Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup

As long as the off-wiki world continues to have widespread LLM use, we are still going to get new users who hop on an immediately start making LLM edits. As our AI policy gains awareness, recent changes/new page patrollers are going to start doing a lot of drive-by templating of these users, who absent further intervention/policy explanation will probably make dozens or hundreds more LLM edits before ending up at ANI and most likely blocked. Is there a way for those of us who do a lot of LLM cleanup to see when this happens, so we can intervene as soon as possible to prevent further damage to the wiki and salvage new editors before they dig themselves into a indef-bound hole? Since warning templates are substituted rather than transcluded I can't just use the "what links here" tool. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 19:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The standard templates add the use talk page to Category:User talk pages with large language model notices, which currently has ca. 5200 pages. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh perfect, I didn't know about that category. Thanks! -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 20:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There's also this search. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

wow I didn't know about either of these thanks! Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

On a related note [1], is it possible to have an automated log of editors that have been warned for AI use (both using {{uw-ai }} and manually at AINB) with an edit counter for when their most recent edit was for people to monitor? Accounts could then be manually removed from it when they’re deemed not to be using LLMs anymore or are blocked Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I bet I could vibe-code up something to that effect with Claude ;). My ideal solution would automatically populate whenever a user is warned via a template, and would have space for a responding editor to assess likely date of first AI use, outcome of interaction with the editor, and date range of edits still needing to be checked. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 14:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That'd be really great, Dr vulpes said something similar re automating the creation of clean-up subpages [1] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

just be careful because people will yell at you if you deign to add the dreaded, horrible, awful death sentence that is a cleanup tag Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think that's a fantastic proposition. JTtheOG (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have a suspicion that User:~2026-24855-28 is making LLM based edits based on their edits on List of United States technological universities (see intro and how they changed the table) and a now deleted post on r/wikipedia reddit bragging about using ChatGPT to make edits. Admittedly, I have no hard evidence. - Wil540 art (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Checked this edit, it does have close paraphrasing. It also has spinning up apparent OR based on 1,000+ page patent documents. This may be a case of handwritten draft rejected, then run it through an llm to resubmit (looks like they made five such expansions within two minutes). CMD (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Chipmunkdavis Good points. This seems like a motivated editor. What’s the best way to proceed? - Wil540 art (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Unless llm-text is found from earlier (I had a quick look and didn't see any obvious flags), reverting the edits from 4 May onwards is probably enough. Can drop a note on their talkpage. CMD (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've gone ahead and done this for the five drafts in question. CMD (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

They're back on a new TA. This included an llm expansion to a live article, here. What seems curious is that this expansion actually removes two offline sources. I'm beginning to think that the initial drafts are AI as well, although they're stubby and almost entirely sourced to www.uspto.gov/, which I assume is PD anyway? CMD (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Now they've jumped to TA. They seem to be jumping TAs when an old one gets a warning. This needs admin intervention. CMD (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Looking further, this appears to be the same person as this TA, which was separately noticed for AI use by Gurkubondinn. This is a big cleanup job. CMD (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ohh, this is the Draft:Age and mathematical productivity editor...

• User talk:Gurkubondinn/Archives/2026 §§ Fixed DOI error at "Age and mathematical productivity" article​ and Oh come on...

I think there were some other talk page conversations (maybe even on my talk page), but I remember this.. --Gurkubondinn 09:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yikes. This is a mess. How can we get an admin involved here? - Wil540 art (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

For now, I have semiprotected List of United States technological universities for 1 month. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also I have reverted the recent unexplained changes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• ~2026-21863-02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-21576-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-21099-87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-20189-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-18394-74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-18615-40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-18662-15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-14941-00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-13174-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-13092-59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-40641-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-90461-0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-78471-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-24855-28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-20213-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-28180-72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-27853-24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-28014-93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-25694-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-26971-07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-26163-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-24865-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts are showing "ip: unavailable" when I use my TAIP. What is that supposed to mean? Somepinkdude (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Somepinkdude: the IP data is only kept for 90 days before it is deleted. --gurkubondinn 21:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Only three of those are showing unavailable for me, likely because they haven't edited more recently than 90 days ago. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Anachronist, @Somepinkdude, @Gurkubondinn, @Kowal2701, @Chipmunkdavis

Thanks for taking a look at these. It appears many of the LLM based edits are still live, for example: Youth March for Integrated Schools (1958). Should I bring these to the Wikipedia:AI noticeboard? I don't see much guidance on how to report LLM use by Temporary accounts. - Wil540 art (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Revert and move on. Or salvage anything useful and move on. I reverted the edits to Youth March for Integrated Schools (1958) because the text appeared to engage in WP:SYNTHESIS of some of the sources. And the changes were oddly written in British English, for a US-centric article.

