Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard/Archive 1

This article on Product-family engineering does not seem to be meeting Wikipedia's standards, and reads like AI writing significantly. Almost no citations, and "Here's a list of some of them", "The Nokia case mentioned below" , random bullet points, long weirdly convoluted series of topics, the whole "example" section about Nokia, it all sounds very odd. 81.214.164.185 (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's good old fashioned marketing writing, untouched since the time of Nokia phones. CMD (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most of the article dates from far before chatgpt existed. It doesn't have many of the hallmarks of AI to me, just slightly awkward marketing language. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 07:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Not AI: the 2021 version reads much the same, and that predates mainstream LLMs.

The verbiage and structure (including the style of bullet point text here, really terse, no fluff) also isn't really characteristic of AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

long time editor, i think i did a quick review of a few of their recent edits, think they started using AI somewhat early, but would like others to weigh in to confirm Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Mentioned this on the page, but this does not seem to be AI, or at least not fully AI. The "editorializing" thing is specifically about an inappropriate tendency of "Wikipedia-style" AI articles -- talk page comments are supposed to "editorialize," that's literally what they are. Text that is "confusing" is an anti-tell for AI. Uncommonly used acronyms are an anti-tell. References to Wikipedia minutiae are an anti-tell -- when LLMs mention Wikipedia policies they do it in a superficial way, they don't talk about arcane historical Wikipedia redirects from 2012. Even the quotes you mention are wrong: you criticize them using "stands as," but that AI tell is referring to a specific, narrow kind of AI Wikipedia article puffery like "stands as a testament," "stands as an enduring reminder," etc., not just the literal words -- and more importantly, the comment doesn't even include them. Sloppy stuff all around. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah apologies fir having wasted editor time.

Will take this as a learning experience i suppose Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The threshold of evidence needed to file an LLM-related complaint against an established editor that results in any action is higher than the threshold needed for a new editor. (This is an observation, not a normative statement.) It's certainly plausible that the comment Special:Diff/1310258505 was written with LLM assistance, when taking into account how its style of writing differs significantly from the style used in previous comments, e.g. Special:Diff/1197568358. But, it's unlikely that an ANI complaint would result in any action against any established editor on the basis of LLM use unless the complaint contains at at least one high-confidence sign of AI writing, such as a WP:G15 element or Markdown use. — Newslinger talk 16:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Jaravedr (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – All edits handled

GlassesUSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resolved

 – Article content addressed, if further problems take to WP:RPP

Would like another set of eyes on this because I don't know if I'm too lost in the sauce at this point, but the article on Dragostea din tei, which was just promoted to FA, is pinging my AI radar.

The original rewrite does not immediately raise any red flags. Instead, I suspect that AI was used for the various subsequent edits, particularly those "rewrote it to FA-level prose," maybe some of the later content additions. From what I can tell, most or all of the AI-esque language originates in these and subsequent edits.

This is newer AI if this is AI, so there don't really seem to be outright hallucinations, but those edits still appear to have introduced many issues, some of which were caught. For instance, one of their edits removed text that was not supported by the refs -- which is very weird, because they added that text themselves, did they not read the refs when they added it? Some other problematic text was mentioned in the FA nomination, like Critics praised the song's catchy melody and rhythm, highlighting its universal appeal -- the last part is kind of specific verbiage that you almost never get from anything but AI.

Some is still there; one of the rewrites produced In a 2017 interview, Balan reflected on the video's legacy, stating that it contributed to the song's emergence as a gay anthem, which is a very puffery-esque description of the interview it is cited to. This is a Google translation so take it with a grain of salt, but this really does not sound like "reflecting on its legacy" but just, like, a normal smaller-scale anecdote: "It had become a kind of anthem for homosexuals. Radu was hugging Arsenie, it was a sensation. They received this song as a cheerful song, full of energy and that's probably why they said we were gay. I can assure you that all three of us are normal. We really looked like three gay men in the videos." This rewrite introduces puffery like unusual linguistic breakthrough and positioning it at a cultural crossroads -- the latter of which is WP:SYNTH applied to the quote it was attached to, and seems to puff up something about how music is released to Big Cultural Importance.

I don't know. I genuinely am not sure whether my gut is correct. This is why I would prefer WP:LLMDISCLOSE to be mandatory. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Has Cartoon network freak been asked if they used an LLM? The current article is 94% their writing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't asked because I'm not sure enough and I don't want to be wrong. The first edit is the bulk of the text and like I said it doesn't seem out of the ordinary. I could be wrong on that too. If this wasn't a FA I wouldn't be that concerned. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

How do you get the 94% number? —Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

XTools authorship. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, wasn’t aware of that. Thanks, Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're off. Some of this, especially the Critics praised the song's catchy melody and rhythm, highlighting its universal appeal sure reads as LLM. But I'd suggest being careful here. This Cartoon network freak user is a serious content creator with a bazillion GAs and FLs, many coming well before 2022. I also read most of the article and (unsurprisingly for it being a FA) didn't find many examples of LLM-style puffery other than the ones you mentioned. Maybe drop them a friendly note on their talk page about it? NicheSports (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

On second thought it might also be worth doing nothing here. I'm not sure the broader community would want us to focus on a few subjective signs of potential LLM use in one FA from a prolific content creator. I think they'd prefer we focus on clear cases of repeated misuse, similar to the WP:CCI criteria NicheSports (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: @NicheSports: @Gurkubondinn: Hey there guys. Thank you for paying close attention to the article I put much time into. Not meant in a hostile way, but I would've appreciated if your concerns had been posted in the form of a message on my talk page first. Putting it here makes me feel put on the spot :) I can proudly say that I used AI in an ethical way. The article had been finished before I let AI give me suggestions for more FA-level writing, often times several alternatives, out of which I chose what I believed captured the essence of the respective sentence best and made sure to remove any "fluff" that may have come with it. I have also went over the article several times after that, removing and adjusting small bits and made sure things are backed up by the sources (on 2-3 occasions I did realize AI added small nuances that were not exactly supported by the refs, so I removed them). Regarding the other issues:

• I do think someone talking about their song's status as a gay anthem is them reflecting on its legacy; something being an anthem is part of its legacy I did remove this after all. It's not entirely wrong, but it does seem to inflate everything unnecessarily.
• "Critics praised the song's catchy melody and rhythm, highlighting its universal appeal" -> this is supported exactly like that in the section about the critical reception where critics talk about the catchiness and the fact it's universal, transcending borders etc. I did also write that myself I believe.
• "unusual linguistic breakthrough" -> this is basically a summary of the song being successful in so many countries in a language that's non-English, which follows directly after. The same applies to "positioning it at a cultural crossroads"; the crossroads is between something that went viral pre-Internet and something that went viral through social media.

