Wikipedia:Signs of AI-generated comments

Canned assurance of quality, good faith, and adherence to policies and guidelines

Most people on Wikipedia want others to believe that they're here for the right reasons and are willing to follow the rules, and may insist that they make their contributions with such rules in mind. AI chatbots, however, have a strong tendency to communicate this in a specific way: invoking policies, guidelines, and standards as a broad, formal, and abstract whole, as in legalese, and often using "AI vocabulary" to do so.

Examples

I have a genuine interest in contributing to the knowledge and accuracy of information available on Wikipedia, particularly in the area of dogs. I have conducted extensive research and have insights that I believe could enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of the existing content on the "Dog" article.

I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I am committed to contributing in a responsible and constructive manner. My intention is to provide well-referenced and reliable information that aligns with Wikipedia's standards.

If granted permission, I would approach the editing process with the utmost care and respect for Wikipedia's community guidelines.

I assure you that my intentions are aligned with Wikipedia's principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. I strive to adhere to all content and editing guidelines, ensuring the information provided is accurate, well-sourced, and encyclopedic.

I can assure you that the article and our comments are the result of human effort and collaboration. Anon and I are committed to creating informative and balanced content that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. [...] Let's work together to ensure that our article contributes meaningfully to the climate change discourse.

---

Chloe and I are ready to provide any additional clarification or context that might be needed. The article is now more focused on the economic impacts and includes a range of viewpoints on technology and policy, with a clear human-centered narrative. We've also ensured that all sources are credible and properly cited. [...] Our ultimate goal is to create a valuable resource that aligns with Wikipedia's high standards and sparks important conversations about our planet's future.

Thank you for reaching out and highlighting the conflict of interest (COI) guidelines. I appreciate Wikipedia’s commitment to maintaining neutrality, verifiability, and reliability in all articles.

I acknowledge the importance of avoiding undue influence when contributing to topics directly related to an individual or organization. My intent is to ensure that information [...] remains accurate, neutral, and supported by credible sources. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s COI policies and, moving forward, I will:

- Refrain from directly editing the article and instead suggest edits on the talk page using reliable third-party sources.

- Ensure full disclosure of my affiliation when discussing potential edits, in compliance with Wikipedia’s transparency guidelines.

- Avoid promotional content or external link spamming, ensuring that all suggested content aligns with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability.

Links to searches

• "I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's"
• "I fully respect Wikipedia's"
• "Moving forward, I will"^[a]
  • "Moving forward, I will adhere"
  • "Moving forward, I will ensure that"
  • "Moving forward, I will strictly"

Canned offers to receive constructive criticism

Expressions of willingness to take constructive criticism for edits are very common in AI comments by users whose drafts were declined by reviewers, or in rare cases, themselves. The difference between this sign and similar reassurances by conscientious humans will generally become obvious after you actually provide that criticism.

Examples

Could you kindly provide me with specific feedback or reasons for the decline so that I can make the necessary improvements to the article? This will help me better understand and rectify any issues that may have caused the initial decline.

I'm committed to contributing valuable content to Wikipedia and am open to making revisions to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Once I've made the necessary revisions, I would be grateful if you could reconsider the article for approval. Your assistance in this matter would be invaluable, and I'm eager to work together to ensure the article is a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

I am open to any suggestions or feedback from experienced editors to ensure that the modifications I propose maintain the integrity of the article.

If there are specific areas that need further attention or modification, I am more than willing to make adjustments. I highly value the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia and would be grateful for any guidance you could provide to help my article meet the necessary standards for publication.

      2. Corrective Steps Moving forward, I will ensure that drafts, once ready, are moved directly to the main namespace unless there is a specific, community-approved reason to do otherwise. If any of the drafts currently in the Wikipedia namespace need reassignment, I am open to addressing them promptly.

      3. Community Consultation I am happy to discuss this process with the appropriate editors or administrators to ensure alignment with community guidelines. Constructive feedback will help refine my understanding and adherence to the expected standards.

If there is a specific protocol or workflow I should follow for such cases, I would greatly appreciate your guidance.

We remain committed to creating content that aligns with Wikipedia's mission and are open to further guidance.

---

We have reviewed the feedback provided and made the necessary revisions. [...] We look forward to engaging with the Wikipedia community and welcome any additional input that can help us improve the article. Thank you for your vigilance and your contribution to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.

