Wikipedia

Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 4

< Wikipedia:AI noticeboard
Latest comment: 15 hours ago by Kowal2701 in topic Probable LLM usage by User:OmeletteRice
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Edits at Pop music

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm concerned about the edits of User:User7312549 at Pop music. I have twice deleted the edits, but a second opinion would be great. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure on AI use here, but the source-to-text integrity is poor, and the choice of sources is also not great:
In the late 1990s and early 2000s the digital distribution of music became increasingly popular, platforms like CD Baby and Tunecore made it easier for independent artists to release and distribute music without a major label - The source it is cited to does not mention CD Baby/CDBaby or TuneCore. The source also doesn't mention any of the 1990s, "nineties," any 199X year, etc.
During the early to mid 2000s streaming platforms became popularized with apps like Pandora and Spotify, pushing artists to prioritize singles over full albums. The source (paywalled but accessible via Wikipedia Library) does not mention Pandora (which was pretty minor in terms of impact anyway). The sentence here also does a poor job of explaining why streaming platforms encourage artists to prioritize singles over full albums; skimming the source there does seem to be potential information about that.
Pop music shifted towards shorter songs, with catchy hooks, and shorter attention grabbing intros, optimized for replay. -- Source-to-text integrity OK although there is probably a better source than The Washington Times. "Catchy hooks" is also a bit sus - when didn't pop songs have catchy hooks?
Advances in digital audio workstations (DAWs) and home recording equipment made music production more accessible, allowing independent and emerging artists to create commercially ready tracks without relying on traditional studio settings. Probably verifiable but not backed up by the source it's cited to, mostly because the source appears to be someone's crappy business-school assignment (Choose a company that provides an interesting example of how digital transformation has created opportunities or challenges for business and operating models.)
Social media became increasingly popular during this time with platforms like MySpace and YouTube allowing artists to share their music and connect to fans more directly. This created a shift from traditional promotion methods to a more direct and interactive model. - Cited to an AI slop advertorial blog post that doesn't mention MySpace or YouTube. The second sentence is also redundant -- it didn't "create" a shift, it is the shift.
Research on contemporary songwriting practices indicates that platform standards shape the structure and format of pop songs, with elements adjusted to fit algorithmic playlist norms, including shorter intros, earlier hooks, and clearly defined song sections. This is probably verifiable but not corroborated by the source it is cited to. "Research" is also WP:WEASELWORD-ing.
In the late 2010s-early 2020s, TikTok became a powerful tool for fan engagment and viral marketing. Challenges and memes made music trends and hit go viral giving rise to rapid chart success. In 2024, 84% of songs that entered the Billboard Global 200 chart initially went viral on TikTok, indicating the platform's role in influencing global pop music chart performance. - The statistic is corroborated by the source, but not the stuff before it; furthermore, this whole sentence is promotional in tone. The last clause is also redundant captain obvious stuff -- and does sound very much like AI.
In the words of Anthony Fantano: not good. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Per Gnomingstuff's analysis, yeah that's AI. Because this is a WikiEd situation you should contact the instructor and/or User:Brianda (Wiki Ed), who actually reverts a lot of this content herself. I'm seeing a ton of this now bc of the end of the semester. NicheSports (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all very much for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Please feel free to ping myself or @Ian (Wiki Ed), when you encounter work that is not suitable for Wikipedia from our student editors, especially when it might be AI. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Quickdrew and possible AI hoax edits to contentious US politics topics

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

First off, all of this user's edits display the gamut of WP:AISIGNS, this is the baseline we're working off and should be assumed. What elevates this to an actual noticeboard post, though, is two things.

One, most of their edits involve the Trump administration, QAnon, etc., all very contentious topics we don't want to get things wrong in. (also CAN bus for some reason) There are only a few articles they've added, but they've added a lot of text.

Two, their version of the Mar-a-Lago Accord article has severe hallucination issues bordering on WP:HOAX. I nominated it for AfD but tl;dr: the draft calls it the "Margo Largo Accord" and discusses it as if it had actually been proposed and gotten reactions and analysis, which it hasn't. Even assuming good faith, this is very bad. Obviously they're not doing much review of their own output, and given that the Mar-a-Lago Accord article was largely unchanged until now it seems like others are at least sometimes taking that output at face value. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This actually led me down a rabbit hole of the Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration article as a whole, which this user was a regular on.
I just did a massive trim of the Spain section there, because it had a lot of AI generated content, source-to-text discrepancies and verifiability issues. This combined with that user's activity there makes me think this article needs a fine-toothed comb; I intend to do it a bit myself, but it's about time for me to get off Wikipedia for the moment, so I thought I'd drop this here in case anybody else wants to give it a look over in the meantime. Athanelar (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
yeah I've looked at that article before, I suspect a lot of it is either AI generated or AI edited but there are just so many edits to slog through Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
142 edits to mainspace across 9 articles mostly related to post-1992 American politics and conspiracy. Cleanup requested. Foreign policy of the Biden administration seems to have been hit by many other LLM users, and needs immediate life support. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Probable LLM usage by User:OmeletteRice

Latest comment: 15 hours ago7 comments5 people in discussion

@OmeletteRice: has created a large amount of pages all within minutes of each other over the past few months. Many of the pages were already moved the the draft space or deleted via deletion discussion, however ~20 articles still exist that I need help checking over. While it is completely possible that they are writing these in an external editor and copying them over, the articles written still have a bunch of signs of LLM generated text.

