not compliant with WP:LLMTRANSLATE.

To take one example: The original version of the article for Louisa Tounsia, created 3 days ago, helpfully includes the original French text, which obviously does not correspond to the "translated" text at all. The article has developed from there but the initial kernel appears to be straight-up LLM output, and the edits to it do not appear to have been done in accordance with guidelines or reading of the source. Again to take one example:

• Version 1 includes the uncited sentence Her recordings were issued by several of the principal recording companies operating in the Middle East, including Baidaphon, Gramophone, Odeon, and Polyphon. Baidaphon and Odeon are not mentioned in the original French text.
• By the current version it has been cosmetically changed to A prolific entertainer, Tounsia recorded 78 rpm and later 45 rpm vinyl records in Arabic and French for several of the principal recording companies operating in the region, including Baidaphon, Gramophone, Odeon, and Polyphon. It has also been cited to this source. Baidaphon and Odeon aren't mentioned in it either.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

(which, incidentally, also means that they have produced a ton of AI-generated DYKs, I wish people would notice this stuff earlier) Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, as you rightly point out, my draft includes very little of the French article I started out translating. The published version has been written largely on other sources, as those in the French article were nowhere enought for a standalone article in English. As far as I can see, my translations from the French are not in violation of LLMTRANSLATE except for the rule of tagging it as LLM-translated, of which I was not aware of. Further, I want to state that I am sufficiently competent in both languages to ascertain that my published translations are correct. - How shoud I go about this now regarding the published article Louisa Tounsia? Is there any need to tag this after the draft? Munfarid1 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There's one very key thing missing here, which is whether you used AI and to what extent. If you are using it in a way that is not a translation, then that violates WP:NOLLM. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have used AI to suggest summaries or paraphrases of some of my sources. However, I have always checked the wording included in the final text and often deleted, shortened or rephrased AI-suggested text in my own words. Writing the draft has taken many hours and was done over 13 writing sessions, adding or shortening text based on different sources including translations. Therefore, I am unable to say to what extent some of the published text was originally suggested by AI. In any case, I have tried to comply with WP's basic guidelines and am confident there are no hallucinations or gross mistakes. (BTW: Thanks for pointing out the mistaken mention of Baidaphon and Odeon labels that I have corrected right away.) Munfarid1 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell us the precise AI model names and versions you used? And if possible, share links to the chat sessions or prompts? —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 00:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT based on GPT-5.5. - Following are some chat sessions I used:

1) The statement that **Louisa Tounsia collaborated with Messaoud Habib** ultimately traces back to a small number of sources, with varying levels of authority.

The strongest published source is **Christopher B. Silver**, whose doctoral dissertation documents Messaoud Habib's work with Louisa Tounsia:

> "Messaoud Habib played or recorded with the Tunisian artists Asher Mizrahi, Babi Bismuth, Cheikh El Afrite, Dalila Taliana, Khailou Esseghir, **and Louisa Tounsia** –– to name but a few." ([escholarship.org][1])

Silver also identifies Habib as the **"virtuoso pianist"** accompanying Louisa Tounsia's orchestra in the Palmarium theatre in Tunis, based on Pierre Mac Orlan's contemporary account. ([escholarship.org][2])

In addition, Silver has written more specifically on his archival music-history blog:

> "As with many of Louisa Tounsia's discs, *Heukm Ennessouane* ends with an exquisite piano solo by Tunisian Jewish pianist Messaoud Habib. **Over the course of her career, Habib would accompany her often.**" ([gharamophone.com][3])

1. 1. 1. Evidence from the recordings themselves

The collaboration is also documented directly in archival record metadata. For example, the Tunisian **CMAM/Telemeta** archive lists the 1935 Polyphon recording **"Shuftak Marra Mtaʿaddiya"** with:

• **Louisa Tounsia** – vocals
• **Masʿūd Ḥabīb (Messaoud Habib)** – organ (or harmonium, depending on cataloguing terminology) ([phonotheque.cmam.tn][4])

