Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Wikibashi

15 November 2026

Rapid edits. Some AIVOCAB and other AISIGNS in prose. Markdown in sandbox (one hit was a false positive but the other is quite clear). Reverted Gnomingstuff's cleanup and denies using AI Special:Diff/1385125393. Kisseran (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

None of these are false positives:

• Diff/1381786539 (log): replaces wikitext syntax for italics with markdown syntax for italics, also removes a faux-inline reference.
• Diff/1380629406 (log): has markdown link syntax
• Diff/1302174249 (log): markdown syntax for italics

Looks like I already notified Wikibashi of NOLLM in § October 2026, so they're clearly aware that using AI is not allowed. ‑‑gurkubondinn (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

I deny the allegation that I used AI generated prose in my edit of the Vayu-Vata article. I spent many hours researching, gathering sources and compiling the material into an article. I use AI for formatting assistance specifically, which may explain the markdown formatting you identified. However formatting errors by themselves are not evidence of AI use for the generation of prose. AI-assisted copy-editing in such a way that the material is not altered is explicitly permitted.

Additionally, the references I removed from the text are part of my standard workflow. I use placeholder citations often numbered or coded as to prevent misplacing a source by accident. This is not evidence of AI-generated prose.

As for the previous notice, I never agreed with you back then that I had used AI in any manner that breaks Wikipedia rules. I merely sought clarification for a contradictory statement in your notification and did not pursue the matter further, as I believed it was an automated notice due to the standard template used in the message, that may have flagged the formatting. Wikibashi (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2026 (UTC)

I would like to add that these constant reversions that have come about from the suspicion over this article are quite upsetting to me. I distinctly remember spending some 12 hours on this one, the bulk of it gathering sources and putting them together painstakingly as an article. Due to tiredness the prose ended up being sloppy in several places, with me, despite having proof-read the article, failing to notice I'd left in several duplicate notes in the text (I bring in my notes as lists, then join them together). The previous editor saw the bad prose, and suspecting it as AI, reverted my edit. I was extremely confused, and later annoyed at my mistake during the writing, so instead of reverting his edit, I fixed the prose, rewriting the article substantially for a second time, and published a polished version. The fact that I've basically had to write this article twice over now and AI accusations are still happening, I hope you can see, is deeply, deeply frustrating on my end.

At first I planned on undoing your reversion immediately, but I decided against it to first address your suspicions. But I would much rather not write the same article for a 3rd time over bold text and italics. Wikibashi (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2026 (UTC)