Wikipedia:AI noticeboard

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

AI noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues of AI misuse.

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• To view all open cases (including those whose reports have been archived), see Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases.

Start a new discussion

Backlog bonanza

Archives 1–6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive 7

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

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

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

Archives 8–9

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

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

Safeer Zaman (talk · contribs),

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

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

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

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

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

ANI edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Uzsport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SyzygyRebel

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-07-09 SyzygyRebel, 81 pages need review.

SyzygyRebel (talk · contribs)

Sorry for all the topics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

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

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

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

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

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

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

Satang Nabaneh: ✅ Done

Naminata Diabate: ✅ Done

Njoki Wamai: ✅ Done

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

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

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

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

Thanks

Completed CleanUp👇🏾

Obioma Chukwuike: ✅ Done

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

User:0xReflektor

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-10_0xReflektor, 66 pages need review.

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

see here, here. and there

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article: Possible Jewish Origin of Columbus

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

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-26_Mcapdevila, 8 pages need review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor has attempted to rectify their AI-generated article by introducing heavy unattributed copying from Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Not good. ^purring_maggot (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Levixius

creations draftified and tagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

manually and painstakingly review my edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikiuser829

Wikiuser829 (talk · contribs), XTools

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

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

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

User:Matete Plays

creations have been draftified and tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

Matete Plays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I'm relatively new to this process so I sincerely apologize if I'm doing anything incorrectly here, but I discovered this user making 5 huge edits, including creating 2 new articles with around 2000 words each (Popular Party (Albania) & Progressive Party (Albania), within the span of 40 minutes. These all contain several WP:AISIGNS, including invalid ISBNs, rule of three, and (barely edited) negative parallelisms (e.g. "The Popular Party was not a modern mass-membership party with a permanent organisation, disciplined membership or detailed platform. It was a loose alliance of parliamentarians, regional notables and intellectuals whose loyalties were often personal and changeable." in Popular Party (Albania))).

I tagged both new articles for being possibly AI-generated, but they've been making huge edits on Albanian history & politics articles, often within a small amount of time, for at least a month and a half as of writing, so this might need the attention of more experienced users here. Thank you all in advance for your help! Knypster (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Your report is fine! We'll check out their previous edits and work out next steps. Appreciate your help. M kuhner (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello editors,

I do not want to waste your time. Yes, the last pages I created were made using AI. My goal is to improve Albanian coverage on the English Wikipedia, which in some areas is extremely scarce. To achieve that goal, I used AI while personally verifying that the information it provided was accurate.

However, after reading Wikipedia's AI policy, I realize that the way I used AI was not allowed. I sincerely apologize for this mistake and will refrain from doing so in the future. Matete Plays (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! We appreciate the quick and human response.

It would really help if you could provide a list of the LLM articles, or a date at which you started using LLM. This helps us avoid touching articles that were not LLM, which may otherwise be unnecessarily deleted. Alternatively, you could move your LLM articles to your own user space, and clean up LLM edits to existing articles yourself. That would be very much appreciated. M kuhner (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bustersidebury

creations draftified and tagged

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-24_Bustersidebury, 26 pages need review.

 Bustersidebury (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (23 July 2026)
Editor has been warned about the use of AI/LLM content and WP:NOLLM. 

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

Rapid implausible rate of article creations/expansions, most of which have subtle but visible AISIGNS. At wikimania rn so can't go through the usual spiel: @Admins willing to patrol AINB: - maybe some help? Fermiboson (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I have warned Bustersidebury and notified them of this discussion. — Newslinger talk 12:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I've seen this discussion and understand the concern. My expansions drew on newspaper archives and trade sources I have been gathering for some time on topics that interest me, which is why several came together quickly. I take the point about pace, and I will slow down and keep contributions smaller and more incremental. The sourcing is real and checkable. If anyone spot checks a claim or citation and finds a problem, point it out please, and I will fix it promptly. Bustersidebury (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bustersidebury, could you please disclose the full extent to which you have used a large language model for your edits? — Newslinger talk 16:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. In some recent edits, I used an LLM for tasks including formatting citations, as it's not my area of expertise, standardizing markup, and catching typos. I selected and read the sources myself. I checked the factual claims against them. My focus has been on articles that lacked reliable sources, had broken references, or contained promotional language. I did not keep an edit by edit log, so I can't provide a precise breakdown. If you identify a specific claim or citation that appears problematic, I'll check it against the source and correct any error. Bustersidebury (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bustersidebury: Precisely which LLM-based tools did you use? Also, could you please explicitly state whether you used an LLM to generate or rewrite article content, aside from the citation formatting and copyediting? — Newslinger talk 19:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

One of your recent edits sources the claim "some of his later albums" to a source that says "Ray Price's last record." This type of increase from one to several is a hallmark of recent LLMs. They will write "Several critics said" when only one did so, "According to multiple sources" when there is only one, etc.

