Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Template:AI-generated

Would it be helpful to add an optional parameter to {{AI-generated}} for the revision where the AI-generated material was added? Sort of like how {{Copyvio-revdel}} does it. Apocheir (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Possibly. For the moment you can include it in |reason, perhaps we could mention that in the documentation. CMD (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It could be helpful. The problem is when it's like 20 revisions (a lot of people will do one sentence/paragraph at a time) or multiple people. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Warn templates

None of the warning templates link to WP:NOLLM ({{uw-ai1}}, {{uw-ai2}}, {{uw-ai3}}, {{uw-ai4}}), I'd suggest adding Adding LLM-generated content is prohibited on Wikipedia. to all of them (or just link "prohibited"). Would make the change myself but not a template editor and don't fancy making 4 separate edit requests Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

On it, thanks for bringing it up! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done all four! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Tried making an edit request to a similar effect for the level 1 a month ago that incorporated WP:AITALK in addition to WP:NOLLM. It was declined since an RFC had some comments about possibly updating the templates, but the RFC has since closed with no impactful discussion about them. Thoughts on incorporating AITALK? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Tbh I was considering suggesting we add something encouraging people to edit a wiki in their native language, as poor English fluency is often a reason for LLM usage, but idk, level 1 is already fairly long Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Could create one like {{uw-ainw}} that says Some editors use AI because they are not fluent in English; if that is the case here, you may find it easier to contribute at a Wikipedia in your native language. and could be used in conjunction with the other warnings Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with a little extra length if the information is important, and it seems important that editors warned for LLM use should be made aware of both relevant guidelines and their respective domains. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Is our progress sufficient? Are we going at the right pace?

April showers bring May flowers, a new category adding to our ever-piling plate and a question I've had for a bit. Is there a strong enough sense of urgency in this cleanup?

The problem is: The longer this project goes on, the more articles get tampered with by AI. They'll produce entire articles within seconds and we'll have to manually scan every nook of the text for maybe hours to even start putting up the AI-generated tag. We haven't even touched up on the whole point of the project. "AI cleanup". Depending on the size of the article, you could be stuck re-editing and fact checking for days before the results are good enough. And with WP:NEWLLM getting even more advanced every day, that'll complicate things further. Doesn't delaying it make things harder on us?

Right now, there are 6000+ articles that carry that maintenance tag. That number is exponentially increasing as you're reading this (a dozen more added only the first day into May). The articles aren't minor subjects either. Kung fu (term), Jasmine Crockett, Self-esteem, all of which being very notable articles. No one expects this project done in a short time frame. We're volunteers, doing our best at our own pace and interests. But then there's our largest user base to consider. The readers.

The age old debate of whether Wikipedia is reliable or not is still somewhat subjective to the majority of people. But when you stumble across an article with that maintenance tag, it really makes you question then, "Gosh an article with AI? Can I even trust this page?" The answer is usually no.

That turns people off, widens the distrust and overall hurts the credibility of this site. This is not something profound or new. I'm sure many of us here is involved in or viewed discussions on all of these worries. But the longer we leave out the message that we sometimes can't even make sure our texts are reliable, that leaves an impression on people.

What defines a cleanup itself is something we haven't even settled yet, right? And I'm not saying we need a perfect consensus before acting, I've done my considerable best at restoring some of these "plagued" pages. But again, as long as we take time to decide on that, the number of articles will still add up. Thoughts?

PeepeeDino (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Short answer is no, not even close, we have like 5 editors who do the vast majority of tagging and cleanup. Hopefully this is similar to when Wikipedia was being overwhelmed by vandalism where we fall behind at first, until a massive backlog and harm to WP's credibility creates that urgency. Imo we're holding out for government regulation on things like watermarking LLM output, which would make most cleanup after that date trivial Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a caveat on that 6000 -- a lot of those are from 2023-25 and just went unnoticed until recently. But it's also an undercount, so who knows.

Otherwise, what Kowal said, there are only a handful of people doing this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it worth looking into creating an AI cleanup drive, similar to the drives other WikiProjects have? One one hand, I think it could attract more people to the project; on the other, it might be less straightforward to onboard people since it's less obvious to the average editor what LLM-generated text looks like compared to, say, what copyeditable or unsourced text looks like. There's also a good amount of overhead necessary to administrate a drive. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that could be a good idea. The drive could have a focus on the open cleanup cases, as there're specific diffs to check, as opposed to an article with a tag, where it's hard to know where to start. InfernoHues (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

A drive is tricky. Before considering something like that, there needs to be a clear and easily communicable workflow in place, including not just cleanup but also the admin side of how to look for things to cleanup and how/when/why to mark something as cleaned. Looking again to CCI, a long backlog can be expected, but that's also probably not the end of the world. CMD (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

A drive is also tricky when there is a substantial contingent of people who do not believe AI cleanup work should be done at all. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That 6K is definitively an undercount. We need a quicker way of dealing with this stuff. If LLM-use is expected at all, the article should be restored to the last clean version or just deleted entirely if there is no clean version. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

there's an RfC on this topic Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This is simply another instance of people tagging pages without attempting to address the issue, and in many cases not providing a reason why the pages were tagged. Backlogs forming due to drive-by tagging and/or people being too hesitant to remove tags once the issue is addressed is a longstanding problem that is not special to this specific issue. I have WP:BOLDly gone through and tagged several of the most obviously substandard pages in the category for speedy deletion/PROD. DraconicDark (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Open cleanup cases

Now that WP:LLMPROD is a guideline, should we start reverting the edits in Category:WikiProject AI Cleanup open cases, especially since I don't think we're using cleanup cases anymore? InfernoHues (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

We need to start using cleanup cases again and continue to do, see above topic. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Definitely, although at the same time cleanup cases should still be used for more difficult issues (for example, disentangling articles with both AI and human edits). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

If doing so, remember to be careful to revert only LLM-generated text that has not been subsequently significantly modified by humans. If there have been subsequent edits that don't improve the article for reasons unrelated to LLM-use, I recommend you be very explicit with edit summaries and any talk page comments that you are reverting for two separate reasons and not accusing the subsequent editor of using an LLM. If the subsequent edits are substantial improvements, don't just revert them. If it's unclear whether subsequent substantial edits are or are not improvements use the talk page first.

This will reduce the friction and so reduce the pushback and reduce the likelihood of overreach accusations and similar. Thryduulf (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, of course! InfernoHues (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I've done one example from this case, see my reverts to April 1941 Italian offensive in Epirus. InfernoHues (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Found a completely AI generated articles.

Church of the Holy Archangels Michael and Gabriel, Sarajevo.

