Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard/Archive 2

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-10-19 Gengeros, 138 pages need review.

A number of editors have noticed that @Gengeros has added realistic but non-existent citations that seem to be generated by ChatGPT, and have asked Gengeros to be more careful. Affected articles have included Charlie Kirk, Ann Coulter, Transgender personnel in the United States military, Social conservatism in the United States, LGBTQ rights in Rwanda, LGBTQ rights in Burundi, and LGBTQ rights in Hungary. Examples of concerns: September 15, 2024 (acknowledged using ChatGPT), March 12, 2025, September 12, 2025 (also acknowledged using ChatGPT), September 30, 2025, and most recently me (October 17, 2025).

I do want to assume good faith; I believe their intent is to make constructive contributions. However, this pattern means that they have made a lot of edits that look decently cited at a glance, but actually need thorough review. I've reviewed some of their recent edits, but more help is needed for review and cleanup. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Given that the user ignores questions about their edits and polite pleas to stop adding LLM generated nonsense, would it be reasonable to take this to WP:ANI? Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. You could also consider WP:AE. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

After reading through User talk:Gengeros § Removal of additional AI content I agree with Kovcszaln6, this should be taken to ANI right away NicheSports (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Concurring with the others here. Either you or more likely @Dreamyshade should take this to ANI. Athanelar (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all, appreciate the validation that this is a serious concern. I'm working on an ANI post. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pattern of LLM edits on contentious topics. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for filing. Btw you might want to move the ANI notice to a new section on their talk page - admins do check to verify that users have been notified and they might miss it at the bottom of the long thread there NicheSports (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up Transgender rights in the United States, this is a mess. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 21:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Preparing this for archival.

Created a tracking subpage, 138 articles appear to warrant further review. This tracking list only considers articles after 1 August 2024. The earliest indication of LLM use I found is this edit from 2 August 2024 where they inserted GPT-4o conservatively estimates ..., some following edits credit chatgpt in the edit summary, though this quickly stops, indicating around this time is a likely epoch of LLM use. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-10-21 CostalCal, 82 pages need review.

In this teahouse thread the user in question says they've been "using AI on Wikipedia for about 4 something months now [...] hundreds of times" and one reply already notes they reverted a couple of the user's edits due to the results being poor. Might be worth giving some scrutiny to this editor's contributions to see if things need to be reverted/changed. Athanelar (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I checked one of their most recent significant edits and found multiple verification failures. Agreed this user's entire edit history will need to be checked NicheSports (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I documented more extensive issues at their talk page. I also notified them about this thread. They are on a wikibreak now, hopefully when they come back they will discuss what happened here NicheSports (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth making a {{AINB-notice}} template for informing users like ANI/COIN etc. Athanelar (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar: how does User:EF5/AINB-notice look? ^EF⁵ 16:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It's stylistically consistent with the ANI and COIN notices which is good. I'd reword to "regarding an AI cleanup investigation which may include activity you were involved in" or something to that effect though because the current verbiage implies that the warned user may be involved in the investigation itself.

Also make sure it's editable with a |thread=threadtitle parameter like the ANI and COIN notices. Athanelar (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Good idea, but would you and EF5 be fine moving the template discussion to WT:AIC? Once there you should ping Chaotic Enby as they have helped with a lot of the template work here. NicheSports (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I was also thinking of bringing it up here, but hesitated as I had already given them advice at their talk page, good initiative! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

see also this village pump thread Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think CostalCal should be indeffed based on editing disruptively and not wanting to correct course. The WikiBreak doesn't do it for me. —Alalch E. 14:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Note, CostalCal has recently returned from their wikibreak, about ten minutes ago. A block of any length would be justified or unjustified depending on how they edit and act now they've returned, and if there is evidence of continued LLM usage. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope they are able to turn stuff around, since they are a self-declared young editor and they may not understand how bad LLMs really are for writing encyclopedically/accurately. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created and available at the top of this report. 142 articles appear to need additional review. Based on their teahouse comment, only articles from 1 June 2025 to today are included.

When considering that CostalCal has stated that AI [is] not junk. It's smarter than most humans. ... AI has personality ... It is our future , and that multiple WP:V issues have been found in their edits (I also spotted markdown, prose, and LLM style issues), I've been fairly aggressive with my inclusion criteria. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-11-19 Noxoug1, 206 pages need review.

Requesting advice/assistance regarding User:Noxoug1. Their May 2025 edits to Arsenate sulfate and Cystinosis#Investigational treatments seem very likely to be AI-generated. I first encountered these in October, notifying them using the {{Uw-ai1}} template in 5 October 2025, which they archived without response. After a month's pause, their pattern of rapid LLM-assisted editing seems to have recommenced in articles like Immunocytokine and Paluratide. Vetting/oversight seems to have improved somewhat, but in my view is still likely to be inadequate given the volume of material being added to the encyclopedia. Can I get a second pair of eyes on this to check whether there's an actual issue here? (If this is actually what's going on, their Xtools edit statistics suggest they only started heavily using LLMs in May, leaving us with 4000 article-space edits to check.) Preimage (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Confirming that this is a user who's been inserting LLM content, often with too little regard for WP:RS or copyright.

• Special:Diff/1295057234 – rich history sourced to the ever-reliable de.wikipedia.org
• Special:Diff/1298590992 – becoming a beacon of hope and innovation in nurturing young talent and inspiring the next generation of golfers copied from source, and This holistic approach has been recognized for its effectiveness in developing well-rounded young people who excel both on the golf course and in their academic pursuits sourced to tripadvisor.
• Special:Diff/1296972618 – *Imani* also contributed to the growth of Uganda’s film industry, encouraging community-driven storytelling.

etc.