While I am not 100% sure on this, I do believe they are using an LLM and additional eyes would be very much helpful. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 17:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

These do seem plausibly LLM generated, yeah.
Did some spot-checking -- it's a little difficult since most/all of these sources are in Japanese. Haven't found anything that blatantly isn't mentioned by the source yet; some statements might be borderline WP:CLOP but it's hard to tell with the translation gap. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
They have been warned several times to follow our MoS, e.g., to use Sentence Case for the name of then band they keep writing about, but they persist in using ALL CAPS FOR THE BAND NAME, because that's what the band/their marketing company/Japanese press do, which would certainly suggest at least a lot of copy-pasting. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Considering a lot of these are in Japanese, I'll look into this case. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Couldn't figure out a good summary to this. Surviving articles doesn't look too bad after a quick glance. Notability concerns and tone/promotion issues left and right, however/ AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
@AlphaBetaGamma Agreed, I would also note that this has now been discussed with the user here. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 13:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Multinational Force – Ukraine

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The main author, D'Lisye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of Multinational Force – Ukraine has been constructively engaging in discussion in relation to LLM use. However, the earlier addition of a Microsoft Copilot URL and addition of a Google Gemini URL as sources shows that at least earlier, the user severely lacked understanding of WP:VERIFIABILITY and of what LLMs actually are. I admit that I was flabbergasted. Anyway, I reverted both of those edits.

My recommendation was a voluntary de facto WP:TNT of Multinational Force – Ukraine by the main author; my suggestion doesn't seem to have been accepted. Just now in browsing LLM discussions, I see that some common LLM tracers are present in the current version of the article. Just cleaning up obvious tracers seems pointless to me, since then all the more nuanced problems will remain, requiring much more editing energy in making corrections than would be needed to rewrite from scratch (by human-summarising key points in the sources, per all the regular Wikipedia policies and guidelines).

I suggest a clean up if someone is willing to invest the huge of amount of energy needed to do so, or do a soft WP:TNT with a stub rewrite, or propose a formal WP:AFD for WP:TNT (the topic itself is clearly notable). Boud (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It's possible that the editor may actually accept a rebuild from a stub, i.e. a soft WP:TNT. Let's see ... Boud (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
The editor accepted to restart, but is restoring a lot of LLM-style material. Boud (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Owais Al Qarni

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Owais Al Qarni (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) is an editor, also very active at bn.wikipedia.org, who has been using LLMs on English WP so prolifically since late 2023 that they gained many advanced permissions while doing so, including autopatrolled. They have created hundreds of articles according to XTools. Based on the evidence below, I think we should assume that most of this user's substantive mainspace contributions since late 2023 were LLM-assisted.

Accompanying CCI investigation

While digging into this I also discovered significant copyright violations in their userspace, flagged it for MCE89, who found more in their mainspace contributions, and a CCI request was made and a CCI investigation opened. My intuition is that the pure copyvio is primarily in their userspace or pre-LLM mainspace contributions; mainspace copyvio since late 2023 is (while apparently common) likely LLM-related.

LLM use

This editor had an intermediate level of English as of early 2023 - also see . By late 2023 or so they had started contributing via LLM both in and out of mainspace . Some of their earlier LLM article creations were tagged by Gnomingstuff; OAQ then went to G's talk page and denied using LLMs . I then independently found their edits via EF 1325 (hist · log), specifically, their recent creation of Risala Ahlus Sunnat wal Jamaat. That led to this exchange where they repeatedly prevaricated about their LLM usage. They eventually, after the CCI request was opened, admitted to having used LLMs but said they had stopped at some point . I am sure their English has improved in the last few years, but I am highly skeptical of their claim about no longer using LLMs given the following, both of which this user created in the past month.

  • Sirat-un-Noman: they created this entire article, but see the Reviews section in particular
  • User:Owais_Al_Qarni/35 includes many chatbot responses about creating biographical article summaries, such as If you want, I can **continue translating the rest of his journalistic career** along with his editorial achievements and compile the full biography, covering **all his literary, translation, and journalistic contributions**.. Created at

NicheSports (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The sandbox is pretty unambiguous. I don't remember whether this was a case where I independently stumbled across multiple of their articles or only tagged the more obvious articles Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
@Gnomingstuff Based on that sandbox, and the earlier denials followed by the admission (described above), why is that user not yet blocked? They claim they are on a Wikibreak, maybe waiting for this to blow over... David10244 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
This is a new one. I was looking at their current BN user page and noticed they have a Taliban flag there as well as a custom user box that Google translated to "This user supports the Taliban and is proud of it". Unrelated to any LLM stuff but I suppose people should be aware of this if they come back to editing NicheSports (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the contributions, on 20 November they moved a mass of articles to "User:Owais Al Qarni/[Article Title]" with the edit summary Rewrite needed due to issues with LLM usage, which seems like a pretty flat admission in those cases I'd say. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Adamsecretxx