Tagged by someone else prior, Shows the signs in the guide, ran it through 0gpt just to be sure, showed 100% for every paragraph. Should cleanup be done, or should I just speedy it. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 15:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like most of it was added in this edit, and later remixed throughout the article. I've reverted to the pre-AI version, feel free to check if any similar contributions by the same author need cleanup. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Was this AI?

I hatted this comment a while ago, but another user disagreed. I might have been a bit over-zealous there, and want to check with someone else. I think there are some AI signs present and a very different writing style from the TA's other edits. [link] InfernoHues (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Besides the rule of three, there's the odd switch between curly and straight apostrophes, as well as the striking difference in grammar and style between it and the next comment by the TA. I'd point them to WP:LLM?, as non-answers such as That was the most eloquent way of saying what needed to be said are less than ideal here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this is probably AI, “focused on (promotional crap)”, “rooted in (promotional crap)”, X rather than Y, etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Naive Idea

Anecdotally, it seems like a lot of people using LLMs for UPE are doing so for Google's Knowledge Panel. If there was a way to make the possible AI tag to show up in the panel itself, then once that becomes known among paid editors it might stop some of the LLM usage. I don't really know a way to do that besides just adding text to the first line of the page, but maybe the more techy people here have other ideas? Or know if this is feasible at all? InfernoHues (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is written by humans, for humans listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is written by humans, for humans to be moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is written by humans. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

AI detection

Hi all, I work as the Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh and I notice a page edited by one of our students was flagged as containing AI-generated content, namely Classic Lolita Fashion. As this was part of an extracurricular project we were supporting the student on we just want to understand a bit more about how and why the content was flagged in this way. i.e. if it was just immediately and abundantly obvious to the naked eye or if there were some useful tools and scripts employed to aid you (and whether they have been known to flag false positives are are generally reliable). What we are trying to ascertain is how we can better detect and protect against AI-generated content in student work ourselves using any best practice from reviewing editors like yourself and the community and the Foundation. I also want to check that, as the student is a non-native English speaker from China, whether online tools that would naturally have helped her improve her written English fluency would equally be flagged as AI? The flagging editor has intimated that "a report on GPTZero gave 87% probability of AI generated content" which is a great start to help my understanding but I wanted to widen my question out about the resources/tools/scripts being used by WikiProject AI Cleanup and any thoughts on their general focuses, usefuless and reliability and any learning points we can take from this... both in terms of improving our own workflow of making sure student work is quality assured and making sure that students & staff are aware of the efforts being undertaken in combating AI generated content on Wikipedia and any approaches/difficulties/opportunities we can flag here at the University to improve AI literacy and usage and to better encourage greater academic rigour & referencing in sharing knowledge to Wikipedia. I realise this a big question but any places to start with understanding the tools, approaches and discussions being had to maintain Wikipedia's integrity would be super helpful. Any thoughts or advice do let me know. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The best place to start would be Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing, and in particular the studies and/or preprints it cites. There are some caveats here (some of what's on that page is still anecdotal or based on informal data collection; some of it is more relevant to older LLMs; some of it is specific to "Wikipedia style articles") but a good amount of it has some corroboration in research.

I wasn't the person who flagged this article -- it seems like it has gone through AI editing -- but I can walk you through my process, with the original version.

• The first thing I do is look for common AI vocabulary. In AI writing, this will often co-occur, and will co-occur in a way consistent with when it was produced (i.e. the 2023 stuff will appear together with other 2023 stuff, the 2025 stuff will go with 2025 stuff, etc). This one is more subtle (consistent with it being possibly AI rewritten) but we have the style minimises the emphasis on the body’s natural shape and instead highlights a structured and balanced silhouette (which is also a variation on negative parallelism), emphasise classical colour palettes, etc. We also have a table that is essentially advertising various brands (known for designs that reflect the elegance and aesthetic ideals, known for refined tailoring and elegant silhouettes, etc), a common issue with AI writing where such subtle promotional tone sneaks in even when someone isn't trying to create an ad. Undue emphasis on contributing to broader trends -- played a role in shaping (extremely common AI phrasing, especially if it is a "key role" or "pivotal role" or "crucial role"), contributed to the development, etc.
• Next, if I'm doing a spot-check for verifiability, those are what I start with. Taking the first example ("minimizes the emphasis on blah blah blah"), in this case the article is real and accessible on academia.edu. The text -- as is frequent with AI-generated content -- does not seem to be fully backed up by the source; I believe this is an attempt to "summarize" the sentence "Most Lolita styles hide the body shape underneath layers of slips, petticoats, and panniers," which is not really the same thing (no mention of balance or structure) and also turns it into AI slop phrasing ("hides" becomes "minimizes the emphasis," mere existence becomes "highlighting", etc). Spot-checking some more stuff, we have some enthusiasts regard Madame de Pompadour as an important symbolic figure, but the source this is cited to only mentions one person drawing any connection to Madame de Pompadour (AI writing often turns one person into multiple in this way), and that person is novelist Novala Takemoto. This stuff keeps happening; contemporary Lolita styles—particularly Classic Lolita—tend to adopt more modest designs is also cited to the Younker paper, but the Younker paper does not connect "Classic Lolita" specifically to that. Another: classic Lolita usually employs softer, lower-saturation tones such as pink, beige, and light purple to create a retro, elegant overall style -- the source (which is dubious anyway as it's a store blog) doesn't mention pink at all and only mentions purple in saying that Gothic Lolita uses dark purple. The last few words, meanwhile, are more promotional opinion. Labels frequently associated with the style include Victorian Maiden, Mary Magdalene, Excentrique, and Innocent World - the book does not mention Excentrique at all and only mentions the other three brands as having "a Lolita touch" (i.e., not associated with Classic Lolita specifically). Unlike Gothic Lolita [...] Classic Lolita developed more gradually through the influence of multiple brands -- again, the source does not verify this, the only thing it seems to say about classic lolita fashion specifically is that it occurs "in solid shades, with ribbons and trims." This is the stuff Wiki Education Foundation was talking about when they said that almost all of the statements in AI-generated text failed verification.

And sure, obviously people misinterpret sources all the time, but they usually don't misinterpret them by claiming they mention proper names that they just don't; if you mention a brand, and cite it to a book that doesn't name the brand anywhere, that suggests that you didn't actually read the book.