Other CMAM catalogue entries likewise identify Messaoud Habib as part of the ensemble accompanying Louisa Tounsia on Pacific recordings. ([phonotheque.cmam.tn][5])

1. 1. 1. Origin of the wording "worked with"

The wording that Louisa Tounsia **"worked with the artists Youcef Hadjadj and Messaoud Habib"** appears in the French Wikipedia article and has been reproduced on several websites (for example Harissa.com and Last Night in Orient). ([Wikipedia][6])

However, those versions do not cite an independent published source for that exact sentence and appear to derive from the same biographical text rather than separate research.

1. 1. 1. Best source to cite

For a scholarly publication or a Wikipedia article, I would recommend citing **Christopher B. Silver** rather than the derivative websites. His dissertation and subsequent research provide the strongest evidence that:

• Messaoud Habib regularly accompanied Louisa Tounsia on recordings.
• He performed with her orchestra.
• Their collaboration spanned multiple years and record labels. ([escholarship.org][1])

[1]: https://escholarship.org/content/qt9g4352x5/qt9g4352x5_noSplash_168088494c66c408a78098897feb6ad6.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA"

[2]: https://escholarship.org/content/qt9g4352x5/qt9g4352x5_noSplash_168088494c66c408a78098897feb6ad6.pdf?t=ota9ua&utm_source=chatgpt.com "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA"

[3]: https://gharamophone.com/2018/03/29/louisa-tounsia-heukm-ennessouane-pathe-c-1930-1931/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Louisa Tounsia – Heukm Ennessouane – Pathé, c. 1930-1931"

[4]: https://phonotheque.cmam.tn/archives/items/D-0098/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Item : شفتك مرة متعدية - Telemeta - Open web audio platform with semantics"

[5]: https://phonotheque.cmam.tn/archives/items/D-2589/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Item : خوذوا الدنيا - Telemeta - Open web audio platform with semantics"

[6]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisa_Tounsia?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Louisa Tounsia" Munfarid1 (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Paraphrase: The very cover of Columbia’s Tunisian supplement, which was graced by popular

Tunisian Jewish artist Louisa Tounsia, put a fine point on the image the record labels were keen

to promote.

Answer: Here are several neutral, Wikipedia-style paraphrases:

1. **Recommended:**

> The cover of Columbia's Tunisian record supplement featured the popular Tunisian Jewish singer Louisa Tounsia, reflecting the public image that the record company sought to project.

2. **More formal:**

> Louisa Tounsia, one of Tunisia's most popular Jewish performers, appeared on the cover of Columbia's Tunisian record supplement, underscoring the image that the label aimed to cultivate.

3. **Closer to the original:**

> Columbia's Tunisian record supplement featured Louisa Tounsia on its cover, highlighting the image that the record label wished to promote through its marketing.

4. **With attribution (preferred if this is the author's interpretation):**

> According to Christopher Silver, the decision to feature the popular Tunisian Jewish artist Louisa Tounsia on the cover of Columbia's Tunisian record supplement reflected the image that record companies sought to promote.

The **fourth version** is the most appropriate for Wikipedia if the statement about the image the label "was keen to promote" is Silver's interpretation rather than an explicit claim made by Columbia itself. It attributes the analysis to the source while keeping the factual statement (that Tounsia appeared on the cover) separate from the interpretation. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And this is what I wrote in the article: Among other aspects, he commented on a picture of her on the cover of the Columbia Records 1931 Tunisian record supplement: Dressed both in traditional and modern European clothes, Silver noted how Tounsia exemplified the image that record companies sought to convey. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And another example from ChatGPT: A source-safe formulation for Wikipedia or academic writing. Based on the evidence actually located, I would write:

“Louisa Tounsia recorded Ala Bab Darek in 1945; the song, associated with the musical heritage of the Kerkennah Islands, was later reinterpreted by Emel Mathlouthi in 2012.”

