I stumbled across an article created by Tbound2 that was nominated for deletion (Adelaide Metro bus route 100), and have discovered a large number of articles created by this user, in implausibly short succession (while obviously this does not inherently signify generative AI editing, all of these were created within 2 hours of each other), and which I believe to be generated by AI large language models due to their gushing prose (and which already have AI tags):
India Rasheed, created at 10:54 on 10 August ("Rasheed is noted for her clean hands, decision-making, and effective left-foot kicking. She is considered capable of impacting games both at ground level and in aerial contests. Coaches have also noted her endurance and adaptability to different positions.")
Keeley Kustermann, created at 11:19 on 10 August ("She was known for her “clean by hand” play, strong decision-making, and versatility.")
Georgia McKee, created at 11:22 on 10 August ("McKee is recognised for her agility, goal sense, and forward craft. She applies strong defensive pressure inside 50 and is regarded as a creative and opportunistic small forward.")
Brooke Smith (footballer), created at 11:26 on 10 August ("Smith is described as a reliable utility with strong marking ability for her size, a penetrating kick, and the versatility to adapt to multiple positions.")
Lily Tarlinton, created at 11:32 on 10 August ("Tarlinton is known for her athleticism, marking ability, and adaptability to both forward and ruck roles. Her height and mobility offer Adelaide flexibility in matchups, enabling them to rotate key position players across the ground as needed.")
Keeley Skepper, created at 11:37 on 10 August ("A midfielder noted for her contested ball-winning ability, composure under pressure, and precise kicking...")
Poppy Scholz, created at 11:47 on 10 August ("A tall utility renowned for her intercept marking, versatility, and athleticism...")
The Original Pancake Kitchen, created at 12:14 on 10 August ("aims to deliver the brand’s signature all-day breakfast, diner-style charm, and thick milkshakes in a modern, family-friendly setting.")
There are a number of additional articles created by this user that likely fall under the same category of speedily-generated articles entirely written by a generative AI LLM. I don't really know what to do here. I don't think they're eligible for speedy deletion under G15, given these articles obviously could have plausibly been created a different way, they're not transparently nonsense and they've all been reviewed. But I believe this editing to be highly problematic and I'm not sure what to do about it. What is supposed to be done when an editor is repeatedly generating articles using large language models? LivelyRatification (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Cases like this are where I've generally been tagging articles. It looks like I've tagged some of this user's contributions but not all, I assume that here, as in similar long-term LLM users, I stuck to the most obvious cases even though it's highly unlikely they stopped using AI. (Because then I would have to deal with "BUT YOU HAVE NO PROOOOOOOF POINT OUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS TEXT" type comments which I do not want to do.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Gnomingstuff: I suppose my question is, what good is tagging articles if the user in question is continually using generative AI to create articles? I could, and indeed might if I have the time, individually fix every article to remove problematic LLM insertions (as was done on Lauren Young (footballer)), but is it not a problem of disruptive editing if a user is repeatedly using generative AI to create articles? LivelyRatification (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
The thing is we have no policy against LLM use currently, so within our existing system, they're not actually doing anything that isn't allowed. If someone isn't responding to attempts to discuss the situation then ANI threads have been opened, but there feels like there's a mismatch in what we enforce and what our policy actually is(n't). Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Hm. That's frustrating, but thank you for your help. I guess I'll just keep an eye out and try and fix what's there. I've also left a message on this user's talk page in regards to this thread, which has not yet been responded to. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I also should note that this user has not responded to any attempts on their talk page to discuss the situation, including from you, myself, and another user. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Looking at their xtools, I see no usage of user talk pages which isn't great. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
They also did this three minutes after you notified them of this discussion on their talk page NicheSports (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I did see this. It was very strange. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Gnomingstuff is the OG of LLM text identification and tagging (muchas gracias) but I slightly disagree with their perspective on this situation. We don't yet have policies about LLM use in articles but unreviewed use of LLMs is highly likely to lead to violations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, while high-frequency misuse of LLMs is likely to violate WP:MEATBOT. I would recommend going through some of the user's edits and finding a few examples of the LLM hallucinating a tangible claim or reference - if they have been adding unreviwed LLM-generated content to articles, you will find a bunch. Then we should follow Tbound2's edits and if they continue to make (likely) unreviewed LLM-generated edits without responding to attempts to discuss with them, just notify one of the admins who follows this page, like Newslinger. Thank you for bringing this up! NicheSports (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the articles now, Rasheed has 5/11 sources that 404 and when validating the first source there is some information that is hallucinated (the article only mentions her quote saying she is improving her "opposite" foot, but the LLM took that and said "her left foot" in article), but I was unable to tag G15 as there was content written by other editors. I was able to tag G15 for the third article as it both had 404 sources and irrelevant sources, and no other editors added prose to the article.
I've left a warning and I think we can go to ANI if they continue to edit this way. JumpytooTalk 04:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I've also tagged Keeley Skepper for G15 as all of the sources 404ed. JumpytooTalk 04:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much! If I have the time I'll also try and take a look at some of these articles, as I said I didn't have time to investigate them deeply beyond their prose. I do hope Tbound2 is able to respond to the criticisms left on their talk page, but I'll keep an eye for any future problematic editing. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Well uh they've "responded" in the form of deleting a thread from this page as "spam"... Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Created above to track cleanup progress, feel free to edit, add, change, remove, or collapse as needed. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 05:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I've looked through a number of other articles created by Tbound2 and none that I saw seemed to immediately qualify for G15 speedy deletion, as the references seemed to work. I think Mitchell Sariovski is not notable enough to warrant an article so I'm going to AfD that one. I'll also leave a message on Tbound2's talk page again expressing my concerns. --LivelyRatification (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Whilst I understand everyone's concern, please draftify or userfy, rather than delete these if you feel they aren't suited to publication yet. Whilst this editor's efforts are misguided to some degree, ever since the removal of WP:NAFL and stricter enforcement of WP:GNG, the coverage of female AFLW players has been very poor here (see how few bluelinks are on List of AFL Women's debuts in 2024 and List of AFL Women's debuts in 2025), and this is at least an effort to address the systemic bias that exists here. The-Pope (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
An article which meets G15, the criteria any of the above have been deleted under, is an article which is essentially raw output from an LLM, it will be better to make a new article than to require other editors carefully review and fix the neutrality, formatting, and hallucination issues typical of model output. If an editor wants to fix up raw LLM output, then they can visit any number of chatbots and have it delivered hot and fresh to themselves, without using up the project's time on cleanup as has happened here. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 08:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Each individual row below tracks an article's status using a template with three parameters: {{AIC article row|a page title, |a status, |and optional notes }}
Available statuses are: to do/requested,clockongoing,Ygtagged,Nunnecessary, and Ycompleted.
Please update and add entries as needed.