As far as detectors, I don't personally use them except if I'm really on the fence, but most stuff I've read suggests Pangram is the gold standard right now (~99% accuracy) GPTZero isn't bad either, and when they get it wrong it's usually in the direction of false negatives. There is research about flagging non-native English speakers more often, but as far as I know much of this research involves older LLMs (which, to be fair, most of the research does, very little has caught up to GPT-5), and there are a lot of confounding variables (their writing being flagged by people who are not skilled in AI detection specifically; people who don't speak a language well potentially being more likely to use AI tools for communication in that language; machine translation tools like Google Translate now using generative AI and not always being transparent to the user about it). This recent preprint suggests that when detectors flagged writers' recent work as AI, they almost never flagged those same writers' older work as AI, although the sample size is 10 and since they're "veteran reporters" in English-language publications they are probably fluent speakers. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:AI-generated span

Would it be possible for someone to create {{AI-generated span}}, which could be used like {{AI-generated inline}} but more specific (like {{Citation needed span}})? Thank you, Wracking ^talk! 19:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

don't forget to put in the documentation that some people are saying that you have to fill out 3 different locations in order to use it because people want to make AI cleanup as arduous as possible

also, someone please get me a probate lawyer because I am pretty sure that I am not going to finish all these fucking talk page sections within my lifetime. obstruction tactics worthy of the terrible trivium Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, thank you so much!

@Gnomingstuff, I'm not sure what all three places are, but I wonder if WP:Twinkle could help here? For example, when you check "COI" in Twinkle, it prompts you to provide Explanation for COI tag (will be posted on this article's talk page): I recently used Twinkle for this, and it definitely saved me time: article diff, talk diff Wracking ^talk! 21:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be great if you could add the reason parameter to the tag using Twinkle; currently you can only add an explanation to the edit summary. As for the three different places, they mean the edit summary, the reason parameter in the tag, and the talk page. But I still believe that's absolutely ridiculous and any one of those places is good enough. If someone is actually going to mass revert AI tags because the explanation for them is not in more than one location, they should be blocked for disruptive editing. I₂Overcome ^talk 21:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I will leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Wracking ^talk! 21:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

don't worry, there is now a new and fun variation: reverting even though you did put it in three places, by just claiming you didn't! whether it's disruptive or not is kind of irrelevant because people just do it anyway Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gnomingstuff! I genuinely understand your frustration, but it feels like a bit of... burnout maybe? Please don't get this get to your nerves, you've done some amazing work and I really don't want small incidents to discourage you like this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

it's almost as if being compelled to create over 6,000 repetitive and utterly pointless talk page sections to satisfy someone's whims has an effect on a person, especially when every one of those 6,000 is an invitation for people to yell at you more, and when the tags are just going to get removed anyway because no one trusts that someone could know what the fuck they are talking about Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but swearing is not prohibited in Wikipedia project spaces. RotatingPirateShip (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@RotatingPirateShip there is no such rule, why make things up? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I found that rule in Wikipedia:Swearing_is_permissible RotatingPirateShip (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I misread your comment, struck. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It's okay, we all make mistakes :) RotatingPirateShip (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: we all make fucking mistakes :) --gurkubondinn 10:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Swearing_is_permissible states that swearing is not prohibited in Wikipedia project spaces. RotatingPirateShip (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

AI edit summary log

Hi, I made a bot which goes through live edit summaries and then sends them to an LLM to try and figure out whether the edit summary was generated by an LLM in order to facilitate early detection of the most obvious of AI users. It's at User:Fermiboson/AIlog and the bot account User:FermibosonAIlogbot updates it every so often (whenever my python script hasn't crashed).

The LLM is really bad at its job, so it does have a lot of false positives. However, compared to directly patrolling RCP, the proportion of actually AI edits is already much increased so I believe even in its current form it can be useful to those interested in AI patrol. The main issue is the volume of edits it flags - I cannot review all the edits alone so for those of you who enjoy reading hundreds of kilobytes of text with at best tangential connections to your interests, please help out with reviewing the log. Fermiboson (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This is great stuff. Is your script on github? If not do you mind emailing to me? I may have a few ideas about how to improve classification performance. NicheSports (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The prompt part of the script is at User:Fermiboson/AIlog/source-code, though I'll update that after I get back from something tonight. Fermiboson (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Updated @NicheSports - the prompt has been moved to a file which I'll keep off wiki, so I'll email it to you if you still have interest.

For everyone else - I think I've improved the false positive rate. It now makes three API calls to the LLM which in my testing set reduces the false positive rate to 1.1% +- 0.5% (95% CI). I'm fairly sure however that in operation the false positive rate will still be much higher if only for the reason that edit summaries that sound AI don't necessarily imply an AI edit. Fermiboson (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible LLM use found

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the article Wonderoos, I saw that the writing style is very reminiscent of an LLM, especially in the Premise section. Also there are mistakes, like calling the in-universe pet species (Poofy Schmoop) "Schmoopsy" I've added Template:AI-generated to the article, but is it okay if you could review it? RotatingPirateShip (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Such a post would be best made at WP:AINB where there are more eyes. Fermiboson (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any way to track users who have received an AI use warning?

As long as the off-wiki world continues to have widespread LLM use, we are still going to get new users who hop on an immediately start making LLM edits. As our AI policy gains awareness, recent changes/new page patrollers are going to start doing a lot of drive-by templating of these users, who absent further intervention/policy explanation will probably make dozens or hundreds more LLM edits before ending up at ANI and most likely blocked. Is there a way for those of us who do a lot of LLM cleanup to see when this happens, so we can intervene as soon as possible to prevent further damage to the wiki and salvage new editors before they dig themselves into a indef-bound hole? Since warning templates are substituted rather than transcluded I can't just use the "what links here" tool. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 19:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The standard templates add the use talk page to Category:User talk pages with large language model notices, which currently has ca. 5200 pages. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh perfect, I didn't know about that category. Thanks! -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 20:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

There's also this search. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

wow I didn't know about either of these thanks! Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

On a related note [1], is it possible to have an automated log of editors that have been warned for AI use (both using {{uw-ai}} and manually at AINB) with an edit counter for when their most recent edit was for people to monitor? Accounts could then be manually removed from it when they’re deemed not to be using LLMs anymore or are blocked Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I bet I could vibe-code up something to that effect with Claude ;). My ideal solution would automatically populate whenever a user is warned via a template, and would have space for a responding editor to assess likely date of first AI use, outcome of interaction with the editor, and date range of edits still needing to be checked. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 14:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

That'd be really great, Dr vulpes said something similar re automating the creation of clean-up subpages Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

just be careful because people will yell at you if you deign to add the dreaded, horrible, awful death sentence that is a cleanup tag Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a fantastic proposition. JTtheOG (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Uw-ai1 wording

The warning template {{uw-ai1}} assumes good faith of the editor, but is still written on the assumption that the templater has strong enough concerns about the addition to raise the subject, and that the text could be so bad that someone may have already removed it - it says that the user's text seemed to be generated using a large language model, that they should instead use their own words, and that their contribution may have been reverted.