I hope this message shows how carefully I used AI for suggestions to improve to article and how thought out summary/introductory sentences have been before I included them in the article. Thank you for your message. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The llm is not providing FA-level writing. None of these examples are good. The song does not have "universal" appeal, that is not appropriate in wikivoice. "Unusual linguistic breakthrough" is very vague phrasing. A "cultural crossroads" is also puffery, if the intention is to say it balanced pre-Internet and internet virality, say that explicitly. If the AI is still even in copyediting making things wrong, however nuanced, it would be best to stuck to less fluffy prose. CMD (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I would appreciate if you offered me some alternatives. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Alternatives to what? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I need some alternative wording for what was pointed out. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't perused the sources, but looking at the first example, the whole sentence seems to be simply a paraphrase of one not unflowery itself body sentence: "Other commentators suggested that the Romanian lyrics posed no barrier to success, emphasizing that the song's melody and rhythm had a universal appeal and accessibility that transcended language". A more comprehensive summary of the section should cover more. The first paragraph seems to generally cover the simplicity of the lyrics, and their repetitiveness. The second covers this as well to some extent, but also introduces that the lyrics had little meaning even in Romanian. What does stand out is that this paragraph hints that due to the meaninglessness there was effectively no language barrier, which is a different sentiment to the lead wording. The third paragraph on being part of a wider musical trend is possibly also worth including, although I'm not sure if that would fit within the current lead structure. CMD (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you for your suggestion. I have to say, however, that no source explicitly says that the song was successful and transcended language barriers internationally because it was meaningless in Romanian. They are rather two separate points ― "The song is accessible to foreigners and transcends language barriers because of its melody, even if it's in Romanian" and "The song is meaningless, like other hits". I did adjust the lead, however, now basically saying that there is essentially no language barrier. I did not include the point about the wider musical trend just because it feels to me more like a side observation. I altered the lead and body a little bit, feel free to check out. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak Apologies for not pinging you, I just didn't want it to come off as a bad-faith accusation or to make a big deal over something if it turned out to be nothing. I don't think using AI is automatically bad faith and you seem way more conscientious about it than most people are.

At this point the discussion about the article itself might probably be better on the article's talk page, but one thing I'm wondering is what tools/versions you used? Mostly because I'm trying to get a sense of how newer AI varies from older AI, a lot of our guidance is much more geared toward the older 2023/early 2024 stuff. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: Thank you and no problem. I used the free ChatGPT version. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cartoon network freak, your 18 November 2024 edit to the Dragostea din tei article with the edit summary "Major expansion and clean-up" added this sentence to the final paragraph of the lead section:

In 2008, American rapper T.I. and Barbadian singer Rihanna sampled and interpolated it in "Live Your Life", which topped the American and British charts.

This sentence was amended in your 21 June 2025 edit to the following, which is present in the current revision of the article (addition underlined):

In 2008, American rapper T.I. and Barbadian singer Rihanna sampled and interpolated it in "Live Your Life", which topped the North American and British charts.

As the Dragostea din tei § Use in popular media section correctly states, "Live Your Life" peaked at number two on the UK Singles Chart. The song did reach number one on the UK Hip Hop and R&B Singles Chart (which the Dragostea din tei article does not mention), but it would be misleading to present this genre-specific chart position as the song having "topped [...] the British charts", and I consider this claim to have failed verification. That same 18 November 2024 edit also added a table titled "List of notable works that use 'Dragostea din tei'" explicitly showing "Live Your Life" peaking at number two in the UK, so this sentence in the lead section is either a human error or LLM-generated hallucination that was later overlooked in the featured article nomination and still remains in the article.

The 21 June 2025 edit is too small to discern whether an LLM was used, but the change from "American" to "North American" does not make sense to me, because "Live Your Life" did not top the singles chart in any North American country other than the United States.

The possibility of an LLM-generated hallucination surviving a featured article nomination is a little bit disconcerting, although like Gnomingstuff, I do believe enforcing mandatory disclosure of LLM use will reduce the chance of this happening. Cartoon network freak, I appreciate your participation in this discussion, and I encourage you to disclose your LLM use in edit summaries in the future. — Newslinger talk 19:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

After thinking it over, I've revised the above comment to note the possibility that the error is human in nature, although a clarification would be welcome. The claim did survive checks from multiple FA reviewers and remain in the article for almost a year, so the error is apparently not obvious to most readers. Regardless of the LLM use, I do want to thank Cartoon network freak for the considerable amount of effort it took for him to bring the article to FA status. My recommendation to disclose LLM use is based on both WP:LLMDISCLOSE and my observation that disclosed LLM use is consistently less controversial than discoveries of undisclosed LLM use on Wikipedia in just about any context. — Newslinger talk 08:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Hey there and thank you for the close observation. This was a human error. For some reason, I thought the song peaked at No.1 in the UK as well, even though I correctly included the peak in the table. It also surprises me no one (no even me) noticed this later on. The article was improved with a LLM only after it was promoted to GA status, which was way later, around July 2025 (this can be traced back). Thus, the No.1 peak in the UK had been (wrongfully) already included in the previous text written by me that I fed the LLM. I have corrected the claim. Thank you; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility, has bits like