---

We've made significant revisions in response to the feedback and are eager to engage with the community. If you have specific suggestions for further improvement, we would greatly appreciate your input. Let's work together to ensure that our article contributes meaningfully to the climate change discourse.

---

Chloe and I are ready to provide any additional clarification or context that might be needed. [...] If you have any particular sections you'd like us to address, please do not hesitate to let us know.

---

We've just posted an updated message on the article's talk page, emphasizing our human collaboration and our willingness to address feedback. If you could review our revisions and provide specific areas for improvement, we would be grateful.

I am happy to address any further concerns or comply with any additional requirements to demonstrate my commitment to responsible editing.

I hope you are doing well. I’m reaching out regarding my Wikipedia article, which was recently rejected, and I’d like to understand what further steps I can take to make it meet the necessary standards.

[...] I worked with ChatGPT to ensure the article adheres to a neutral tone, uses third-person language, and includes all the relevant information. [...]

However, it seems that I might be missing something crucial, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance on what I need to improve to get the article accepted. Are there any specific areas that need additional work or further clarification?

[...]

I genuinely want to make this article fit Wikipedia's standards, and I am open to making any adjustments required. Any advice or suggestions you could provide would be extremely helpful.

If you or any editor have any specific sections that still feel promotional, unclear or non-neutral, I would really appreciate guidance so I can adjust them accordingly.

I understand the concern about AI-generated drafts flooding AfC, and I respect the need to maintain quality standards. If there are specific sections where the tone reads as machine-generated, I'm happy to rework those. I'd also welcome any feedback on sourcing gaps - I want this to meet Wikipedia's standards properly.

Could you point me to which parts raised the flag? That would help memake [sic] targeted improvements before resubmitting.

I understand GPT Zero flagged it, and I know those tools aren’t perfect, but I also understand why you have to take it seriously. If it helps, I’m happy to go through the article section by section and show where each claim comes from. I want to contribute to this community properly and I’d sincerely appreciate any guidance on how to make my editing process more transparent going forward

---

I’m not trying to argue in bad faith, I really want to understand where the line is so I can stay clear on the right side of it. If you can point me to a specific passage or edit that concerns you, I’m happy to address it

---

I completely understand and respect the need for quality control on Wikipedia, but it feels very contradictory to rely strictly on automated AI detectors to filter contributions instead of looking at the actual text, substance, and references. The research, ideas, and facts in my edits are entirely the result of manual human effort. I'm completely open to constructive feedback on the text itself, and I'm happy to manually polish the phrasing going forward so it reads as naturally as possible.

---

I am not disregarding the guidelines, nor discussing in bad faith, I am applying them exactly as they are written. The facts, research, and citations in my article are 100% verified by human effort. If there is a concrete sentence in the article that violates a core content policy like verifiability or neutral point of view, please point it out so I can address it ASAP.

Links to searches

• "If there are specific concerns about" OR "If there are specific concerns regarding"
• "If there are any specific concerns about" OR "If there are any specific concerns regarding"
• "If there are specific areas that" OR "If there are any specific areas that" -"know if there are" -"and if there are"
• "If there are any specific sections that"

Complaints about accusers acting on speculation

When a user is confronted for allegedly pasting content from a large language model, they will likely dismiss these concerns as unsubstantiated speculation based on tone or writing style rather than hard evidence of LLM use. Most if not all users who do so also tell those who confront them to just point out what needs to be improved and focus on that instead of calling them out.

Examples

Your message reeks of arrogance, ignorance, and an unhealthy reliance on flawed AI tools. First, GPTZero is notoriously unreliable in distinguishing AI-generated from human-written text, so throwing that into the mix as your "evidence" is laughable at best. If you can't back up your claims with solid proof, you're just flinging baseless accusations.

You claim that I’ve breached policies repeatedly, yet fail to specify a single instance or cite evidence. It's easy to make vague allegations, but hard to stand up to scrutiny when you're put on the spot, isn't it? Wikipedia's policies aren't designed to be weaponized by people like you who clearly have an agenda.

As for your claim about my alleged conflict of interest and accusations of paid editing, it's incredible how quickly people like you jump to conclusions based on incomplete, off-wiki assumptions. You’re so certain about these accusations, yet conveniently leave out details. Perhaps you're confusing circumstantial gossip with facts? Until you have hard, undeniable proof, you might want to rethink your accusations.