In ambiguous cases where I'm not sure if AI was used, I've generally avoided using this template and (if I have time) handwritten a talk page message instead, to avoid the risk of the user being insulted by template's phrasing, and (if they were using AI) potentially going into one of several unhelpful defensive spirals about it.

Would Wikipedia benefit from having a milder "zero" level warning (or {{welcome-ai}}), that frames the issue as a non-judgmental question, or as a "did you know" statement about Wikipedia's AI policy? Or could ai1 be given a gentler wording so that a user receiving it for a minor, ambiguous edit won't be on the back foot? Belbury (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a {{welcome-llm}} message (we could redirect Template:welcome-ai there). I often leave it for newer editors, sometimes along with a {{uw-ai1}} notice if that feels warranted as well. --gurkubondinn 12:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

i've created upper-cased Template:Welcome-AITemplate:Welcome-AI as well. --gurkubondinn 12:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

We could have a template, which only includes the first paragraph of Template:Welcome-LLM, so as to have an introductory message against generative ai which isn't also a welcome message. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

LLM use across multiple Wikipedias

Hi, after noticing Gold market in India, (now reported and deleted, see discussion) the user also created the same article (also LLM-generated) in several other language Wikipedias. Now, the AI notice template was available in some of the Wikipedias, which I added, and was quickly noticed by other editors and deleted (Spanish, German). I also managed to add it to the Arabic, French, and Hindi Wikipedias (however so far it seems that they haven't been noticed). The other to Wikipedias (mr.wiki, ta.wiki) have no AI notice template, so I couldn't do anything.

Now, my concern is that cases like these were a user generates the articles across multiple different Wikipedias will be a problem. Of course, WP:EMBASSY was slightly helpful with contacting an Italian editor (no response so far), however, the embassy doesn't have editors for every Wikipedia. And, every Wikipedia has there own policies (and may or may not have a policy for LLM articles).

So, any ideas of what we can do to make it easier to report these articles for the foreign language Wikipedias? I am actually willing to do everything I can to take care of situations like these, so it may be helpful listing my name somewhere for people to ping me in these cases (please let me know if I can and where). Also, are there any useful tools for such cross-wiki incidents, such as deletion? Since I was actually able to install Twinkle on the Spanish Wikipedia, and nominate a speedy deletion myself. Fortek67 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

A German editor just recommended me XReport – this tool should be very useful however I'm not exactly sure if I would report or nominate the article for deletion. I will assume that the wikis that have an AI notice template do prohibit LLM, so I will nominate them. Fortek67 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

meta:Artificial intelligence/Policies by project could be of help! Not too sure about the tool situation, however. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of XReport? Fortek67 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

A bit unrelated but there seems to be no userbox for participants of the WikiProject. Could I possibly make one and promote it on the project page, potentially under the participants section? Fortek67 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It's at {{User WP AI Cleanup}}, but feel free to add it there for visibility! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Didn't see that, thank you for showing me! Added the template. Fortek67 (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Unregistered accounts making LLM based edits

I have a suspicion that User:~2026-24855-28 is making LLM based edits based on their edits on List of United States technological universities (see intro and how they changed the table) and a now deleted post on r/wikipedia reddit bragging about using ChatGPT to make edits. Admittedly, I have no hard evidence. - Wil540 art (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Checked this edit, it does have close paraphrasing. It also has spinning up apparent OR based on 1,000+ page patent documents. This may be a case of handwritten draft rejected, then run it through an llm to resubmit (looks like they made five such expansions within two minutes). CMD (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Good points. This seems like a motivated editor. What’s the best way to proceed? - Wil540 art (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Unless llm-text is found from earlier (I had a quick look and didn't see any obvious flags), reverting the edits from 4 May onwards is probably enough. Can drop a note on their talkpage. CMD (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this for the five drafts in question. CMD (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

They're back on a new TA. This included an llm expansion to a live article, here. What seems curious is that this expansion actually removes two offline sources. I'm beginning to think that the initial drafts are AI as well, although they're stubby and almost entirely sourced to www.uspto.gov/, which I assume is PD anyway? CMD (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Now they've jumped to TA. They seem to be jumping TAs when an old one gets a warning. This needs admin intervention. CMD (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking further, this appears to be the same person as this TA, which was separately noticed for AI use by Gurkubondinn. This is a big cleanup job. CMD (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ohh, this is the Draft:Age and mathematical productivity editor...

• User talk:Gurkubondinn/Archives/2026 §§ Fixed DOI error at "Age and mathematical productivity" article​ and Oh come on...

I think there were some other talk page conversations (maybe even on my talk page), but I remember this.. --Gurkubondinn 09:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yikes. This is a mess. How can we get an admin involved here? - Wil540 art (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

For now, I have semiprotected List of United States technological universities for 1 month. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Also I have reverted the recent unexplained changes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• ~2026-21863-02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-21576-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-21099-87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-20189-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-18394-74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-18615-40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-18662-15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-14941-00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-13174-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-13092-59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-40641-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-90461-0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-78471-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-24855-28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-20213-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-28180-72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-27853-24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-28014-93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-25694-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-26971-07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-26163-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-24865-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts are showing "ip: unavailable" when I use my TAIP. What is that supposed to mean? Somepinkdude (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Somepinkdude: the IP data is only kept for 90 days before it is deleted. --gurkubondinn 21:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Only three of those are showing unavailable for me, likely because they haven't edited more recently than 90 days ago. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist, @Somepinkdude, @Gurkubondinn, @Kowal2701, @Chipmunkdavis

Thanks for taking a look at these. It appears many of the LLM based edits are still live, for example: Youth March for Integrated Schools (1958). Should I bring these to the Wikipedia:AI noticeboard? I don't see much guidance on how to report LLM use by Temporary accounts. - Wil540 art (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Revert and move on. Or salvage anything useful and move on. I reverted the edits to Youth March for Integrated Schools (1958) because the text appeared to engage in WP:SYNTHESIS of some of the sources. And the changes were oddly written in British English, for a US-centric article.

As for reporting, this page or the AI noticeboard are fine to call for cleanup. Ping administrators if you believe administrative action is required. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sharing AI chatbot sessions

I created this page to help guide editors share their AI chat sessions.

I think more people should be asking those accused of improper AI use to share their chat sessions. It's an easy way for the AI-accused to demonstrate their compliance with WP:NOLLM and for reviewers to check if their characterization of their AI use isn't misleading.