Web developers usually use authoring tools and evaluation tools to create web content.
People ("users") use web browsers, media players, assistive technologies or other "user agents" to get and interact with the content. 173.206.50.207 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not an example of LLM use, just a very faithful copyright violation of https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/components/ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Even without the above link, not sure what about this is indicative of AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff Apologies, I saw some weird probably LLM generated stuff in the article, linked it there, then pointed out weird bolding. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four did fix the LLM stuff in the article as far as I know. 173.206.50.207 (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah thanks for clarifying, wasn't sure whether the bolding was yours or in the original text. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio and other issues handled by Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. No consensus of LLM-involvement and no indication of longer-term LLM misuse. I will archive this one as well. NicheSports (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Lunetra (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Cleanup complete NicheSports (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Note - I found a ton of potential AfD candidates when cleaning up these article expansions. Documenting the list below. WP:BEFORE applies to anyone who sees this - please don't just blindly AfD. Thanks!

• Home Country Direct
• Midijum Records
• MCV Ego
• FOBANA
• Pension insurance contract
• Marco Valerio Editore
• Masisa
• Release on licence
• Trans-Border Institute
• Manchester Aid to Kosovo
• Celtophile Records
• Contact Conference
• Serbian Association for Practical Shooting
• Promofilm
• Collateral valuation adjustments
• Softex
• Bahrain Workers' Union - even the LLM agrees, lol
• Tiny Evil Records
• Banque Capitale du Benin - this may not exist
• Survivors' Insurance (Agriculture) Convention, 1933 (shelved) - was already AfD'd with result of no consensus, but may merit attempt numero dos
• Liceo Comercial Femenino Concepción
• Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments
• Legare Furniture
• Boulevard Records (U.S.)
• Birds Australia – Victoria
• Cardel Homes
• Romar Entertainment
• Run Hard Music
• Tent Show Records
• Water supply and sanitation in Pernambuco
• Computer Communications Network

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2025-11-21 LazarúnZalónir for reference.

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

This is somewhat minor, the blast radius was only 4 articles. I wrote a more detailed analysis on one of the talk pages:

The edit Diff/1283247998 by LazarúnZalónir introduced some strong WP:LLMTELLS:

• its language suggesting a soul aware of death’s approach

• and possibly echo Eastern Christian tones preserved in Icelandic oral tradition

• as a genuine confession of faith in extremis

• his legacy survives liturgically

Then it's this reference, added in the same edit:

Gísli Sigurðsson, "Oral Tradition and the Role of the Bishop in Early Icelandic Christianity", Scandinavian Journal of History, 2004.

This mythical article is also listed in Christianization of Iceland § Further reading, complete with a hallucinated DOI, which is also the first result when I search for it. Shockingly,^[sarcasm] this was also added by LazarúnZalónir in Diff/1283245067.

The closest that I've found is an article Medival Icelandic Studies published by Gísli in 2003. In 2004, he did publish a book titled The Medieval Icelandic Saga and Oral Tradition: A Discourse on Method.

But to be completely sure, I can also just email Gísli and ask him about this paper with the non-existing DOI and see what he says.

This is not the only article that this editor has infected with LLM-generated nonsense. I noticed them because I saw Gnomingstuff (who I hope doesn't mind the ping) tag the Guðmundur Arason article. I have mostly fixed that article now (and even improved it a little bit). But I also looked through the editors' other contribs and tagged the rest, including this one.

I have asked for disclosure on User talk:LazarúnZalónir § LLM, but haven't gotten a reply yet and I would be lying if I said that I was expecting one.
— Talk:Kolbeinn Tumason § WikiProject class rating

I've cleaned up most of the articles, but I would appreciate if someone has the time to look over my work and check it for me. It's quite tedious to revert these LLM nonsense editors, and I don't want to have accidentally deleted something that should have been left there. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Made two additional reverts to status quo, all edits by this editor appear to have been addressed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Bookleo (talk · contribs)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-09-16 Bookleo, 22 pages need review.

There are a bunch of edits by Bookleo that are all but certainly AI-generated; given that one of their edits left in the chatbot response.

These are largely edits to award-winning books -- making this case high priority because literary authors.... uhhhhh, do not tend to like AI, and so the shitstorm potential if this escapes containment is greater than norma Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It's worse than that - in the last few weeks they have been mass-rewriting sections of articles, primarily leads, within minutes of each other. The following 6 rewrites were made within 65 minutes: , , , , , . These are bot-like edits that cannot be adequately human-reviewed and therefore violate multiple core policies. Because they are also using the {{lead too short}} tag to find targets they have actually hit a few articles that we had just cleaned up from the previous mass-lead-rewriter. Examples: ,

We need to get this user to stop editing immediately, the cleanup here is going to take forever because from their edit history it looks like they have used AI tools inappropriately on hundreds of articles in the last year. I suggest taking this to ANI and asking for an immediate temporary block to prevent further disruption while we discuss with the user. NicheSports (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh jeez. Support taking this to ANI to at least stem the flow of edits and I can start picking through edits later today. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 22:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Ask for mass reverts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I left a message on their talk page asking about the AI use, feel like it's probably best to at least give them a chance to respond. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

For reference, this was crossposted by Gnomingstuff at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books#Large_swath_of_AI_content. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I figured it would be good to have subject matter experts take a look since I haven't read most of the books, and lo and behold someone oh wait that was you found a hallucination in like 20 minutes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there something particular about the lead too short tag that attracts this? Perhaps there needs to be some background tracking of very rapid removals of that tag. CMD (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on the tags in their edit history I assume it has something to do with newcomer tasks -- the lead too short is one of the possibilities for "expand" tasks -- although I may be wrong. (And also they're not a newcomer so I don't know why they're even getting shown those.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I handled all of this user's edits back through August 28, which is when they started, after a few months off, came back to rapidly editing articles. I could use some help addressing their earlier edit history NicheSports (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. The AI edits goes back quite far, unfortunately - I suspected that Bookleo was making AI-generated edits to the My Brilliant Friend article over a year ago in this change: which had characteristically ChatGPT-style writing and broken citations. Jordan Elder talk 21:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created, also listed and tracked at the top of this report. Triaged ​all 865 articles, 26 appear to most warrant closer review or cleanup.​​​​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed.