Latest comment: 6 months ago23 comments7 people in discussion

Most of the edits that have been made show signs of LLM (most significantly the bolding, and some sources not linking to what they say they link to), but not enough for G15; additionally, most of the articles that have been created seem to be non-notable, but in that frustrating boundary region where it's not obvious whether it seems non-notable because of the LLM or because it is. (Or maybe I'm being too lenient here.) User has also made significant changes to Victor Mayer, a preexisting article, and made half of it look AI generated. Would appreciate more eyes on the contribs. Fermiboson (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that most/all of their substantive mainspace contributions seem to be unreviewed LLM. Albert Mayer (Davos) is G15-able (looks like you tagged it for A7). I think Marie Fabergé can be G15'd as well, and it is teeming with WP:AISIGNS. Also see Special:Diff/1322820628: I wonder about this editor's English level. I will drop them a note on their talk page. We should create a tracking page as well NicheSports (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I´ll be more mindful firm now on to explain my edits and new page proposals. Adam Adamsecretxx (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
+1, as the kids say. I draftified one of their creations a couple of weeks ago for a possible combination of LLM and CIR issues, and now their talk page has lit up with many similar notices and no response from this user. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the messages.
I´m admitting that I had LLM check up on my texts. I did not know thats not allowed. the research and the original texts were mine. I¨m also not sure what is noticeabale and what not.
MARIE FABERGE For example Marie Fabergé is the wife of one of the most prominent jewellers ...so is she noticeable or not? The entire lineage of Fabergé is written about in basically every monograph about carl Fabergé. It is not up to me to decide.
I do have knack to research topics that are NOT extremely published, so that might be the problem, plus that I used ai to check up on my form and content, I´ll update how I work.
REUCHLINHAUS I did edit one page now. Reuchlinhaus, I hope it looks clean. The German wikipedia already has a page on that subject, so at least in germany it seems to be noticeable, and I kept it very close to what was in the German wikipedia. Thanks for checking my writings and for being lenient with me as an on and off user. Adam Adamsecretxx (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
I¨m also not sure what is noticeabale and what not – The relevant policy is WP:NOTABILITY, and the section to pay the most attention to is the one on the general notability guidelines. Do note that the English and German Wikipedias have different standards for notability, so a topic that is notable on one project may not be on the other. (You may wish to visit the Introduction, which can help get you up-to-speed on what is expected from editors on enwiki.)
As a more general note about large language models, they are ill-suited to assist with editing. LLMs are prone to hallucinations, have issues maintaining a neutral tone, and often produce prose incompatible with the manual of style. As these models are predictive, they can predict incorrectly even for simple prompts or requests. Thank you for discussing this with us. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Yes. I study the guidelines now for the different countries and it becomes more clear. It helps to be sure about what generally all the rules are, albeit jn detail it iS about a group effort. Adamsecretxx (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Your article on Maria Fabergé contains sources that are entirely hallucinated. The ancestry link goes nowhere and the book "Gustav Fabergé and his Dresden Years" doesn't even seem to exist exist; the only results for it on google are the Wikipedia articles for the Fabergés, and gbooks turns up nothing. Your fourth {{cite web}} reference doesn't even have a URL specified. Athanelar (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Yes the text is largely based on that book with the recent research. It¨s not hallucinated. the link does not go to a real page and I will see that I can find a link that works. Adamsecretxx (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
The text is based on what book? The book "Gustav Fabergé and his Dresden Years" doesn't seem to exist. I can't find any evidence of it whatsoever. Can you show some indication that it exists?
How did you end up adding a link to an Ancestry page that doesn't exist? Athanelar (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
For future reference, the citation in question is: <ref name="Skurlov">{{Cite book |last=Skurlov |first=Valentin |title=Gustav Fabergé and his Dresden Years |publisher=Igor Carl Fabergé Foundation |location=Moscow |year=2018}}</ref>
Could you please provide an ISBN or other similar identifier? The title does not appear to exist. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
I suggested above that that article could probably be G15'd, but after seeing this source analysis that probably is now definitely. You want to take it? NicheSports (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Take a look, I've already tagged it. Athanelar (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks! NicheSports (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
It looks like they're still at it (see these edits to Jardines del Bosque and Jardines del Pedregal) despite stating they would stop using LLMs on their talk page. Should this be brought to ANI? Zygmeyer (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I think so, yes NicheSports (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I've never done this before, is there a guide for the procedures I should follow or should I just go for it? Zygmeyer (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
There are instructions at the top of the noticeboard. The most important point is to present relevant diffs, which have already been compiled in this thread, the tracking page, and the user talk page. You also need to ensure that you notify the user you're reporting. Twinkle can help you follow all the necessary steps. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I misspoke slightly – Twinkle won't fill out a whole report, but it can simplify the process of notifying users. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I see your conversations about my account. What exactly did I do at the pages Jardines del Pedregal and Jardines del Bosque that goes against Wikipedia rules? - Adamsecretxx (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
@Adamsecretxx, did you use a large language model/AI chatbot to generate new text for those two articles? I can't speak for @Zygmeyer, but those two edits have a different style and level of English fluency compared to your responses on talk pages, which makes me suspect AI use. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for asking directly. Yes, I did use an AI/LLM tool at times to help rephrase or polish text, especially because English is not my first language. I now understand that this is discouraged for mainspace editing because it can create problems with tone, accuracy, and sourcing.
I’m stopping that practice for Wikipedia edits. I’m reviewing my recent contributions, reverting or trimming anything questionable, and moving any further work to draft or sandbox so it can be checked carefully before publication. Adamsecretxx (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I was going to respond to this, but now that a report has been made on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, let's continue the discussion there. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Ekabhishek

Latest comment: 6 months ago15 comments9 people in discussion

I was surprised to find all nonexistent links in this large addition. The editor Ekabhishek (talk · contribs) reverted themselves after some nagging and have stopped editing for the last couple of weeks. I found more instances of llm generated text added wholesale by them.