Also, if you think you can disregard someone’s unblock request based on an unproven assumption about its origin, you clearly don't understand Wikipedia’s principles of fairness and due process. Do better.

---

It's ironic how you claim to be fighting against promotional abuse while making broad assumptions about me based on information from off-wiki sources. Wikipedia is built on verifiability and transparency, but your accusations are grounded in speculation and circumstantial evidence. You still haven't provided clear proof or pointed to specific instances of policy violations, instead relying on vague claims about information I supposedly "placed elsewhere on the internet." Where is the concrete evidence linking me to these subjects?

You say you have no agenda, yet your eagerness to cast me in a negative light without solid proof suggests otherwise. If you're so confident in your claims, why not present them with clarity and precision? Wikipedia's mission is to be fair, and any actions against an editor should be based on facts, not assumptions or innuendo.

[...] If you believe there's a legitimate concern, then bring it forward in a transparent and verifiable way. Otherwise, these continued unfounded accusations serve only to derail productive discussion. And now that they blocked me I can't even contribute anymore anyway why putting in effort if then is removed and not appreciated.

---

It's unfortunate how some are quick to accuse others without offering any actual proof. I want to make it clear that I have never been paid for any edits, and it’s disappointing that such assumptions are being made without concrete evidence. It's easy to say "evidence exists" without presenting any, but making such accusations without proof is unfair and harmful.

I understand you're stating that another user blocked me, but that doesn’t make the accusations any more valid. What’s truly sad is that this whole situation seems to stem from speculation rather than fact. It's important to recognize that while discussions may have taken place, assumptions and accusations don't replace genuine evidence.

Being blocked for an unfounded reason is frustrating, but this whole narrative that I've violated policies or that there’s some kind of “paid conflict of interest” is simply untrue. I take editing and community guidelines seriously, and to see my actions misrepresented like this is disappointing.

To clarify, all portions of the article have undergone comprehensive editorial scrutiny, including thorough review, proper citation of reliable sources, and meticulous fact-checking using a wide range of high-quality, verifiable publications. No evidence of AI-generated content is in the current version, and no findings of AI assistance have been substantiated.

[...]

The phrasing “may have” was used in good faith as a transparent acknowledgment of potential early drafting methods. However, to date, no editor — including yourself — has identified any specific passages in the current version that were generated by AI or that fail to meet Wikipedia's content standards. As such, the suggestion that the article contains problematic AI-derived material remains unsubstantiated.

[...]

Given the article’s current state — well-sourced, policy-compliant, and collaboratively improved — the continued presence of the “LLM advisory” banner is unwarranted. Naturally, editorial vigilance should remain ongoing, as with any living article.

---

As per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility to substantiate claims — including allegations of AI-generated or otherwise non-compliant content — lies squarely with the editor raising the concern. To date, no diff, specific passage, or reliable source has been presented to support such claims.

[...]

Without specific, actionable concerns tied to the present revision, maintaining a warning banner is not aligned with WP:NOTCRYSTAL (speculative concerns) or WP:UNDUE, and risks misleading readers by implying there is a current content issue when none has been demonstrated.

In short: policy does not support tagging based on hypothetical, unsubstantiated, or historical speculation — particularly when no editor, including yourself, has identified any concrete violation after repeated invitations to do so.

“Reeks of LLM” is pure speculation. You may believe that statement strengthens your argument, but in practice it weakens it. It reinforces my concern that the discussion is becoming increasingly speculative rather than evidence-based.

---

You have not provided conclusive supporting evidence. You have speculated repeatedly, and you continue to rely on speculation rather than demonstrating identifiable policy violations or factual inaccuracies.

[...]

Quite frankly, unsupported speculation and subjective interpretation can be more problematic than AI itself, because at least AI concerns can be evaluated through evidence, sourcing, and verification standards.

---

The writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs. The imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications. When evaluating possible LLM use, it is best to consider the full pattern of the editor's recent edits and whether the edits comply with core content policies.

---

I'm glad you helped. I understand what the guideline says. My point is that much of this discussion has moved beyond policy interpretation and into subjective speculation about tone, writing style, and assumptions regarding intent.

If there are factual inaccuracies, fabricated citations, or identifiable policy violations, point to them directly. Otherwise, repeatedly asserting that something “sounds like AI” is still speculation regardless of who drafted the guideline.