The article African Braiding appears to be AI-generated. Other articles by that author are also probably AI-generated, but they have sources. Canadachick (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The only source I had access to (https://www.randwickresearch.com/index.php/rissj/article/view/633) had nothing to do with braiding, so I removed it. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like LieutenantZipp has asked the editor about their LLM usage on User talk:Dolpina § AI use on African braiding article?, but Dolpina has not been active or made any edits since. Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

They replied saying no , pinging Dolpina here Kowal2701 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I just looked at this early draft of African braiding and I see no chance this was written without AI assistance, especially comparing the style of prose to their recent comment on their talk page. What do others think? NicheSports (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll defer to others, but the bolding and whimsical language indicate yes Kowal2701 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I don't think I have the privilege to do anything about it. LieutenantZipp (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• I merged the article, and weakly trust Dolpina not to use LLMs in future, marking this as resolved Kowal2701 (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed.

Anaman12321 (talk · contribs) Guide dog, specifically the Discrimination->Australia bit, might seem like its written by ChatGPT, especially the "What to do if you experience discrimination", because Wikipedia is not meant to be your guide. I think the first section of the Australia section is alright though. N51 DELTA TALK 08:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Concur. Section was added by Anaman12321 in Special:Diff/1301116787, Anaman has also created Western Mediterranean which shows signs of being LLM-generated including a ?utm_source=chatgpt.com reference. Their userpage which states they are "thrive on transforming seemingly impossible ideas into tangible concepts, often blending scientific principles with imaginative thinking" is also clearly LLM-derived.

Fortunately there don't appear to be many contributions that need review, here's a list, anyone please feel free to edit my comment to strike one to claim it for review:

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I began reviewing and rewriting that entry on Guide dogs, only to see that it was already covered in another section further up, so I've just removed it entirely. Nil🥝 02:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Did one. Looked through and many are more examples of newcomer tasks. CMD (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Final article Western Mediterranean inline-tagged and draftified, nothing left to do, archiving this report. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-09-17 Thefallguy2025, 204 pages need review.

I am in the process of tagging the edits by Thefallguy2025 as AI generated and I am not even close to being done. Similar as the above: a lot of rewrites from the newcomer edits copyedit/expansion interface, a few smoking guns (ChatGPT parameters left in on some of the ones earlier in the year), extremely AI-esque edit summaries, and enough suspect text elsewhere that I'm pretty sure it's all AI. To the tune of over 1,000 edits. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these and please keep it up! We need more LLM policies and being able to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem to the wider community will help move in that direction NicheSports (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks -- trying not to spam and only mention the really prolific ones, I feel like I'm already taking up a lot of talk page space here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Do not worry at all, appreciate all of your work!! ʊnƌer◙swamȹᵗᵅᵜᵏ 13:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

imo there should be an AI version of WP:CCI. Makes it easier to identify who needs to be cleaned up, their edits, and the progress. Hopefully it doesn't become as backlogged as CCI though. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That would be helpful but I'm worried about the inevitable "you have no proof why are you putting me on a list" backlash, and I also don't want this to turn into scapegoating or insulting editors. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions, a newly filed CCI has to be evaluated by a clerk or administrator, who would subsequently open a case only if one is warranted. We could implement a similar triage system for LLM cleanup cases, although I think a consensus on the LLM noticeboard (this page) would be sufficient to open an LLM cleanup case (without needing an administrator or designated clerk). — Newslinger talk 15:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. It would help with the cleanup process and make it clearer to the wider community how this type of LLM misuse should be handled, likely leading to cases being caught earlier NicheSports (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries, Gnoming! You're on this talk page a lot because you do a lot of good work :) Altoids0 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Had a chance to look into this and it is pretty bad too. These four substantive article expansions with obvious LLM-style editorialization were made within 45 minutes: , , , . This article expansion is particularly absurd, and likely involves extensive hallucinations as it is entirely unsourced. This is just a small sample NicheSports (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

yeah, I checked all of their hundreds of edits to make sure at least some of the original text was still in the current version, and I think I only found a handful where either the text had been substantially edited, or where someone had noticed and reverted. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ugh.. lots and lots of 'Plot' sections too, which are a nightmare because we rely on the source material for the plots so, short of going to watch the film, independent editors have no way of verifying the content.. I'm assuming that ChatGPT hasn't actually watched the films so must be pulling the summary from somewhere else, or hallucinating it. JeffUK 02:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the problem with Plot sections independent from AI, IMHO. I know that the community thinks that WP:OR is OK when dealing with movies, maybe this will force change in this approach? Викидим (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It would be great if - in mass cases - edit summaries (or hatnotes) identify the diff or at least the offending editor, so that their contribution would be easier to delete. Викидим (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with various ways of indicating the diff/editor. The problem is that no matter what I do, people decide I should be doing it some other way, or not doing it at all. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You are doing an enormous amount of great work, so if it is easier for you to do it in some way, I will not be the one to grumble. Thank you! Викидим (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created, also listed and tracked at the top of this report. Triaged ​all 608 articles, 206 appear to warrant closer review or cleanup.​​​​​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  whoa... did you automate this in any way? If so lmk what tools you are using NicheSports (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  The list of edited articles was collected and formatted semi-automatically, then the history of each was given a cursory review to filter out low quality cleanup candidates. I'm going to try a slightly different process for article selection for the Bookleo report, will let you know the specifics of how that goes. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Done, contributions were retrieved via CCI's contribution surveyor (uncheck minor edits, set a large negative bytes value like -999999), then formatted using regex and previewed in the editor. Diffs are quickly checked using navigation popups, wikiEdDiff is used for more in-depth checks, Who Wrote That? is used to investigate partial cleanups, and three scripts are used to make diff links more accessible. A final regex pass formats diffs added to notes and marks entries with them as completed.