The articles you've singled out structurally look like model creations to me, and some **markdown** made it into Immunocytokine (still live), so they're definitely still using an LLM. It would be helpful if an editor familiar with the topic areas Noxoug is favoring lately could audit their edits for WP:V discrepancies. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Immunocytokine is definitely AI created. Please see User talk:Noxoug1#Problems in Immunocytokine for some details. Викидим (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Draftified and tagged. Extensive issues with citations having an incorrect link, doi, pmc or pmid. Their other creations will likely need to be reviewed as well. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Checked multiple article about (mostly unsuccessful) drugs. AI is used almost every time, but mostly results are not bad. Some, with hallucinated sources, were sent to draftspace. Викидим (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, if you let me know what articles you've reviewed/how far back you've reviewed I can put the rest into a tracking list. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I went to Posdinemab, with two PRODs and one draft. Викидим (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created, of 333 articles 209 appear to warrant further review or cleanup, but the editing pattern used has resulted in a less exact triage. Ranges checked are from 01 May 2025 to 22 September 2025, as it seems they likely started using LLMs in May. While reviewing I frequently encountered LLM prose across a wide variety of topics, although less so in medical ones.

Tracking subpage created, of 333 articles 209 appear to warrant further review or cleanup, the editing pattern used has resulted in a less exact triage. Ranges checked are from 01 May 2025 to 22 September 2025, as it seems they likely started using LLMs in May. While reviewing I frequently encountered LLM prose across a wide variety of topics, although less so in medical ones.
I've invited Noxoug1 to join the discussion to disclose more about their LLM use and hopefully assist with cleanup. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2025-11-20 Bob C. Alexander for reference.

Bob C. Alexander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making a ton of high-speed LLM edits, and I don't have the energy to review them myself because I just finished reviewing another large batch of LLM edits by WhiteFactLoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've been seeing a lot of LLM slop in draftspace; now I'm turning my focus to mainspace for a bit and MAN do things look bleak. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this after they edited an article (Organizational culture) I had previously added to my watchlist after it was expanded by a group of undeclared students who were also using LLMs. A lot of the same articles are hit with LLM rewrites over and over again. No bueno NicheSports (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The corporate/consultant/management/"leadership"-focused articles are doubly hard because so much of the verbiage there sounds like LLMs already. Even before ChatGPT I wouldn't have batted an eye at an article on organizational culture containing a sentence like "sustaining cultural shifts after major events or disruptions requires embedding new expectations into day-to-day routines, leadership behavior, and HR systems, rather than relying on single initiatives or symbolic events". Einsof (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"MAN do things look bleak" -- yep. this has been my reaction in reverse, collecting draftspace articles to add to the AI dataset after having spent time mostly in mainspace.

The AI text-crunching script I'm working on has some loose categorization of articles based on where they come from. One folder is articles tagged as promotional/advertising prior to mid-2022, to see if it's possible to study how exactly AI promotional slop differs from human promotional slop. Comparing the drafts folder to the promo folder -- not a perfect comparison, but rejected drafts are often more skewed promotional than stuff that survived in mainspace -- the usual AI words still show up at high frequency. The datasets are not perfect matches, and they're too small still for there to be many statistically significant results for phrases, but there are a few:

• been featured in (2079% increase in AI vs. human text)
• serves as the (1416% increase)
• contributions to the (1102% increase)
• various other things that are either different slices of the above ("featured in the"), obvious flukes, or not statistically significant at this dataset size

Take this with a full shaker of salt obviously; but it feels telling that these phrases are showing up more commonly in AI text even when the human text is explicitly restricted to promotional tone and the AI text is a free-for-all. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created. Of 199 articles, 134 appear to warrant further review and cleanup. I'd advocate for indiscriminate mass revert in this instance, there is clear evidence of pervasive unreviewed LLM additions. Also noting that in addition to the promotional tone, the account has added 16 references to a podcast at adammendler.com/blog across multiple articles, probable refspam.

User has been adequately warned on their talk page and any future disruption should also be reported to WP:ANI. Pinging @Tacyarg, as they've reverted many of their additions already. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

MAN do things look bleak

Been going through the subpage and reverting some of this LLM nonsense and saw Diff/1319446660 with the edit summary "Removed my citation due to 404 error page". --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-11-23 HyenaInTheSyntax, 2 pages need review.

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

Many new articles with AI tells (e.g. public-history projects and media essays have highlighted her trajectory in Kateryna Hrushevska § Legacy), as well as one filter hit for Markdown formatting. I checked a citation in Oleksandra Yefymenko:

Surman, Jan (2014). "Gender, Empire and Scholarship: Oleksandra Yefymenko in Context". Austrian Journal of History. 25 (2): 77–102.

That issue (which is actually in German) does not include anything by Jan Surman or with Yefymenko in the title. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created, please let me know if I've missed anything. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, @Jlwoodwa Hyena admits to using LLMs "for various purposes during editing" on their Talk page and rather than agreeing to stop, they basically vow to do a better job of verifying the AI slop. David10244 (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There's currently no policy against general LLM use, only against using them to create new articles from scratch (WP:NEWLLM), or for generating talk page comments (WP:AITALK). So long as Hyena is able to edit in compliance with core policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV, there's nothing to be done about it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-11-23 Orlando Davis, 17 pages need review.

Orlando Davis (talk · contribs) has almost certainly been using LLMs to create articles while repeatedly denying doing so. I have been watching this user's edits for a while as they have repeated triggered EF 1325.