The issue is not whether LLM-generated article content is prohibited. The issue is whether conclusions are being drawn based on evidence or based on personal impressions and emotional interpretation of writing style.

---

Until consensus is reached through proper discussion and policy-based reasoning, I will continue removing warnings and templates that I believe are unsupported, speculative, or improperly applied. That includes AI-generation notices as well as criticisms such as “written like a resume,” which, if anything, further supports my argument that much of this discussion has shifted toward subjective interpretation of writing style rather than identifiable policy violations or factual inaccuracies.

Regarding the allegation that I used LLMs, I request that such claims be substantiated with evidence. Speculating about another editor's editing methods is not a valid content-based argument. [...]
[...] enough with general and pointless accusations. I think you're the one who's incapable of being an editor if you can't express concrete things, but rather general concepts that have little meaning.

Denial that Wikipedia prohibits using AI to write content

When confronted about using AI to write content, some users falsely claim that Wikipedia allows large language models to be used to generate content, and that whether the content they generate adheres to Wikipedia's other content guidelines matters more than how the content has been produced.

Examples

Please remember, Wikipedia allows tools like AI as long as the content remains factually correct and properly cited.

---

AI-assisted drafting is not prohibited. Per Wikipedia policy, the focus is on verifiability, not the tool used for drafting. Every fact in this article is supported by high-quality, third-party sources. Claiming "AI" as a pretext to delete documented financial records is a violation of WP:POINT.

I can confirm that Grammarly is the tool I use for proofing. I also think it’s important that others participating in this discussion recognize that Wikipedia does not maintain a formal prohibition on the use of AI-assisted tools. What ultimately matters is whether the content complies with Wikipedia’s core policies regarding verifiability, neutrality, sourcing, and accuracy.

---

Wikipedia’s guidance regarding AI focuses primarily on preventing hallucinated or fabricated information. It does not prohibit the use of AI-assisted tools altogether, particularly when the content itself remains verifiable, properly sourced, and subject to human review and editing.

Non-existent policies or guidelines

When AI chatbots try to cite Wikipedia's policies or guidelines by mentioning shortcuts, they have occasionally misattributed hallucinated policies or guidelines to specific pages, including to pages that were never intended to be cited in such a manner to begin with.

Examples

WP:NOTENGLISH clearly states:

"Wikipedia articles should not contain material based solely on non-English-language sources without reliable English-language sources."

In this case, the material you’re suggesting must be accompanied by a reliable English translation or reliable secondary sources for verification. Without that, it cannot meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standards.

Per WP:LAW: "Wikipedia is subject to the laws of the countries in which it operates."

* WP:BLOCKPOLICY — blocks are preventative, not punitive.

• WP:BEFORE — admins should attempt communication before blocking.
• WP:AGF — assume good faith.
• WP:BITE — do not bite newcomers.
• WP:INVOLVED — avoid actions where involved.
• WP:UNBLOCK — blocks may be overturned when not aligned with policy.

I want to make sure I understand the policy correctly though, WP:LLM does list permitted uses beyond spelling and punctuation, including using AI to “spot structural problems,” “generate ideas,” and ask “how to improve a paragraph.” My use was in that advisory space, with all prose written and verified by me. I’m not trying to argue in bad faith, I really want to understand where the line is so I can stay clear on the right side of it.

---

According to the policy documentation at Wikipedia, Large language models (WP:LLM), my workflow is explicitly protected. Under the section "Using LLMs as an advisory tool", the policy exactly permits editors to use digital tools to "suggest refinements to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM doesn't introduce content of its own." It states that asking "how to improve a paragraph" is a permitted function. As well, under the "Enforcement" section of the policy, it states: "The writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs, meaning that the imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications." The guidelines straightforwardly command reviewing editors that "When evaluating possible LLM use, it is best to consider the full pattern of the editor's recent edits and whether the edits comply with core content policies."

Confusion over the reason for a declined draft

AI chatbots cannot read the decline notice left on the draft, and can only respond to whatever information regarding the declined draft that the user gives them. As a result, AI-generated questions regarding declined drafts will often express uncertainty or request clarification over the reason a draft was declined, even if the decline notice on the draft is very clear. They may even compose self-contradictory comments that simultaneously acknowledge the specific reason for the draft's decline, but go on to say that they are trying to understand whether that was really the reason, or whether it was declined for some completely unrelated reason.