Going back in their contributions list up to July 2025 and looking at large edits, I've boldly (they are an admin) removed their edits which weren't backed up by the refs, from Meenakshi Jain, Mrs (film) and Dastak (1970 film) as original research. But I keep finding more - like [this edit] where the last ref link is a page not found - as I go further back. Legospy (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yikes, that first example is textbook AI text. I've seen NPPs and autopatrolled users throw LLM text around, but admins? That's new. I'm going to see how deep is this. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 03:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Yeah that sure has a few WP:AISIGNS. And it had a bunch of broken links? That is a G15-level of proof of unreviewed LLM content. I also see that Ekabhishek chose to not answer three questions on their talk page from Legospy about LLM usage. @AlphaBetaGamma I will add an AINB notice to their talk page and tell them we need to hear from them. Do you want me to wait until you've dug more? NicheSports (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Looks like they haven't edited since November 18 so no rush on the AINB notice. I'll wait until you've looked into this. NicheSports (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Would it not be wise to bring it up at WP:AN? I would imagine an admin editing disruptively like this should at least warrant a reconsidering of their access to the tools. Athanelar (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
They haven't edited in weeks so there's no rush imo. Let's look into their edits first? Also too early to talk about recall. NicheSports (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
I know this is a blatant assumption of bad faith that should usually be avoided, but if they simply return to editing and fly under the radar with their edits again, wouldn't the damage be severe? I can't feel safe until they give us a non-dodgy explanation/declaration. I really do not want an another recall drama (it has already depressed me a lot) unless the admin in question causes a WP:ANI level of disruption and refuses to communicate.
Speaking of digging through, I was seeing if I needed to blast off any faulty articles, but I don't think there is an urgent need compared to their edits. they have made around 11 articles in 2025, and all of their other creations predate ChatGPT. Stuff like Bina Ramani had some eye-raising issues with promotional words (pionneering with no cited source actually saying that word). However, their 11 creations in 2025 probably needs some duct taping, so cleanup is requested. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Judging by their creation activity, we might need to scan every one of their mainspace edits after the admin's return from inactivity in 2024ish, which is easily over a thousand. Holy hell... AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Sigh. Thanks for looking into this. I agree with Athanelar that this probably needs to go to AN if Ekabhishek doesn't return and address these issues soon. If we go there, we should try to quantify the extent of the LLM misuse and bring representative diffs - any chance you can keep working on that? Added: Fifteen's diffs below look compelling. We could also ping an admin to get advice. Newslinger comes to mind. And if at any point Ekabhishek returns to editing without engaging with us I think we should go to AN right away. NicheSports (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
I've notified Ekabhishek of this discussion at User talk:Ekabhishek § AI cleanup noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
"Pioneering" is probably a rendition of descriptions like this: "What really makes Bina Ramani's transformation of Hauz Khas Village so remarkable and memorable is that she did much more than just reviving a neighbourhood, she birthed the vibe of the place. She turned ruins into rendezvous spots, history into heritage, and then made the heritage turn into a social movement. It wasn’t long before the area became synonymous with indie fashion, experimental art, and late-night conversations under fairy lights." (The Godmother of Hauz Khas And Its Transformation Of The '80s (cited in th Bina Ramani article))
Another article that uses the word "pioneer" to describe Bina Ramani is this one.
The first case Legospy cited and the examples fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four analyzed sound like llm/hallucination though. Deamonpen (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
This was a surface-level look. I've not included any snippets of LLM prose which often overstep the bounds of WP:NPOV, nor utm_source indicators. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
They're unambiguously using AI for some things -- here is an early sandbox edit that contains attributableIndex json all over the place Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
In some recent additions, I may have used ai for copy editing and improvement, but rewritten to avoid such a scenario, though I admit some mistakes would have crept in. So if you feel like it is too much in some places, please go ahead and remove or rewrite, no issues. Since we are all here to BUILD wikipedia and in good faith. I will also try to rewrite whatever it is possible next. Thanks --Ekabhishektalk 14:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
I may have – Why the uncertainty? An LLM has definitively performed more than copy editing as evident by multiple hallucinations. Regardless, LLMs are unsuited for copyediting, they are predictive models and can predict wrong even with very simple prompts, leading to the introduction of hallucinations, biases, unencyclopedic prose, and non-neutral constructions.
Acting in good faith is half the equation, competence is the other half and requires editors understand the tools they use to ensure that, at a minimum, outright falsifications are not blindly copied-and-pasted into the project. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Feizan

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Many telltale signs of AI. Huge edits using curly quotes and awkward tone, while talk page responses are sloppy. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I had to deal with some rough edits to Porcupine but left the user alone due to inactivity past the end of November. More attention would be helpful now that they are editing more again. -- Reconrabbit 18:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

User:UrusHyby

Latest comment: 5 months ago12 comments5 people in discussion

This editor first began adding AI-generated text to Litvinism with all the obvious signs. See for example this edit which is obviously AI-generated. Despite the warnings on their talk page, they have continued to make large additions to a range of articles with signs of AI use. It seems possible that they have now added AI-generated text along with fictitious references that do not directly support the statement. This is evidenced by some of the references having no page numbers or a long range.

See for example this edit to Battle of Orsha where they included a link to a page that does not exist (I could not find any such article that exists). After this was reverted, they restored the changes but added more sources that do not directly support what is being said. Similar issue at Marc Chagall. In this edit they added more sources and another editor tagged one of the statements with the following reason: Editor, who added this and two other refs, provided a non-existent quote in one of them, while twisting some other already present one in spite of quotation marks around it. Mellk (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