• Examples of LLM-generated content

• Draft:Aluma Restaurant (Jerusalem): this was full of AISIGNS, and both the History and Concept and Cuisine and Staff sections contained multiple material source-to-text integrity issues. Note: OD extensively rewrote this article after I flagged the issues with it to them (without explaining what caused those issues)
• Draft:Prince Alexander Literary Prize (Belgium): this draft was declined at AfC. It contains a reference with a broken url and this seeming LLM communication intended for the user in the reference section: Multiple sources support the details in this article. It is G15-able but I left it so I can refer to it here
• All of their article creations are written in a similar style, so I assume many more WP:V issues are out there
• They are also now nominating some of their articles for GA review . See the first draft of this article, which was teeming with AISIGNS

• Talk page messages written in the user's voice, which is different from the prose style of their mainspace edits:
• Denials of using LLMs to generate content: (also see the edit summary when they reverted this message )
• Repeatedly blanking their talk page to remove AfC declines + warnings due LLM use: (+ many more reversions of warnings about things other than LLM use)
• Recent non-collaborative talk page messages about potential LLM use:

NicheSports (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am working diligently to bring these articles up to an acceptable standard, and I ask for the opportunity to complete that work. I believe this situation arises from a misunderstanding. I am following policy by working through the Articles for Creation process and revising my drafts based on the feedback provided. Once I have acknowledged the issues and agreed to improve the material, it is unnecessary—and contrary to the spirit of constructive collaboration—to continue posting repeated messages about matters that are already being addressed. As outlined at [WP:HARASSMENT], continuing to pursue an issue after it is resolved, or repeatedly messaging a user about the same concern, can constitute harassment. The AfC process, its rejections, and the relevant tags are already sufficient to guide improvement. Additional repeated posts go beyond what is needed and are not appropriate. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC) Additionally, I do not see anything inappropriate about nominating an article for GA review. My intention in doing so is simply to improve the article by inviting structured feedback. The Good Article process exists precisely to help identify areas where an article can be strengthened, and I believe the topic is important enough to warrant broader collaboration. I do not understand why this should be held against me, as seeking constructive review is entirely consistent with Wikipedia’s collaborative principles. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• I had a question last week at this AfC review. OD said they used AI to find sources, which is not inherently a problem. But the formatting of the response they'd given looked to me -- not an expert by any means -- like what I typically get from ChatGPT. FWIW, I've interacted with Orlando Davis at multiple articles so far, and I do think they could develop into a productive editor if they'll just start listening to more experienced editors. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• I am optimistic that OD has heard us as they have carefully rewritten several of their article creations (thanks, OD!). @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four sorry for the ping, but after my conversations with OD I think I'm too involved here to constructively contribute to this cleanup. If you have time, can you please take a look at some of OD's earlier article creations? I think they may have started using LLMs more recently, so if they are rewriting their more recent drafts there may be no more cleanup required here. NicheSports (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for letting people in this conversation know that I have rewritten all of the articles that were flagged, except for the MasterCooks article, which I am finishing now. Since I have been an editor for a long time, it would be unreasonable to say that I used AI in my early work. I think the confusion comes from the AI detection program noticing that I used ChatGPT to help create infoboxes and citations. I did use it for that, because in my early Wikipedia work I did not know how to do those more advanced technical tasks, and it is now helping me with them. I understand that we must be careful with AI because it often writes inaccurately, but I challenge anyone to find any inaccuracies in the work that was flagged as AI-generated. I take pride in ensuring that everything I write matches the sources, but is not plagiarized. I do not add original content. I think that Niche does a great job trying to reduce LLM use, but there is a difference between constructive use and misuse. As far as I can tell, the work I have done is solid. I read and reread sources to make sure that I am not plagiarizing or adding original research. Thank you, and I appreciate your help in improving my articles. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created, only articles edited since December 2024 were considered. Out of all considered, triage indicates 17 may warrant closer review. I personally attempted to review and correct four of the smaller contributions at Frank J. Holmes, Craftsmanship Museum, Argentina at the 2017 World Games and Wayne Wesolowski. The oldest had edits circa January. These edits primarily consisted of adding sources, and verifiability issues were identified in each. Given that Orlando Davis has used LLMs to find sources, this is a somewhat troubling result.