As for reporting, this page or the AI noticeboard are fine to call for cleanup. Ping administrators if you believe administrative action is required. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Based on the discussion on WP:VPP -- where people are saying that they are going to remove any AI-generated template without a discussion on the talk page, even if that rationale is in the parameter reason=y, which the whole point of is to contain the rationale -- we should probably consider some alternate way to track AI-generated articles besides the template, because it is useless if people can just remove the template at any time, because people apparently hate the very idea of AI cleanup, despise the people who do it, and are dead-set on obstructing them and wasting their time at any turn, in any way possible. I am so, so, so, so, so tired. I really hate that no matter what you do, it's wrong. You get told to do X, and then you're told "haha! all this time you should have done Y! I will now undo your work, you fool, you rube!" Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Could we make something automated that lists tags that have been removed, the date, and who by, which people could patrol (ie. glance at)? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

An edit filter might be able to do that. It would obviously track all removals, good, bad and irrelevant (e.g. page blanking vandalism). Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've requested an edit filter here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I made a bot which goes through live edit summaries and then sends them to an LLM to try and figure out whether the edit summary was generated by an LLM in order to facilitate early detection of the most obvious of AI users. It's at User:Fermiboson/AIlog and the bot account User:FermibosonAIlogbot updates it every so often (whenever my python script hasn't crashed).

The LLM is really bad at its job, so it does have a lot of false positives. However, compared to directly patrolling RCP, the proportion of actually AI edits is already much increased so I believe even in its current form it can be useful to those interested in AI patrol. The main issue is the volume of edits it flags - I cannot review all the edits alone so for those of you who enjoy reading hundreds of kilobytes of text with at best tangential connections to your interests, please help out with reviewing the log. Fermiboson (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is great stuff. Is your script on github? If not do you mind emailing to me? I may have a few ideas about how to improve classification performance. NicheSports (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The prompt part of the script is at User:Fermiboson/AIlog/source-code, though I'll update that after I get back from something tonight. Fermiboson (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Updated @NicheSports - the prompt has been moved to a file which I'll keep off wiki, so I'll email it to you if you still have interest.

For everyone else - I think I've improved the false positive rate. It now makes three API calls to the LLM which in my testing set reduces the false positive rate to 1.1% +- 0.5% (95% CI). I'm fairly sure however that in operation the false positive rate will still be much higher if only for the reason that edit summaries that sound AI don't necessarily imply an AI edit. Fermiboson (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Would it be possible for someone to create {{AI-generated span }}, which could be used like {{AI-generated inline }} but more specific (like {{Citation needed span }})? Thank you, Wracking ^talk! 19:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

don't forget to put in the documentation that some people are saying that you have to fill out 3 different locations in order to use it because people want to make AI cleanup as arduous as possible

also, someone please get me a probate lawyer because I am pretty sure that I am not going to finish all these fucking talk page sections within my lifetime. obstruction tactics worthy of the terrible trivium Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Chaotic Enby, thank you so much!

@Gnomingstuff, I'm not sure what all three places are, but I wonder if WP:Twinkle could help here? For example, when you check "COI" in Twinkle, it prompts you to provide Explanation for COI tag (will be posted on this article's talk page): I recently used Twinkle for this, and it definitely saved me time: article diff , talk diff Wracking ^talk! 21:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It would be great if you could add the reason parameter to the tag using Twinkle; currently you can only add an explanation to the edit summary. As for the three different places, they mean the edit summary, the reason parameter in the tag, and the talk page. But I still believe that's absolutely ridiculous and any one of those places is good enough. If someone is actually going to mass revert AI tags because the explanation for them is not in more than one location, they should be blocked for disruptive editing. I₂Overcome ^talk 21:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I will leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Wracking ^talk! 21:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

don't worry, there is now a new and fun variation: reverting even though you did put it in three places, by just claiming you didn't! whether it's disruptive or not is kind of irrelevant because people just do it anyway Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Gnomingstuff! I genuinely understand your frustration, but it feels like a bit of... burnout maybe? Please don't get this get to your nerves, you've done some amazing work and I really don't want small incidents to discourage you like this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

it's almost as if being compelled to create over 6,000 repetitive and utterly pointless talk page sections to satisfy someone's whims has an effect on a person, especially when every one of those 6,000 is an invitation for people to yell at you more, and when the tags are just going to get removed anyway because no one trusts that someone could know what the fuck they are talking about Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand your frustration, but swearing is not prohibited in Wikipedia project spaces. RotatingPirateShip (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) @RotatingPirateShip there is no such rule, why make things up? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