As another example, UrusHyby made this edit to Kievan Rus' and one of the statements they added was: It was a multi-tribal, loose federation where the Principality of Polotsk (in modern Belarus), the Principality of Kiev (Ukraine), and the Novgorod Republic (Russia) acted as key, often competing, centers of power. I looked at the cited source (they specified pages 10 to 15) and I could not find those specific states being mentioned as centers of power. For example, the Polotsk principality is only mentioned in the context of post-Soviet Belarusian intellectuals turning to it in "their search for the origins of their nation in the same historical period" (p. 12). Mellk (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
They've been using an LLM since they resumed editing in September, is LLM nonsense. All references at their most recent creation, Mikita Melkazioraŭ, don't exist.
I've left them a message on their talk page that will hopefully convince them to desist. Cleanup is necessary. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Hey everyone, thanks for your attention and your strive of having wikipedia the best source of corect information. That i share as well. I will copy here the comment i've made on my personal page, stating that I do believe that i follow the core concept of WP that AI is a proper tool, is it used carefully/. That is exactly what i was doing. Similarly the approach of WP:AICLEAN states "The purpose of this project is not to restrict or ban the use of AI in articles, but to verify that its output is acceptable and constructive, and to fix or remove it otherwise.". All the changes i do are goodwill based and supported by sources that i personally handpick.
But thank you for the notice I will be paying even more attention that the links remain intact after the automated proofreading\grammar corrections that i do. Preferences (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
All the changes i do are goodwill based and supported by sources that i personally handpick – All of the references you added to Mikita Melkazioraŭ are hallucinated and do not exist, this edit to Bicycle-sharing system added a hallucinated reference, as did this edit to ERM Telematics, as did this edit to Package tracking, as did this edit to Device tracking software, as did...
Nowhere in Wikipedia policy will you find it stated that AI is a proper tool, it is simply not a core concept. Two policies and guidelines which do exist are WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:DISRUPT. Your editing is in clear continual violation of both. Your automated proofreading\grammar corrections are simply disruptive, and if you continue to perform them I will open an WP:ANI report myself. Stop.
If you lack the ability to proofread and correct grammar yourself, and instead must rely on copying and pasting output from an LLM, then you should not be making those edits at all. ​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Even though, I am still confident about the sources I use. In all of the edits you've mentioned, there are proper links 1 for the Bicycle-sharing system, or this in Device tracking software edit I did det your point, as you're right, that some of the links get broken, unfortunately.
Which is a pity, as many of the articles that I improved were in a really poor shape, including a politically-hot one Litvinism that was a subject for deletion. And having good intentions and some understanding of subjects I tried to improve it as well as some others.
I do doubt that your revert of my edit of ERM Telematics article that had WP:PROMO since 2016 made any good, and brought it any to a better state, comparing with my version, even keeping in mind usage of AI tools.
But, I got the point. Thanks again. I will be more careful. Preferences (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Are you sure you are confident about the sources you use? What about this edit, where you provided a non-existent quote "Born Moishe Shagal in Liozna, near Vitebsk, in what is now Belarus" - allegedly from the Jackie Wullschlager's book? There is no such a quote in the book! So where did you find that quote? Alexschneider250 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
In the very same edit you added a ref to the book "Minsk - Wilna - Stationen einer undenkbaren Freundschaft", allegedly by Thomas M. Bohn. Are you sure that book exists? If so, could you provide a link to a web page saying anything about that book? Alexschneider250 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
As one more example, UrusHyby made this edit to Russification adding a quote (with quotation marks around it): "What the Russian bayonet didn't accomplish, the Russian school will.", allegedly by the Russian Governor-General Mikhail Muravyov, from the book "Belarus: A Perpetual Borderland" by Andrew Savchenko, p. 55. But I read that entire page (and neighboring pages too) in that book and I could not find any sentence like that there, not even slightly close in meaning to that quote.
Moreover, that quote is a fake! Mikhail Muravyov never said that. Actually, Ivan Petrovich Kornilov, a Russian official in the 19th century, said this:

Русское образованiе сильнѣе русскаго штыка. Въ какiе-нибудь 4 года русскiя школы сдѣлали болѣе для образованiя народа и ослабленiя полонизма, чѣм войска въ десятки лѣтъ. [Russian education is stronger than the Russian bayonet. In about 4 years Russian schools did more for the people's education and weakening of the polonization than troops in tens of years.]

This quote is being twisted and spread all around Wikipedia by politically-engaged editors, who are also trying to make it look like it was said about the oppression of the Belarusian language. Obviously, the quote is about using education to oppose the imposition of the Polish language among inhabitants of the Northwestern Krai. Alexschneider250 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
This is continuing, see Special:Diff/1333034795. Most of this does not verify in the source , and whatever does is SYNTH. Very likely LLM-generated. NicheSports (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
They have now reinstated this content . I left them a final warning on their talk page NicheSports (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Lehrling18 creating AI-generated pages

Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Hi all,

The user I mentioned above has been creating drafts and revising existing articles (380 edits, account created 22 November) about French WW2 military units (typically French Army corps). Interestingly, he has also participated in talk pages (, , ), with AI-generated responses.. I haven't done a deep dive into whether his sources are hallucinated, but none of them have URLs or are CS1. He has also been adding navboxes to the articles, but they are made from tables + CSS (they won't uniformly update) and occasionally are named differently depending on the article.

Here are some of the articles that he has created. While it isn't as obvious compared to other AI-generated pages, the signs are still there and his talk page participation is damning. In draftspace, when his content gets denied for being AI-generated, is appears that he just regenerates it then resubmits it.

EatingCarBatteries (contributions, talk) 21:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It is generally a bad idea to respond to allegations of AI use with AI.
I can tell because of the bolded list formatting. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
It's not AI. – You are using an LLM, if you continue to lie and edit in this manner using an LLM, an ANI report will be opened which will most likely result in you being indefinitely blocked or cbanned. Stop. ​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Weirdly, they seem to have vanished immediately after they were reported here. Prior to this, they were making multiple edits per day. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Their userpage also appears totally AI generated. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hallucinating sources

Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Started finding what appear to be hallucinated citations – here, here, and here. (Even if the individual titles correspond to actual books, other details like authors and ISBNs did not match at all.)

