Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Yet another long series, this time related to singer Jolin Tsai. I'm tagging the articles now but also bringing the issue up here as a permanent note, because based on the user's talk page, I suspect the tags aren't going to be around for very long and that this isn't going to go well. I'm not looking forward to this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This editor has authored ~60% of the Jolin Tsai article, oof. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

They said earlier that they're translations; I haven't had time to confirm but I don't have any reason to disbelieve it. But if they're translations they specifically seem like AI translations, given the text that came out of the translation. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I went back and read their reply to your questions, and to be fair they just said that they "did not use any AI tools to fabricate or generate text". I want to assume good faith, but the translations could have been produced by an LLM. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I've been browsing wikipedia articles and I've found a few pages where LLMs were probably used, these pages are the page on bit, the page on revolut, the page on endstream and the page on the mir page. I've cleaned revolut a lot but I think it might benefit from more eyes. 173.206.50.207 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

there's also the article on HSBC Life that seems LLM generated 173.206.50.207 (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The same editor that created the bit (payment application) article also created AccessiWay, which other editors have then tried to clean up LLM generated text from, and tagging it as {{AI-generated}}, but the editor removed the hatnote. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Asked the editor on User talk:Eliezer1987 § LLM use. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

i'd also like to point out that, for accessiway, there isn't really ways in which one can automate WCAG standards per https://html5accessibility.com/stuff/2025/03/27/mind-the-wcag-automation-gap/ and https://karlgroves.com/web-accessibility-testing-what-can-be-tested-and-how/ and even W3 points it out at https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/selecting/ 173.206.50.207 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, @Gurkubondinn, regarding AccessiWay, I didn't remove the AI-generated tag. I saw the comment and plan to address it later on.

As I mentioned on my talk page, I mainly use AI for translating texts and articles that I first write in Hebrew (which is my primary language).

This is actually the first time I've come across the guidelines about using AI for writing on Wikipedia. I haven't finished reading all the instructions yet, but I'll get to that soon.

Besides that, I guess I'm not the first to say that, in my opinion, artificial intelligence can really help make Wikipedia more reliable and powerful, though of course it also comes with serious risks... Eliezer1987 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Eliezer1987: Do you check the references you (or the AI) cite, and ensure they align with what the article says? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

When it's content I write from scratch, yes. When it comes to translations I make from Hebrew Wikipedia, unfortunately, I sometimes don't delve deeply into the sources. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I highly advise you cease using LLMs in any capacity on Wikipedia until you've fully read and understood the LLM essay. While LLM usage is not yet banned on Wikipedia, there is a certain level of understanding and competency about the problems that using AI can create that anyone using an LLM is expected to have. There are more problems than just unreliable references. It's especially risky to use an LLM for machine translation if you're not 100% confident you can verify the accuracy of the output. Athanelar (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, I have been an editor long before artificial intelligence changed our lives... Of course I will read the guidelines and follow them. Eliezer1987 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 It doesn't seem that they do, see this page creation where most of the links were never in the internet archive, this other page which contains poor sourcing, links that don't lead to anywhere like one would expect from the text like this one or that one, there are also bizarre translations like in this article's further reading page where the further reading references have been translated to english(!) 173.206.50.207 (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

To say that I translated or wrote all the articles perfectly? Probably not. Unfortunately, these are mostly articles that I wrote in a hurry and did it from my cell phone. In any case, as I wrote above, I will read the instructions thoroughly before repeating the same mistakes. Dear Anonymous, I would be happy if you would also help with correcting the articles, and not just identifying the problems.Eliezer1987 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the AI really labor-saving if it introduces problems that editors have to spend time identifying and correcting? Einsof (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Eliezer1987 Could you explain what you meant by "I would be happy if you would also help with correcting the articles, and not just identifying the problems."? 173.206.50.207 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

My approach is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where we aim to improve, not to blame. You have pointed out some issues that were done carelessly (by me, I apologize and will also make sure to fix them). Instead of searching for more mistakes, I would appreciate if you could join in improving them together. Eliezer1987 (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, it's unfortunate that they weren't verified beforehand. (also the fixed ping worked) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Scewing A couple of this user's pages were recently CSDed since one edit included communications for the user. After reviewing their other edits, it seems to me like pretty much everything since June is LLM generated, or at least LLM assisted. Many references are DOA, don't match content, or are straight up references to Wikipedia itself. Everything since June (at least) needs to be reviewed. Lovelyfurball (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Totally perplexed that someone apparently editing Wikipedia since 2007 is only learning now that Wikipedia articles aren't valid sources for other Wikipedia articles. Einsof (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It makes me feel like the original owner of the account is no longer in control of it for one reason or another. It just makes no sense to me that such an experienced editor would do this. Lovelyfurball (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Could also just as likely just be an easy excuse to avoid admitting to uncritical use of LLMs and blindly trusting the output. Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the LLM generated rewrite of Cooper Township, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania and WP:BLARed North Ridge, Alexandria, Virginia, which had several citations to other Wikipedia articles. A couple articles are still up with CSD notices. Lovelyfurball (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Markdown syntax: Diff/1319074348. Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

RobertoBriago (talk · contribs)

Being worked on: Newer user with ~380 edits, many to talk space. Those in draft/article space include article creations and expansions, all of which require review NicheSports (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-12-14 Kofi Meija, 2612 pages need review.

This user has made hundreds of copy edits between 2023-2025 (several of them prompted by the Newcomer Edits gamification) and is still active doing that. These edits appear to be AI-generated, based on the usual WP:AISIGNS that recur throughout. (Their talk page posts also seem like "Certainly! You're absolutely right"-type AI responses.)