  Can be done faster if the optional notes and completed entries are left out.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Nice, thank you.

  Would it be helpful for me to go through the past few months of tags to identify clusters that could be broken off into subpages (either by me or by somebody else), or would that just create more work? Right now I've only been tagging so as not to spam this page, unless something was really egregious, but absolutely there are cases where it's been dozens/hundreds of articles. (for instance pretty much all Grey's Anatomy articles currently) Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  If you mean clusters of edits by this single user, those would be best kept to the current subpage and could use separate sections each with their own {{AIC article list}}. The formatting isn't strict at all.

  If you mean topical clusters of pages separate from any one user, then making a new report with its own {{AIC status}} and subpage would work. My preference is for reports to concern a single editor whenever reasonable, but if you think making a report about a specific topic could better engage others in a cleanup effort (maybe by inviting relevant WikiProjects?), then give it a try. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry to just now see this. This is about editors who make dozens/hundreds of edits, right now I have been tagging those but not collating them anywhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Creating a report and subpage about a single user and using multiple sections on the subpage for different topics that user has edited would be best, unless I've misunderstood. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-10-30 Tbound2, 4 pages need review.

I stumbled across an article created by Tbound2 that was nominated for deletion (Adelaide Metro bus route 100), and have discovered a large number of articles created by this user, in implausibly short succession (while obviously this does not inherently signify generative AI editing, all of these were created within 2 hours of each other), and which I believe to be generated by AI large language models due to their gushing prose (and which already have AI tags):

• India Rasheed, created at 10:54 on 10 August ("Rasheed is noted for her clean hands, decision-making, and effective left-foot kicking. She is considered capable of impacting games both at ground level and in aerial contests. Coaches have also noted her endurance and adaptability to different positions.")
• Keeley Kustermann, created at 11:19 on 10 August ("She was known for her “clean by hand” play, strong decision-making, and versatility.")
• Georgia McKee, created at 11:22 on 10 August ("McKee is recognised for her agility, goal sense, and forward craft. She applies strong defensive pressure inside 50 and is regarded as a creative and opportunistic small forward.")
• Brooke Smith (footballer), created at 11:26 on 10 August ("Smith is described as a reliable utility with strong marking ability for her size, a penetrating kick, and the versatility to adapt to multiple positions.")
• Lily Tarlinton, created at 11:32 on 10 August ("Tarlinton is known for her athleticism, marking ability, and adaptability to both forward and ruck roles. Her height and mobility offer Adelaide flexibility in matchups, enabling them to rotate key position players across the ground as needed.")
• Keeley Skepper, created at 11:37 on 10 August ("A midfielder noted for her contested ball-winning ability, composure under pressure, and precise kicking...")
• Poppy Scholz, created at 11:47 on 10 August ("A tall utility renowned for her intercept marking, versatility, and athleticism...")
• The Original Pancake Kitchen, created at 12:14 on 10 August ("aims to deliver the brand’s signature all-day breakfast, diner-style charm, and thick milkshakes in a modern, family-friendly setting.")

There are a number of additional articles created by this user that likely fall under the same category of speedily-generated articles entirely written by a generative AI LLM. I don't really know what to do here. I don't think they're eligible for speedy deletion under G15, given these articles obviously could have plausibly been created a different way, they're not transparently nonsense and they've all been reviewed. But I believe this editing to be highly problematic and I'm not sure what to do about it. What is supposed to be done when an editor is repeatedly generating articles using large language models? LivelyRatification (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Cases like this are where I've generally been tagging articles. It looks like I've tagged some of this user's contributions but not all, I assume that here, as in similar long-term LLM users, I stuck to the most obvious cases even though it's highly unlikely they stopped using AI. (Because then I would have to deal with "BUT YOU HAVE NO PROOOOOOOF POINT OUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS TEXT" type comments which I do not want to do.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: I suppose my question is, what good is tagging articles if the user in question is continually using generative AI to create articles? I could, and indeed might if I have the time, individually fix every article to remove problematic LLM insertions (as was done on Lauren Young (footballer)), but is it not a problem of disruptive editing if a user is repeatedly using generative AI to create articles? LivelyRatification (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The thing is we have no policy against LLM use currently, so within our existing system, they're not actually doing anything that isn't allowed. If someone isn't responding to attempts to discuss the situation then ANI threads have been opened, but there feels like there's a mismatch in what we enforce and what our policy actually is(n't). Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hm. That's frustrating, but thank you for your help. I guess I'll just keep an eye out and try and fix what's there. I've also left a message on this user's talk page in regards to this thread, which has not yet been responded to. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I also should note that this user has not responded to any attempts on their talk page to discuss the situation, including from you, myself, and another user. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at their xtools, I see no usage of user talk pages which isn't great. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

They also did this three minutes after you notified them of this discussion on their talk page NicheSports (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I did see this. It was very strange. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff is the OG of LLM text identification and tagging (muchas gracias) but I slightly disagree with their perspective on this situation. We don't yet have policies about LLM use in articles but unreviewed use of LLMs is highly likely to lead to violations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, while high-frequency misuse of LLMs is likely to violate WP:MEATBOT. I would recommend going through some of the user's edits and finding a few examples of the LLM hallucinating a tangible claim or reference - if they have been adding unreviwed LLM-generated content to articles, you will find a bunch. Then we should follow Tbound2's edits and if they continue to make (likely) unreviewed LLM-generated edits without responding to attempts to discuss with them, just notify one of the admins who follows this page, like Newslinger. Thank you for bringing this up! NicheSports (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the articles now, Rasheed has 5/11 sources that 404 and when validating the first source there is some information that is hallucinated (the article only mentions her quote saying she is improving her "opposite" foot, but the LLM took that and said "her left foot" in article), but I was unable to tag G15 as there was content written by other editors. I was able to tag G15 for the third article as it both had 404 sources and irrelevant sources, and no other editors added prose to the article.