I'm not so much concerned about this specific small error as whether it represents a pattern of LLM misrepresentation of sources. M kuhner (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

User:NShehan

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PanoptikEU

Cleanup efforts are ongoing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Keechak9999

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-11 Keechak9999, 19 pages need review.

• Keechak9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been suspected of using LLM to review at GAN, at this discussion. Reviews can be found at Talk:Brewing/GA1 and Talk:E A Terra Nunca Me Pareceu Tão Distante/GA1, the suspicion of LLM is valid in both. My main concern, however, has been their article creation.

The following have already been deleted:

• List of bridges in Mumbai
• List of Hindu temples in Mumbai
• Sri Ahobila Mutt, Mumbai

The following is at AfD and flagged as potential AI by me:

• Lamtex Insulation - refs 2, 5, 8 and 9 are hallucinated

These are their other articles, not yet suspected of being AI generated:

• Sindoor Bridge
• Draft:List of flyovers in Mumbai

Note that I also reverted this edit at Fort (Mumbai precinct) as it looked like unreviewed LLM output to me. I issued them another warning. My guess is that this is a good faith editor, perhaps not a native English speaker. I do feel, however, that warnings are falling on deaf ears. I would appreciate other opinions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ItsMeGabeProductions

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

User communication found in specifically in the LLM comments in the casualties and identification section. Superficial AISIGNS also throughout. User decided, very sneakily, to simply remove the comment without addressing the fundamental issue. Presume with the long history of unknown parameter warnings that more scrutiny is required. Fermiboson (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am so sorry for using AI, I thought that even if I review all my articles, that they wont be removed as I followed G15, I am so sorry for using AI and I will even go as so far to accept a ban and make articles by hand, no AI, thank you if you read this ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

G15 is supposed to be WP:LLM sorry ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Since March 2026 WP:LLM has prohibited using AI to generate any text that goes into an article, and prior to that (I believe since Oct 2025?) it's prohibited creating new articles using AI. Since you've committed to never using AI from now on, I assume a block is not necessary. It would be helpful in the cleanup effort if you could tell us how long you've been using AI to edit. ^purring_maggot (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

For articles, it starts with Març Llinàs, but for edits, I have never used AI, like actually, I used AI just for making pages ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Munfarid1

 Cleanup has been requested.

Munfarid1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Was unambiguously using ChatGPT for draft article content in 2025 as evidenced by User:Munfarid1/sandbox2 (+1 pattern, along with markdown etc). Their current edits are translations, but this appears to be a very very loose definition of the term and certainly not compliant with WP:LLMTRANSLATE.

To take one example: The original version of the article for Louisa Tounsia, created 3 days ago, helpfully includes the original French text, which obviously does not correspond to the "translated" text at all. The article has developed from there but the initial kernel appears to be straight-up LLM output, and the edits to it do not appear to have been done in accordance with guidelines or reading of the source. Again to take one example:

• Version 1 includes the uncited sentence Her recordings were issued by several of the principal recording companies operating in the Middle East, including Baidaphon, Gramophone, Odeon, and Polyphon. Baidaphon and Odeon are not mentioned in the original French text.
• By the current version it has been cosmetically changed to A prolific entertainer, Tounsia recorded 78 rpm and later 45 rpm vinyl records in Arabic and French for several of the principal recording companies operating in the region, including Baidaphon, Gramophone, Odeon, and Polyphon. It has also been cited to this source. Baidaphon and Odeon aren't mentioned in it either.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