Unsurprisingly, many of these changes display the usual problems with AI copyedits -- namely, claiming they are making the article neutral but actually making it promotional, claiming they are just copyedits but actually change meaning or introduce new content, or just generally making things wordy and awkward.

Here's a quick spot-check of some of those copyedits (I have only looked at a few) to demonstrate. I've left out citations and any sentences/paragraphs that are identical/only superficially changed.

• Blue = introduced new information, removed information for unclear reasons, or changed meaning
• Green = introduced puffery
• Orange = introduced clunky, wordy, or otherwise bad phrasing

Anyway let me know thoughts. There are so many of these going back to like 2023. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I've recently seen a lot of adding of different |language= parameters to citations in what look like AI edits, see , not sure if it's new or something I've not noticed before. CMD (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I was skeptical, but I ran the numbers...

So... yep that appears to be a thing. (Unless there's some kind of wizard change introduced after 2022 to automatically add it, that the human dataset wouldn't have.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Have been going through these. The problematic stuff seems to start around June 2023. As expected, quality varies widely on these, they are all a mixed bag of acceptable to pointless to actively detrimental to bad bad, but I'm not even 2 weeks' worth of edits in and I've already found one that's pretty bad: "rephrasing the article to have a more neutral and clear tone" by changing "She did not support Donald Trump" to "She withdrew her support for Donald Trump" (implying that she did, at one point, support him) out of fucking nowhere. I even went back to the original version of the article to see whether it was maybe restoring some old text; it wasn't. Living person by the way.

How would I make a tracking page for these? Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

They've edited 3174 different pages since June 2023, not great.

How would I make a tracking page for these? – Either use the AINB-helper script to create the subpage (not advised in this case), or create it manually. When manually creating large lists, I use CCI's contribution surveyor (uncheck minor, set bytes to -999999, in this instance set a date range too) to fetch all edited pages, use regex to format the lines into {{AIC article row}}s, wrap the rows in {{AIC article list}}, then paste and preview the result in the editor and perform some manual checks and refinement if able.

Once the subpage is created, populate the tracking_subpage= parameter of {{AIC status}}. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

welp. made the page; it starts in mid-March as this is when the "rephrasing" edits start. have not filtered it yet beyond that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomingstuff (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

welp indeed, so many entries it hits the transclusion limit if the templates are used. I've instead manually added the count to {{AIC status}}. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The good news is that a lot of them are probably quick fixes and/or irrelevant, have not done any manual culling yet Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Has nobody messaged them? They were back editing yesterday Kowal2701 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I haven't. I don't have the patience to deal with that right now, apologies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I messaged them. They've promised not to use LLMs anymore (though the comment seemed AI-generated) Kowal2701 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I tried to talk with them but all their comments seem AI-generated. They said they’ll stop using it and edit at Twi wiki. Gnomingstuff, would it be possible to keep an eye on their edits and lmk if any are unambiguously AI? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Gnomingstuff, but I can keep an eye on things for a few months. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not going through more of the edits, other stuff has been going on and I haven't gotten back to this. I don't really have time to specifically monitor their new edits, apologies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thanks 15224 Kowal2701 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to bring up this edit where they Changed the background color to a more suitable one. (from red to yellow) a few years back. I reverted it about a month later because I didn't think it was an improvement. It being AI edit didn't even cross my mind at the time, and I had no way of knowing. What I've seen here, however, brings a lot into perspective. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This is another big one.

For the past year-ish, Ritwik Deuba has been adding hundreds of instances of text with consistent AI indicators (though nothing unambiguous that I've found), primarily to world politics articles. One other person has pointed this out, but they didn't respond; I left another edit on their talk page.

I'm less sure about this one than some of the others. It looks like they are probably editing the output somewhat -- although not completely enough to be detectable. It also seems like they may be using a newer LLM model and/or different prompts than most do; the older edits seem more problematic than the newer ones. In particular, most of the "reflecting the significance" AI opinion-ese is attributed as other people's opinion rather than just dangling as unattributed editorializing like it usually does, but if it's AI it still may not be an accurate summation of what those people said.

The big challenge here is that almost literally all of these edits involve very contentious geopolitical topics, and some of them have been dragged into edit wars (that don't seem to be about AI). Because of this I haven't touched them with a 1000-foot pole, besides adding the AI generated tag if the indicators were clear enough. The articles are also high-traffic enough that "just reverting" would be difficult to impossible, and might re-ignite the edit warring. So frankly I don't know what to do. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

hmmm. do you have any diffs we can look at? I checked the edits that the other person pointed out and didn't find any hallucinations - all claims are backed by the cited source. LLMs hallucinate at high rates so I think that edit would have been significantly human reviewed. This is just one diff of course so could be missing something NicheSports (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

ok finding problems. I noticed that these three edits , , were made within 15 minutes (although with significant overlap in content), without any subsequent copy-editing or typo-fixing. This one also has clear copyright violations - to the point it should be reported, which I have never done NicheSports (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Will take another look tomorrow. I mentioned this on a few of the talk pages but some of the edits are the same paragraph added to multiple articles (which isn't necessarily a problem by itself).

For stuff like this I'm less concerned about blatant hallucinations so much as any NPOV issues/interpretations that might have been introduced by the AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears to be someone adding news stories with the assistance of AI. LDW5432 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-11-18 Gyða1981, 0 pages need review.

Hello! I am new to this board. I came across the article Svarfdæla saga and saw that it was tagged with containing LLM content. The user who made the suspected edits to that article, Gyða1981 has also made many other edits to other articles, especially ones on lesser-known sagas, that I believe to be LLM-generated. The biggest giveaway, besides no sourcing, is that many of the edits in their edit summary contain communication intended for the LLM user (e.g. "I took the information from the Norse/Icelandic source you provided and listed the events of the saga in chronological order"). I believe this user is using an LLM to "translate" non-English text and pasting it into articles.