I found that rule in Wikipedia:Swearing_is_permissible RotatingPirateShip (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah, I misread your comment, struck. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's okay, we all make mistakes :) RotatingPirateShip (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Suggestion: we all make fucking mistakes :) --gurkubondinn 10:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia:Swearing_is_permissible states that swearing is not prohibited in Wikipedia project spaces. RotatingPirateShip (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi all, I work as the Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh and I notice a page edited by one of our students was flagged as containing AI-generated content, namely Classic Lolita Fashion. As this was part of an extracurricular project we were supporting the student on we just want to understand a bit more about how and why the content was flagged in this way. i.e. if it was just immediately and abundantly obvious to the naked eye or if there were some useful tools and scripts employed to aid you (and whether they have been known to flag false positives are are generally reliable). What we are trying to ascertain is how we can better detect and protect against AI-generated content in student work ourselves using any best practice from reviewing editors like yourself and the community and the Foundation. I also want to check that, as the student is a non-native English speaker from China, whether online tools that would naturally have helped her improve her written English fluency would equally be flagged as AI? The flagging editor has intimated that "a report on GPTZero gave 87% probability of AI generated content" which is a great start to help my understanding but I wanted to widen my question out about the resources/tools/scripts being used by WikiProject AI Cleanup and any thoughts on their general focuses, usefuless and reliability and any learning points we can take from this... both in terms of improving our own workflow of making sure student work is quality assured and making sure that students & staff are aware of the efforts being undertaken in combating AI generated content on Wikipedia and any approaches/difficulties/opportunities we can flag here at the University to improve AI literacy and usage and to better encourage greater academic rigour & referencing in sharing knowledge to Wikipedia. I realise this a big question but any places to start with understanding the tools, approaches and discussions being had to maintain Wikipedia's integrity would be super helpful. Any thoughts or advice do let me know. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The best place to start would be Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing, and in particular the studies and/or preprints it cites. There are some caveats here (some of what's on that page is still anecdotal or based on informal data collection; some of it is more relevant to older LLMs; some of it is specific to "Wikipedia style articles") but a good amount of it has some corroboration in research.

I wasn't the person who flagged this article -- it seems like it has gone through AI editing -- but I can walk you through my process, with the original version.

• The first thing I do is look for common AI vocabulary. In AI writing, this will often co-occur, and will co-occur in a way consistent with when it was produced (i.e. the 2023 stuff will appear together with other 2023 stuff, the 2025 stuff will go with 2025 stuff, etc). This one is more subtle (consistent with it being possibly AI rewritten) but we have the style minimises the emphasis on the body’s natural shape and instead highlights a structured and balanced silhouette (which is also a variation on negative parallelism), emphasise classical colour palettes, etc. We also have a table that is essentially advertising various brands (known for designs that reflect the elegance and aesthetic ideals, known for refined tailoring and elegant silhouettes, etc), a common issue with AI writing where such subtle promotional tone sneaks in even when someone isn't trying to create an ad. Undue emphasis on contributing to broader trends -- played a role in shaping (extremely common AI phrasing, especially if it is a "key role" or "pivotal role" or "crucial role"), contributed to the development, etc.
• Next, if I'm doing a spot-check for verifiability, those are what I start with. Taking the first example ("minimizes the emphasis on blah blah blah"), in this case the article is real and accessible on academia.edu. The text -- as is frequent with AI-generated content -- does not seem to be fully backed up by the source; I believe this is an attempt to "summarize" the sentence "Most Lolita styles hide the body shape underneath layers of slips, petticoats, and panniers," which is not really the same thing (no mention of balance or structure) and also turns it into AI slop phrasing ("hides" becomes "minimizes the emphasis," mere existence becomes "highlighting", etc). Spot-checking some more stuff, we have some enthusiasts regard Madame de Pompadour as an important symbolic figure, but the source this is cited to only mentions one person drawing any connection to Madame de Pompadour (AI writing often turns one person into multiple in this way), and that person is novelist Novala Takemoto. This stuff keeps happening; contemporary Lolita styles—particularly Classic Lolita—tend to adopt more modest designs is also cited to the Younker paper, but the Younker paper does not connect "Classic Lolita" specifically to that. Another: classic Lolita usually employs softer, lower-saturation tones such as pink, beige, and light purple to create a retro, elegant overall style -- the source (which is dubious anyway as it's a store blog) doesn't mention pink at all and only mentions purple in saying that Gothic Lolita uses dark purple. The last few words, meanwhile, are more promotional opinion. Labels frequently associated with the style include Victorian Maiden, Mary Magdalene, Excentrique, and Innocent World - the book does not mention Excentrique at all and only mentions the other three brands as having "a Lolita touch" (i.e., not associated with Classic Lolita specifically). Unlike Gothic Lolita [...] Classic Lolita developed more gradually through the influence of multiple brands -- again, the source does not verify this, the only thing it seems to say about classic lolita fashion specifically is that it occurs "in solid shades, with ribbons and trims." This is the stuff Wiki Education Foundation was talking about when they said that almost all of the statements in AI-generated text failed verification.

And sure, obviously people misinterpret sources all the time, but they usually don't misinterpret them by claiming they mention proper names that they just don't; if you mention a brand, and cite it to a book that doesn't name the brand anywhere, that suggests that you didn't actually read the book.

As far as detectors, I don't personally use them except if I'm really on the fence, but most stuff I've read suggests Pangram is the gold standard right now (~99% accuracy) GPTZero isn't bad either, and when they get it wrong it's usually in the direction of false negatives. There is research about flagging non-native English speakers more often, but as far as I know much of this research involves older LLMs (which, to be fair, most of the research does, very little has caught up to GPT-5), and there are a lot of confounding variables (their writing being flagged by people who are not skilled in AI detection specifically; people who don't speak a language well potentially being more likely to use AI tools for communication in that language; machine translation tools like Google Translate now using generative AI and not always being transparent to the user about it). This recent preprint suggests that when detectors flagged writers' recent work as AI, they almost never flagged those same writers' older work as AI, although the sample size is 10 and since they're "veteran reporters" in English-language publications they are probably fluent speakers. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

With the recent amendment to WP:NEWLLM to prohibit the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content, I think its time to update G15 to encapsulate AI-generated articles generally, not simply unreviewed ones.