Of course, it's possible to just fake a compliant session on the fly, but it should at least be useful for good-faith editors. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what good this would do. I see a lot of AI-generated text posted in good faith, that doesn't come from a chatbot, it comes from proofreading tools like Grammarly, which pollute your prose with many of the WP:AISIGNS. These people swear that they aren't using an AI chatbot, and they're telling the truth as far as they're concerned. For those that are actually using an AI chatbot, it seems to me that at least half of them lie about it, as if that would accomplish anything. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right -- it's mostly to keep honest people honest. If they are using unshareable AI tools like Grammarly or local LLMs, they could simply disclose that and share the prompts they used. I'd imagine the reading chat sessions help us build a better idea of how AI are used on Wikipedia. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This actually happened on User talk:Unforgvn20 § Are you using AI to edit on Wikipedia? the other day. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Also Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Alternate system of tracking AI-generated articles

Based on the discussion on WP:VPP -- where people are saying that they are going to remove any AI-generated template without a discussion on the talk page, even if that rationale is in the parameter reason=y, which the whole point of is to contain the rationale -- we should probably consider some alternate way to track AI-generated articles besides the template, because it is useless if people can just remove the template at any time, because people apparently hate the very idea of AI cleanup, despise the people who do it, and are dead-set on obstructing them and wasting their time at any turn, in any way possible. I am so, so, so, so, so tired. I really hate that no matter what you do, it's wrong. You get told to do X, and then you're told "haha! all this time you should have done Y! I will now undo your work, you fool, you rube!" Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Could we make something automated that lists tags that have been removed, the date, and who by, which people could patrol (ie. glance at)? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

An edit filter might be able to do that. It would obviously track all removals, good, bad and irrelevant (e.g. page blanking vandalism). Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I've requested an edit filter here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

LLM assisted Light Phone articles

Hi. I have found two articles on Light Phone models that are very evidently LLM assisted and overall of poor quality.

• Light Phone (1st generation)
• Light Phone II

From the first article:

• The Light Phone is a 2G minimalist mobile phone developed by Light. It was introduced in 2015 as an “anti-smartphone,” designed to be “used as little as possible,” with the goal of helping users disconnect from the constant notifications, social media, and apps that characterize modern smartphones. The lead paragraph contains quotation marks of what you'd assume to be direct quotes, but these aren't said anywhere cited.
• The Light Phone features an ultra-minimalist, credit-card-sized form factor. It has a small white LED display and T9-style keypad. The casing is sleek and white, with no camera, no internet connectivity, and no apps. This entire paragraph (with maybe the exception of no internet connectivity) is not verifiable through the reference that follows. It is at best original research based on the images present in the cited source.
• [...] with 500-number contact storage and 3 days of standby battery life is not verifiable anywhere.

From the second article:

• From the lead paragraph: The Light Phone III is the successor to the Light Phone II, adding cameras, a fingerprint sensor, and an AMOLED screen. I am unsure why talk about the 3rd phone right in the lead paragraph, while also not citing where this information was gotten from. The Light Phone II deliberately omits an application store, web browser, email client, or social media apps. At launch, the phone’s only built-in tools were calling, texting, and an alarm clock is not verifiable by the references the paragraph cites, but instead by the Good e-Reader article cited elsewhere in the article. This Good e-Reader article is also repeated four times in the References section for some reason.
• The This "dumb phone" raised $3.5 million on Indiegogo — here's why Business Insider article seems to be hallucinated. I could not find the original article. Curiously, the unverifiable claim of credit-card-sized from the 1st article aligns with this Business Insider article on the Light Phone 2. This article is also were the information about the fundraiser can be found.
• This strong response, along with $8.4 million in seed investments from firms like Foxconn and notable angel investors, signaled significant interest in a feature phone that could liberate users from smartphone addiction. is not verifiable by the citation that follows. It is instead verifiable by the Business Insider article I linked in the previous item.
• Its matte plastic casing and compact form factor reflect its low-profile aesthetic is not verifiable anywhere and is an opinion.
• Its interface is built around a vertical list of "tools"—such as Phone, Messages, Alarm, and Settings—navigable by touchscreen. Later LightOS updates added features including Notes, Calculator, Music Player (MP3), and a basic navigation tool called “Directions.” is not verifiable by the citation that follows. This seems to be a trend in the article.

The second article also has blatantly promotional language in the History section. The Legacy section present in both articles is LLM generated promotional text.

The main reason I assume this is LLM assisted is by the editor's contribution history and user page. I lack the time to further examine either of these articles, but I am unsure if Bifty (talk · contribs) is able to reliably write valuable encyclopedic content. MeowsyCat99 (meow) 20:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Ca's warned him a few times so far. Pretty much all of his substantial edits look LLM-generated to me. He hasn't edited since March 20, so maybe he left before he could get himself blocked. Apocheir (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Apocheir I tried to update the pages that were flagged as LLM, and did my best to re-do the pages that were of concern. I do welcome help on these pages. I do not have any affiliation with the company, nor own their products. I generated the illustrations of the phones and was looking to model the pages after the iPhone and models. Bifty (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Apocheir I am open to going in and updating the pages for the Lightphone 1,2 for better readability and improvement of the sources. Are LLM’s allowed for grammar and sentence structure help? Bifty (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You can see the current guideline at WP:NOLLM: the only exception is for basic copyediting (like fixing typos), not grammar and sentence structure. If you are not confident writing English, you can ask for assistance from the guild of copy editors, but only do this after all LLM-generated text has been removed from these articles – it's not fair to waste human editors' time by making us clean up machine output.

Are you able to tell us what LLM model and version you used, and share your prompts or a link to the chatbot session? This will help the rest of us see what was generated by the LLM. You should also provide this information for the AI-generated images that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, per the instructions at c:Commons:AI-generated media#Attribution. While you're at it, why don't you search Commons for real photos of these phones that other Commons users might have taken? —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionhThe Images were made by me in Adobe Illustrator, rather than AI. They are vector, made using the pen tool. Using the phone photos as a reference.

The structure of the pages was made by me, along with the Wiki Codex. I wrote the text in the wiki editor, and would use AI to help me find references, and inspiration for encyclopedic style, however when my sentences didn’t have encyclopedic styling, I would try to use the assistance of an LLM to help guide me with sentence structure. I did my best to write in my own words. I used OpenAI, and Google for guidance.

I have been told by various editors that my writing still sounded AI, even after multiple edits. Some of may pages have generated a good amount of traffic, they are not ‘viral’.

I would like to become a better editor, and find my own editing style, because I do have a passion for writing and illustrating. But I admit that I could have used the writing resources better to develop myself as an editor and writer. For this reason, I took a break in March to learn more how to write better, because I don’t want to get blocked, especially seeing my pages do generate some traffic. I feel like I have a good eye for missing articles on Wikipedia, however, I want to respect the guidelines put forth by the wiki community so that I can improve as a contributor for the future. Bifty (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That leaves me with more questions!