Flagged to the editor who is experimenting with LLMs. They have now reverted a bunch of their own edits but think this series of articles is worth a closer look to make sure there aren't any other garbled or made-up citations. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Tracking subpage created and is available at the top of this report. 158 pages need review. I've done my best to exclude obviously unproblematic edits. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
I've given them a bespoke final warning, if they misuse an LLM again please ping me. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four They continue to edit without checking their own work or taking responsibility per their Talk page. Seems like they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
WikiNoia is now indefinitely blocked from articlespace following an ANI report at WP:ANI#Another continually unconstructive LLM editor. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Camoz87

Latest comment: 5 months ago43 comments6 people in discussion

Camoz87 (talk · contribs) I've been following this one for a few weeks. This user is a non-native English speaker who is relying on machine translation (at a minimum) for their mainspace edits. They have added transvio to articles and have been warned about LLM use 5+ times, by 3 editors, on their talk page. They have created many articles, which are often then draftified by other editors . This machine-generated text is insufficiently reviewed, sometimes including references with broken URLs . Here is an example of a material source-to-text integrity issue that I identified . This is even worse: it sure looks like they ran a few hundred poems through an LLM and asked it to summarize them in English. The user shows no signs of changing their approach, continuing to make machine-assisted edits today. NicheSports (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There's got to be a quicker way to sort cases like these out rather than a lengthy ANI thread followed by a CBAN Kowal2701 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. Although this one doesn't merit a CBAN, rather a mainspace block. It could have gone to ANI at any point in the last week I've just had ANI LLM fatigue. NicheSports (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
As an it.wiki sysop please consider that this user has been indef banned on it.wiki and is constantly evading the block creating hundreds of articles with LLMs even in his native language. --Friniate ✉ 20:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Just filed at ANI where I imagine this will be quickly handled. Pinged you there out of courtesy in case you want to add anything re: block evasion NicheSports (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Or not so quickly. Confused by this one NicheSports (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
I assume people are waiting either for them to respond or to start editing again, they haven’t been active since the 9th Kowal2701 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
On a related issue, Is there a quick way to get the list of articles edited by them needing cleanup? (I mean, without creating it manually) --Friniate ✉ 00:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
For the enwiki pages they've created, see here . I was going to AfD/prod some of these once the ANI thread was resolved.
Also noting their global contribs they've been active more recently at es.wiki, porting over many of the same LLM-generated articles. Does this merit a global lock? NicheSports (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
@NicheSports Thanks, but I meant a list of all edited articles like the subpage created by @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. Is there a quick way to have it or must it be done manually?
I'm going to ask to a steward if it's possible to apply a global lock, but I'm not sure if it will be done as an ANI thread on enwiki is still ongoing... --Friniate ✉ 15:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I think requesting a global lock is a good idea, they're active at es.wiki and wikidata (though I personally can't tell if their edits are unconstructive). The tables are created by using User:DVRTed/AINB-helper script Kowal2701 (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
@Kowal2701 Thank you, I'll have a look at it! --Friniate ✉ 16:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
This Spanish language article they created on 11 January is a word-for-word translation of the likely LLM-generated Letter from Leonardo da Vinci to Ludovico Sforza. Given their extensive use of machine-translation on it.wiki, it is probably safe to conclude this was a machine translation. NicheSports (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
(As I thought, the steward I reached confirmed that it's preferable to wait for the conclusion of the ANI procedure here, in order not to overcome local community consensus). --Friniate ✉ 16:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
I didn't use AINB-helper for this one, though that can be a useful tool. The list was fetched using CCI's contribution surveyor (uncheck minor edits, set a relevant date range and a large negative bytes value), then formatted. If an editor wants a list of edited articles without creating a new subpage, then contribution surveyor is a more useful tool. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
They have now returned to enwiki and are attempting to G7 several of their article creations, with the edit summary "Italian LTA", which I suppose they are per Friniate, and trying to link to this thread. See . They are also updating the tracking page (sometimes incorrectly). Not sure how to interpret this. NicheSports (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Have asked them to engage at ANI, but they appear to be trying to aid in the clean-up? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Seems like it? Thanks for reaching out to them. Some communication would be helpful. NicheSports (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Speaking from experience I tend to have a much more malignant interpretation of his behaviour, he has an history of meddling with cleanups also of other users' edits. I think it's also likely that he's continuing to edit with temporary accounts... --Friniate ✉ 15:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
For example like this one.... --Friniate ✉ 15:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Or this one... --Friniate ✉ 15:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
As I thought, they for example tagged Giovanni Battista Ramusio as completed, without reverting themeselves... --Friniate ✉ 15:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
@Friniate Anachronist took care of things on enwiki . If you want to do anything on the cross-wiki side I'll leave it to you; re-requesting a global lock makes sense to me but I'm out of my depth here. I looked further into es.wiki and since January 7th they've made ~100 edits there , many but not all of which seem to be machine translations of their recent edits to enwiki. Examples:  ::  :: , etc. NicheSports (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
It's only a partial block from article creation, so not entirely remedied. (misread the block log) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
They are blocked from creating or editing articles. PackMecEng (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
@Friniate pinging you here per our discussion at a different talk page. I saw this comment from @Ca yesterday and thought they might be able to help delete this LTA's LLM creations. From xtools Camoz created 36 articles in the LLM-era (a dozen of which are already deleted); from what I have seen, all of these are likely unreviewed LLM-generated output and many can probably be deleted at AfD per WP:NEWLLM as long as they have not been subsequently materially edited by another user. Some of them are pretty egregious, such as List of Carmina Burana. If I weren't traveling I would help AfD some of these but I thought Ca might be willing to take a look. NicheSports (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