Some clear cut signs I'm thinking of: presence of turn0search0, attributableIndex, oaicite, or having a majority of citations include utm_source=chatgpt.com.

It might also be worth emphasizing that WP:AfD or getting consensus for WP:LLMPROD are better for less clear-cut cases. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yep, all the unambiguous cases (like turn0search0 or oaicite) should definitely go there at the very least. I was thinking of also revisiting the Markdown criterion, but it doesn't seem to be a thing with newer models anymore, so I'm not sure how relevant it would be. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Markdown is something that I still routinely see, mostly as **markdown bolding**. But there's one specific Markdown element that I want to see added as a G15 criteria, when an edit is surrounded in a markdown code block:

```wiki
```

There's usually perfectly valid Wikitext between ```wiki and ```,^[1] and I'm pretty sure that this happens when someone asks a chatbot to generate a page in wikitext markup and the bot delivers it in a formatted code block for the user.

The leading ```wiki isn't always present (it's more obvious and so users are more likely to see and remove it), so the trailing ``` would need to be sufficient on it's own for G15. --gurkubondinn 10:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Huh, didn't expect it to still be so common, but that's definitely a good catch and should be added! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 10:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't really know how common it is, because the edit filter 1369 (hist · log) doesn't match for triple backticks (and I think it would be better to have a separate filter for these code block markers). This is one of the reasons that I've been considering requesting permissions for edit filters, but the granting criteria seems hard to meet. Finding these is almost always a surefire way of spotting an AI-wielding user though, yesterday I ended up draftifing c. ~25 AI-generated articles after I spotted an edit with a markdown codeblock. --gurkubondinn 10:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

By coincidence I spoke to @Daniel Quinlan about the triple backticks just a couple of days ago and he added it to 1369, so hopefully that should catch these going forward. There are a very few existing cases where it's used in legitimate wikitext (usually to mark up an ASCII code sample) but overwhelmingly it seems to appear in definitely or at least plausibly AI edits.

I think most of the examples I found had only the start or end backticks, not both. Interestingly, some were relatively small edits including the ``` - so presumably some people are using it to generate individual snippets (eg single paragraphs or references) and not just entire pages. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The utm_source could have come from someone using ChatGPT to find sources, and not to write content, so I don't think that should be in G15. Adding the rest of the things you mentioned makes a lot of sense. InfernoHues (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Forgot to mention -- G15 really needs a disclaimer about the need to check Wayback Machine to ensure citations are genuinely nonexistent. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That depends on when the article was created/when the citation was added. If someone adds a link today to somewhere that existed five years ago, that is still a nonsensical citation (probably hallucinated), and they did not read the source themselves. Because if you are reading a now-dead source, then you are reading it on Wayback Machine (or on any other internet archive), so you would copy that link. You wouldn't strip out the https://web.archive.org/... part first. --gurkubondinn 10:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Not necessarily, e.g. you could be copying the reference from somewhere else (on or off Wikipedia), you could have viewed it a few days ago when it was working, etc. It's not something reliable enough for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That's why I said "five years" in my reply, because I meant in a timeframe that is unreasonable between reading a source and then using it in an edit. Fair point on copying from elsewhere, though. But I think that this would be reliable enough for speedy deletion if the criteria would require multiple (maybe 3+) instances of this? But just on its own, I agree with you that it doesn't work as a speedy deletion criteria (thought it is an AISIGN in and of itself, and it most likely also means that the user has not read the source that they are citing). --gurkubondinn 10:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I never seen AI cite the Wayback Machine before. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems to have "learned" about it somewhat recently. But afaik, The Internet Archive are not super happy about being scraped by these companies (and neither should they, their scrapers are ridiculously aggressive and badly implemented). Maybe some of them are using the API to search for archived snapshots now? --gurkubondinn 11:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Never mind, I just sent ChatGPT the prompt search up in Wayback Machine for 2008 version of wikipedia's page on Cats and it dutifully gave this Wayback Machine link. So, yeah, I agree it seems to know how to cite WM.

However, I do suspect its hallucinated (instead of making use of RAG/actually searching in WM) as the WM does not appear in the "sources" list and the timestamp on the url doesn't seem to match the one on the actual snapshot. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yep, the Wayback Machine will redirect you to the "nearest" snapshot if you give it a non-existing timestamp.