I've left a warning and I think we can go to ANI if they continue to edit this way. Jumpytoo Talk 04:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I've also tagged Keeley Skepper for G15 as all of the sources 404ed. Jumpytoo Talk 04:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! If I have the time I'll also try and take a look at some of these articles, as I said I didn't have time to investigate them deeply beyond their prose. I do hope Tbound2 is able to respond to the criticisms left on their talk page, but I'll keep an eye for any future problematic editing. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Well uh they've "responded" in the form of deleting a thread from this page as "spam"... Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Took a quick look at the references on The Original Pancake Kitchen:

• A reference has a hallucinated title and date
• One reference seems completely hallucinated

Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

More information see subpage, Article ...

see subpage
Article Tagged Fixed G15 India Rasheed Y N Y Keeley Kustermann Y N N Georgia McKee Y N Y Brooke Smith (footballer) Y N N Lily Tarlinton Y ~ N Keeley Skepper Y N Y Poppy Scholz Y N N The Original Pancake Kitchen Y Y N

Close

Created above to track cleanup progress, feel free to edit, add, change, remove, or collapse as needed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I've looked through a number of other articles created by Tbound2 and none that I saw seemed to immediately qualify for G15 speedy deletion, as the references seemed to work. I think Mitchell Sariovski is not notable enough to warrant an article so I'm going to AfD that one. I'll also leave a message on Tbound2's talk page again expressing my concerns. --LivelyRatification (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Whilst I understand everyone's concern, please draftify or userfy, rather than delete these if you feel they aren't suited to publication yet. Whilst this editor's efforts are misguided to some degree, ever since the removal of WP:NAFL and stricter enforcement of WP:GNG, the coverage of female AFLW players has been very poor here (see how few bluelinks are on List of AFL Women's debuts in 2024 and List of AFL Women's debuts in 2025), and this is at least an effort to address the systemic bias that exists here. The-Pope (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

An article which meets G15, the criteria any of the above have been deleted under, is an article which is essentially raw output from an LLM, it will be better to make a new article than to require other editors carefully review and fix the neutrality, formatting, and hallucination issues typical of model output. If an editor wants to fix up raw LLM output, then they can visit any number of chatbots and have it delivered hot and fresh to themselves, without using up the project's time on cleanup as has happened here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed The Original Pancake Kitchen. Let me know if I missed anything. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created, 4 articles need review. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with detecting AI, but West Vinod Nagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks suspicious to me so bringing it here for more scrutiny. FDW777 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, it's copyvio. I'm seeing copy paste from some of the sources. Likely LLM, too. Lovelyfurball (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Per this, I'm thinking it's not much of a leap to assume that's an admission it applies to this article too. FDW777 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The article in question has now been deleted, the rest of this user's edits need to be reviewed Lovelyfurball (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems like all the major pages they made have been deleted. Lovelyfurball (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

While doing CheckWiki project edits, I stumbled upon two articles, Knowledge process outsourcing and Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference, which both contained edits that I suspected of being AI-generated. Both users are included in the list of students attending the above course. Unrelated but I randomly clicked on one user's edit and found them to be illegitimately blanking sections. I'm not sure that because this is a Wiki Ed course that the expert would handle this, but I'm not familiar with Wiki Ed. Something to look out for? Ecourter (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but I posted this to WP:ENB so that someone who knows more might weigh in. Einsof (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Revert their edits and have a stern word with the educator and the Wikipedia ‘expert’. WikiEd has always been a disaster and the Wikipedia editors who help facilitate it are generally more interested in making it happen than even listening to the many many many issues the WikiEd courses cause everyone else. Kingsif (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It's discouraged in their training materials so definitely let them know. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Let the instructor know but do be careful with wiki-ed articles, it seems like they are treated differently by some admins. I came across Mattie Jean Adams and G15'd it, an admin rejected it, another editor G15'd it, also denied, then the course instructor G15'd it, it was finally deleted, the student recreated the article in mainspace, and it had to get deleted again. Ugh. I come across WikiEd articles all the time and they are almost always terrible NicheSports (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for jumping in! We at Wiki Education set up a monitoring system using the AI detection software Pangram, which we've found to be relatively accurate in regard to detection of AI generated or assisted content on Wikipedia. We're running student editor diffs through Pangram and creating tickets in our system for our Wikipedia Experts to review. In the case of Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference, our system caught the same edit that was reverted (see the Pangram report here). We are working through the list of tickets generated (we had a backlog as both our Wiki Expert staff attended WikiConference North America). So thank you to @Ecourter: for reverting before we got to it; we've since followed up with the instructor to ask them to intervene as well. For the Knowledge process outsourcing, Pangram detected no AI used, although no system is 100% accurate. Was there something specific about this that made you think it was AI generated?