(which, incidentally, also means that they have produced a ton of AI-generated DYKs, I wish people would notice this stuff earlier) Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, as you rightly point out, my draft includes very little of the French article I started out translating. The published version has been written largely on other sources, as those in the French article were nowhere enought for a standalone article in English. As far as I can see, my translations from the French are not in violation of LLMTRANSLATE except for the rule of tagging it as LLM-translated, of which I was not aware of. Further, I want to state that I am sufficiently competent in both languages to ascertain that my published translations are correct. - How shoud I go about this now regarding the published article Louisa Tounsia? Is there any need to tag this after the draft? Munfarid1 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There's one very key thing missing here, which is whether you used AI and to what extent. If you are using it in a way that is not a translation, then that violates WP:NOLLM. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have used AI to suggest summaries or paraphrases of some of my sources. However, I have always checked the wording included in the final text and often deleted, shortened or rephrased AI-suggested text in my own words. Writing the draft has taken many hours and was done over 13 writing sessions, adding or shortening text based on different sources including translations. Therefore, I am unable to say to what extent some of the published text was originally suggested by AI. In any case, I have tried to comply with WP's basic guidelines and am confident there are no hallucinations or gross mistakes. (BTW: Thanks for pointing out the mistaken mention of Baidaphon and Odeon labels that I have corrected right away.) Munfarid1 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell us the precise AI model names and versions you used? And if possible, share links to the chat sessions or prompts? —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 00:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT based on GPT-5.5. - Following are some chat sessions I used:

1) The statement that **Louisa Tounsia collaborated with Messaoud Habib** ultimately traces back to a small number of sources, with varying levels of authority.

The strongest published source is **Christopher B. Silver**, whose doctoral dissertation documents Messaoud Habib's work with Louisa Tounsia:

> "Messaoud Habib played or recorded with the Tunisian artists Asher Mizrahi, Babi Bismuth, Cheikh El Afrite, Dalila Taliana, Khailou Esseghir, **and Louisa Tounsia** –– to name but a few." ([escholarship.org][1])

Silver also identifies Habib as the **"virtuoso pianist"** accompanying Louisa Tounsia's orchestra in the Palmarium theatre in Tunis, based on Pierre Mac Orlan's contemporary account. ([escholarship.org][2])

In addition, Silver has written more specifically on his archival music-history blog:

> "As with many of Louisa Tounsia's discs, *Heukm Ennessouane* ends with an exquisite piano solo by Tunisian Jewish pianist Messaoud Habib. **Over the course of her career, Habib would accompany her often.**" ([gharamophone.com][3])

1. 1. 1. Evidence from the recordings themselves

The collaboration is also documented directly in archival record metadata. For example, the Tunisian **CMAM/Telemeta** archive lists the 1935 Polyphon recording **"Shuftak Marra Mtaʿaddiya"** with:

• **Louisa Tounsia** – vocals
• **Masʿūd Ḥabīb (Messaoud Habib)** – organ (or harmonium, depending on cataloguing terminology) ([phonotheque.cmam.tn][4])

Other CMAM catalogue entries likewise identify Messaoud Habib as part of the ensemble accompanying Louisa Tounsia on Pacific recordings. ([phonotheque.cmam.tn][5])

1. 1. 1. Origin of the wording "worked with"

The wording that Louisa Tounsia **"worked with the artists Youcef Hadjadj and Messaoud Habib"** appears in the French Wikipedia article and has been reproduced on several websites (for example Harissa.com and Last Night in Orient). ([Wikipedia][6])

However, those versions do not cite an independent published source for that exact sentence and appear to derive from the same biographical text rather than separate research.

1. 1. 1. Best source to cite

For a scholarly publication or a Wikipedia article, I would recommend citing **Christopher B. Silver** rather than the derivative websites. His dissertation and subsequent research provide the strongest evidence that:

• Messaoud Habib regularly accompanied Louisa Tounsia on recordings.
• He performed with her orchestra.
• Their collaboration spanned multiple years and record labels. ([escholarship.org][1])

[1]: https://escholarship.org/content/qt9g4352x5/qt9g4352x5_noSplash_168088494c66c408a78098897feb6ad6.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA"

[2]: https://escholarship.org/content/qt9g4352x5/qt9g4352x5_noSplash_168088494c66c408a78098897feb6ad6.pdf?t=ota9ua&utm_source=chatgpt.com "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA"

[3]: https://gharamophone.com/2018/03/29/louisa-tounsia-heukm-ennessouane-pathe-c-1930-1931/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Louisa Tounsia – Heukm Ennessouane – Pathé, c. 1930-1931"

[4]: https://phonotheque.cmam.tn/archives/items/D-0098/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Item : شفتك مرة متعدية - Telemeta - Open web audio platform with semantics"

[5]: https://phonotheque.cmam.tn/archives/items/D-2589/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Item : خوذوا الدنيا - Telemeta - Open web audio platform with semantics"

[6]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisa_Tounsia?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Louisa Tounsia" Munfarid1 (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Paraphrase: The very cover of Columbia’s Tunisian supplement, which was graced by popular

Tunisian Jewish artist Louisa Tounsia, put a fine point on the image the record labels were keen

to promote.