(NicheSports—Kowal2701—Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four—PackMecEng) I started to ask for G15 on two articles created by Camoz (List of Carmina Burana and Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, but since they are a lot, I prefer to write here before finishing the job: do we all agree to ask for G15 for all the articles created by them? --Friniate ✉ 18:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@NicheSports sorry, I made a mistake with the ping so it probably didn't arrive to you. --Friniate ✉ 18:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
One of the three specific G15 criteria must be met before G15 can be requested, this means there needs to present either LLM communication, non-plausible hallucinated references, or nonsensical citations. Even if an editor is blocked following a discussion, unless there was consensus in that discussion, blanket deletion via G15 is not a default option.
Other remedies to consider in addition to G15 would be to draftify the article and leave a descriptive talk page message as to why, AfD, tagging the article, or fixing the article. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four So do I have to write in every G15 request why I think that the article was created by an LLM? I'm certainly not going to fix them, as for the tagging I think that it'd just postpone the problem... Maybe G15 for clear-cut cases and draftification where we have reasonable doubts?
PS: I didn't suggest a blanket deletion for all the articles created by them, but only for those already listed in the clean-up page. --Friniate ✉ 20:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, the page must exhibit one of the three strict G15 criteria before being tagged, and which of those three criteria are best indicated when tagging. Performing a descriptive draftification, either by leaving an appropriate tag or talk page message along with a good edit summary, is often a valid option when G15 is not met.
To clarify, the tracking list contains articles which should be reviewed further, some of the listed pages may need no action taken at all, in which case the unnecessary status should be set. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Agreed with fifteen's explanation. I try not to G15 nominate anything that is marginal. I was planning on AfD-ing List of Carmina Burana, as I'm pretty confident that one would be deleted at AfD. I am traveling for work but can look through their other creations for PROD/AfD candidates when I'm back. Anything that isn't deleted can safely be draftified per the machine-generated clause of WP:DRAFTREASON, which is much looser than the G15 criteria, as long as the article also meets the basic rules outlined in WP:DRAFTNO. NicheSports (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
@NicheSports Ok, you have much more experience than me, if you are going to open AfDs I'll leave it to you then, I'll only check the articles which don't need AfDs or to be draftified.. --Friniate ✉ 22:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
By the way, I think that TA as this were most likely always them, so we should pay attention to possible socks. --Friniate ✉ 23:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Agreed that looks like them. Probably worth adding a few pages to my watchlist... fifteen often looks out for socks as well. Thanks again for letting us know about the cross wiki behavior btw. NicheSports (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
No issue, thank to you for all the work you've done, a wikiproject like this is really cool XD --Friniate ✉ 23:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
They've done a lot of logged out editing as TAs, more than I care to list. For those with TAIV the majority seem to be under the /20 of ~2026-92236, and most recently there's ~2026-29058-7 which is on a different network. Will monitor for a month or so. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmlarson

Latest comment: 4 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hmlarson (talk · contribs) is an experienced and autopatrolled editor who tripped 1325 (hist · log) with their creation of PWHL Takeover Tour. If they are using LLMs, the use is occasional, they may subsequently edit some of the content, and I do not think it predates November 2025. See this edit from 2023 which was definitely not LLM-generated; compare to the style of the recently-created Kimbra Walter. What seems clearer is that Hmlarson is creating articles with material source-to-text integrity issues; pretty much the entire Purpose and objectives section fails verification, and is the type of corporate bulleted promo you'd expect from an LLM. Unfortunately, the conversations at Talk:PWHL Takeover Tour about these issues did not go well, with aspersions I was operating a multiple accounts and no engagement with the potential issues raised . I placed an ai-generated tag on the article, which they removed . I ran the article through Earwig and found some CLOP (nothing remotely worthy of CCI), but 945 girls' hockey players participated in clinics and meet-and-greets with PWHL athletes is copied word for word from .

NicheSports (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I did notify Hmlarson about this thread. I'm hoping we can discuss here; I respect their commitment to the articles they work on and they have clearly done a lot of great work on Wikipedia. I would have preferred to do this at a talk page but after the interaction at Talk:PWHL_Takeover_Tour I figured it was best to bring here. NicheSports (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
From a quick glance PWHL Takeover Tour#Format also fails verification.
Given that their only response has been to call you a sock the odds of interaction here seem slim, but hope springs eternal. Zygmeyer (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
the conversations at Talk:PWHL Takeover Tour about these issues did not go well – No kidding, the immediate and repeat followup condescension and bad faith musings are egregious.
I've looked at another one of their recent creations, 2021–22 PWHPA season, and it's so full of LLMisms and unsupported OR it's difficult to convey in a concise manner.
  • The Season statistics and results section is baffling from a human editor perspective, it's an unsourced section saying there is no source for the information, but makes sense if returned from an LLM.
  • The unsourced Notable players section contains a list with no notable players, just model bulletpoints of the types of notable players like International players from various countries and Younger players developing their skills.
  • The existance of an Impact and significance section itself is characteristic of model output, and the mostly-unsourced and editorial contents do not dissuade this notion: The season demonstrated the PWHPA's resilience and adaptability ... The successful navigation of the Olympic season and the continued growth of partnerships proved that the association's ...
This goes on and on. I've not bothered checking for source-text integrity, so much of the article is unsourced OR that it's already well past the threshold of the standards an autopatrolled editor should be holding themselves to. Given this and their recent unconstructive responses to good-faith concerns about their creations, I don't think they should have the perm, but that's something a different venue would have to address. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. Agreed on the perm, although I have no appetite for a different venue right now. As for the cleanup, I'm optimistic that it won't be that bad (I was worried when I saw 30k+ contribs). I am pretty confident the apparent LLM use started recently. Now that I have the AINB tracker installed I'll create the tracking page tomorrow. NicheSports (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Yikes, this is a bummer. I agree there should be more women's sports pages condidering how extensive our men's sports coverage is, but this is not the way to do it. I'm also concerned that prior to AI, Hmlarson copy-pasted text from press releases and organization websites and such. Thanks for making the cleanup page. I might try to help chip away at that list soon elchupacabra (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Is anyone able to check their recent edits? I see a few m dashes, and 22 Feb seems LLM-generated Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The prose of that edit seems likely, I fixed an issue with an incorrect ref, but aside from that the edit appears accurate. Spot checks of other recent edits don't show any obvious problems, certainly nothing on the level of the now-deleted Draft:PWHL Takeover Tour. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