Our concern centers particularly around accuracy — we don't want students adding information that fails verification or is otherwise erroneous. Given the challenges AI chatbots have with this, our trainings stress students shouldn't use gen AI for content creation, but may find it helpful during the research process if that's acceptable with their instructor. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Knowledge process outsourcing, I found WP:AITITLECASE and WP:CONCLUSION. I only tagged this article for potential AI usage since I believe it was not beyond a reasonable doubt. This was one of the first times that I encountered potential AI writing so another editor with a better eye could have a more definitive answer. Ecourter (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable tag, the added "Challenges" and "Resolution" sections are rough, with prose like: The ever-evolving field of knowledge process outsourcing will continue to improve its current outsourcing practices to develop new process driven and knowledge driven solutions. It's uncommon to see human editors write such fluent ever-evolving knowledge-driven impactful risk-aware innovative... business speak. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The first one I'm not sure about, honestly. It has some minor quirks typical of AI, but is grammatically messy in consistent ways that feel less so. I think maybe the outline might have been AI-assisted, and later rewritten/expanded upon. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That linked outline was copied from the article, and all its sections are word-for-word identical. There may have been some form of expanded outline process, but that linked one isn't part of it at least. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Our concern centers particularly around accuracy ... our trainings stress students shouldn't use gen AI for content creation – This is good, but as stated by multiple editors (myself included) the last time this training was discussed, there are concerns outside of content creation and accuracy, like introduced bias via source and "information gap" suggestions. (Though I am glad to see that my concerns about copyediting were addressed!)

our system caught the same edit that was reverted – I see in the report that the citation^[4] numbers^[5] aren't stripped from the text before being processed, but they probably should be. They're uncommon in human-created text, aren't explicitly added by the editor, and may impact the false positive or negative rate. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Good point about stripping the citation numbers. I will add that to the processing pipeline. Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I've discovered numerous fake references in an article Dance in Thailand since Oct 22, 2025, per Talk:Dance in Thailand#Over 30 fake references were detected which were created by @ShalaylayPumpano. Despite my efforts, the problem has yet to be resolved even @Xan747 has addressed the issue, ShalaylayPumpano AI-generated edits with fake citations. Additionally, the content of the article is riddled with references generated by AI. Upon verifying the authenticity of some references, I found that they had been replaced with fake ones. Seeking guidance, I consulted with @Paul_012, who suggested reverting the article to a previous version before the fake references were added. However, as I'm not an editor with the necessary authority, I'm hesitant to do so, especially since I have encountered War-edits on this article in the past.

I'm seeking assistance in recovering the article here. Should we attempt to resolve the issue, or should we leave it as is? And, I apologize in advance for not having the courage to handle those issues myself. Quantplinus (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

They made two groups of edits. The most recent group can be undone by restoring the "Ayutthaya Period" section from 1302204829. The older group can be undone by restoring the "Etymology", "Origin", "Nanzhao Period", and "Sukhothai Period" sections from 1296132204 as well as by converting the entire yupho.1973 ref in "Ayutthaya Period" into <ref name="yupho.1973" />.

I've checked the edits following group one and group two , and it appears that doing the above restores would have a minimal impact to edits following those by ShalaylayPumpano.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I agree with your decision to revert to 1296132204. However, it would be pleased that you or other editors handle the reversion instead of me. The reason is, in the past, I have been involved in edit wars on this article in 2024, and I do not feel confident in my ability to handle this reversion and to resolve the conflicts. Additionally, this article is often subject to conflicts between Thai and Cambodian editors, and as a Thai editor, I would like to avoid any potential disruptions by requesting that another editor handle the reversion. I'm concerned that my involvement may be seen as disruptive by the other side. Thank you for understanding my concerns and for your assistance in this matter. Quantplinus (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to revert to 1296132204 – I made no such decision or recommendation, please read what I wrote carefully. I have no desire to edit-by-proxy, especially when considering that you have opened an ANI report related to the article . fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand the sensitivity given the ANI stuff but I do think this is a good faith and reasonable request to have someone uninvolved in the edit war address the problematic AI content. I'm familiar with the edit warring here from a separate LLM cleanup situation at Traditional Thai clothing so @Quantplinus I will look into the LLM cleanup here NicheSports (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance in helping me clarify my current thoughts and I appreciate that you recognize my positive intentions. I'm eager to resolve these issues but I'm unsure of how to do so. Quantplinus (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four I apologize if my writing implies or suggests that you are responsible for decisions that you did not make. I just simply agree with Diff/1296132204 comparison of the diff, even though you did not make the decision. The ANI report is a separate issue from this one, and I'm trying to address each issue individually. Please excuse any confusion in my English communication here as I'm more familiar with the Thai Wikipedia project and I just have good faith intending to resolve the endless conflicts in the article. Quantplinus (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Be bold and remember to ignore all rules, OP. Not just in wiki but also IRL. ~2025-32267-51 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

To use "ignore all rules" on Wikipedia the rules must be stopping an improvement to the encyclopedia. In what way are they doing that? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-11-09 Marcodicaprio, 31 pages need review.

This person has been making a large amount of fully LLM generated articles replacing redirects. I'll start a dialog with them but I don't have time right now to review each edit. (Though it might be worth mass-reverting depending on just how many there are.) Perryprog (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Rudolf Sosna is an example of one that is in the middle of a deletion discussion. There are serious source-text integrity problems. -- Reconrabbit 17:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created, let me know if I missed anything.​​​​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why I was notified here, but if that guy had an open talk page I'd let him know that I get what he's doing, when you are a new editor you wonder why certain albums don't have pages for tracks or certain musicians don't have pages, but you can't really make pages for everything if it doesn't have enough notability. I'd advise him to at least gather sources on Google Books until he finds out what topics are notable enough to make pages for and then start writing them with no use of AI. Aradicus77 (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I notified you since you had performed some cleanup after this user at The Fugs, and one of your edit summaries there was has this person used AI? Sorry for the unclear ping.

There is an open discussion on their talk page at User talk:Marcodicaprio#LLM usage. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I've been cleaning up their Faust IV and Faust (album) at the moment. To me it looks like a user who wanted to make some good-faith contributions by expanding pages for underground bands, but is taking the lazy way out and using AI to do it all. It also seems like they are fans of these bands trying to puff them up and use weasel words like "many rock critics regard them as..." and this is creating issues because the AI will sometimes create claims and link sources that make no mention of it, or just completely conjure up the claims entirely.