This formulation is supported by the available Discogs documentation

And my text: "Among other well-known songs in her repertoire is her 1945 recording "Ala Bab Darek" ("At the Door of Your House"), a song from the musical heritage of the Kerkennah Islands, that was covered by Emel Mathlouthi." (Based on this statement's source: "Emel Mathlouthi, the singer of the recent Tunisian revolution, has taken to singing Louisa Tounsia’s Ala bab darek on a number of occasions." Munfarid1 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

cleaned Habiba Msika, Music of Morocco, and Arabic Music, Asher Mizrahi seems fine ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The total reversing of all my contributions to Habiba Msika seems excessive, as the infobox, my own text that was not LLLM-generated and many sources have been deleted. As I have already spent a lot of time on the subject, I will continue to work on it. Of course, I will only use my own wording and never any LLM-generated text in contradiction of the rules from now on. Munfarid1 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem with LLM text is that is much faster to paste it in than it is to take it out. Elsewhere on this noticeboard you will find a case where someone made over 200 new articles in a few days. This means that we can't afford to do a careful hand correction of every article. We would very much welcome a human-written article on this topic. If the LLM text would be helpful you could request a copy be emailed to you via WP:REFUND, however I have found that starting over clean is generally easier and safer. The LLM text tends to have subtle falsehoods that are very time-consuming to catch and fix.

Good-faith editors get caught by the LLM trap on a daily basis. We're struggling with how to prevent this. M kuhner (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Oliver Samson

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-27 Oliver Samson, 61 pages need review.

Oliver Samson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not experienced with NPP at all, but I was taking a glance at the new pages feed while learning the ropes and came across several articles about sporting bodies in Uganda created within minutes of each other by the same user. For example, Uganda Swimming Federation was created at 15:24 today (I'm using GMT if relevant), and Uganda Table Tennis Association was created at 15:28, Uganda Ultimate Frisbee Association was created at 15:28. If you look at their contributions, they are creating several other similar articles at breakneck speed. While the speed of article creation raised an eyebrow for me on its own, I also note this edit to the Mariana Trench article that absolutely screams AI usage. I would appreciate some more eyes on this and I have notified the editor in question of this discussion. 21stcenturycoelacanth (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

39 pages created in 4 days. Lots like Aziz Ringo had red-linked categories and "See also" entries at time of creation (which are often hallucinated). In Aziz Ringo, ref #1 [155] doesn't mention the West Nile sub-region nor which part of Uganda he's from. For Uganda Badminton Association, ref #1 [156] only supports it being a member of the BWF, not The Uganda Badminton Association (UBA), branded Badminton Uganda, is the national governing body for the sport of badminton in Uganda. It is registered with Uganda's National Council of Sports (NCS) and is a member of the Badminton World Federation (BWF) and the Badminton Confederation of Africa (BCA).. (none of which appear in the body). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Request a block from article space to stop the rapid addition of new LLM articles and hopefully get the editor to communicate. M kuhner (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

pblocked. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

They started October 9 2025 (despite having had the account since April) and their first day they created an article added material which says However, the specific area size for Lainya County is not readily available which I think is pretty suspect. So I will make a tracker with their entire output. M kuhner (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The first article creation I found had serious source/text issues. We might wait to see if the block is appealed, or go for immediate cleanup consensus. It's a shame; we need Uganda articles, but not ones with falsehoods in them.... M kuhner (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I realised the recent blockage from editing articles, and when I cross-checked, I realised it was due to the usage of AI. Yes agree I used an AI assistant in writing the articles; that's why the speed was high in publishing, because I first drafted them all once and then got to publish them all. What I did personally is, I gathered raw information, names, stats, screenshot from sources like Boxrec, compiled notes, and brought them to an AI assistant (Claude). It did source verification (web search) and wrote the full article draft, including the wikitext, infoboxes, and citations. I reviewed the outcome against sources. That's why I rejected the "aBomber" nickname when I did my searches; I realised it was notable. I acknowledge I did not know disclosure was required, and now I understand the problem is the undisclosed volume/speed regardless of accuracy. Going forward, I will disclose AI assistance in my edit summaries for any article where it was used Oliver Samson (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you have asked Grok what the rules are for LLM use on Wikipedia. Unfortunately LLMs are very bad at understanding Wikipedia policy, especially since their data sets are usually 2+ years old so they cannot know about recent changes. This policy changed significantly in March 2026.

