31 August 2026
LLMPROD is not needed in this case
High rate of short content edits to a very wide range of articles. For example this edit just 2 minutes after a pervious edit from an editor that doesn't normally edit about football. Source selection is also all over the place. Dodged the question when challenged. Only started editing 31 August 2026 so should be possible to clean up with a simple mass revert.©Geni (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Ridiculous rate of edits on a preposterously wide range of topics given the speed. I chose an edit at random, in the [[cement] article: This edit, which repeats info in the previous paragraph, contains a claim about cement being used in the El Tajin acropolis which the source does not support, in what to me is a very characteristic AI slip. OsFish (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- The source directly supports what I added to the text. Here are the quotes from the text of that source:
- 1. "...El Tajin displays advanced construction techniques as many structures have concrete slab roofs..."
- 2. "In the 8th century CE, the Pyramid of the Niches was completed and the huge raised acropolis platform of Tajin Chico was constructed. El Tajin was destroyed by fire and abandoned around 1100 CE or even earlier."
- What I wrote on the cement article is standard synthesis. Nothing points to LLM or not editing in good faith. Also, there are no "AI slips", and nothing is "characteristic". If there is something "characteristic" or "slipped", please @Geni @OsFish show evidence, not just "gut feeling". Thank you. CockroachHunter (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Your edit here seems to be added by LLM: WP:AICURLY and the extra spacing in the reference. Masterhatch (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Their very first edit is conclusive. It inserts a citation to The Conversation titled "The myth of the soulmate – how the word came into common use" but that article title only appears in the wiki article and the link in their edit actually goes to a totally unrelated article. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 18:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Over at Two-party system, his 1st 2 edits were good. His 3rd reeked of AI. I reverted that 3rd edit and a few other recent edits from other articles that have clear LLM signs. Masterhatch (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the quotes that show your source does not actually match the content it's cited for. OsFish (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- I reviewed all of their edits up through the end of Sep 3 and reverted/refactored obvious problems. Not all edits appears to be LLM, though all were bot-like. Some edits were constructive. Many consistent of inserting redundant and unnecessary prose, or adding citations that did not verify the content to which they were attached. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 20:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- I looked at some of the Sept 13 edits since that was the date of a muddled edit that cropped up on my watchlist. I would not recommend a mass revert because quite a few of these edits are valid typo fixes. LLM use is obvious - over 100 edits that day, all on different obscure topics, often only one or two minutes apart. Paul Matthews (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- edits on 11 and 13 September had markdown . I'd create a tracking page if there weren't the risk of more AI edits Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