1. Can you clarify whether you used any of these generative AI tools available in Illustrator, or not at all?
2. What exactly do you mean by the "Wiki Codex"?
3. When you say OpenAI, do you mean ChatGPT? It's very helpful if we know the exact version number of the model; it looks like the default model for ChatGPT in March was GPT-5.3.
4. What do you mean by "used ... Google for guidance"? Do you mean Google search, or a different Google product?

Again, do you still have a copy of the chatbot sessions or prompts from the time you were working on these articles? —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 02:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh @Apocheir

1. No AI features of Adobe Illustrator was used. The level of product-specific detail shown would not be achievable with current generative features.

2. I am speaking of the wiki markup/formatting

3. I did use Chat GPT 5.3 to help me with drafting sentences to help with encyclopedic tone. For example, I would write; “Last season, [Athlete] suffered an injury, resulting in a loss of ranking for 2025 fall season.,” I would then ask chat to help me give it an encyclopedic tone, if it didn’t need a tone improvement, I’d leave what I wrote. I have tried to improve from when I first started editing, since editors said my early pages were unacceptable and they would give tips on how I could improved them.

4. I used Google for finding references

I understand the concerns regarding AI-assisted contributions and appreciate the scrutiny. However, some of the edits being questioned are routine updates such as athlete rankings, competition results, and seasonal statistics, and many of those pages are maintained by multiple contributors.

If there are specific edits that raise concerns, I would be happy to discuss those individually but if my edits and contributions necessitate a block, I’m not 100% certain how to navigate that besides respecting the block. Bifty (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you be willing to share your ChatGPT session (follow link) so that we can see your process? InfernoHues (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues Thanks for asking. Some of the chat threads are no longer available because I deleted them for storage reasons, but I can demonstrate my process by creating a draft article for an athlete who does not yet have a page and sharing the steps I take.

Not all of my edits involve AI. I primarily use it as a writing and copyediting aid when creating new articles for athletes from scratch.

My workflow usually begins with finding reliable, independent sources about the subject. For athletes, I may also contact photographers who have taken photos of them and explain how they can upload freely licensed images through Wikimedia Commons.

I then create the article structure, build the infobox manually, and populate it using information that can be verified through sources. I often look for athletes who have competed against or achieved results comparable to athletes who already have established articles, as this helps me cross-link them.

When I use ChatGPT, it is generally after I have already gathered sources and drafted content myself. I use it to help improve grammar, clarity, or encyclopedic tone. Sometimes I write a paragraph first and then ask for suggestions on making it more neutral and concise. I review and edit any output before using it.

In my experience, AI is not capable of reliably generating a complete Wikipedia article from scratch. Infoboxes, citations, wikilinks, formatting, and sourcing often require significant manual work and knowledge of wiki markup. The article structure, source selection, verification, and final editorial decisions are all done by me. Bifty (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Bifty, as per WP:NOLLM, you cannot use LLM generated content as the basis of your edits, whether or not it undergoes "significant manual work". From WP:NOLLM:

• Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own.

If you struggle with encyclopedic tone, please ask for guidance from fellow Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Unlike LLMs, Wikipedians can be held accountable.

Please read WP:NOLLM for the current content guideline on LLM usage, and WP:AIFAIL for information on the risks of using LLMs when editing Wikipedia. MeowsyCat99 (meow) 08:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@MeowsyCat99

Thank you, Meow. Do you think it’s neccesary to move my Lightphone pages to the sandbox? And work with the Teahouse to improve them?

I didn’t create the original Lightphone page, but I did create the pages for the individual phones. Bifty (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello again @Bifty. I'm not Meowsy, but I have some suggestions and clarifications.

The first thing you need to do is remove all AI-generated content from any articles or drafts where you have had AI assistance. You will then have a clean slate as you do the work of reading sources and summmarising them in your own words.

If you have not created any mainspace articles besides these ones, I'd recommend moving the ones you created to draft versions (after you have cleaned out all AI-generated text). You can work on them at your own pace, and when you're ready, submit them to articles for creation where they will be reviewed by experienced editors before publishing to the main encyclopaedia.

Alternatively, you can leave the new articles in mainspace as stubs and keep working on them incrementally. With the article about the original Lightphone that another editor created: after you have removed all AI-generated text that you added, you can either redo the work in the existing article, or work on your changes in a user sandbox first.

The Teahouse is a help desk for new editors, not a space for collaboration. You can ask for advice on how to do specific editing tasks, or why we do things in certain ways, but Teahouse helpers won't do the work for you unless one of them happens to be interested in this topic.

You can ask for copy-editing assistance from the guild of copy editors, who have decades of experience writing in an encyclopaedic style. Again, you have to do your own research and writing first. Do not ask an AI for copy-editing help with articles, drafts, discussion comments, or anything. AI copy-editing is always inferior to human copy-editing and is easily recognisable as AI-generated. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Thank you everyone for taking the time to help me.

I’ve been very appreciative of the Wiki community and communication with me about becoming a better editor.

I’ll follow those steps and circle back once I’ve cleared out the LLM content and re-worked my Stub pages. Bifty (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible use of AI in List of NRL Women's records

I was looking through lists of citation errors in the Rugby League Wikiproject when I came across List of NRL Women's records. I am concerned that User talk:Jessgod94 may have added AI text to the article, and I need help resolving any potential issues. The user is currently blocked from the Article and Draft spaces, and made use of AI to write their appeals. Additionally, their edit here that added the citation errors makes me highly suspicious of AI usage, as the user added "named" shortened citations without actually adding the citations they intend to reference. The whole article just gives me AI vibes in general, especially the formatting of the table notes. Admittedly, Jessgod94 only added around 8.4% of the text, so it's possible there may not be a widespread issue.

If anyone has time, it might be useful to review some of their other edits, just in case.

Tl;dr: did Jessgod94 add AI to List of NRL Women's records?

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 03:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say yes, based on their previous edits. You may want to take a look at WP:LLMPRV for cleanup. InfernoHues (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Category:AI-generated content proposed for deletion by days left is inaccurate?

I was going through some book LLMPRODS, and I noticed that A Crash Course in Molotov Cocktails is past the five-day mark and can be deleted, however in the category it's still not under the "-" which indicates it could be deleted. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be a caching issue (the comparison still returns the correct value on its own). Didn't go away when purging the page, but it did with a null edit. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fairly certain this is also the case on many other pages, is there a way to fix it for all? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I just did null edits to around 25 pages, and there's a lot more left. Hopefully there's a better way to fix this. InfernoHues (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It could be changed to just follow what {{prod}} does, which is create a new category everyday. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

A fix is still needed, but for now I've refreshed the category using User:Ahecht/Scripts/refresh. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Large edits with LLM assistance

Moved to WP:AINB § Large edits with LLM assistance

 – fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible AI usage?