$ https--headers"https://web.archive.org/web/20080705195056/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat"|grep-E"^(HTTP|location)"
HTTP/1.1 302 FOUND
location: https://web.archive.org/web/20080625213031/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat

$ AI_TIMESTAMP="20080705195056"
$ https--headers"https://web.archive.org/web/${AI_TIMESTAMP}/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat"\
|grep"^location"
 | awk '{ print 2ドル }' 
 | awk -F'/' '{ print 5ドル }'
20080625213031

$ WAYBACK_TIMESTAMP=$(https--headers"https://web.archive.org/web/${AI_TIMESTAMP}/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat"2>/dev/null\
|grep"^location"\
|awk'{ print 2ドル }'\
|awk-F'/''{ print 5ドル }')

$ if[["${AI_TIMESTAMP}"=="${WAYBACK_TIMESTAMP}"]];thenecho"Same timestamp";elseecho"Different timestamps";fi
Different timestamps

I've noticed this with AI-generated references to Wayback Machine (haven't seen AI-generated references to any other internet archives yet) for a while now. --gurkubondinn 12:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

that is still a nonsensical citation

Just to clarify my own words here, I didn't mean this as "meets the 'nonsensical references' criteria for G15". I just meant it in the sense "that still doesn't make sense and therefore it is nonsensical". Didn't make the connection to how it was basically the name of the G15 criteria, probably could have phrased this better. --gurkubondinn 21:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Anything listed under WP:OAICITE, WP:AISIGNS § turn0search0 and WP:AISIGNS § attribution and attributableIndex are valid G15 criteria already because they are all "nonsensical references" that no human would ever write down (especially the byte sequence), but it would not hurt to explicitly list them as examples. You sometimes get people incorrectly removing {{db-g15}} over this, even for the very common OAICITE. I've had this happen a handful of times for all of them, but I've requested CSD for hundreds of pages under all of these criterias.

For the UTM parameters, those only "count" when every single reference has utm_source=chatgpt.com (or the second most common example that I see, copilot.com). But these should still be tagged with {{AI-retrieved source}}, though people are very prone to just removing them. If it is just a handful of them it doesn't even really reliably mean that the user is even using AI as a search engine anymore, because these links have spread over the internet by now (in no large part due to how commonly they appear on Wikipedia). You can even find them in Google search results now.

As a sidenote, the m:Cite Unseen userscript is very useful, and it marks references with the UTM tags with a little orange robot symbol. That's also why they shouldn't be removed from citations. --gurkubondinn 10:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh my god, how have I not seen Cite Unseen before. That's awesome, thanks for sharing. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 01:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd support adding the more "smoking gun" AI signs. I don't fully agree with Gurkubondinn that these are already covered by "nonsensical references", as in many cases the links work and back up the text they're cited for, which is far from the original intent of that phrase. Regarding old sources or bizarre access dates, while they can be an indicator, I'm not sure that they're enough for G15. At a minimum, we'd have to require checking whether the article is a translations from other Wikipedias. Toadspike [Talk] 20:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, I meant that stuff like OAICITE, grok_card, lenticular brackets + dagger sign, turn0search0, and the 0xee 0xa8 0x81 byte-sequence is already covered by "nonsensical references". I agree with the dates etc (I think we should do something about that but I don't know what). Sorry that wasn't clear, --gurkubondinn 21:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

While I agree G15 should be expanded, as it is very narrow, adding utm_source to the criteria isn't a good idea. If someone types in "find me reliable, secondary sources for X topic" and ChatGPT spits out valid references, but they have the tracking tag, that is totally fine. It doesn't mean that the chatbot wrote the article. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 01:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you to all who have commented here. I wrote of a rough draft of the updated criterion (User:Ca/G15 update) which incorporates the suggestions raised here, as well as making a few copyedits and addressing some common misapplications of G15. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The warning template {{uw-ai1 }} assumes good faith of the editor, but is still written on the assumption that the templater has strong enough concerns about the addition to raise the subject, and that the text could be so bad that someone may have already removed it - it says that the user's text seemed to be generated using a large language model, that they should instead use their own words, and that their contribution may have been reverted.

In ambiguous cases where I'm not sure if AI was used, I've generally avoided using this template and (if I have time) handwritten a talk page message instead, to avoid the risk of the user being insulted by template's phrasing, and (if they were using AI) potentially going into one of several unhelpful defensive spirals about it.

Would Wikipedia benefit from having a milder "zero" level warning (or {{welcome-ai }}), that frames the issue as a non-judgmental question, or as a "did you know" statement about Wikipedia's AI policy? Or could ai1 be given a gentler wording so that a user receiving it for a minor, ambiguous edit won't be on the back foot? Belbury (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a {{welcome-llm}} message (we could redirect Template:welcome-ai there). I often leave it for newer editors, sometimes along with a {{uw-ai1}} notice if that feels warranted as well. --gurkubondinn 12:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information i've created upper-cased Template:Welcome-AI Template:Welcome-AI as well. --gurkubondinn 12:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

We could have a template, which only includes the first paragraph of Template:Welcome-LLM, so as to have an introductory message against generative ai which isn't also a welcome message. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, after noticing Gold market in India, (now reported and deleted, see discussion) the user also created the same article (also LLM-generated) in several other language Wikipedias. Now, the AI notice template was available in some of the Wikipedias, which I added, and was quickly noticed by other editors and deleted (Spanish, German). I also managed to add it to the Arabic, French, and Hindi Wikipedias (however so far it seems that they haven't been noticed). The other to Wikipedias (mr.wiki, ta.wiki) have no AI notice template, so I couldn't do anything.