I have put an AI notice on all the articles in this genre that I believe Gyða1981 has pasted LLM text into. I can read Old Icelandic and can write better articles for these with correct sourcing, but I don't have very much time at the moment, and probably won't for a few months, so if anyone else can do that, I would greatly appreciate it. A few of them also probably have existing English translations of the texts in question so I can also help locate those. Also, there are a number of topics that this user has touched on that I am not as familiar with, so they should probably be looked over for LLM text as well.

I'm not sure if I should warn the user in question? I am a bit non-confrontational so maybe someone else could do that if it is appropriate. Their talk page seems to be filled with other copyright issues also. But they haven't been active on Wikipedia for a few months, and maybe notifying them will make them come back and make sneakier LLM edits, I don't know.

I'm still learning editor etiquette, so apologies if I made any mistakes. Rorb lalorb (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created and populated with articles that warrant further review or cleanup.

Accurate assessment, a warning would be appropriate but Gyða1981 has not edited since 31 August. They certainly are using an LLM to generate plot summaries, as well as to make other edits. I believe this sequence of edits at After I'm Gone is emblematic of their process:

• Special:Diff/1302476101 – Added detailed plot summary based on Goodreads descriptions.
• Special:Diff/1302476261 – Added detailed plot summary based on Amazon descriptions.
• Special:Diff/1302476322 – Added detailed plot summary based on Amazon and Goodreads descriptions.

My favorite diff is this attack of the '''s.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that she has also been active on iswiki so I asked her to WP:LLMDISCLOSE there, thinking it might come off more as more gentle in a smaller space: :is:Notandaspjall:Gyða1981 § LLM notkun. But I haven't heard back. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I've also brought this up on :is:WP:Potturinn § Gyða1981 og LLM notkun, so this can be addressed on iswiki as well. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Gyða1981 has now replied to me on iswiki, and admitted to inserting LLM generated text. In another reply to me they claimed to have used probably Grok or a comparable model, and reponded with the typical LLM-generated half-baked policy-quoting justifications for LLM use (that we keep seeing when these editors are confronted with their LLM use). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Going forward, I hope we can see this editor participate in a more policy-based manner, with a focus on verifiability and neutral POV.

(teehee) Athanelar (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this user should probably have WP:EXTENDED revoked, as they wouldn't have reached 500 edits without the LLM-generated edits. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Unless they were using an LLM for the purpose of achieving EC (and they don't seem to have been), their editing wouldn't count as permission gaming. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, I was mostly thinking for the purposes of protecting WP:ECR pages from LLM disruption. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rorb lalorb You can read Old Icelandic? That's a skill I wish I had. Rare and valuable! (I'm not joking.) Cheers. David10244 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm working through the tracking page currently. This user's edits appear to be far more problematic on non-Slovene pages, so I'm focusing on those. The Icelandic saga articles are particularly egregious, which bothers me greatly as someone who appreciates Norse literature. Athanelar (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for the explanations and for looking into this. I am still quite new to Wikipedia and I realize now that some of my earlier edits, including my use of AI tools, did not fit well with Wikipedia’s rules for articles.

I mainly used AI to help with English wording when working from older non-English literary texts, such as Slovenian or Icelandic novellas, but I understand that this was not handled correctly in mainspace.

One reason I stepped away from editing is that I found the rules and expectations stricter and more complex than I had realized at first, and I need time to decide whether I want to stay and fully learn them. For now, I do not plan to make further edits.

I appreciate the work being done to clean up the affected articles. Gyða1981 (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-12-17 ~2025-31172-04, 18 pages need review.

Could someone please have a look at User:~2025-31172-04. Enormous edits with telltale signs of AI. Multiple cut-and-paste warnings. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Win8x (talk · contribs) has put in a lot of work cleaning up this user's attribution issues. I left a new section on their talk page. I am not optimistic as the temporary account has zero edits to Talk: or User talk: spaces. -- Reconrabbit 17:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Checks for machine translation might be in order. I went through their edits quickly to attribute them, didn't read them all. There's French, German, Portuguese, Spanish translations. Not saying it's not possible, but there's few people who speak 5 languages! win8x (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

They have continued editing, so I have opened up a thread at ANI. I don't know if this is "obvious spam" that could be presented at AIV as was done below. -- Reconrabbit 14:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Created a tracking subpage for the larger edits. Zygmeyer (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I ran into a similar TA the other day: ~2025-40162-16 (talk · contribs). Reported to AIV and have cleaned up (most of) the mess. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

N Cleanup is unnecessary.

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Minnesota State University Mankato/Black Feminist Thought (Fall 2024) contains a lot of AI vocabulary. I could probably list them all:

• "delve"
• "rich tapestry"
• "intricate interplay"
• "profound connections"
• "broader cultural narratives"
• "panorama"
• "nuanced"

I'm not too knowledgeable on Wikipedia, so I don't really know how WikiEd works. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this seems like AI. I could be wrong but I think these are syllabi write by professors (which, uh......) so not sure whether changing them would be appropriate. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe report it to someone who can properly deal with it? If this was truly written by a college professor, it might need to be dealt with outside of Wikipedia as well. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Decided to take it to ANI. Hopefully something can be worked out there. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. The course is from Fall 2024 and the instructor has a total of 2 edits, both from over a year ago. I don't think this needs to be at ANI. Wiki Ed has a lot of problems, I don't really see any action being taken here. NicheSports (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