Hello again! I'm not sure if this is the right place for this or not. I am still fixing Rugby League citation errors, this time on the Leichhardt Oval page. This edit, by @SpinningSevens7 altered a citation to include "URL_HERE", one of the signs listed at Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing#Links to searches. What should I do, beyond removing the AI-generated content from the article? Could someone help me check this user's other contributions for AI usage?

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 04:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:LLMCIR" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:LLMCIR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 14 § Wikipedia:LLMCIR until a consensus is reached. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Yes, you have to follow NOLLM

Motivated partially by this but also examples that have accumulated over time which I'm sure everyone is very familiar with, I've written WP:YESNOLLM. Comments, edits, improvements etc. are welcome. Fermiboson (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The distinction between policies and guidelines can easily be elusive (especially with LLMs misunderstanding it to say whatever the user wants to hear), so that's definitely helpful. An improvement I see would be to link to common misconceptions re. policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays § Policies tell you what you must always do, and other pages just make optional suggestions. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that - done. Fermiboson (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Detailed guide to finding AI-generated text, including a quiz

I've had an informal version of this on my userpage for a while, but I wrote an article on my exact process for finding AI-generated text, in hopes that maybe others can start doing the same: User:Gnomingstuff/Guide to finding AI-generated text

I also put together an "AI or not" quiz that uses article excerpts from search results, choosing examples that hopefully correspond to common false positives for people.

Let me know thoughts! Hoping to move this out of userspace soon. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I like it! Some well chosen examples - I think the "crucial role" one works really well, and the "not widely documented" one is a little more complex but I think serves well at indicating these are not foolproof indicators and encouraging people to be a little more cautious before declaring it to be LLM-generated on phrasing alone.

General tips - "vibe check, not a full read" is a good way of phrasing it. On the formatting point - I think I would say "don't go looking for it, but if the formatting jumps out at you as weird, that's something to note".

Find the diff - could point out the wikiblame tool, labelled as "Find addition/removal" in the top bar on the history page (I think this is in the default UI for all users)

Detection software - it's a trivial change but I wonder if "reliable" is better than "trustworthy" here. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Not familiar with that tool, but made the "reliable" change. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(re: phrasing: AIDISCLAIMER is a bit of a special case in that it's one of the few signs where it's fairly clear what the AI is "doing" as it's in the same neighborhood as the old "As a large language model"; the other signs aren't so clear-cut in intent) Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of AI! listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of AI! to be moved to Wikipedia:Guide to responding to accusations of AI use. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

actually considering nominating this for deletion now, I no longer want it to exist Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, why? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Because I wrote the essay, and I want it gone. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Added page "Semantic ablation" to this project

As part of WP:NPP I just added Semantic ablation to this project. I dont think it needs cleanup, but the topic is IMO on theme. Note: the page has non-AI issues that I have tagged. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

alas, this also seems like it may be AI-generated; the bottom of Special:PermanentLink/1360554238 contains something that seems like a prompt, and Special:PermanentLink/1327868939 (sandbox of another article from 2025) also seems like AI output (WP:AIATTR, WP:AIBOLD, list of "key themes", other minor AI tells, etc)

also a major issue: the article seems to be another COI problem, as the article mentions the term was coined by Claudio Nastruzzi, who seems to be affiliated with whatever "Biomatlab.fe" is, based on this Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not do anything about COI, I am handling as part of WP:NPP, you can check the OP talk page. The page is already tagged, and they have the right to defend themselves. The only reason I mentioned the page here is that the article is on AI issues, which is also the focus of this project. So why not have pages classified as of interest to this project, just like every other one.

N.B., I do not consider it appropriate to find issues with old versions of a page, and definitely inappropriate to use someone's sandbox as evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not "doing anything about" COI, I'm pointing out another instance of it.

Also, it is very much appropriate to use old versions and/or sandbox versions of a page as evidence. Barring some kind of situation where it's a student project and lots of people are contributing text to one common draft, sandboxes and drafts are public just like anything else is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

and i don't consider it appropriate to tell someone to "not do anything about" COI (or something else), that's just an odd comment to make. the npp userright also has nothing to do with it (anyone in good standing can request the WP:PERM so that's moo anyway) and i'm genuinely confused why you are even bringing that up. also llm use and coi quite often intersects, there is a lot of coi that is identified by llm use being identified (and vice versa). and it is actually very appropriate to find issues with old versions of a page or to identify editor behaviour by their behaviour on their sandbox pages (which are public). that's also how a lot of llm use gets identified, as many editors paste in the llm output there, often in multiple stages, before pasting it into article or draft space. llm use is often also a conduct issue, and it is definitely not only a content issue, so that is a part of how it is identified and sometimes how it is dealt with. btw, using the phrase 'evidence' is something that i try to avoid, because we are not WP:LAWYERING and this is WP:NOTCOURT either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you clean anything up, add it to your watchlists.

We have people threatening to revert AI cleanup if:

• There is no corresponding talk page
• There is no corresponding edit summary
• Your cleanup involved one (1) parameter mistake
• The tag is ugly and mean

So, make sure you add anything you clean up to your watchlist, otherwise your work will be all for nothing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

AI tag removal edit filter

Please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Removal_of_AI_tags to give your opinion on a proposed edit filter that logs removals of AI tags. InfernoHues (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons discussion on watermarking AI images

Commons are currently discussing whether to require AI generated and upscaled images to be indicated in-image and discernible in a 250 pixels wide thumbnail, if there are any downstream Wikipedia perspectives worth sharing there: Commons:Requests for comment/Policy update for AI content.

We'd also want to consider adopting that policy ourselves, if it passes, for (rare) generated/upscaled images which we're hosting locally. Belbury (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how enforceable this would be for local images, given that (almost?) all of them are going to be here because they can only be used fair use for some reason or another and so would come with copyright compliance issues. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

For an image like File:Valetta-Iacobi.jpg, a fair use newsprint photo where the uploader thought it would be a good idea to put it through an AI beautifying filter before uploading it, what would the compliance issue be in also adding a visible "AI" watermark to it? They're both alterations of the original image.

The only other categories I can think of for local hosting are upscaled PD-US images with "should not be transferred to Commons" restrictions (eg. File:Sullivans-ai.jpg) and images that are notable for being AI but which were generated in a region that gives some copyright protection (eg. File:Willy's Chocolate Experience advertisement.png). The former seems fine to watermark if we already consider it public domain locally; the latter wouldn't be covered by the Commons proposal as it stands, since they're the subject of articles and press coverage. Belbury (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not really in the scope of the project. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, these are the project's goals:[...]To identify AI-generated images and ensure appropriate usage. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I meant the Commons element specifically, but thanks for pointing that out, haven't been to the main project page in a while Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy § Watermark exception for AI

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy § Watermark exception for AI. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § New field for AI use disclosure at AfC Submit Wizard?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § New field for AI use disclosure at AfC Submit Wizard?. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Two new edit filters

• Special:AbuseFilter/1407 logs the removal of the "ai-generated" family of tags including {{AI-generated}}, {{AI-generated source?}}, {{AI-generated span}} and {{AI-generated inline}}. View the log here.
• Special:AbuseFilter/1408 logs the removal of {{prod llm}} tags. View the log here.