Now, my concern is that cases like these were a user generates the articles across multiple different Wikipedias will be a problem. Of course, WP:EMBASSY was slightly helpful with contacting an Italian editor (no response so far), however, the embassy doesn't have editors for every Wikipedia. And, every Wikipedia has there own policies (and may or may not have a policy for LLM articles).

So, any ideas of what we can do to make it easier to report these articles for the foreign language Wikipedias? I am actually willing to do everything I can to take care of situations like these, so it may be helpful listing my name somewhere for people to ping me in these cases (please let me know if I can and where). Also, are there any useful tools for such cross-wiki incidents, such as deletion? Since I was actually able to install Twinkle on the Spanish Wikipedia, and nominate a speedy deletion myself. Fortek67 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A German editor just recommended me XReport – this tool should be very useful however I'm not exactly sure if I would report or nominate the article for deletion. I will assume that the wikis that have an AI notice template do prohibit LLM, so I will nominate them. Fortek67 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

meta:Artificial intelligence/Policies by project could be of help! Not too sure about the tool situation, however. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What do you think of XReport? Fortek67 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Looks good! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A bit unrelated but there seems to be no userbox for participants of the WikiProject. Could I possibly make one and promote it on the project page, potentially under the participants section? Fortek67 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's at {{User WP AI Cleanup }}, but feel free to add it there for visibility! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Didn't see that, thank you for showing me! Added the template. Fortek67 (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I created this page to help guide editors share their AI chat sessions.

I think more people should be asking those accused of improper AI use to share their chat sessions. It's an easy way for the AI-accused to demonstrate their compliance with WP:NOLLM and for reviewers to check if their characterization of their AI use isn't misleading.

Of course, it's possible to just fake a compliant session on the fly, but it should at least be useful for good-faith editors. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know what good this would do. I see a lot of AI-generated text posted in good faith, that doesn't come from a chatbot, it comes from proofreading tools like Grammarly, which pollute your prose with many of the WP:AISIGNS. These people swear that they aren't using an AI chatbot, and they're telling the truth as far as they're concerned. For those that are actually using an AI chatbot, it seems to me that at least half of them lie about it, as if that would accomplish anything. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You're right -- it's mostly to keep honest people honest. If they are using unshareable AI tools like Grammarly or local LLMs, they could simply disclose that and share the prompts they used. I'd imagine the reading chat sessions help us build a better idea of how AI are used on Wikipedia. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This actually happened on User talk:Unforgvn20 § Are you using AI to edit on Wikipedia? the other day. ‐‐gurkubondinn 15:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also [2] Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi. I have found two articles on Light Phone models that are very evidently LLM assisted and overall of poor quality.

• Light Phone (1st generation)
• Light Phone II

From the first article:

• The Light Phone is a 2G minimalist mobile phone developed by Light. It was introduced in 2015 as an "anti-smartphone," designed to be "used as little as possible," with the goal of helping users disconnect from the constant notifications, social media, and apps that characterize modern smartphones. The lead paragraph contains quotation marks of what you'd assume to be direct quotes, but these aren't said anywhere cited.
• The Light Phone features an ultra-minimalist, credit-card-sized form factor. It has a small white LED display and T9-style keypad. The casing is sleek and white, with no camera, no internet connectivity, and no apps. This entire paragraph (with maybe the exception of no internet connectivity) is not verifiable through the reference that follows. It is at best original research based on the images present in the cited source.
• [...] with 500-number contact storage and 3 days of standby battery life is not verifiable anywhere.

From the second article:

• From the lead paragraph: The Light Phone III is the successor to the Light Phone II, adding cameras, a fingerprint sensor, and an AMOLED screen. I am unsure why talk about the 3rd phone right in the lead paragraph, while also not citing where this information was gotten from. The Light Phone II deliberately omits an application store, web browser, email client, or social media apps. At launch, the phone’s only built-in tools were calling, texting, and an alarm clock is not verifiable by the references the paragraph cites, but instead by the Good e-Reader article cited elsewhere in the article. This Good e-Reader article is also repeated four times in the References section for some reason.
• The This "dumb phone" raised 3ドル.5 million on Indiegogo — here's why Business Insider article seems to be hallucinated. I could not find the original article. Curiously, the unverifiable claim of credit-card-sized from the 1st article aligns with this Business Insider article on the Light Phone 2. This article is also were the information about the fundraiser can be found.
• This strong response, along with 8ドル.4 million in seed investments from firms like Foxconn and notable angel investors, signaled significant interest in a feature phone that could liberate users from smartphone addiction. is not verifiable by the citation that follows. It is instead verifiable by the Business Insider article I linked in the previous item.
• Its matte plastic casing and compact form factor reflect its low-profile aesthetic is not verifiable anywhere and is an opinion.
• Its interface is built around a vertical list of "tools"—such as Phone, Messages, Alarm, and Settings—navigable by touchscreen. Later LightOS updates added features including Notes, Calculator, Music Player (MP3), and a basic navigation tool called "Directions." is not verifiable by the citation that follows. This seems to be a trend in the article.

The second article also has blatantly promotional language in the History section. The Legacy section present in both articles is LLM generated promotional text.