The latest decline says the draft needs multiple published secondary sources that provide significant coverage, are reliable, and are independent. I understand the concern... I am trying to understand whether the problem is mainly that these sources are not strong enough for WP:BIO / WP:NARTIST, or whether the draft structure and tone are still the main issue.

How could the "draft structure and tone" still be the "main issue" when it has just been specifically acknowledged what the issue is?

I am requesting guidance on Draft:Alexis Marcou after repeated AfC declines... I am trying to understand whether the issue is mainly source quality, article tone, or both before making any further changes.

Note that the latest decline notice on that draft when this question was asked was for both notability and promotional tone; so the answer to this question is obviously 'both'.

Is the primary issue related to notability, sourcing, tone, conflict of interest, or article structure?

In particular, I would like to understand: Whether the issue relates to notability, sourcing, or tone If any specific sections need revision or removal

Itemization of content policies

Whenever LLM users bring up a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, they tend to mention each one by name. In some cases, each policy's title is written in title case and its corresponding shortcut is mentioned in parentheses. This has sometimes been the case when the user attempts to either assure others that their content is compliant or request input to help them ensure such compliance. Editors might name-drop policies and guidelines in this fashion to exaggerate their comprehension of the rules and make a point that their reasoning is based on them, even though AI chatbots sometimes get them wrong.

Examples

Moving forward, I will strictly adhere to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and verifiability guidelines, ensuring that all contributions are non-promotional, well-sourced, and align with Wikipedia’s standards.

The current revision of the article fully complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies — including WP:V (Verifiability), WP:RS (Reliable Sources), and WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) — with all significant claims supported by multiple independent and reputable international sources.

Thank you for your question. Yes, I did use an AI tool to assist with parts of initial drafting process. However, I understand that Wikipedia requires all content to meet its core policies, including verifiability, neutrality, and no original research.

As part of the ongoing rewrite, I am reviewing and rewriting the article in my own language to ensure it fully complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines, with proper sourcing and independent verification. I appreciate your patience and any constructive suggestions on improving the article.

Links to searches

• "policies on Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)"
• "policies on Verifiability (WP:V)"

Use of the word concrete as an adjective

Comments posted by suspected by AI users often use the word concrete as an adjective, especially in cases where users insist on being given "concrete examples" of text that needs improvement or "concrete evidence" that they used AI asides from "stylistic indications". When users don't get the "concrete evidence" or "concrete examples" they demand, they dismiss the AI accusations against them as subjective speculation.

Examples

**Review:** The use of "significantly more" is subjective and requires specific figures to validate this claim. Without concrete financial data from reliable sources, this statement could be misleading or exaggerated. The source provided is a blog.

In the absence of concrete evidence, I propose removing the AI-generated tag immediately to maintain the article's integrity.

Without concrete examples, your concern cannot be evaluated in line with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BURDEN.

Subject lines

Historically, some comments generated by AI chatbots have begun with text that appears intended to be pasted into the Subject field on an email form.

Examples

Subject: Request for Permission to Edit Wikipedia Article - "Dog"

Subject: Edit Request for Wikipedia Entry

Subject: Request for Review and Clarification Regarding Draft Article

Subject: Concerns about Inaccurate Information

Subject: Behavioral issues and Wikihounding by User:Binksternet

Division of text into titled sections

AI chatbots sometimes generate messages with text broken into sections with titles. In some cases, such text may either appear with Markdown or as plain text when pasted. They may resemble or include inline-header vertical lists.

Importance of Thorough Research

Wikipedia's content guidelines emphasize the importance of verifiability and reliable sourcing, [...]

Risk of Violating Wikipedia’s Policy on Biographies of Living Persons

Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy is particularly relevant in this context. [...]

The Dangers of Blindly Cutting Content

Blindly cutting content, especially when it pertains to significant aspects of a person’s public life, contradicts the core principles of Wikipedia. [...]

The Role of Due Diligence in Editing

Editors have a responsibility to engage in due diligence when making significant changes to articles, particularly those involving living persons. [...]

Response to Article Concerns

Source Independence and Coverage

The article has been updated to address concerns about source reliability. [...]

Swiss Media Coverage

The limited coverage in mainstream Swiss media likely reflects the niche nature of iolite Capital and its international investment focus. [...]

AI-Generated Content Suspicion

The perception that the article may be AI-generated seems to have been driven by previously listed dead or weak sources. [...]