And ANI didn't recognise it to be LLM writing anyway. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Just one person at ANI, who does not appear to know what they're talking about -- the whole thing is one continuous AI tell, as are the other course descriptions by this professor. (also, like... "it could be the textbook manufacturer"? What textbook? This is a seminar, not Algebra 101. Black Feminist Thought isn't a textbook.) That said, it's not really our business to mess with professors' old syllabi. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree, this is out of scope. Professors using llms to generate course syllabi on obscure WikiEd pages is between them and WikiEd and their students. CMD (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for taking it to WP:ANI. I still don't know how Wikipedia works in full. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

That's okay, it's a learning process and people won't hold a misplaced post against you. CMD (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

"Delve into a rich tapestry"... good one. I guess nobody has taught these LLMs not to mix metaphors. Einsof (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, guys. For your information, SuperPianoMan9167 has made an announcement on the AI Cleanup talk page that OpenAI has ditched the automatic model router for ChatGPT users on its free and $5 plans. Thoughts on what should be done here? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Most (>60%) ChatGPT users will get GPT-5.2 instant (the fast model) by default, so it would not be unreasonable to see an increase in problems that are less pronounced in "reasoning" models. Other than that, not much changes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-01-17 Rock Candy Mtn, 141 pages need review.

Rock Candy Mtn (talk · contribs) is the latest newcomer to mass rewrite article leads using LLMs. I caught this when they copy and pasted raw LLM output into Chemolithoautotroph, which is on my watchlist after previously being targeted by now-CBAN-ed (from article space) Jaravedr in exactly the same way. Rock Candy confirmed their use of LLMs when I asked them on their talk page. They said they would stop using LLMs but have continued to rapidly edit articles, including introducing a WP:V failure that I documented at . I don't know if they are still using LLMs, although they very well might be given they falsely claimed they were reviewing their mass-rewrites. The fantasy that PAGs requiring "review" of LLM-generated content will be sufficient to solve this problem lives on! All of their contributions require review; all of their contributions prior to (yes, they found out about the lead maintenance tags at WP:TEAHOUSE) likely require reversion. NicheSports (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

newcomer tasks strikes again, who would have predicted gamifying edits would encourage this Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yikes! This is bigger than I realized. Thank you for looping me in. I think I'm out of my depth here.... time for me to step back and rethink. I'm glad you shared this with me. Rock Candy Mtn (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned this at your talk page as well, but can't hurt to say it twice. This noticeboard is for cleanup, not for sanctions, and people here are not going to hold initial mistakes against you. I appreciate your collaborative approach at your talk page. You should stick around! Although please avoid LLMs :) They add WP:V violations at higher rates than can realistically be cleaned up, as you can see from how many posts there are here. NicheSports (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 I saw your thread below, but figured we could consolidate here NicheSports (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see this. Thanks. Yes, huge edits which look AI. Numerous talk page warnings and denials. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The LLM use is continuing, now coupled with repeated misrepresentation of that use.

• Claimed usage: it is not clear what this means but I am confident it is not honest
• Actual usage: Create outline of draft , use LLMs to generate the entire article (note the edit summaries), then make minor changes if at all. Special:PageHistory/Inksters General Store (Winnipeg) is revealing.

Examples of what they're pushing to mainspace:

• Their close proximity allows for comparative interpretation of domestic and commercial space within a single settlement property. sourced to this , completely fails verification
• Its role within the settlement illustrates how small, multipurpose buildings supported both social exchange and economic resilience in early Red River communities during a period of gradual transition from rural river-lot farms toward more concentrated patterns of settlement. sourced to this , completely fails verification

I'm going to draftify all of their article creations that qualify, which I expect will be most. NicheSports (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I've draftified Carberry Plains Museum, egregious model use, full of synth and unsupported statements alongside typical LLM prose.

@Rock Candy Mtn after stating you were out of [your] depth and that you would step back and rethink things when this report was initially opened, you have continued to disruptively edit using a model. If you do not stop immediately you will likely end up blocked (or community banned as many persistent LLM editors have been lately), consider this a final warning before an ANI report is made: stop editing with an LLM, you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to do so constructively. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I draftified all of their remaining article creations after quickly finding similar V/SYNTH issues and many AISIGNS. NicheSports (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2025-12-22 ServiceAT, 9 pages need review.

I stumbled across Mary C. Lawton while patrolling new pages. Aside from the obvious **markdown** and peacock words, they seem to have been creating articles very rapidly. A broader review of their contributions seems necessary, and I don't feel comfortable mass draftifying their creations myself. lp0 on fire () 18:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Took a look -- the AI articles seem to start at least as far back as January 2024. It seems that some of them may be LLM translations. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not use any LLM in drafting WP pages prior to this week (December, 2025).

I am now going back to redraft my recent contributions "in my own words". I already did check references and facts and will do so again. I understand that I should have been aware of the prohibition on using LLMs to generate entire articles from scratch, but, with apologies, I was not. ServiceAT (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created, only edits from December were considered. 13 articles would benefit from a third party review. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the assumption. Were the earlier articles (~2024-ish) translations? Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup § Phage therapy

Hi, I am concerned about the phage therapy article and in particular (but not just) this edit. Checking the first few PMIDs in the citations added in that edit, they all point to different/unrelated articles so it appears that the references are made up. Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Rjwilmsi, I've checked that and other edits by the same editor to phage therapy and there are numerous references with non-matching DOIs, PMIDs, and sometimes the article titles themselves don't exist (such as Innovations in Therapeutic Bacteriophage Development: From Bench to Bedside and Bacteriophage therapy: A potential solution for the antibiotic resistance crisis). These appear to be hallucinations. I've removed their additions to phage therapy in Special:Diff/1330173717.