BassiStone cleanup

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

BassiStone (talk · contribs) was community banned for using AI/LLM on various articles over the past few months. To make a long story very short, I only got involved in this because, as a regular on the Britney Spears article, I checked their contributions to Spears's 1999-2001 personal life section and on Swan Lake and some of these edits were in fact created via AI-generated information.

Given that, along with the fact that any edit by a banned user (good or bad) would be reverted (I have reverted some of them myself), I have been considering a potential cleanup project to weed out any AI/LLM issues on the articles the user has edited as a whole. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

along with the fact that any edit by a banned user (good or bad) would be reverted – The shortcut name of WP:BANREVERT is a little misleading. Banreverts only apply to edits made in violation of a ban or block, BassiStone's edits do not qualify since they were made prior to any ban or block. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
If there was a ban evader in general, we would revert them on sight and report it.
However, as what you pointed out, BassiStone's edits don't count since he’s not currently a ban evader. With the ban evader statement out of the way, one of my main points in this cleanup suggestion is that we should consider resolving the AI/LLM issues. At this point, should we file a cleanup request? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Cdkvsdph

Latest comment: 4 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion

This user reverted draftification on some LLM-generated articles and removed template on one, so bringing them here as AfD is not likely the solution for all of them.

  • Capture of 20 Jewish Youths by Khalid ibn al-Walid (634 CE): Only one source is cited for central claim, and it's an Arabic book not accessible for machine translation. Extensive WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Several passages, especially "Significance", bear hallmarks of LLM-generated prose.
  • 2026 Boko Haram Sabon Gari killings. Numerous claims fail verification.
  • Apakolu Massacre. As with the "20 Jewish youths" article, most of the article and sources are background to puff out an article about a lightly sourced event. The source used to cite the central claim fails verification on several points; it's an article about an attack on Musenge, not Apakolu, and it does not mention the other place names the article does. The only source that does mention these attacks attributes the news to a human rights group.
  • 2026 Chabad car ramming attack. Likely a notable topic, but prose seems AI-inflected and the citations don't line up with the material they're supposed to source. For example, the source for The attack occurred amid a broader rise in reported antisemitic incidents in the United States, prompting renewed calls from community leaders for increased security at houses of worship doesn't say anything about anti-semitic incidents or increased security needs.
  • Draft:Kharab_Ashk_shelling. Once again, the central claim of an attack on Kharab Ashk does not appear in two of the four the sources used to make it (, ), and the "Significance" section jumps out as AI-generated.

The difference between the smooth prose of the user's article contributions and the rocky prose of talk page comments and edit summaries also suggests there's some LLM use. Thanks for taking a look (and letting me know if I'm off-base in my assessment of AI's role here). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I've reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Using an LLM to justify inappropriate LLM use. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Is anything you disagree with LLM? Cdkvsdph (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Editor is now blocked for Repeated use of LLM/AI to improperly create/write articles and then denying its very obvious usage. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Cleanup page created HurricaneZetaC 01:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
FYI, Jklkjkj has moved most of these back to mainspace. SPI has been opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jklkjkj. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Blocked as a confirmed sock of Famous editor123456. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC arguments by DangerousEagles

Latest comment: 4 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion


Concern was expressed that User:DangerousEagles may have used an LLM to generate arguments in an ongoing RfC. Another argument was posted to an ongoing high-profile RfC. Some previous writing samples for comparison: . I'd appreciate the attention of uninvolved eyes to determine whether these arguments should remain. Uhoj (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

While my writing does seem at a glance like AI, I can assure you that I am not AI. With this oversaturation of AI content, it is incredibly saddening that human writing is unintelligible from AI writing. I, simpl put, am a human being.
Thanks and regards,
@DangerousEagles DangerousEagles (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
typo: simpl - simply. DangerousEagles (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Hi DangerousEagles, please read WP:BLUDGEON. In an RfC it is obviously fine to weigh in and to engage with other editors' opinions, but not to the extent of posting long responses to every editor you disagree with. Einsof (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I haven't read WP:BLUDGEON before, thank you for showing me this. It's unfortunate that my human-written text is classified as AI, even though it was purely written by me. DangerousEagles (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Uhoj can you please provide diffs for the RfC comments you'd like a second opinion on? NicheSports (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
@NicheSports Thanks for looking into it. Here you go:
And here are diffs of previous writing for comparison: --Uhoj (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
yeah this is pretty blatant, sorry Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd concur with the specific difs listed likely being LLM generated. WinstonDewey (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I actually believe DangerousEagles on this one... I was going to agree LLM at first but reading more of their contributions they are just extremely precise and specific and become way overly verbous, and in some cases they start replying to every new point in a discussion repeating their points back. Cleanup + collapsing was badly needed but I don't think you can outright toss all their arguments out elchupacabra (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_4&oldid=1362372582"