Concerning earlier article creations and possible LLM use: this edit from December 2024 at Samba (book), these edits from January 2025 at Static model aircraft, and this edit from January 2025 at Philip Reed (model ship maker) do not bode well. There is a wide gap in editing activity before December 2024, edits from before that gap are mainly to Guillermo Rojas Bazan, have an entirely different citation style, and do not appear to be assisted.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for taking the time to take a look at my work. Most of my articles were accepted by going through the Articles for Creation process. The exception is Philip Reed, and that article is well-sourced. Wayne Wesolowski, Frank J. Holmes, and Argentina at the 2017 World Games were random articles I found that were not doing well and are now decent articles. For example, with Wesolowski, I changed very little content, but I did add sources to an article that had almost no citations, no image, and no infobox; it essentially had no proper Wikipedia structure. Frank J. Holmes is an American cultural icon, and when an editor attempted to delete the page, I stepped in and helped keep it during an Afd. As a volunteer receiving nothing in return, I improved Wikipedia significantly. If anything, User:150024 has reminded me that I have made great contributions to Wikipedia that I have not received credit for. Perhaps I could have become a page reviewer by now, but I haven't chosen to, simply because I don't want to dedicate that much time to Wikipedia—I have other hobbies that I care about more. I have been, perhaps, one of the greatest Wikipedia contributors, ranking in the top 1% of editors and creating articles that are far from inconsequential, yet I feel I am not being respected. Please don't take this personally. I am frustrated by Wikipedia's choice to grant IP-block-exempt to relatively inexperienced editors. I may start a thread at the village pump. My standards for such a role are much higher: perhaps 100 articles created, with at least 20 at GA level, and at least 15 recommendations from fellow Wikipedians. Yet it is fairly easy to become an IP reviewer. During the editing process, User:150024 did some genuinely useful work, but also made an unjustifiable mistake by nearly blanking most of the Argentina at the 2017 World Games article. When I pointed this out, he became defensive and blanked my criticisms on his own page. Regarding LLM use, I can also assure you that I have never used any AI tools before this past month, and have only used them for technical issues such as finding citations quickly. I welcome any editor to find any information that is not well backed by sources in articles mentioned by 150024. If I have made any errors, it is only because I am mostly tough on my own articles, and I do not care to judge the work of others too much—that would be an arrogance I do not have. There are so many neutrality issues and so much non-fact-based editing on Wikipedia, yet time is wasted on tearing down the work of an above-average editor. Most of my 15 creations rank as above-average Wikipedia articles. However, I think that Wikipedia's culture is not one that I enjoy. So I will be ending my career as an editor once I take care of the articles I am working on. I am a conscientious person, and feel an obligation to the articles I have written, in making sure that the quality is as high as I can make it. Thank you for your time and input. Orlando Davis (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I have used Grammarly, but if that is AI, so is Microsoft Word's spell checker. It is very useful. I have seen many articles badly written by non-native English speakers; their articles might have been better if they had used it. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Curious editors can see my unjustifiable mistake here, and are encouraged to review the subsequent conversation on my talk page here, as well as my [blanking] here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about this issue and would like to share my perspective. I was concerned by the way I was asked to provide a “confession,” as it felt as though I was being treated as if I had engaged in serious misconduct. In reality, my use of AI has been limited to citations, spelling, and grammar checks.

There is an important distinction between editors who use AI tools responsibly—as assistants while verifying all information—and editors who use AI to produce fabricated content or invented sources that have no place on Wikipedia. Necessary restrictions on LLM use are understandable, but these restrictions should not become a pretext for challenging good-faith editors who follow policy and use AI only as a tool.

Clearer guidance and training on appropriate conduct in the supervision of LLM use would help avoid future misunderstandings. If an editor suspects that AI was used, the next step should be to review the article and its sources to determine whether there is actually fabricated material. If the content is verifiable, well-sourced, and policy-compliant, the matter should be considered resolved.

It’s also worth remembering that all editors make minor mistakes in good faith. A few imperfect sentences in a long, well-sourced article are not comparable to an article built on fabricated information from start to finish. Orlando Davis (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

One issue that I forgot to discuss is that it doesn't make sense to review my drafts, as I have some articles that I started and decided that I didn't feel like finishing. I believe my draft space should be private, and I should only be judged on live articles, or ones that I have turned in to the Articles of Creation, but only by the page reviewers. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

it doesn't make sense to review my drafts – No drafts are listed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not true. The articles that were flagged by Niche were the Aluma restaurant draft, the Prince Alexander Literary Prize draft, and the Mastercooks article that had just gotten accepted by the articles of creation. Also, 15224 linked in her response an early draft of the static model aircraft that was way before I turned it in. I did not even use most of what is written in that draft. Orlando Davis (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

While 15224 provided the current version of the Static model aircraft page, she also linked to a very early draft version in her (these edits) link. That draft was only a very rough draft, and was heavily edited before submitting it to Articles for Creation and afterward.

Orlando Davis (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want your drafts to be edited only by you, draft them in user space instead of draft space. Valereee (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to note that some of the concerns raised about my work seem to be influenced by earlier conversation during this (AfD) discussion. I understand that editors can encounter each other across different pages, but I want to clarify that some of the comments made about me in that AfD felt personal and, in my view, were not grounded in what I had actually written. I also understand that one of the editors (Polygnotus, who I only name for context) involved in that discussion was cautioned by several administrators at this Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard regarding possible canvassing.

I am mentioning this only to provide context for why I may feel that certain assumptions about my editing practices are not being made in a neutral light. I am not alleging wrongdoing; I only want to explain why I believe some judgments about my drafts or sources may stem from earlier misunderstandings. Orlando Davis (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to blanking this page. I also want to clarify that I believe he has every right to blank his talk page. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

To quote: blanked my criticisms on his own page, and so I provided a link to that removal as well. (also, not a "he") fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If you start accusing people of AI use just for using Grammarly or some other constructive tool, you lose support in the fight against LLMs. This is dangerous because it undermines the encyclopedia's reliability and creates false beliefs. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

One of your edits had strings like :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3} where references should be. Describing that as "constructive use of Grammarly" is insultingly dishonest. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If you start accusing people of AI use just for using Grammarly:

• https://www.grammarly.com – Page title, Grammarly: Free AI Writing Assistance
• https://www.grammarly.com/grammar-check – Write with confidence using Grammarly’s AI-powered grammar checker.
• https://www.grammarly.com/ai – We build AI that transforms how people communicate, making writing faster, clearer, and more impactful—no matter where you work or write.

I have checked the extension pages for chrome, firefox, and safari, as well as the android and apple app stores. Each one has AI in the title. Part of competent editing means understanding the tools you use.

You used an LLM, multiple editors noticed you used an LLM, there were issues found in some of the pages you edited while using an LLM, a report was opened at the LLM Noticeboard, I (an uninvolved editor) was requested to review edits, I closely reviewed four pages where references were added, source-text verifiability issues were found in each, I then compiled a list of other articles that may need further review. This is a logical sequence of events.

Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

What did I write that is not verifiable? Nothing. I'm not worried about it. I know that in the end, the conclusion will be that all of my live articles where accepted at the articles of creation for a reason. I do good work. I apologize if I'm posting too much. it's not a good habit.