Special:Diff/1194896302 also appeared to have possibly been LLM-assisted, but more likely is some form of COI. I've reverted it as well due to V, OR, and CLOP issues.

Nothing else in the edit history stands out to me personally. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed.

AuroraGlyph 92 has been making AI-generated edits (utm_source=chatgpt.com in links here and subsequently here, which I reverted and warned about because they read like advertisements to me). I only found two edits with the utm_source (though I didn't check all of their edits), but some of their other edits feel like it, like this one, which also has a source with an access date in 2020, and possibly this one. Not all of the edits they have made seem AI-generated to me? Sorry if this isn't enough to warrant being posted here. Crow Basket (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like possibly another LosAngeles000! sock, same area of articles and pattern of adding AI-captioned images Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Editor has now been blocked as a sock, as their edits were made in violation of a block or ban, they may be WP:BANREVERTed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed.

Originally posted here but was advised this would be a better location. A lot of pages linking from Regional rural bank have been created and/or heavily edited recently in what I believe are using LLMs. I verified through online AI checkers which confirm prior to moving a few to draft, but one of the users stated they are not and moved them back to main space. Hoping for more opinions as they are pretty bad (unsourced, promotional, etc.). See Haryana Gramin Bank, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank, Rajasthan Gramin Bank, and Gujarat Gramin Bank. A couple are at AfD but if they are kept will need cleanup. Posting here since the creator removed the AI notice from one of the pages.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

There are two users involved here: Ankit231132 (talk · contribs) and Ajitsinghbhagat (talk · contribs). The users are reverting each other so I don't suspect off-wiki coordination. They are both editing disruptively but seem to be doing so in different ways.

• Ankit231132 (talk · contribs). I don't know if this editor is using LLMs but they are definitely adding copyvio. The first version of Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank confirmed violations when I ran it through earwig . The first version of Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank doesn't look LLM-generated (except for the Logo section, that was either LLM or - more likely - copied from something earwig couldn't find). This comment on their talk page is also not LLM generated. Special:Diff/1328503718 might be a hybrid of LLM/human written though. But unless someone can dig up some diffs showing clear LLM misuse in article space I would treat this as a copyvio case. I don't know if it is serious enough for a CCI request, my suggestion would be to look for a few more clear violations and then drop a note on MCE89's talk page and ask what to do about it.
• Ajitsinghbhagat (talk · contribs) is definitely misusing LLMs, which I have warned them about 4+ times at their talk page and Talk:Disney Star - see Talk:Disney Star § Issues with recent probable LLM-generated edits for several documented examples. This user hasn't created as many bank articles as Ankit (their focus seems to be adding LLM slop to Disney Star), but the ones they have, such as Draft:Meghalaya Rural Bank, show strong signs of LLM content. The difference with Ankit's creations is pretty clear - Ajit's are in perfectly grammatical English, Ankit's are not.

NicheSports (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NicheSports, thanks for the ping. I started going through Ankit231132's contributions to see if there was enough for a CCI request and ended up just doing most of the clean up in my sandbox (User:MCE89/cci) since there wasn't too much to go through. I've still got a couple of pages to look at, but as you can see there was definitely a lot of copyvio. To keep things simple I've only removed text that I could confirm as copyvio for now, but will go through and remove the rest of the unsourced/suspicious text. I agree that I didn't see too much evidence of clear LLM usage, although I'm not sure either whether the logo section they've added to most of these articles is copyvio or LLM-generated (or copyvio of an LLM-generated source?). MCE89 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I pinged you but I suppose I did light the bat signal :) Thank you for answering (and more!), this is incredibly helpful. The logo section is a question but my intuition says this was copied, not generated by this user. It doesn't really matter because it is unsourced promo and can be removed indiscriminately. @CNMall41 looks like MCE89 has handled Ankit's edits, I can help you with Ajit's tomorrow. NicheSports (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Glad to help! and linking to someone’s user page in a signed post does send a ping, just FYI :) MCE89 (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Whoops. Not sure how it took me the better part of a year to figure that out. But thank you again! NicheSports (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the help from both of you. Once the AfDs are done, I will go back through and remove anything that is unsourced and do any additional cleanup that may need to be done. Outside of copyvio, the content screamed WP:AISIGNS and with the OP removing the tags wasn't sure how to handle outside of ANI.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Ajitsinghbhagat is being discussed at WP:ANI#Repeated disruptive editing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I cleaned up Ajitsinghbhagat's LLM-generated mainspace edits. Also, I confirmed that part of the Logo section these users have been adding to articles is copyvio. See the pop up when you first go to NicheSports (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like to stubify them all based on the unsourced content and the fact two edits would rather bludgeon (removal of LLM tags, moving back to mainspace, etc.) instead of doing the cleanup of their mess. However, I took two of them to AfD so do not want to be accused of bludgeoning myself. I did a few such as Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank which I took from this to this. And, tagged here for West Bengal Gramin Bank as you can see the clear LLM (bolded words and use of already linked topics in the see also section - Also a lot is unsourced so likely LLM generated). Also took Puducherry Grama Bank from this to this. Dozens more need addressed. That is, assuming notability is established for all. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

N Cleanup is unnecessary.