Here is the current policy: Wikipedia:NOLLM. It does not make an exception for disclosed LLM use. Except for basic spelling and punctuation, their use is not allowed at all. M kuhner (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Didarrius

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Smoking gun: Special:Diff/1366062588. Has made almost 2k edits, talk page has the usual dab notices. Needs to be nipped in the bud before it goes further. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

How is this a smoking gun? There are no messages to the user. ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

In the added 'Horror' section. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, the ":contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}", which is an unambiguous indicator and also suggests that the editor didn't actually read the text they were adding. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

RSN Discussion

WP:RSN#Andrey Rappoport
There's a RSN discussion about some sources that look like AI output to me, some addition opinions would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It's odd. I agree that this user raises some concerns but looking at their contributions it shows that their contributions are almost exclusively related to this AI noticeboard which is quite odd for an account with ~600 edits. It would be hard to gather evidence due because much of our AI detection guidance is related to articles rather than talk pages. Given that the user is active on this noticeboard we should probably think about how this will be handled when similar situations arise. ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Was this posted in the right section? The discussion isn't about a user. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User:GodswillSE

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

Expanding articles at an inhuman rate. WP:AIREDCAT Special:Diff/1366148547, Information ... has not been widely documented in reliable independent sources Special:Diff/1366148547, nonexistent references Special:Diff/1366147136 Special:Diff/1366102420, duplicating article content and references Special:Diff/1366140398. Jfire (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it's from this editathon

who would have guessed that awarding prizes for total number of edits would incentivize this kind of thing Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Good day. I am on edit-at-on which is improving Depth of article. GodswillSE (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you been using an LLM to provide text for these edits? M kuhner (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What is LLM? GodswillSE (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Large language model, also known as AI or chatbot. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini are examples. Also Grammarly and similar programs. M kuhner (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Started using grok in the late evening of yesterday. But please, I'm going through those pages I improved, to clean it up GodswillSE (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. I really appreciate it.

Use of LLMs (including Grok) is forbidden on English Wikipedia since March 2026, because they put false statements and bad sources into articles much too often. So these articles will need a lot of cleanup. We can provide help and advice. Please don't use Grok here anymore (you can't fix LLM mistakes with more LLM). M kuhner (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I started deleting some articles after cleaning up. Should I hold on or continue? GodswillSE (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

These are articles you improved, not articles you created, I think. So it wouldn't be appropriate to delete them. You could "undo" the edits, or look at checking the facts and then writing your own words. For the large number of edits involved, rewriting them all would be hard. I suggest finding a few that you care the most about and trying to fix those. That will give you an idea of the amount of work. We can help with the "undo" for the rest of them.

I know this must be very frustrating for you, and I'm sorry it happened. Thanks again for your honesty and cooperation. I hope other editors here can provide some additional advice. M kuhner (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Tornolac

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Claims to be posting translations of their own edits to frwiki, but edits like Diff/1366272233 contain multiple OAICITES so these are machine translations. They have indeed contributed to the fr:Volney article on frwiki, but there are no OAICITES present there.

The user has categorically denied using ChatGPT in § July 2026 on their talk page, saying that no AI chatbot was used to write these edits and that they used DeepL as a translation tool and then carefully reviewed the entire text. The exact revision ID of the frwiki page has not been provided, but I could not locate any OACITES in the page history either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally (and in my own opinion), I dont see the value in posting machine translations like this to enwiki, because someone (who does not speak French) that wants to know what the frwiki article says can just query ChatGPT themselves. Saving one ChatGPT output does't really add any value. This should only be read as my own opinion, I am fully aware of the existence of the LLMT guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I substantially expanded both articles (Charles-François Dupuis and Constantin François Chassebœuf, comte de Volney) by translating and adapting the corresponding French articles, which I originally wrote.