Have a good night. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Orlando Davis, what in the world makes you think this is just about verifiability? This is also about wasting the time of other editors who have to check your work, because we know AI is often wrong. In my own prompts to AI, it often offers me unreliable sources for what it tells me. AI work has to be checked. Which means when Editor A is too lazy to do their own research and writing, Editors B, C, and D have to form a frickin' WikiProject to clean up after them. Using AI wastes the time of other editors.

The discussions you and I had at Talk:Mastercooks of Belgium and at Draft talk:Michael Katz (chef) over which of the dozens of sources for each supported notability represented hours of my work. I thought you were just a slow learner. But now I think you couldn't tell me which of the sources represented significant coverage because you didn't actually create the articles from the sources yourself. So you'd never read them. You were just as unfamiliar as I was with them. So when I asked you which three supported notability, you had no idea. So you kept asking me "What about this one?" And I kept going and reading and saying, "Nope, not sigcov". Over and over and over again. What a waste of my time.

For the record, you are not doing good work. The writing at those two articles is competent, but the sourcing is slipshod. AI is great at writing. It's often pretty crap at research. If you think the writing matters most, you've got it backward. Writing is easy to fix. Checking sources is tedious, thankless work. Valereee (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Orlando, take a look at this page. This is the work you've caused for other editors because you used AI to create articles. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand your frustration.

If I use a Google search or use ChatGPT to search, what's the difference? As long as I read the source. And just to make sure ChatGPT isn't giving fake sources, I cut and paste the headline to verify that it is a source. And are you saying our difference of opinion on notability means I'm stupid and you are smart? In my AVSAB score (Navy), I got a perfect score in reading comprehension, though for privacy reasons I can't prove it.

You know, in the end, there are no rules on Wikipedia. See:

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

And I was frustrated because I thought you were wasting my time. Because it's a subject that doesn't take long to infer it's notable. The ethical concern is fake articles; my ethics are sound. Everything is true. And to obsess about minor human mistakes, and if there are any, they are human mistakes, is unreasonable. And you didn't have to accept reviewing the article; you could have let a reviewer interested in reading and adding to that article take care of it.

And I was told to drop the stick, which I will, but I think so should you.

Thank you. I do appreciate your help on the articles. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Wasting other editors' time to clean up after you falls clearly under wp:disruptive editing. Doing it intentionally also falls under wp:nothere. Both are blockable offenses. Agree to stop using AI altogether and I'll drop the stick, but you seem completely unrepentant for all the work you've caused other editors. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand your frustration.

I am not currently using AI tools and have committed to avoiding them. The articles under review were almost all written before I had heard of ChatGPT or anything similar.

I hope we can continue to work constructively on improving content.

Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Orlando has since used an LLM to generate this talk page comment at Special:Diff/1324971229. This is the end of the road, they have been given more than enough ROPE but are NOTHERE. Can an admin handle or do I need to take this to ANI? NicheSports (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What does IPBE have to do with anything, and what's an "IP reviewer"? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• I filed at ANI due to today's continued LLM misuse and apparent retaliatory article tagging, see WP:ANI § Orlando Davis: LLM use, dishonesty, generally NOTHERE NicheSports (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  FYI, Star Mississippi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked OD for one week for disruptive editing. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Wayne Wesolowski, one of the pages cited at the cleanup tracker, needs to be inspected again: . Should we just refresh the tracker when the issue is resolved? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-11-28 ForayHistory, 18 pages need review.

ForayHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made almost 800 edits, mostly back in May and June, many of which seem to be AI-generated. Every article created by this user either is or has been tagged with {{AI-generated}} in part because of references that don't exist or don't support the article content. One of these articles was deleted in an AfD where the user used an LLM to comment. In addition to creating new articles, they've also done major rewrites of several existing articles. Some of the articles edited by this user have already been cleaned up or reverted, but others still need to be cleaned up. EvenTwist41 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I've created a subpage (using User:DVRTed/AINB-helper which had a few issues) and noted which edits have already been reverted. I included everything except pages with only minor edits that didn't seem AI-related (e.g. adding existing pages to "See also"), and around 150 edits to Surrealist Ball of 1972 made while it was at User:ForayHistory/sandbox and used to prepare edits to other articles. This was my first time doing this so let me know if I did anything wrong. EvenTwist41 (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

let me know if I did anything wrong – Nothing wrong, but I do have a suggestion, when creating a list consider selecting only entries where LLM involvement is reasonable plausible and potentially impactful. Personally I'd likely exclude edits like Special:Diff/1288074197, Special:Diff/1289823057 or Special:Diff/1287001153/1289718552, but this isn't an exact science. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I was the one who tagged all of these I think - I went through all the substantive contributions and tagged the pages. I think I reverted most of the unambiguously problematic ones (there were some that had outright hallucinated citations, etc) but there were a few I was less sure about how to handle, which I think are all on your list. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-11-29 AKLKPhilo, 2 pages need review.