Found the named user at the Teahouse asking a question about the now-blanked draft at User:Pritik Wiki/sandbox which was obviously AI generated, along with their responses. I also see warnings on their talk page about other edits being AI generated. I'm going to look through some of their recent edits to see if they need reversion, but if the tracking subpage wizards could make a tracking page that would be great. Athanelar (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

On investigation, much of their contribs prior to gaining EC seem to be minor copyedits (likely gaming, which I've already reported at ANI) so the scope of cleanup here might not be very high at all. Athanelar (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:ANI § EC gaming by User:Pritik Wiki

Their three non-gaming articlespace edits have already been reverted, and their gaming edits don't appear to involve LLM use. Marking cleanup as unnecessary at this time, but leaving the report open in case they make more edits in the near future. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The copyedits are in a way more frustrating than full articles. I'm going through some rapidfire masses of AI copyedits currently, and it's such a mixed bag; I can't really bring myself to care about stuff like this even though it's almost certainly AI based on the edit history, but then you also have stuff like this which is obviously problematic (but already fixed). Or stuff like this, which does absolutely none of what the edit summary claims it does but is ultimately kinda whatever, next to this, which inserts promotional language while claiming to remove it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Most of Pritik's copyediting was just inserting a punctuation mark or two, but I have seen AI copyedits merge two sentence clauses together in a way that changed the meaning entirely; I can't remember exactly what it was now, but it was the same effect as changing "Let's eat, grandma!" to "Let's eat grandma!" Athanelar (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup efforts are ongoing and being tracked at /2026-01-01 Sascho Jovanoski 70329, 68 pages need review.

Sascho Jovanoski 70329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made hundreds of edits, almost all of which seem to be LLM-generated. These include creating pages (such as Draft:IFRS 19, which I draftified). These edits seem to be largely unreviewed, as evidenced at IAS 37#2. Discounting and Unwinding (Time Value of Money), saying [Image illustrating the unwinding of a discount for a provision over time under IAS 37]. While the warnings left are recent, these edits are very large and there are a lot of them, which is why I'm bringing this here. Also pinging @Iseult who originally found this. HurricaneZeta^C 22:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The edit summaries seem like chatbot responses, for instance this:

• Certainly. Here is the English summary of the strategic pillars of the EU's financial market policy for a Wikipedia article, based on your categorized list. 🇪🇺 Strategic Pillars of EU Financial Market Policy The European Union's financial market policy, primarily executed by the Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (DG FISMA), is structured around four main strategic pillars. These pillars aim to enhance EU competitiveness, ensure financial s

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

They were warned, at great length, in December that their edits were problematic, and that AI/LLM editing was forbidden and that their frequent and large editing was disruptive. They then removed all these discussions without a satisfactory response to the AI/LLM usage, and I see they've continued without any change to their fast and large editing behavior, and their talk page has continued with notices of issues. Disappointing. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. I think that ANI is defensible and more than so if editing continues. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 01:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I did sort of get this editor to admit to using an LLM. Even asked them to clean up after themselves, but of course never got an answer. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

They also posted § Feedback request for manual draft in my sandbox on my talk page, but ignored me when I replied. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created which is available at the top of this report. 98 pages appear to need further review. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

  They've created a number of mainspace pages themselves with these issues. Should these be draftified or taken to AfD? HurricaneZeta^C 00:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

  If the problematic page was created directly in mainspace, then draftifying, tagging, and leaving a notice on the talk page would be my suggestion. Any pages which are WP:G15 eligible should be tagged in place. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think I got all the G15s, working on draftifying the ones they created. One went through AfC and seems fine, so I just tagged it. HurricaneZeta^C 17:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Dormskirk regarding this thread as they are continuing LLM edits such as . HurricaneZeta^C 16:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Pblocked as of the 10th. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2026-01-08 Mudit23june, 1 pages need review.

(transferred from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User making only LLM-generated contributions, unresponsive to talk page warnings & messages)

User:Mudit23june has been making only LLM-generated contributions to a variety of astronomy articles, such as 2025 MN45, C/2025 R3 (PanSTARRS), and 2025 PN7. This user does not respond to talk page warnings and messages at all and does not edit articles to correct mistakes and citation issues. I suspect a violation of WP:LLM and WP:NOTHERE given their complete lack of response and corrections. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the subpage formatting, pages remaining should be automatically tracked. There was an edit conflict which I tried to properly integrate, apologies if I've missed anything. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! It looks a lot nicer and more organized. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed.

Hi, I was reading the page for Rumba Rapids and noticed that a large part had been rewritten by AI and pasted into the article complete with a note from the AI. I've read the guide but I'm still not sure whether to just remove the note or revert to the pre AI version (given that it was not very well written before). Many Thanks ~2026-38947-2 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38947-2  Done, I edit conflicted with @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four who removed it, thanks for finding that. HurricaneZeta^C 19:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

And to answer your question ~2026-38947-2, if there is clear evidence that an edit is LLM-generated and unreviewed, a revert is appropriate. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Also the entire ride section seems to be original research and was written unencyclopedically so I just removed it. HurricaneZeta^C 20:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Y Cleanup has been completed, see /2026-01-26 Goldenpen1 for reference.

Goldenpen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Currently being discussed at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Goldenpen1 - LLM-generated content and fraudulent sourcing. A couple hundred edits but mostly to the same few articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created. Cleanup complete. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Came across the editor on NPP reviewing Magic fallacy, which I'm probably going to redirect somewhere, but most if not all of their major insertions appear to be unedited or minimally edited generative output. I've undid Catallactics and some others have also already been removed, for example at Antisemitic trope, thanks to Cdjp1, however there are still other edits that need to be assessed and cleaned up, such as their edits to Ludwig von Mises, which they have apparently generated 43% of current content and Gabriel Bonnot de Mably, 16%. I think those two are the major ones, but I'm mostly listing it here because I'd probably forget otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that this edit to Ludwig von Mises added a URL that gives a 404 error and was never archived in the Wayback Machine. Seems iffy. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably going to just remove it all once I have the time to get to it. Have removed the additions to Gabriel Bonnot de Mably, added 50 words myself. I had also removed the addition to Cognitive appraisal, just forgot to note that, so pages that still need to be reviewed are Polylogism (diff, 53.1%), Destructionism, Magic fallacy (I had tagged it but didn't finish looking at it) and I think that should be all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Have still been thinking of a redirect target, and I think I'd want to do it to Magical thinking if anywhere given the attestation given in the article appears to be entirely hallucinated. (Indeed, the LLM appears to have resurrected Hayek to publish the book it's attributed to in 2021, after his death in 1992 and the actual year of publication which seems to be 1988, and there are no mentions of the two words together in, AFAICT, either that book or the other two cited, The Road to Serfdom (1944) and The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952), though a few* of one or the other)