The main reason I assume this is LLM assisted is by the editor's contribution history and user page. I lack the time to further examine either of these articles, but I am unsure if Bifty (talk · contribs) is able to reliably write valuable encyclopedic content. MeowsyCat99 (meow) 20:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Looks like Ca's warned him a few times so far. Pretty much all of his substantial edits look LLM-generated to me. He hasn't edited since March 20, so maybe he left before he could get himself blocked. Apocheir (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Apocheir I tried to update the pages that were flagged as LLM, and did my best to re-do the pages that were of concern. I do welcome help on these pages. I do not have any affiliation with the company, nor own their products. I generated the illustrations of the phones and was looking to model the pages after the iPhone and models. Bifty (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Apocheir I am open to going in and updating the pages for the Lightphone 1,2 for better readability and improvement of the sources. Are LLM’s allowed for grammar and sentence structure help? Bifty (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You can see the current guideline at WP:NOLLM: the only exception is for basic copyediting (like fixing typos), not grammar and sentence structure. If you are not confident writing English, you can ask for assistance from the guild of copy editors, but only do this after all LLM-generated text has been removed from these articles – it's not fair to waste human editors' time by making us clean up machine output.Are you able to tell us what LLM model and version you used, and share your prompts or a link to the chatbot session? This will help the rest of us see what was generated by the LLM. You should also provide this information for the AI-generated images that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, per the instructions at c:Commons:AI-generated media#Attribution. While you're at it, why don't you search Commons for real photos of these phones that other Commons users might have taken? —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@ClaudineChionhThe Images were made by me in Adobe Illustrator, rather than AI. They are vector, made using the pen tool. Using the phone photos as a reference.

The structure of the pages was made by me, along with the Wiki Codex. I wrote the text in the wiki editor, and would use AI to help me find references, and inspiration for encyclopedic style, however when my sentences didn’t have encyclopedic styling, I would try to use the assistance of an LLM to help guide me with sentence structure. I did my best to write in my own words. I used OpenAI, and Google for guidance.

I have been told by various editors that my writing still sounded AI, even after multiple edits. Some of may pages have generated a good amount of traffic, they are not ‘viral’.

I would like to become a better editor, and find my own editing style, because I do have a passion for writing and illustrating. But I admit that I could have used the writing resources better to develop myself as an editor and writer. For this reason, I took a break in March to learn more how to write better, because I don’t want to get blocked, especially seeing my pages do generate some traffic. I feel like I have a good eye for missing articles on Wikipedia, however, I want to respect the guidelines put forth by the wiki community so that I can improve as a contributor for the future. Bifty (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That leaves me with more questions!

1. Can you clarify whether you used any of these generative AI tools available in Illustrator, or not at all?
2. What exactly do you mean by the "Wiki Codex"?
3. When you say OpenAI, do you mean ChatGPT? It's very helpful if we know the exact version number of the model; it looks like the default model for ChatGPT in March was GPT-5.3.
4. What do you mean by "used ... Google for guidance"? Do you mean Google search, or a different Google product?

Again, do you still have a copy of the chatbot sessions or prompts from the time you were working on these articles? —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 02:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@ClaudineChionh @Apocheir

1. No AI features of Adobe Illustrator was used. The level of product-specific detail shown would not be achievable with current generative features.

2. I am speaking of the wiki markup/formatting

3. I did use Chat GPT 5.3 to help me with drafting sentences to help with encyclopedic tone. For example, I would write; "Last season, [Athlete] suffered an injury, resulting in a loss of ranking for 2025 fall season.," I would then ask chat to help me give it an encyclopedic tone, if it didn’t need a tone improvement, I’d leave what I wrote. I have tried to improve from when I first started editing, since editors said my early pages were unacceptable and they would give tips on how I could improved them.

4. I used Google for finding references

I understand the concerns regarding AI-assisted contributions and appreciate the scrutiny. However, some of the edits being questioned are routine updates such as athlete rankings, competition results, and seasonal statistics, and many of those pages are maintained by multiple contributors.

If there are specific edits that raise concerns, I would be happy to discuss those individually but if my edits and contributions necessitate a block, I’m not 100% certain how to navigate that besides respecting the block. Bifty (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Would you be willing to share your ChatGPT session (follow link) so that we can see your process? InfernoHues (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@InfernoHues Thanks for asking. Some of the chat threads are no longer available because I deleted them for storage reasons, but I can demonstrate my process by creating a draft article for an athlete who does not yet have a page and sharing the steps I take.

Not all of my edits involve AI. I primarily use it as a writing and copyediting aid when creating new articles for athletes from scratch.

My workflow usually begins with finding reliable, independent sources about the subject. For athletes, I may also contact photographers who have taken photos of them and explain how they can upload freely licensed images through Wikimedia Commons.

I then create the article structure, build the infobox manually, and populate it using information that can be verified through sources. I often look for athletes who have competed against or achieved results comparable to athletes who already have established articles, as this helps me cross-link them.

When I use ChatGPT, it is generally after I have already gathered sources and drafted content myself. I use it to help improve grammar, clarity, or encyclopedic tone. Sometimes I write a paragraph first and then ask for suggestions on making it more neutral and concise. I review and edit any output before using it.