Answer: Here are several neutral, Wikipedia-style paraphrases:

1. **Recommended:**

> The cover of Columbia's Tunisian record supplement featured the popular Tunisian Jewish singer Louisa Tounsia, reflecting the public image that the record company sought to project.

2. **More formal:**

> Louisa Tounsia, one of Tunisia's most popular Jewish performers, appeared on the cover of Columbia's Tunisian record supplement, underscoring the image that the label aimed to cultivate.

3. **Closer to the original:**

> Columbia's Tunisian record supplement featured Louisa Tounsia on its cover, highlighting the image that the record label wished to promote through its marketing.

4. **With attribution (preferred if this is the author's interpretation):**

> According to Christopher Silver, the decision to feature the popular Tunisian Jewish artist Louisa Tounsia on the cover of Columbia's Tunisian record supplement reflected the image that record companies sought to promote.

The **fourth version** is the most appropriate for Wikipedia if the statement about the image the label "was keen to promote" is Silver's interpretation rather than an explicit claim made by Columbia itself. It attributes the analysis to the source while keeping the factual statement (that Tounsia appeared on the cover) separate from the interpretation. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And this is what I wrote in the article: Among other aspects, he commented on a picture of her on the cover of the Columbia Records 1931 Tunisian record supplement: Dressed both in traditional and modern European clothes, Silver noted how Tounsia exemplified the image that record companies sought to convey. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And another example from ChatGPT: A source-safe formulation for Wikipedia or academic writing. Based on the evidence actually located, I would write:

“Louisa Tounsia recorded Ala Bab Darek in 1945; the song, associated with the musical heritage of the Kerkennah Islands, was later reinterpreted by Emel Mathlouthi in 2012.”

This formulation is supported by the available Discogs documentation

And my text: "Among other well-known songs in her repertoire is her 1945 recording "Ala Bab Darek" ("At the Door of Your House"), a song from the musical heritage of the Kerkennah Islands, that was covered by Emel Mathlouthi." (Based on this statement's source: "Emel Mathlouthi, the singer of the recent Tunisian revolution, has taken to singing Louisa Tounsia’s Ala bab darek on a number of occasions." Munfarid1 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

cleaned Habiba Msika, Music of Morocco, and Arabic Music, Asher Mizrahi seems fine ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The total reversing of all my contributions to Habiba Msika seems excessive, as the infobox, my own text that was not LLLM-generated and many sources have been deleted. As I have already spent a lot of time on the subject, I will continue to work on it. Of course, I will only use my own wording and never any LLM-generated text in contradiction of the rules from now on. Munfarid1 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem with LLM text is that is much faster to paste it in than it is to take it out. Elsewhere on this noticeboard you will find a case where someone made over 200 new articles in a few days. This means that we can't afford to do a careful hand correction of every article. We would very much welcome a human-written article on this topic. If the LLM text would be helpful you could request a copy be emailed to you via WP:REFUND, however I have found that starting over clean is generally easier and safer. The LLM text tends to have subtle falsehoods that are very time-consuming to catch and fix.