Concerningly for cleanup efforts, the IPs which have also edited this made up nonsense, which I'm provisionally calling Special:Contributions/142.245.0.0/16, though I'm not sure if a wider or narrower range could capture things better, has also inserted things into several articles, including mentions of this "magic fallacy" which fails attestation. No doubt those edits also need to be reviewed, ugh. They replied to the IP on Talk:Wall Street crash of 1929 § Unorthodox economic interpretation being presented as NPOV in opening remarks so I'm not sure if they're two people just happening to chance on the same obscure article (on an apparently made up phrase) or a case of MEAT or WP:LOUTSOCK.

* For a list of mentions that I have been able to find,

More information Extended content ...

Extended content

in Road, the word "magic" does not appear to be present in the book, while "fallacy" appears only once on p. 228 as follows (emphasis mine): After the discussions in earlier chapters it is hardly necessary to stress that these difficulties cannot be met by conferring on the various international authorities “merely” specific economic powers. The belief that this is a practical solution rests on the fallacy that economic planning is merely a technical task, which can be solved in a strictly objective manner by experts, and that the really vital things would still be left in the hands of the political authorities. [...] Counter-Revolution has on p. 33 [...] Any knowledge which we may happen to possess about the true nature of the material thing, but which the people whose action we want to explain do not possess, is as little relevant to the explanation of their actions as our private disbelief in the efficacy of a magic charm will help us to understand the behavior of the savage who believes in it. If in investigating our contemporary society the "laws of nature" which we have to use as a datum [...] and p. 57 [...], by their very anxiety to avoid all merely subjective elements and to confine themselves to "objective facts," to commit the mistake they are most anxious to avoid, namely that of treating as facts what are no more than vague popular theories. They thus become, when they least suspect it, the victims of the fallacy of "conceptual realism" (made familiar by A. N. Whitehead as the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness").¶ and Fatal Conceit does have "magic" in 4 different places, pp. 30, With respect to some objects, the notion of individual property must have appeared very early, [...]. The attachment of a [good invention] to its maker [might mean that it's hard to think of selling it, and it] must accompany him even into the grave [...]. Here the fusion of inventor with ‘rightful owner’ appears, [...] story of Arthur and his sword Excalibur — a story in which the transfer of the sword came about not by human law but by a ‘higher’ law of magic or ‘the powers’.¶ 74, Indeed, to insist that all future change be just would be to demand that evolution come to a halt. [...] what would have been the effect if, at some earlier date, some magic force had been granted the power to enforce, say, some egalitarian or meritocratic creed. One soon recognises that such an event would have made the evolution of civilisation impossible. A Rawlsian world (Rawls, 1971) could thus never have become civilised: by repressing differentiation due to luck, it would have scotched most discoveries of new possibilities. [...] 98–99 (incidentally, an example of why I think the allergy of Austrians to mathematics is almost religious in nature) But because of the delusion that macro-economics is both viable and useful (a delusion encouraged by its extensive use of mathematics, which must always impress politicians lacking any mathematical education, and which is really the nearest thing to the practice of magic that occurs among professional economists) [prices and value are dumb] explanations that vainly endeavour to account for them as ‘objective’ [...] cannot interpret the function or appreciate the indispensability of trading and markets for coordinating the productive efforts of large numbers of people.¶ and 138 How would religion have sustained beneficial customs? Customs whose beneficial effects were unperceivable by those practising them were likely to be preserved long enough to increase their selective advantage only when supported by some other strong beliefs; and some powerful supernatural or magic faiths were readily available to perform this role. [...] but fallacy only appears on p. 27 I have no intention to commit what is often called the genetic or naturalistic fallacy. I do not claim that the results of group selection of traditions are necessarily ‘good’ — any more than [...] cockroaches, have moral value.¶ [...] whether we like it or not, without the particular traditions I have mentioned, the extended order of civilisation could not continue to exist (whereas, were cockroaches to disappear, the resulting ecological ‘disaster’ would perhaps not wreak permanent havoc on mankind); and that if we discard these traditions, out of ill-considered notions (which may indeed genuinely commit the naturalistic fallacy) [...] (and the index, as "naturalistic fallacy", but that doesn't count since it just refers to this page here)

Close

I think I might just go for an AFD nom actually. Someone else can decide whether they want the redirect or not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The line in Polylogism about how ..the writings of Thomas Kuhn and others made relativism a mainstream doctrine is a brutal oversimplification of the philosophy of science. It doesn't reflect the given source, for sure. Furthermore, I suspect the entire "Comparison to Kuhn's incommensurability" section to be OR, whether LLM-enhanced or not.

Moreover, if we look at what the Ludwig von Mises article itself says about "polylogism", we find the following: He rejected the notion that there could be distinct sciences or truths based on race, class, or nationality, such as "Jewish science" or "German science". The given source is a book that does not mention Ludwig von Mises at all. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the text was written first and the citation added later. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The book talks about jewish vs german science, and is a citation for such. Follynomics (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

But it doesn't talk about Ludwig von Mises, so it doesn't support the claim to which it was attached, i.e., that Ludwig von Mises rejected the notion that there could be distinct sciences or truths. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

"Magic fallacy" has been deleted. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

AlphaBetaGamma123 has made hundreds of quick-succession rewrites, almost all of which display the usual signs. Working through tagging them currently.