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

Many new articles with AI tells, as well as one filter hit for Markdown formatting. M-1 Studios has no fewer than five fictitious references:

• https://patch.com/michigan/troy/troy-based-scottish-society-ferndale-studio-to-produce-scottish-culture-videos
• https://metromodemedia.com/devnews/m1royaloak0108
• https://metromodemedia.com/devnews/m1studiosferndale0283
• https://s3.amazonaws.com/attachments.crainsdetroit.com/article/20120415/Free/304159996/Business_Diary_041512.pdf
• https://oaklandcounty115.com/2012/01/15/m-1-studios-makin-money-makin-movies-2012/

This is after they "verified statements against sources", so their claims about human review shouldn't be taken at face value. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Additional consideration: They are the co-owner of M-1 studios Special:Diff/1307512086, they have been warned about COI editing but have elected to continue regardless, the mainspace M-1 Studios article was created by them after their draft was G11d. Considering this and their unreviewed LLM editing, this might be a WP:NOTHERE issue worth raising at another noticeboard in addition to the report here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Taking a look at some of their recent contributions and draft creations, I can see a few comments on their recent drafts pointing out source-to-text discrepancies that must be AI-generated. I'm going to bump this up the chain to ANI because it's clear this person is being deceptive about the amount of review going into their AI usage, not to mention the COI violation by recreating M-1 studios in mainspace after their draft was declined (AND they got blocked for their previously promotional username and had to be unblocked after requesting that it be changed) Athanelar (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

User was immediately indeffed for disruptive editing by Star Mississippi after I brought this up at ANI, so now it's just a matter of cleaning up what's left behind. Athanelar (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-12-01 A Touch of Humanity, 25 pages need review.

This user has been warned for possible AI use many times on their talk page and has neither confirmed or denied it. They have made a lot of edits, which have promotional-tone issues even by AI standards. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

They certainly have been using an LLM, there's utm_source=chatgpt.com in this edit, and the prose issues are grossly indisputable:

employing a rich tapestry of metaphors to underscore ...

In summary, Anthea Sylbert contributed to Julia not merely as a costume designer, but as a creative force who deeply enriched the storytelling by capturing the spirit of the characters and the atmosphere of the era.

In summary, Everybody Loves a Happy Ending stands out as a nostalgic yet modern and emotionally rich album that carries the characteristic elements of Tears for Fears' mature period.

Easy mass revert candidate. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created, I reviewed and excluded some plot CE, but those types of edits were unfortunately a minority. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted all of their edits which were simple enough to do (i.e., they were in the most recent edits and I could mass-revert by restoring an earlier version without fucking up other peoples' edits too much.) The rest are more complex/buried cases that will need actual copyediting to remove AI slop and verify sources. Athanelar (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed.

I found a page that thats been modified heavily by LLM called Der Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten, im not sure what to do about it. the edits were made between 23 June 2025 and 28 June 2025. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bird244 (talk • contribs)

Major case with a legacy IP, most of the page is written by a range of legacy IP with LLM assistance. This may be a single-page case. Honestly, with this degree of damage over time, I feel like this should be nuked to the pre-IP version. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. It is not feasible to clean it up, the effort is way too high for that to be realistic (but the effort of adding LLM generated text is almost zero). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that nuking it is the best option as well. The citation style is typical of LLM. For example, the book and the author do exist in this case, but no human will make this kind of citation, and without a physical copy of the book there is no way to verify the content....

cite book |last=Werberg |first=Dennis |title=Der Stahlhelm – League of Frontline Soldiers |publisher=Unknown |year=n.d. |page=110 Deamonpen (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 23:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-12-10 Lamp21, 106 pages need review.

user:Lamp21 was indeffed a few days ago pursuant to this ANI discussion. Most of their problematic contributions remain, and I am unsure how to proceed. Any advice/assistance? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

286 pages in mainspace. Major case with 4000+ edits by user. Are the rough machine translation from other wikis LLM, or are they just jamming it through a translator? AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 00:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma LLM, their translations add AI formatting and content not in the originals. A few however seem to be OK if rough translations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created, included entries are non-redirect page creations, 269 articles need review.

I am unsure how to proceed. Any advice – Draftify, tag with {{ai-generated}}, and leave a note on the talk page explaining why. Repeat 269 times. I've done this with 10 articles which can be seen on the subpage, here's the wording I've used:

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The articles are too old to draftify, though. Or is there an exemption for AI? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion posed 90 days as a preliminary rule of thumb, not a fixed and firm cutoff. Considering that and the fact that the discussion was had prior to the main influx of LLMs (LLMs and AI were not mentioned once), this is a case where I'm entirely comfortable draftifying articles which have not been substantially altered since creation. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Note, started socking as User:MoonersWhite, and their edits are also problematic. Those may need to be checked as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

All those edits have been WP:BANREVERTed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Do the two images on right side of this composite image look AI-generated to anyone else? This image is in the infobox on Somali community of Minnesota, a new article that went through AfC just a few days ago.

The description on commons says that this composite was created with Photoshop. There is no link to the source images on commons, and I haven't been able to find them elsewhere either. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Possibly. However, the path towards finding out is the same as the normal path, in that the file should be tagged with {{subst:dw-nsd}} as each individual element needs to have Commons-compatible copyright. CMD (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn The image on the bottom right appears to be copyvio, see https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/minnesota-somali-community-fears-trump-travel-ban-aid/story?id=46153010 and Polygnotus (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn The map appears to be copyvio taken from That leaves the image on the top right, but since it is not useful to convey information I won't even bother looking up where that was taken from. Polygnotus (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring this out! I was mainly focusing on the flag image in the upper right corner, and I found it on some facebook post that I can't read. I'm not quite sure how to deal with the copyvio aspect of this (and I'm also busy with offwiki stuff), so thanks for taking care of that as well. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Nominated, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Somali_Community_of_Minnesota%E2%80%94Population_Distribution_and_Cultural_Identity.png Polygnotus (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Just got a very LLMy response on article's talk page: § Infobox image. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Decent chance that the article should be deleted as well. The alleged sources don't seem to support the claims. Polygnotus (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The Infobox has three disamb links and the § External links section is also pretty weird. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn That username is probably also not allowed per WP:USERNAME, WP:ISU. Polygnotus (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Good point, reported that to WP:UAA. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, I retracted my report because I'm not sure if it meets the requirements for a WP:UAA report. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Left a {{uw-coi-username}} notice instead: User talk:Somali-wiki-community § Your username. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-12-12 WorldPeace888, 119 pages need review.