I think giving the user a warning about their behavior should be the step forward, but if it persists then it would have to be a block. One thing is I get the concern of niche bands not having as much coverage on the site, but the right way to go about it is to go and look through books, read, research, open up a Google Doc and save your sources, pages, etc. And then try building up a page. It takes way longer, but it's following the rules and how you actually improve an article. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

They've not made any more LLM edits since this comment on the 10th, so I'm hopeful there won't be any future issues. I've updated /2025-11-09 Marcodicaprio to reflect the ongoing efforts, thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-11-12 KLIFE88, 13 pages need review.

KLIFE88 (talk · contribs) has been creating and expanding a lot of articles related to G-Dragon and BigBang (South Korean band). Many of these edits have issues with source-text integrity and have hallmarks of large language model use (such as an edit from Who You? that includes the line Portions of the video were shot by fans themselves and incorporated into the final edit, highlighting the concept of isolation and public observation sourced to an article that just says "G-Dragon and his fans shot the MV together at Ilsan KINTEX. The completed music video shows the fans who took part in the filming, as well as G-Dragon." Several of this editor's articles have been sent to AfD; their response often asks editors to improve articles rather than deleting them. -- Reconrabbit 15:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that fixing, improving, or adding clarification notes to articles is far more constructive than deleting them outright. Many of these articles include valuable sources that could significantly enhance the content (that I spend hours and days gathering). After all, Wikipedia's purpose is to share reliable information and promote collaboration in building knowledge, not to remove it unnecessarily. English is not my first language, and while I do my best, working with sources in Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian languages can be challenging (since the artist I try to improve their info is Korean). Despite that, I always aim to contribute accurately and meaningfully. For this reason, I strongly believe that editing, refining, and improving articles is a better approach than deleting good sections or entire pages that have potential for development. KLIFE88 (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@KLIFE88 None of that excuses insufficient fact checking to make sure what the AI is producing matches what is being said by sources. When you don't fact check adequately, people are correct to be skeptical of your writing and even go to deletionism if you're doing too much of it. If you made yourself more trustworthy we wouldn't be having this problem. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created, let me know if I missed anything.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-11-13 Bobsanski, 9 pages need review.

First time doing this, apologies if I did anything wrong. Bobsanski (talk · contribs)'s talk page shows numerous warnings since January of LLM-generated content, which definitely checks out for me when looking at diffs. Many articles this user has created have been speedy deleted. Seemingly no response after dozens of warnings. 11wx (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Investigating... AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I think there are at least a chunk of faulty AI product in every single one of their articles. It's late here, so I'll slam a tag on all of these and deal with them if cleanup hasn't ended by the time I'm free again. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created, let me know if I missed anything.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

We need an editor who's more familiar with music articles, I'm sure they can do better than me for this one. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing, 2 pages need review.

 To do

• International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action

• United Nations Information Centres

Y Completed

• Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease

• United Nations Information Centre Tokyo

N Unnecessary

• Nivia Sports

Raavimohantydelhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After deleting one of Raavimohantydelhi's articles that was tagged for G15, I noticed that his talk page was full of similar notices regarding articles being either draftified or speedily deleted, and explicit warnings by other users against this behavior. While he has stopped since being warned, his contributions from last year still show similar issues with AI generation (e.g. International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action). There are still several articles to go through (both new articles and edits to existing ones), and having more eyes on the matter could be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• United Nations Information Centre Tokyo redirected
• United Nations Information Centre for India and Bhutan tagged for G15
• Kalinga Literary Festival, Anshuman Tiwari Cleanup not needed
• Nivia Sports Seems like their edits introducing bad content were cleaned up fairly quickly. Thanks Fram in 2024. The page looks like it has been tagbombed with ^{[citation needed]} in the lead.
• International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action needs its duplicate references merged and its tone fixed. No outstanding 404 although text-source integrity is highly questionable.

AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding United Nations Information Centre for India and Bhutan, I didn't put it in the list (and G15 got declined by @KylieTastic) as the edits were from 2018, before LLMs were a thing. The usual cutoff I use for these cases is December 2022 (public release of ChatGPT), and I try to be less strict with 2022–2023 edits as LLMs were less experienced back then and results were more obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2025-11-23 NatHaddan for reference.

NatHaddan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I don't know how much cleanup there is to do, but they've made nearly 700 edits which doesn't make me optimistic. They've had lots of warnings and denied AI use so I started an ANI thread here. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

not AI generated content please 🙏 NatHaddan (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

NatHaddan, please respond at WP:ANI Kowal2701 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Every source in Special:Diff/1320039380 is hallucinated, Special:Diff/1319055226 contains LLM-specific unprintable character sequences (0), Special:Diff/1323328155 hallucinates policy (WP:NODELAY). Looks like an LLM has been used extensively and without care. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Tagged articles, one bad addition was already nuked before I did anything. I already lost my cool over Akpanta, Nigeria. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 06:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created, 8 articles need review. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you using a script to list the diffs? If not, we could request one at WP:US/R? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat, process and tools used currently are here. In short: contribution surveyor, regex, gadgets and simple userscripts.

No matter what the process will require a lot of manual review, but a userscript to make compiling the initial list more accessible wouldn't be unwelcome. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a request here Kowal2701 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2025-11-27 RobertFSomething for reference.

RobertFSomething (talk · contribs)
First time I've seen LLMs used for edit summaries. Some of the changes have already been reverted as they mostly seem to have stuck to articles for notable historical figures (Special:Diff/1303472803 for example), but I figured I should post this here anyways in case they start actively editing again. Also, should I create a tracking subpage for a given user before I post to the noticeboard, or should I only do that after there's agreement they've been using AI? Zygmeyer (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Review and cleanup of flagged articles is completed, see subpage. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify for any other editors, tracking pages are an entirely optional convenience (but a welcome one).

should I create a tracking subpage ... – If you are certain that an LLM has been used unconstructively, then feel free to create a tracking page ahead of time, otherwise, ask. There's no downside to opening a report and asking for less-certain cases, and it could end up saving yourself and other editor's time if it turns out an LLM wasn't used. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)