In my experience, AI is not capable of reliably generating a complete Wikipedia article from scratch. Infoboxes, citations, wikilinks, formatting, and sourcing often require significant manual work and knowledge of wiki markup. The article structure, source selection, verification, and final editorial decisions are all done by me. Bifty (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Bifty, as per WP:NOLLM, you cannot use LLM generated content as the basis of your edits, whether or not it undergoes "significant manual work". From WP:NOLLM:

• Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own.

If you struggle with encyclopedic tone, please ask for guidance from fellow Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Unlike LLMs, Wikipedians can be held accountable.

Please read WP:NOLLM for the current content guideline on LLM usage, and WP:AIFAIL for information on the risks of using LLMs when editing Wikipedia. MeowsyCat99 (meow) 08:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@MeowsyCat99

Thank you, Meow. Do you think it’s neccesary to move my Lightphone pages to the sandbox? And work with the Teahouse to improve them?

I didn’t create the original Lightphone page, but I did create the pages for the individual phones. Bifty (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello again @Bifty. I'm not Meowsy, but I have some suggestions and clarifications.The first thing you need to do is remove all AI-generated content from any articles or drafts where you have had AI assistance. You will then have a clean slate as you do the work of reading sources and summmarising them in your own words.If you have not created any mainspace articles besides these ones, I'd recommend moving the ones you created to draft versions (after you have cleaned out all AI-generated text). You can work on them at your own pace, and when you're ready, submit them to articles for creation where they will be reviewed by experienced editors before publishing to the main encyclopaedia.Alternatively, you can leave the new articles in mainspace as stubs and keep working on them incrementally. With the article about the original Lightphone that another editor created: after you have removed all AI-generated text that you added, you can either redo the work in the existing article, or work on your changes in a user sandbox first.The Teahouse is a help desk for new editors, not a space for collaboration. You can ask for advice on how to do specific editing tasks, or why we do things in certain ways, but Teahouse helpers won't do the work for you unless one of them happens to be interested in this topic.You can ask for copy-editing assistance from the guild of copy editors, who have decades of experience writing in an encyclopaedic style. Again, you have to do your own research and writing first. Do not ask an AI for copy-editing help with articles, drafts, discussion comments, or anything. AI copy-editing is always inferior to human copy-editing and is easily recognisable as AI-generated. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@ClaudineChionh Thank you everyone for taking the time to help me.

I’ve been very appreciative of the Wiki community and communication with me about becoming a better editor.

I’ll follow those steps and circle back once I’ve cleared out the LLM content and re-worked my Stub pages. Bifty (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I was going through some book LLMPRODS, and I noticed that A Crash Course in Molotov Cocktails is past the five-day mark and can be deleted, however in the category it's still not under the "-" which indicates it could be deleted. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Seems to be a caching issue (the comparison still returns the correct value on its own). Didn't go away when purging the page, but it did with a null edit. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. I'm fairly certain this is also the case on many other pages, is there a way to fix it for all? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I just did null edits to around 25 pages, and there's a lot more left. Hopefully there's a better way to fix this. InfernoHues (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It could be changed to just follow what {{prod }} does, which is create a new category everyday. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A fix is still needed, but for now I've refreshed the category using User:Ahecht/Scripts/refresh. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I was looking through lists of citation errors in the Rugby League Wikiproject when I came across List of NRL Women's records. I am concerned that User talk:Jessgod94 may have added AI text to the article, and I need help resolving any potential issues. The user is currently blocked from the Article and Draft spaces, and made use of AI to write their appeals. Additionally, their edit here that added the citation errors makes me highly suspicious of AI usage, as the user added "named" shortened citations without actually adding the citations they intend to reference. The whole article just gives me AI vibes in general, especially the formatting of the table notes. Admittedly, Jessgod94 only added around 8.4% of the text, so it's possible there may not be a widespread issue.

If anyone has time, it might be useful to review some of their other edits, just in case.

Tl;dr: did Jessgod94 add AI to List of NRL Women's records?

Thanks, JordyGrey _{talk 🧸} 03:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I would say yes, based on their previous edits. You may want to take a look at WP:LLMPRV for cleanup. InfernoHues (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello again! I'm not sure if this is the right place for this or not. I am still fixing Rugby League citation errors, this time on the Leichhardt Oval page. This edit, by @SpinningSevens7 altered a citation to include "URL_HERE", one of the signs listed at Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing#Links to searches. What should I do, beyond removing the AI-generated content from the article? Could someone help me check this user's other contributions for AI usage?

Thanks, JordyGrey _{talk 🧸} 04:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Just a note that MW:Who Wrote That? is a browser extension I recently discovered that aids in detecting who added a particular bit of text to an article and may assist with AI cleanup efforts. It was recommended for use in cleaning up copyright infringements but can probably also help break down which editor may have added text when doing AI cleanup. It may be worth adding to the cleanup guide as well. ASUKITE 20:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Pretty amazing to see it brought up here! I'm working on an AI cleanup-tailored diffbrowser and this would be a very neat tool to integrate there. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]