WorldPeace888 aka FacrFinderW picks snippets from articles, usually the second and third paragraph, asks ChatGPT to rewrite them, then adds then to Wikipedia. User_talk:WorldPeace888#COI_/_PAID.

See also User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2025-10#WorldPeace888_aka_FacrFinderW. Polygnotus (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-12-13 Unxed, 69 pages need review.

I'm pretty sure they are posting translations with no/minimal editing because they did 2 articles one minute apart, and claim on their user talk page that ai output is so good they don't really need human editing. (t · c) buIdhe 05:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

User being reported:Unxednoping template, might be worth it to notify the user via template had said There are no rules in Wikipedia that prohibit the use of AI; someone has misinformed you., which is a red flag. While I don't think AI was outright banned for every single edit, everybody should know that just because guidelines and other "rules" aren't written on paper, nobody gets to commit something that doesn't improve the encyclopedia. Saint Petersburg trolleybus system has some obvious problems (fictional/bogus poorly pasted #1 #2, and effortlessly copy-pasted dates on #3 #4), so I'll investigate on this. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 06:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, that was probably his machine trying to translate the title which resulted me in finding none on google searches. The bits are well, ripped off from ruwiki. This isn't always a bad thing, but I can sense some WP:AISIGNS anyways. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 06:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Could I get additional opinions on whether History of Ipê is LLM? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd say in parts, yes.

There's the "x and y" heading format in some places, unnecessary bolding, a couple AISIGNS phrases like reinforcing the link between religious leadership and the municipality's political development. Athanelar (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Thai occult has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Most contents were LLM-generated by Lamp21 (talk · contribs), and contents will need to be cleaned before making a CfD judgment. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

As an AfC reviewer, I struggle with AI-generated content. Any tips, tool or script to detect Ai AI-generated content? AlphaCore talk 22:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

AI detectors like GPTZero and ZeroGPT do a better-than-random job of detecting AI text, but have been unreliable in some notable cases.

The best thing to do is just to familiarise yourself with WP:AISIGNS Athanelar (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

(with the caveat that a lot of it is rapidly becoming obsolete as of GPT-5 and its successors) Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

N Cleanup is unnecessary.

Hey, can anyone check to see if Draft:The Evolution of Tactical Periodization in Soccer is AI generated. I'm not sure if we have a tool to check this or not ala Earwig's copyvio detector. This just feels like it would be AI generated. Would this qualify as a G15 speedy deletion? Thanks! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

That is LLM-generated. As specific examples compare the "conclusion" section to WP:LLMTELLS#Outline-like conclusions about challenges and future prospects, and also note the markdown link formatting []() used in references.

There are some third-party tools which can attempt checks for LLM use such as gptzero or pangram, and while both those are fairly accurate, their output alone is non-actionable. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm still kind of new to picking up on that on my own - would this be something I should nominate as a speedy deletion? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

What tipped me off personally was the random in-line citations, so at least I'm learning. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

It was a good spot and thank you for asking about it here.

The draft isn't G15 eligible, G15 is interpreted narrowly and none of the three required criteria appear to be met. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

N Cleanup is unnecessary.

Can someone help me determine if this article is AI or not? The capitalization and rule of 3 (3 external risks, 3 internal) make me think it is, but it was written on 27 May 2020 with no major edits since then. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 19:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Putting aside the repetition of the word "methodology" to mean "method" (which is not an AI tell, but is eyetwich-inducing), the text predates the public launch of ChatGPT by two years. Einsof (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I asked here to get input from more informed people. The characteristics I mentioned are just so similar to what I usually see. it's lio! | talk | work 20:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if, as you mentioned, AI was not prevalent at the time. Just a lingering suspicion. it's lio! | talk | work 20:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair. Regardless of whether it has AI, I don't think it meets notability criteria and should just be nominated for deletion. Einsof (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I concur, can't really find any sources. PRODing. it's lio! | talk | work 21:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed.

Pretty much this happened on Reactive attachment disorder, an article of 2500 edits ~2025-43229-45 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I reverted it. The references were badly hallucinated and obviously just pasted in wholesale; no reason to suppose the rest of the article received any more care. Sheesh, that was some brazen slop-slinging. Einsof (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

We really need to warning editors to save future clean-up, most are are good-faith and unaware of the issues Kowal2701 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-10-28 Wk3v78k23tnsa, 522 pages need review.

Wk3v78k23tnsa has made many edits recently primarily to Vince Guaraldi/Charlie Brown-related articles. I noticed some AI tells on one of them while searching, and more jumped out when skimming the other articles. And then I found this. This diff adds a lot of supposed quotes, such as this: Trotter does not just arrange, he amplifies. That bossa nova piece could have been background filler, but instead it feels deeply emotional—like it is telling its own story. Which sounds exactly like ChatGPT coming out of someone's mouth. Annoyingly, the interview it is cited to is a 40-minute video, but it does have a transcript; while I'm pretty sure the transcript is auto-generated, I CTRL-F'd multiple words out of that quotation and not one of them shows up in the transcript, and while machine-learning transcripts can mess up they usually don't mess up that much. So I did the same with some other quotes from the article and still have yet to find a hit. Fucking sheesh.