The request that created these can be seen here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPI § Retention of editors who've been caught using LLMs

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPI § Retention of editors who've been caught using LLMs. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

How far back do LLMs actually go?

These edits made in 2020 have all the hallmarks of LLM, they include citations that obviously cannot verify the claim (2008 citation for 2017 claim), hallucinated references with DOIs not matching the reference, LLM style comments 'Immediately contact/seek a veterinarian if any signs are present.', there are no spelling/punctuation issues but many sentences that are awkward and unnatural etc..

The edits themselves are problematic regardless of if an LLM was used to create them or not but I cannot see these edits as being written by a human. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Those are pretty clearly not LLM-written. Beyond the references (which I haven't checked), the only real LLM-like aspect is the bullet list with headers, but even that doesn't seem very solid. For example, semicolons as separators aren't something this LLM formatting often comes with. A definitive indicator is the inconsistent formatting in:

* Type of drug;  brands of Tepoxalin available on the market<ref name=":7" />
	
* Wide use; Not only in veterinary medicine, also in humans. <ref name=":7" />

Beyond that, I disagree with the claim that comments like Immediately contact/seek a veterinarian if any signs are present. are necessarily signs of LLM writing. It strikes me as more similar to professional writing not familiar with how Wikipedia addresses the reader, rather than comments intended for the LLM user. More generally, many LLM "quirks" are amplifying existing patterns that were present in human writing (especially outside of Wikipedia), so it isn't surprising that some less careful writers copying the styles they were used to may encounter some superficially similar traits. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Any text in Wikipedia that was present before ChatGPT came out (November 30, 2022) can be safely assumed to not be LLM-generated. GPT-3 did exist back then but it was still relatively obscure. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

In any case, I remember playing around with early text generation models around GPT-2 or so. I can't remember now what the website was called, I think it was textsynth? At the time it didn't 'respond to prompts' but rather tried to continue from where you left off in whatever you typed, so "Once upon a time there was a..." would prompt something resembling a fairytale. "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" would prompt an endless list of counting integers.

Either way, those early models were much more rudimentary and had far more limited training data. I doubt you'd've had any success trying to use them to give you anything that would work for Wikipedia; and people weren't really using it for that back then, either. It was a novelty and indeed far more obscure than anything after the release of ChatGPT. Athanelar (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk to Transformer, I think Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

When I went to Talk to Transformer (which I found out about from Two Minute Papers' video), I would give it a prompt and use the last part of its output as a new prompt. For laughs, I would start with something silly for a prompt and see if GPT-2 can come up with other silly things, which it did a lot. It often generated text that looked like it couldn't decide if it was an online news article or a wiki article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That's how LLM interfaces were before someone came up with the idea of wrapping them in "chatbot" interfaces instead. They still work the same way. The system prompt comes first, then the previous parts of the "conversation", and then the current "message" that you send. Then the algorithm predicts what should come after that.

The chatbot wrapper interface makes it seem as if you are "talking to someone", and my theory is that it is this is what gets people really engaged/hooked on using them. Like it triggers something in peoples brains or "hijacks" their thought cycles, because we're so used to using chat interfaces to talk to other people. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Four years is the answer. And as others have noted, all of the "quirks" that LLMs have in their writing style was obtained because they were copying the most common generic writing style in the data given to them. Meaning that said writing style is also the most common, generic manner of writing out there, meaning it's not unexpected to run into it in the wild even without LLMs involved. It also means there's a decent chance even nowadays to have a false positive when claiming someone's writing is LLM-generated. And that's without considering the recursive effect that all the LLM use is having on molding people's actual writing style now because of it. Silverseren^C 22:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding all of the "quirks" that LLMs have in their writing style was obtained because they were copying the most common generic writing style, that is a common claim, although I believe a hyperbolic one. Training methods lead to specific writing styles being reinforced and patterns popping up way more often in LLMs than in human writing, rather than them averaging out all of their training data or even broadly reflecting it. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think a lot of the "I hope this helps!" and other sycophantic behavior emerges because those kind of responses score higher with RLHF reviewers during fine-tuning. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, RLHF was the main pipeline I had in mind here. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Two of the studies cited on AISIGNS (the Juzek/Ward) corroborate this — this stuff doesn’t show up as much even in output from base models. I will beat this drum until people start listening (i.e. forever) alas Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's without even mentioning that these models are not even really trained on "human writing" in general, but whatever digitised, machine-scrapable human writing is out there, which is not necessarily a representative dataset. Athanelar (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The main reason I suspect an LLM is the hallucinations. A 2008 journal issue is cited for a claim that the drug was withdrawn in 2017, with the 2017 claim being incorrect as the withdrawal is mentioned in my 2016 source.

Claim about antihistamines, which isn't in the source (probably hallucinated from , which doesn't support such a claim but is the only study mentioning both tepoxalin and antihistamines)

'The Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) approves Tepoxalin to be used as a drug for animals to reduce inflammation and pain control', cited to what is literally just an image of the synthesis of the chemical. Said citation is repeated several times for other claims that it obviously cannot verify.

is cited, which is a completely different drug (FTY720)

'As a result, the usage of carprofen was replaced with Tepoxalin in 1998', cited to something published in 1995.

Pretty much everything in the edit is a hallucination. I cannot see a reason why a human would make such mistakes unless they were intentionally trying to pretend they are using an LLM. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Before LLMs were a thing anyone knew about? Silverseren^C 23:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe the human author was just atrocious at source-text verification. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

In practice, it started on Wikipedia around March 2023, ratcheted up around fall 2023, really surged around late 2024, and has remained high. A good barometer here is spammers as they are early adopters of this stuff; AI spam only really emerged in early to mid 2023 Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, technically GPT-2 was released in February of 2019, and was the first model that could generate plausible-sounding nonsense resembling Wikipedia articles. Practically, LLMs were obscure before GPT-4 release, when the whole hype began. Considering the vastness of Wikipedia, I'm sure there are edits which were generated or assisted by GPT-2/GPT-3, but there's a very small (<1000) number of them. sapphaline (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I have wondered if Wikipedia may have been used as a "live testbed" for these companies. Inserting generated text and seeing if it gets removed as some sort of measure of how "good" the output is. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)