Transclusion of article maintenance banners

When mentioning maintenance tags, AI chatbots often just write the names of such templates in curly brackets (e.g. {{Example}}), resulting in unintentional transclusions. These can be avoided by typing tl| between the opening pair of brackets and the template's name (e.g. {{tl|Example}}) so that each mention will instead appear like this: {{Example}}

Examples

I would like to open a discussion regarding the recent edits and use of tags such as {{Unreliable sources}}, {{Disputed}}, and {{Cleanup rewrite}}. Additionally, the inclusion of claims about an “Indian disinformation campaign” requires careful consideration and sourcing in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

[...]

3. Use of Maintenance Templates: Adding templates like {{Disputed}} and {{Unreliable sources}} should be done based on a consensus, not to preemptively frame content as problematic. I suggest we come to a consensus before continuing to apply these tags.

Regarding [[WP:TNT]], you've misrepresented it. TNT specifically states it's for "unsalvageable articles" and explicitly notes "If the problems are limited to a section or two, {{section rewrite}} tags are more appropriate." An article with 80+ references addressing a notable topic hardly qualifies as "unsalvageable."

I removed the article-wide {{Technical}} and {{Essay-like}} maintenance tags after a conservative copyedit of the lead, history, tactics, and criticism sections. The edits were intended to improve accessibility and encyclopedic tone while retaining the article's structure, examples, and existing references.
The article still contains some theoretical terminology, such as détournement, metameme, and late capitalism, but these terms are now presented in a more explanatory and attributed way rather than as an argumentative essay. The criticism section was also expanded to address co-optation, commodification, symbolic dissent, and related approaches.

Links to searches

• Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:AI-generated (talk pages only, links and redirects hidden)

Canned unblock requests

When a user is blocked, they might ask an AI chatbot to write an unblock request for them. Many AI-generated unblock requests tend to go something like this:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I respectfully request that the block on my account be lifted. I acknowledge that my recent behavior has been in violation of Wikipedia's standards. My intention was to edit constructively, and I sincerely apologize if my behavior has appeared disruptive. I have since carefully read and reviewed all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I now understand the importance of adhering to them when editing. Moving forward, I am committed to ensuring that all of my future edits are constructive. If there are any specific concerns that need further clarification, feel free to ask me about them, and I will be happy to provide the answers you may need. I look forward to collaborating in a constructive manner. Thank you for your time and consideration.

In these requests, blocked users often try to assure administrators of their good faith and (future) adherence to policies, express their willingness to communicate, and offer to receive constructive criticism for their edits.

Canned ANI reports

Sealioning

Sealioning is a disruptive practice where someone relentlessly demands users to provide evidence to back up the statements they make. When targets express frustration over the sealioner's behavor, the sealioner criticizes the targets for responding negatively to them, even though they were just asking questions.

Several AI users have resorted to sealioning when confronted about their AI use. They write long comments that sometimes present arguments as entries in bulleted lists or separated into multiple sections. They often ask which specific passages have caused suspicion and need to be fixed, and accuse confronters of acting on unsubstantiated speculation and being uncivil.

Wikilawyering

Wikilawyering is a disruptive practice where someone selectively cites or interprets policies, guidelines, or perceived precedent as justification for their conduct, even if their interpretations go against the purpose of the policies or guidelines they mention. In many cases, users have emphasized their content's compliance (or overlooked their non-compliance) with certain policies and guidelines. This is especially the case for users of AI chatbots, which often generate text that affirms what the user may want others to believe, even if the points they present don't actually hold up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

When an article is tagged as possibly containing AI-generated content, a user might try to defend it by asking accusers to point to specific passages causing concern or reassuring them that the content they've contributed is "neutral", "verified" by citations to reliable sources, and comprises none of the items described in Template:AI-generated, regardless of the amount of actual effort put in to ensure that such claims are true.

Common AI wikilawyering tropes include:

• Affirming that one's content adheres to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A few core content policies—such as Neutral point of view, Verifiability, Reliable sources, and No original research—are often itemized by LLM users.
• Emphasizing that Wikipedia's LLM guideline allows AI to be used for basic copyediting or translation.
• Outright denying that Wikipedia prohibits using AI to write or rewrite content at all.
• Claiming that accusations of AI use must be backed by hard evidence asides from stylistic indicators. In some cases, WP:AIDETECTIVE has been cited.