(At some point the editor was blocked for sockpuppeting reasons.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup note: all edits by this account are eligible to be WP:BANREVERTed, as they were made while violating a block via socking. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Football_League_(2024%E2%80%93present)&oldid=1340299179 Clear usage of AI prompt here in 2026 season: "Got it — you’d like your text expanded so that each paragraph has a fuller, more developed style without changing its meaning or factual accuracy. Here’s a version with longer, smoother paragraphs while keeping the citations intact and the tone professional, like a sports article or Wikipedia entry."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Apostle&oldid=1339912700 And here he titles the article as "Possible Travel to Russia and Scandinavia"; his capitalization of "travel" shows signs of LLM usage.

I hope someone can revise his edits, as he has only made 19 of them, 6 of which have been reverted. BillyTheConqueror (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am puzzled by additions like Special:Diff/1340096709 that seemingly fashion new text that already contains {{cn}} tags and the like. This is not the only user I've seen this from. Einsof (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

LLM training data includes Wikipedia source text with maintenance tags. It doesn't understand why those are there or what their function is, so when trying to replicate plausible-sounding wikitext it sometimes includes maintenance tags (and, humorously, often a blank decline template in drafts) Athanelar (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I have already revised his Thomas the Apostle and John the Apostle edits. I hope someone can do his sports and Philip the Apostle edits. BillyTheConqueror (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

In any case, I also support reverting or revising the TA's edits. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed the rest of their edits. Many showed signs of LLM writing. For those that cited sources, all contained claims not present in those sources. I reverted all of their changes that were unconstructive or that failed verification. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 16:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting here that the user attempted to blank this report. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

They've now also generated a draft against WP:NEWLLM. I've left them a warning. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I have reported them here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Frequent unconstructive edits with alleged use of AI by User:2026-10263-07, request for removal of editing privileges. BillyTheConqueror (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

finished BillyTheConqueror (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

archive now BillyTheConqueror (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested.

The LLM edits by DJ Sturm (talk · contribs) to the Estonia article need an edit-by-edit tracker for this special case, since the LLM edit reverts have to be integrated with subsequent revisions. I don't think this deserves notifying DJ Sturm. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, notifying them would be somewhat pointless since they've been infed'd sitewide for their conduct on commons. Though I'd question the "deserves notifying" phrasing in general. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested.

The LLM edits by DJ Sturm (talk · contribs) to the Estonia article need an edit-by-edit tracker for this special case, since the LLM edit reverts have to be integrated with subsequent revisions. I don't think this deserves notifying DJ Sturm. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, notifying them would be somewhat pointless since they've been infed'd sitewide for their conduct on commons. Though I'd question the "deserves notifying" phrasing in general. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Luis jimenez is an LLM-generated article that is up for CSD A10, as its subject is already covered by Luis Jiménez (sculptor). Creator Ryan162j (talk · contribs), who is enrolled in a student program, also created numerous subpages in their userspace, including two more drafts on Luis Jiménez and one on the Blue Mustang. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ryan162j/Luis jimenez. I am not sure how to proceed on other subpages.

Other users at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University, San Bernardino/Latinx Art and the Politics of Presence (Fall 2025), e.g. User:Lamiy23/Mahmoud Mokhtar, also used LLMs for their work on subjects that are already covered here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

not sure this is fully AI, at the very least it has been [poorly] human-edited. ("Luis Jimenez is just a sculptor" is pretty funny, even refreshing, in context.)

that said, probably the same advice as above, contact the instructor and/or wiki ed representatives. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Cleanup has been requested and is being tracked at /2025-12-02 Bruteforce7700, 131 pages need review.

I asked this user about possible LLM use last month, and they said they din't use AI. However, based on their past and current edits. I don't believe this is true. At the very least, AI summarization and/or copyediting appear to be in play. The standard WP:AISIGNS are all present, and digging into the citations attached to said signs, I have consistently found verification issues:

• Source misrepresentations on Midwest Rock & Roll
• Source misrepresentations on Burn (Papa Roach song)
• Source misrepresentaitons on Killing Fields (song)

I stopped here, but I don't really have much reason to think the earlier stuff is better on this metric. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Their assertion that they don't use AI for any of [their] contributions to Wikipedia is provably untrue, utm_source=chatgpt.com is present in Special:Diff/1282797287 and Special:Diff/1281838015. This may indicate a behavioral issue. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

welp there it is

(how are you finding these?) Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like filtering the log at 1346 (hist · log) for this editor's contributions NicheSports (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Correct, Special:AbuseLog allows searching by user. Useful for supplementing manual checks. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

looks like they're still making edits, could someone please talk to them because I just don't have it in me right now, apologies Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Trying a different approach, I've carefully tagged all issues within an article they recently created (now draftified), and started a new topic on their talk page referencing it. Hopefully a demonstration of the issues involved will help. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four They have continued to edit since your note on their Talk page, with (of course) no reply to you. Your diffs above are troubling. David10244 (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Since my last, more direct message, they have only made four small and issue free edits. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, they've created some articles since this, and edits like are tagged with "possible AI-generated citations". This looks like one for ANI Kowal2701 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I had already left them a message about that particular edit before, but I just found more of the same issues with a more recent edit of theirs, and so have opened an ANI report. Indeffed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Tracking subpage created, 131 pages await review. Only creation since November 2024 were considered for inclusion. It appears that Bruteforce7700 often did not consider notability when creating new pages and blanking and redirecting may often be appropriate. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)