Good-faith editors get caught by the LLM trap on a daily basis. We're struggling with how to prevent this. M kuhner (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

As stated earlier, I have used ChatGPT for researching sources and some short text for Habiba Msika and Louisa Tounsia. They were reverted to the earlier versions. I have already carefully checked sources for Habiba Msika and Louisa Tounsia and rewritten the biographies with new text entirely of my own. Checked with Pangram, it now says "100% human written." Ever since, I have respected the guidelines for using AI. Munfarid1 (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Didarrius

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

Smoking gun: Special:Diff/1366062588. Has made almost 2k edits, talk page has the usual dab notices. Needs to be nipped in the bud before it goes further. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

How is this a smoking gun? There are no messages to the user. ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

In the added 'Horror' section. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, the ":contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}", which is an unambiguous indicator and also suggests that the editor didn't actually read the text they were adding. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

they appear to have ignored your warning and notice for this discussion, and their 1 August edits to their sandbox are unsourced and plausibly AI. I guess we wait for more edits to look at Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

User:GodswillSE

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

Expanding articles at an inhuman rate. WP:AIREDCAT Special:Diff/1366148547, Information ... has not been widely documented in reliable independent sources Special:Diff/1366148547, nonexistent references Special:Diff/1366147136 Special:Diff/1366102420, duplicating article content and references Special:Diff/1366140398. Jfire (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it's from this editathon

who would have guessed that awarding prizes for total number of edits would incentivize this kind of thing Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Good day. I am on edit-at-on which is improving Depth of article. GodswillSE (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you been using an LLM to provide text for these edits? M kuhner (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What is LLM? GodswillSE (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Large language model, also known as AI or chatbot. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini are examples. Also Grammarly and similar programs. M kuhner (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Started using grok in the late evening of yesterday. But please, I'm going through those pages I improved, to clean it up GodswillSE (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. I really appreciate it.

Use of LLMs (including Grok) is forbidden on English Wikipedia since March 2026, because they put false statements and bad sources into articles much too often. So these articles will need a lot of cleanup. We can provide help and advice. Please don't use Grok here anymore (you can't fix LLM mistakes with more LLM). M kuhner (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I started deleting some articles after cleaning up. Should I hold on or continue? GodswillSE (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

These are articles you improved, not articles you created, I think. So it wouldn't be appropriate to delete them. You could "undo" the edits, or look at checking the facts and then writing your own words. For the large number of edits involved, rewriting them all would be hard. I suggest finding a few that you care the most about and trying to fix those. That will give you an idea of the amount of work. We can help with the "undo" for the rest of them.

I know this must be very frustrating for you, and I'm sorry it happened. Thanks again for your honesty and cooperation. I hope other editors here can provide some additional advice. M kuhner (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Immanuelle

LLMPRODs are done

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

Immanuelle (talk · contribs), XTools

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#Request for review of editing restrictions (and all the reports before it), apparently they were rapidly translating articles from languages they didn't speak. ~230 post-Nov 2022 creations (3,800 now-deleted drafts btw). It's unclear to me when they started using LLMs, but it's safe to say that practically all their translations are unreviewed machine translations (see their 1st proper creation, Silken Painting of Emperor Go-Daigo (Jan 2022)) and ought to be tagged with {{Rough translation}}. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Haoreima

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

Moved from parent thread § Immanuelle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Haseeb_Manj

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-08-24_Haseeb_Manj, 42 pages need review.

• Haseeb_Manj (talk · contribs)

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

I've turned two of their articles into redirects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ABehjat

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

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

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

@Athanelar, as you requested:

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

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

• Charles_Malfray
• Ladang Geddes
• Jesus in the Baháʼí Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the notice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your input!

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

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

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

User:Re000searchist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This 19 June 2026 edit summary was:

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

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

More examples of indirect attribution rather than directly stating:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jarvis20001122222

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Kundhu

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Khird Tribe

merged sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Wikipicked

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-08-19_Wikipicked, 163 pages need review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Orokbest1

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Stormisraging

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking consensus for WP:PRODLLM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:KeyKing666

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garkeith

Garkeith (talk · contribs), XTools

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jussie2024

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

UnknownKyle Sockwell

UnknownCollege Swimming League

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Psychwilly2

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-protest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy_violations_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ingroup_identity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_cohesiveness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_(business)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion

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

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

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

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

HistoryNerd2515

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

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

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

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

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

User:Arhan2212

LLMPRODs are done, no drafts to tag

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

Examples of issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:JASpencer

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

References with UTM parameters, showing more ChatGPT use;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Naramar

LLMPRODs are done and drafts tagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:JustAnotherCarDesigner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Sm8900

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joana machado2021

Joana machado2021 (talk · contribs), XTools

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

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

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

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

User:Warwickabrown

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:LegacyWiki

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Tolea93

LLMPROD is not needed in this case

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

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

Serial entrepreneurship and related articles

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user:DivineReality

 Cleanup has been requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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