I don't know how far back this issue goes. Before the Charlie Brown stuff they did a lot of plot summary revisions, which I'm not sure are AI -- for instance, this edit is tonally glib, but it sounds more like human ad copy than LLM slop (this is a gut feeling), and there's at least one grammatical error uncharacteristic of AI. (Also, they seem to have radically changed the way they write edit summaries between now and then.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I documented new concerns at Special:Diff/1319145378. I asked for clarification and if I made a mistake I will strike this. But would appreciate if someone here could take a look NicheSports (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be right. With the caveat that I haven't checked other recent edits from this user yet. Gurkubondinn (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: There's also this edit with the chatbot response Here is the revised version with all formatting removed while maintaining the academic tone and word limit:, so I guess their rewrites may now be in play too. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

This one is tough because the user has a high level of English fluency (see this exchange on their talk page from 2016). Then you have this, which feels more like a troll than an LLM. But based on the smoking gun you found that included the chatbot response, I think we have to assume that the majority of their plot summary rewrites involved LLMs. I mean on March 2 2024 they rewrote 108 plot summaries, often 1-2 minutes apart, without grammatical errors. There are many examples of this. On Feburary 17 2024 they rewrote these 7 plot summaries in 9 minutes: , , , , , , . And of course they never made any edits like this prior to November 2022. NicheSports (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Good grief. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I manually restored the A Boy Named Charlie Brown § Plot section to the revision from before it was rewritten with LLM garbage: Diff/1315012813/1269499672. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, the supposed Trotter quote listed above is back in the article. Either it was there before the last reversion, or someone put it back in manually. I don't have time to watch the video to correct it myself, but want to flag it. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk page about the issue(s), waiting to hear back. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Wk3v78k23tnsa is currently working on resolving the AI issues on the Peanuts articles according to their most recent contributions. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Wk3v78k23tnsa I see that you've been endeavoring to tidy up the edits yourself (thank you!), do you think you'll be able to handle the totality of the cleanup on your own? If not, could you please disclose the date ranges of when an LLM was used so I can create a list of articles that other editors can help review. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, it seems they went inactive around the time this message was posted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunate, I was hoping to get a response before needing to prep this thread for archival. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)

• Tracking subpage created, it appears that 551 articles may benefit from further review. Only contributions after 17 February 2024 were considered, as this appears to be when their editing pattern changed. Due to the nature and volume of edits, this is a coarser list than usual. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - Not to mention we must also conform with the relevant manuals of style as per WP:MOSTV, WP:MOSFILM, WP:MOSMUSIC and so on. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-10-15 Hintha, 105 pages need review.

Hintha is a prolific and experienced editor who seems to have started using LLMs at some point. They have made thousands of edits since 2022 so this will be a major cleanup effort. In 2025 alone they have created 40 articles and done hundreds of article expansions. Puffery is a problem but the major issues are widespread WP:V failures and occasional, sometimes significant, copyright violations. LLMs may not be the cause of all of these issues but I am confident it is involved. Their created articles do not qualify for WP:G15 - Hintha seems to be at least ensuring that references exist. They are aware of my concerns as they addressed many of the issues with the Bowkylion article after I documented issues on the talk page. But they have not responded to any of my comments on their user talk page or on any article to which they contributed. They have been inactive for the past two weeks.

• Bowkylion: see this version before some of these issues were fixed. I documented the issues, including a minor copyright violation, on the talk page
• These three articles cover similar subjects to Bowkylion and were created within 50 minutes of each other
• Private Security Services Law about 20% of this article (300+ words) was copied word for word from . In an LLM tell, some of the copyrighted material was cited to a source other than the one it was copied from. I filed a copyvio report and it has been handled, with revdeletion pending. The editor from CCI who addressed the copyright cleaned up the rest of the article including this WP:V failure
• Fish patty two of the three sources for this article are recipe blogs. The article also has unsourced puffery: bears a striking resemblance to Spanish empanadas and Southeast Asian curry puffs

NicheSports (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in ANI? This falls more into disruptive editing especially as this isn't just an LLM only issue 212.70.110.25 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The point of my post is to document the need for cleanup, not to pursue sanctions. Also I think its too early for ANI - this is a long-term editor who is currently (likely temporarily) inactive. They deserve a chance to respond here, hopefully they will be willing to stop using LLMs and help with cleanup. NicheSports (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone take a look at this? Would like a second opinion given this is a very experienced editor NicheSports (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Went through history -- I could be wrong but the LLM use feels fairly recent, nothing prior to 2024-ish jumped out at me. You also probably saw this but they seem to have switched to MediaWiki's content translation tool.

Cleaned up Inya Lake Hotel -- this one honestly wasn't too bad, idk how reliable the sources are but besides a few promotional asides everything was backed up as claimed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Did Waziya Cinema, the main problem here seemed to be questionable sourcing (one scoure seemed to be AI-generated) and some close paraphrasing but no major hallucinations. Honestly, I don't really feel like this rises to the level of ANI, the editor seems conscientious enough.

In general, apologies for not doing more actual cleanup -- I don't really consider myself much of a writer. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I have no interest in ANI here. Just wanted to get a second perspective on whether LLMs were involved (thank you!). Is it fair to say that most of their substantive edits in 2025 should be checked, but the issues may not go back further than that? NicheSports (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

not sure, apologies - a lot of it is linguistics articles that are way outside my wheelhouse Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Bad news, they've even used an LLM to generate infoboxes: Here's an infobox food for Tapioca Chip, formatted for easy understanding .

Tracking subpage created with 105 articles awaiting closer review. Only edits from 16 May 2025 through to the present are included, as that appears to be the day unsubtle LLM use began (from : U Tin's contributions have left an indelible mark on Myanmar's architectural landscape ... celebrated for their innovative fusion of cultural heritage ... not only enhanced the aesthetic appeal of Yangon but also ...). Very possible there may be model use before that date. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)