Much of the material is based on Jean Gaulmier’s biography of Volney and Céline Pauvros’s PhD thesis on Dupuis, both of which are listed in the bibliography. I also added dozens of citations to French academic books and journal articles.

My edits were not AI-generated. I used DeepL and then carefully reviewed and revised the entire text. This is a translation of an already existing, well-sourced article, not text generated by a chatbot.

If you have specific concerns, I would appreciate detailed feedback. General accusations of AI use are difficult to address, whereas concrete issues can be discussed and corrected. Tornolac (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that you "translated and adapted" the frwiki article? Are you saying that you localised the article, or did you do any other substantive changes? How did you produce those changes? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean that I translated the French article using DeepL and then carefully reviewed the entire text myself to avoid subtle mistranslations. In fact, I did not have to make many changes. I removed or rephrased a few passages that were too specific to the French-speaking context. Otherwise, I stuck closely to the original article.

What I did is fundamentally different from publishing the output of a chatbot. You will not find AI hallucinations in the article. The value added here is making a comprehensive, well-sourced article accessible to English-speaking readers. Anyone is free to ask ChatGPT or Claude about Volney or Dupuis, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, which provides verifiable and collaboratively edited resource. Tornolac (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The most time-consuming part of the work was adapting the citation and footnote formatting to conform to the conventions of the English Wikipedia. Tornolac (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I now understand your concern. There is one OACITE tag in the edit I made to the Volney article, not “multiple” as you claimed, despite the dozens of references I added.

That single tag is there because I was trying to understand how the template worked. At one point, I asked ChatGPT to explain how to format citations and references on the English Wikipedia.

There is no OACITE tag at all in my edit to the Dupuis article. Tornolac (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The OAICITE markers have nothing to do with references on Wikipedia (or with CS1 templates), they are artifacts from the model referencing back on itself. You previously claimed that no AI chatbot was used to write these edits, are you now confirming that was not true?

Just removing some of the tell-tale signs that draw attention to the problem does not resolve the problem, and edit warring over it does not help either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that the user is now edit warring to reinstate their edits across the articles:

• Constantin François Chassebœuf, comte de Volney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Charles-François Dupuis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The only difference in the edits is that the obvious OACITE marker has been removed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m not here to wage a war. I come in peace!

Please read the version I proposed. I believe it is more comprehensive and better sourced than the previous one.

If you have identified any specific factual errors, please point them out. The concern with AI-generated content is that it can introduce factual inaccuracies or fabricated information. As I have already explained, the English text was translated from the French article using DeepL and then carefully reviewed by me. Tornolac (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

OAICITE appeared because I asked ChatGPT to show me an example of how to format citations and references using my own text. I did not use it to write the article or generate its content. I only used it to help me format the footnotes and references. In fact, it did not work very well. ChatGPT kept using Lien web instead of cite web, added italics where they did not belong, and often omitted the <ref> tags altogether. I therefore ended up formatting the citations and references myself. I simply forgot to remove that single OACITE tag afterwards.

I hope this clarifies the situation. The content itself was not AI-generated. If you compare the English article with the corresponding French version, you will see that it is a translation of that article rather than text generated by an AI. Tornolac (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Immanuelle

Immanuelle (talk · contribs), XTools

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#Request for review of editing restrictions (and all the reports before it), apparently they were rapidly translating articles from languages they didn't speak. ~230 post-Nov 2022 creations (3,800 now-deleted drafts btw). It's unclear to me when they started using LLMs, but it's safe to say that practically all their translations are unreviewed machine translations (see their 1st proper creation, Silken Painting of Emperor Go-Daigo (Jan 2022)) and ought to be tagged with {{Rough translation}}. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)